Who seriously can believe in bible?

[veil the sky]

What the fuck are you trying to say? We can no more scientifically determine 2 + 2 = 4 than.... what? I think that your parameters are too narrow mister.

you can no more scientifically determine fundamental mathematical principles than you can religious ones. this is because the nature of their truth value is not comparable with scientific notions of correlation and corroboration.

what that means is: the fact that something cannot be shown to be true by scientific investigation, does not mean that it isn't true.

understand?

 

[WhiteBoyFunk]

you can no more scientifically determine fundamental mathematical principles than you can religious ones. this is because the nature of their truth value is not comparable with scientific notions of correlation and corroboration.

what that means is: the fact that something cannot be shown to be true by scientific investigation, does not mean that it isn't true.

understand?

Of course I understand you nimwit. Had you said all of that before I wouldn't have questioned it. Of course I will have to look up corroboration lol.

My understanding of your notion does not mean that I agree however. Determining fundamental mathematical principles has been scientifically done on MANY scales as well as many times. Are the mathematical principles that we are reviewing limited to those of correlation and "corroboration"? What about methods of differentiation, slope fields, and others of basic calculus? (They are not related to correlation or corroboration.) When you bring up mathematics I will definitely challenge, but at the same time I will not dismiss the discussion concept, which I have been doing. Conclusively, I ask that if you are going to bring up metaphors with math, either be sure of what it is that you are talkin' about or just don't try to sound like a mathematical professor! ( I don't want to be rude, but I think you understand what I mean.)
Back on topic, ultimately I agree that religious principles are not to be proven because they are not considered to be black and white. It would be hard to prove any principle if it were not scientific because it would then turn into who believes what more!

 

[derek]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

That site has an interesting list of contradictions. By no means is it a thorough list and nor are all of them 100% believable.

To clarify on my previous post: I don't disregard the bible entirely, but having studied theology I just find parts of it to be misleading and contradictory. It's applications bother me, not necessarily the book itself.

Back on topic, ultimately I agree that religious principles are not to be proven because they are not considered to be black and white. It would be hard to prove any principle if it were not scientific because it would then turn into who believes what more!

I agree with this also. The problem with all "proof" is that we can never entirely "prove" anything. With scientific principles all we can demonstrate is that when X happens Y tends to happen after and this cause/effect relationship has happened everytime we reproduce the experiment. But we can never be 100% sure it will happen the next time. The difference i find immediate between that and religious principles is that they have an agenda and ultimately a notion of belief within them that negates the process as scientific in nature.

 

[WhiteBoyFunk]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

That site has an interesting list of contradictions. By no means is it a thorough list and nor are all of them 100% believable.

To clarify on my previous post: I don't disregard the bible entirely, but having studied theology I just find parts of it to be misleading and contradictory. It's applications bother me, not necessarily the book itself.



I agree with this also. The problem with all "proof" is that we can never entirely "prove" anything. With scientific principles all we can demonstrate is that when X happens Y tends to happen after and this cause/effect relationship has happened everytime we reproduce the experiment. But we can never be 100% sure it will happen the next time. The difference i find immediate between that and religious principles is that they have an agenda and ultimately a notion of belief within them that negates the process as scientific in nature.

I will read about contradictions on your posted link later, I'm going to be at work all day!

More importantly I think we ought to clarify quickly. What exactly are we referring to when we talk about religious principles? It seems to me that we may not be on the same page. You are discussing individuals and the transparent agendas that they have while I was talking about the fundamentals of the religion such as widely accepted beliefs and the like. How confusing!

Edit: I wanted to question what you said about the reaction of x and y equaling z everytime. In some cases it IS true.

 

[derek]

Yeah, I think we were using different meanings. To clarify: religious beliefs etc are heavily based on belief rather than knowledge. As generally held ideas, most of their support comes from belief pretending to be knowlegde.

With science i see it as different. Generally held ideas garner their support from knowlegde - that is to say things that are independent of belief (although we can believe them - the belief part is arbitrary).

With respect to the cause/effect thing, i wouldnt say it is ever True. I think bertrand russel said that it is because of the poverty of our imagination that we believe X causes Y when infact when X happens Y tends to happen after. (infact i believe thats an amalgamation of Hume and Russell...but i hope you see what i was meaning).

