Summer means no religion or politics?

[Snarky]

Snarky, again thanks for participating but I would not write about Moses without some research. Please take a look at this
:
:
I hope it does ignites some doubt on you about the notion that Moses didn't exist.

So you're thinking that all I wrote in my last post was pulled out of thin air? I have in fact read quite a lot on the subject, which interests me. I try to get the books that represent the best and most recent scholarship, and they usually don't waste much time on discredited theories. Velikovsky was an amateur in the field of Egyptology and Biblical history, and his theories have been overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community. Essentially, you're citing a crackpot from the 50s.

It didn't take long to find out that most Egyptologists don't accept that the Ipuwer papyrus provides independent evidence of Exodus. First of all, the text appears to be much older than the period Exodus is usually dated to, and secondly the genre of the text does not appear to be that of an historical account. Phrases like "the river turned to blood" should probably be seen as superficial similarities, and maybe as stock phrases or clichés that - if anything - would tend to support the view that the plagues are literary inventions.

If we revise the accepted chronology to move Exodus back in time (maybe identifying the Israelites with the Hyksos, as some of those keen to find a historical basis for the Bible stories do) while picking the latest possible date for the Ipuwer papyrus, we simply create a larger gap in time between the events and the written accounts of it in Exodus (I believe studies show that in non-literature cultures, folk traditions and oral history can preserve reliable, detailed historical information for about 100 years). That would also put Moses several hundred years before the first emergence of proto-Israelite culture in the area, and of course, the circumstances of the historical Hyksos are so different from what's described in the Bible that we would have to conclude that the account is mostly fictional anyway.

Like I said, it's not that we can completely reject any kind of historical basis for Exodus, or that the character of Moses may not have been based on a real person, or persons, dimly remembered. It's that in its current form, the story is simply not historically credible, and is pretty obviously a literary account (or more accurately, an edited composite of multiple literary accounts) of legendary material. There are enough examples in legend and mythology (and the literature based on it) that stories can corrupt major historical detail, for example replacing war with the Vascones with war with the Saracens in Orlando Furioso or the confused accounts of Attila the Hun ("Atle") in Norse sagas and German legends such as the Niebelungenlied, that they freely transfer stories between different legendary characters (witness the same extraordinary exploits attributed to multiple separate historical figures), and invent a lot of very fanciful and miraculous material, such as for example the story of Beowulf (which concerns a number of historical characters and events, but presumably did not historically involve a marauding dragon).

The real events on which Exodus are based, if any, probably wouldn't even be recognizable to us as having anything to do with the story we know. So in that sense, even if it does have an historical basis, it didn't happen.

[Khris]

He could criticize you because you don't believe, couldn't he?

On what grounds?

And you came back to unicorns again. Yet this thread does not discuss unicorns nor would keep it interesting if it did.
If Christians have no evidence, then atheists have temporary evidence because science will constantly destroy its rules and build another.
100 hundred years ago, most well respected scholars in medicine believed in things we can only laugh now.

Atheists don't have temporary evidence. The evidence is there for everyone to see and to stay. What you could say was temporary is the hypothesises. Science doesn't destroy its rules, it revises theories to better fit the evidence. It's self-correcting. That's the beauty of the science.
Some once well-established theories indeed ended up being refuted, but the chance that the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Evolution get "destroyed" to be replaced by something completely different is really, really small.
And there are certain scientific concepts that I'm confident will be true even ten thousand years from now (the earth revolves around the sun, it isn't flat, the sun is powered by a nuclear reaction, the universe is billions of years old, etc.)

A hundred years ago, scientists indeed believed some pretty ridiculous ideas to be true. But they moved on, ditched those ideas and developed new ones.
The catholic church on the other hand is still stuck in the middle ages, if you will, if not in ancient times. They don't advocate the stoning of gay people openly anymore, and they don't use Noah to justify slavery anymore, so you could say that the church has developed, too. But this development is very different from the scientific one.
If god came down to earth every fifty years or so to revise his rules about proper behavior, I'd become a believer on the spot. But that's not how theology works. Its advocates recognize that in order to persist in an increasingly secular society based on humanist moral values, they have to adjust.
Science automatically corrects its own errors over time, the church simply gives in to outside pressure.

On theology, it not only contains a "few" valid subjects like ancient languages (yes, how easy is that?) or biblical/church history (I guess it's on the tip of your fingers, not the work of dedicated geologists and voluntaries around digging sites), but is one of the most difficult fields of study. And surprise, the work isn't finished because new evidences keep popping out of the earth.

Is it more difficult than particle physics? And even if it were, does that prove anything besides "theology is difficult"?
By new evidence, are you referring to archaeological findings?

[Misj']

I don't know why you keep asking me about Dawkins or what I meant by "people like him". It doesn't have anything to do with my argument. He's an atheist with a solid scientific background, and I agree with many if not all of his views. I didn't want to make an argument from authority, please.

I kept asking because you didn't answer me.

And without going into the 'authority'-question too much: regarding his later books I haven't read many favourable reviews by evolutionary biologists. The general consensus in these reviews was that he did not represent the current ideas in the field. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to agree with him of course.

On to theology: I'm fully aware that it contains a few valid subjects like ancient languages or biblical/church history. But those are not what I'm talking about.

You were talking about 'theology'...how on Earth was I supposed to guess that you meant 'a certain part of theology'.

Christian theology does make specific claims like 'There is a god', 'Jesus was the son of god and divine himself', 'Jesus was born of a virgin'. This is what my argument is about. The nature of these claims is thus that they can not be proofed nor refuted. And they don't have a single piece of evidence to back them up.

I have seen theological books disputing most of these claims. So apparently it's still a dynamic field that is critically researched (and has been for a couple of thousand years). So to me theology is still a field of study.

Because if I didn't reject those claims of theology, I'd consequently have to believe everything every person has ever claimed as long as it can't be proven or disproved and doesn't have any evidence.

Sorry, I don't see the logic in that statement.

The main point here is that to me, there's no difference between being of Christian faith and believing in unicorns of fairies. To you, there is, obviously.

Actually...my main point is not about religion, but about science and fields of study.

(Let's disregard the broader sense. That's really more history or psychology rather than theology. I want to focus on the faith stuff.)

I can't do that. It's like saying "All biologists walk around in the field in Lederhosen looking at bugs, birds, babes, and bushes", and than someone replies: "That's not true! - There's also molecular biology", and then the former replies by saying "Let's disregard that sense of biology, because it's really more chemistry rather than biology". I can't do that. You claimed that theology is not a field of study (you didn't say it wasn't a science, you said it wasn't a filed of study). I disagreed, and stated that theology is broader than what you were talking about. And now you say that we should disregard that. So I'll say: let's not, since you basically agreed that theology is a valid field of study (at least equally valid as history, and psychology; not to mention sociology and philosophy).

How does it answer those questions? I don't accept answers I simply have to believe.

I don't care what you do or do not believe. I was talking about your mis-conception of what science is (and is about), and what valid fields of study are.


Real, actual, studied scientists say: "pixelart has no place in PC games".

[Khris]

Could you link me to some of the reviews stating Dawkins doesn't represent current ideas?

You're right that theology is a very broad field. My understanding of theology was that being faithful is sort of a prerequisite to studying it (or rather, atheists wouldn't consider studying it but history/philosophy/etc. instead if they're interested in religion) and that graduating in theology is a necessary step in getting a high office in the clergy.
Thus my argument was based on the notion that theologians base their research on the assumption that god is real (at least if it's relevant to the research whether he is or isn't).
In short, I pictured the theological community as something similar to a modern version of a council, a group of people who discuss questions like "how God wants humans to live", as you put it.
Based on that, I concluded that the realizations they come up with are a matter of majority vote or authority, since there's nothing else to base them on.

To name a concrete example, how does a theological discussion about whether using contraceptives is acceptable to god look like?
I'd really like to know.
And if my train of thought outlined in the previous paragraph has derailed at some point, please do tell me how it actually is. I'll happily stand corrected.