What i take from this is: Everything someone drops something it falls do the ground, in accordance with the principle of gravity. But what i mean is, while it has happened EVERY time thus far, is it actually possible for us to say it will happen EVERY time in the future?

 

[WhiteBoyFunk]

Well, no I suppose. You bring up some interesting points but to me they seem like dead ends of discussion. Of course we can't say that everytime you drop something it will fall, what if the matter earth is composed of is blown to dust?
What I mean to say is you can ALWAYS find contradictions, right?! In this case I don't entertain the thought of discussing them mainly because this topic has already covered them, and the things that are brought up seem like they would turn into a pissing contest. An argument that has no point or a goal.
In other words, you and I seem too intelligent to discuss such small things :Spin: lol. You know what I'm trying to say, right?

Edit: About the religious aspects and stuff though, I'm still game for that.

 

[derek]

Well...I see what you mean in saying that, but I wouldn't dismiss them quite so quickly. They are some of the driving forces behind moral theory as well as the basis for much of the objections against gods existence. But i don't mind leaving that alone and moving on to more relevant topics.

So the thread is about if anyone can actually believe in the bible. My thoughts are that YES you definately can BELIEVE in the bible. I don't think you can KNOW the bible to be true, but you can believe it to be true.

 

[Pessimism]

The bible isn't meant to be taken literally. And, I'm fucking sick and tired of young people trying to slag off Christianity when knowing little about it. We're all able to sit back and criticize Judeo-Christianity and religion in general because it's strength hold on the western world has weakened. Like it or not, the western world that you're living in now has been defined by Judeo-Christianity.

The problem is people do take it literally, many cannot read in between the lines unfortunately to get at what the damn book is hinting at.
And even when they do read it, sometimes shit just gets vague and doesn't make sense - be it because of translations over great periods of time or the usual change in dialects and terminology.

 

[veil the sky]

Of course I understand you nimwit. Had you said all of that before I wouldn't have questioned it. Of course I will have to look up corroboration lol.

My understanding of your notion does not mean that I agree however. Determining fundamental mathematical principles has been scientifically done on MANY scales as well as many times. Are the mathematical principles that we are reviewing limited to those of correlation and "corroboration"? What about methods of differentiation, slope fields, and others of basic calculus? (They are not related to correlation or corroboration.) When you bring up mathematics I will definitely challenge, but at the same time I will not dismiss the discussion concept, which I have been doing. Conclusively, I ask that if you are going to bring up metaphors with math, either be sure of what it is that you are talkin' about or just don't try to sound like a mathematical professor! ( I don't want to be rude, but I think you understand what I mean.)
Back on topic, ultimately I agree that religious principles are not to be proven because they are not considered to be black and white. It would be hard to prove any principle if it were not scientific because it would then turn into who believes what more!

?

i didn't bring up any metaphor. i merely demonstrated that the principle used was false. that principle being:

meaningful knowledge = scientific knowledge

i showed that wasn't the case with the example of mathematical principles, which aren't open to scientific scrutiny, but are still meaningful.

we don't learn that 2 + 2 = 4 by observing things in the universe being added together. we can see manifestations of things being added together, e.g. i have two marbles in a cup, i put two more marbles in a cup so i have four. but this isn't a scientific investigation into the principles at hand.

the proposition was that there is nothing meaningful in the bible because it isn't scientifically demonstrable. my argument is that 'not being scientifically demonstrable' does not equate with meaningfulness.

i can only assume you haven't understood what point i was trying to make from your response.

 

[veil the sky]

Edit: I wanted to question what you said about the reaction of x and y equaling z everytime. In some cases it IS true.

see: problem of induction.

there is no scientificly demonstrable reason to believe that future events will resemble past ones.

 

[veil the sky]

Yeah, I think we were using different meanings. To clarify: religious beliefs etc are heavily based on belief rather than knowledge. As generally held ideas, most of their support comes from belief pretending to be knowlegde.

With science i see it as different. Generally held ideas garner their support from knowlegde - that is to say things that are independent of belief (although we can believe them - the belief part is arbitrary).

With respect to the cause/effect thing, i wouldnt say it is ever True. I think bertrand russel said that it is because of the poverty of our imagination that we believe X causes Y when infact when X happens Y tends to happen after. (infact i believe thats an amalgamation of Hume and Russell...but i hope you see what i was meaning).

What i take from this is: Everything someone drops something it falls do the ground, in accordance with the principle of gravity. But what i mean is, while it has happened EVERY time thus far, is it actually possible for us to say it will happen EVERY time in the future?

your distinction between knowledge and belief seems very precise.

what exactly would you say is the difference between knowledge and belief?

 

[derek]

Well, i have not studied this area a huge amount, but from what i do know, my main thoughts are that beliefs are concepts that we hold to be true on unprovable basis while knowledge contains concepts that we can verify as true (or as close to Truthful as we can get).

I wrote an essay on this in undergrad philosophy...i'll re-read it and hopefully have some more things to say when i get a chance.

 

[veil the sky]

you probably wrote an essay on knowledge as 'justified, true belief' which is the standard undergrad formulation.

i personally don't believe there is an internal difference between knowledge and belief. knowledge is merely a term imposed by a third party observer who think they know better, or for sure.

 

[derek]

That seems interesting. As i say, i havent studied the area, so i'll read a bit and see what my thoughts are.

Its a friday night, after all...so i'm planning to go out!

all the best

 

[Babetee1]

I believe in God. I have read some of the bible, but not a lot. I certainly don't think all of the bible is correct because it has been translated so many times. There are some things in there that I have trouble believing or understanding. It's all really confusing.

 

[derek]

I don't think the bible is correct is any particular sense. I think it has some interesting fables but ultimately much intrinsic confusion, that to me renders it secondary.

As has been discussed above, i don't entirely dismiss it...only its place within Christianity as the word of God, etc when it is hugely contradictory is parts and hazy in its meanings which lead to some (shitty) interpretations.

 

[Lord SteveO]

Add to all that the fact that you get translation errors over time and also the fact the it has been "edited" by several kings and other figures in power.

You've now got a book which people take as the word of god and use as a way of basing their lives around, but which is more likely the "word of whoever was in power at the time and could edit the book".

 

[WhiteBoyFunk]

?

i didn't bring up any metaphor. i merely demonstrated that the principle used was false. that principle being:

meaningful knowledge = scientific knowledge

i showed that wasn't the case with the example of mathematical principles, which aren't open to scientific scrutiny, but are still meaningful.

we don't learn that 2 + 2 = 4 by observing things in the universe being added together. we can see manifestations of things being added together, e.g. i have two marbles in a cup, i put two more marbles in a cup so i have four. but this isn't a scientific investigation into the principles at hand.

the proposition was that there is nothing meaningful in the bible because it isn't scientifically demonstrable. my argument is that 'not being scientifically demonstrable' does not equate with meaningfulness.

i can only assume you haven't understood what point i was trying to make from your response.

What you were saying was that merely because something is not proven scientfically does not equate falsity. That's a fact, I am not sure what it is you want me to reply to show that I understand a simple thought.

 

[WhiteBoyFunk]

Add to all that the fact that you get translation errors over time and also the fact the it has been "edited" by several kings and other figures in power.

You've now got a book which people take as the word of god and use as a way of basing their lives around, but which is more likely the "word of whoever was in power at the time and could edit the book".

Do you have any documentation of this "editing by kings and powerful figures"? I challenge this much like I challenged the sir who brought up the conflicts within the bible, which I still have yet to glance.
Furthermore, if there was a God who dictated this book I'm sure he wouldn't let translation affect its actual meaning, and that brings it back around to whether or not you believe in the God who designed the bible.

 

[Lord SteveO]

Well take for example the Dead Sea Scrolls. Supposedly these are gospels of the bible, but the RC church will not allow anyone to read or see them. They were effectively left out of the bible we have today. or so some people believe.

There have been many edited versions of the bible, usually comisioned by a head of state or church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible This one by the Church of England

Whilst a lot of the bible has stayed the same, a lot of it has been altered. Either by accident or as a result of translating changing the context of passages.

It wasn't god who wrote the bible though. Most of the gospels were writen statements of what people of the time saw happen. It's pretty much a historical text book detailing events 1000s of years ago. We don't have the original copies so how do we know what we have today is the real unedited thing?