[miguel]

Snarky, please forgive me if I made you believe I do not think you are well read in the matter. It wasn't my intention as I only asked if you could revise what your thoughts on the subject were by introducing material that, in the end, you already knew about.
You are then aware that there is probably a chronology mistake when recounting the events of Exodus, Moses, etc...
By the traditional chronology of Egyptian history the 18th dynasty ruled from about 1550 to 1320 BC. According to Bible chronology the Exodus occurred about 1446 BC. According to this there is no evidence of the 10 plagues, or the destruction of the Egyptian army.
The expression ‘at that time’ is extremely significant. The fact is that there is plenty of evidence for slavery in Egypt, and archaeology findings that can prove the existence of armies fighting at the correct period and space.
From the information revealed in 1 Kings 6:1, the date of the Exodus can be calculated. It says, ‘And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD’.
Most historians agree that Solomon ascended the throne about 970 BC.4 His 4th year would be 966 BC, and 480 years before that would be about 1446 BC. According to the traditional dates accepted by most archaeologists, that would be during the rule of the 18th dynasty of Egypt.
But there are a number of scholars who claim that a gross error in chronology has been made in calculating the dates of Egyptian history and that they should be reduced by centuries.Such a re-dating could bring the 12th dynasty down to the time of Moses, and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence in that dynasty to support the Biblical records.

Dr Immanuel Velikovsky proposed the same revision before and so did Dr Donoville Courville, but they were written off as irrelevant because they were not archaeologists . Since then many scholars have joined the cause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KhrisMUC, he could criticize you because you cannot prove that there is no God.
Even Einstein acknowledged God as part of his life time experiments although he gave up Judaism at the age of 12.
Science gets to a level that it's only mathematical, it really does not interfere with the "real world", did you ever had quantum experiences? You can prove you had but did you?
And science has been proved to be capable of destroying people at a massive rate (Atomic Bomb) that you cannot deny. Although you deny the 10 Plagues, the Deluge and all that was God's destructive energy.
So, in a balance, who did more harm?
The events that can be proven by science like WWII and the likes, or some "unreal events" that by your standards never existed because there is no God?
   

[Misj']

Could you link me to some of the reviews stating Dawkins doesn't represent current ideas?

I'm glad you ask, but unfortunately I can't deliver. I mean, I read them several years ago, and didn't really bookmark them or anything (don't even remember whether it was on paper or on the internet). If I remember correctly, I wanted to know whether he was considered a modern Sephen Jay Gould, and was surprised to find that they were quite a bit reserved about Dawkin's later books (his earlier books received good reviews...though not as good as Gould's).

In short, I pictured the theological community as something similar to a modern version of a council, a group of people who discuss questions like "how God wants humans to live", as you put it.

I do guess that such people still exist among several organized religions. I'm not sure whether they are (by definition) theologians though. My personal guess would be that many of such councils are trying to proof themselves right, or have a political agenda. I'm not sure here, because I have never been - nor do I expect that I ever will be (or consider myself to be the right person to be) - invited to such a council.

To name a concrete example, how does a theological discussion about whether using contraceptives is acceptable to god look like? - I'd really like to know.

Frankly I have no idea...I could give my opinion on the subject; which of course depends on whether you want (or at least like) children

I would like to add the following though: it's my personal opinion on the subject 'how humans should live'.

I think everyone should try to be a good person. I don't care whether you try it for a religious reason, from a non-religious background, or because you happen to like kittens: if you're trying to be a good person, then I think you're trying to live the way you should. As to what is good or not, I think that in general all people have the same idea. If God turns out that he has a different opinion than that's between him and you, me, everybody.

In addition, I think you should try to be a good person because it's the right thing to do...not because of some gift (karma, heaven, friends, whatever). I also don't think good people should be happy, friendly, or nice all the time (but that might be my opinion, because I'm not ). I also agree with Nacho that religious people aren't better (and I mean that ethically, not superior or something) than non-religious people...although I think they should at least try to be (because let's face it: if God gave them the rules on how to be a good person, then they should know better).


Real, actual, studied scientists say: "I have to go to the toilet, but I don't want to".

[Matti]

And science has been proved to be capable of destroying people at a massive rate (Atomic Bomb) that you cannot deny. Although you deny the 10 Plagues, the Deluge and all that was God's destructive energy.
So, in a balance, who did more harm?
The events that can be proven by science like WWII and the likes, or some "unreal events" that by your standards never existed because there is no God?

1. People do harm, not Science or God. It's people that kill, in the name of god, money, nations or whatever.

2. Those "unreal events" don't matter at all (unless you believe in them, which should turn you in somebody who doesn't like god).

What matters is what people do with their belief or with science. Science isn't a person or an animal or any entity you can blame for building bombs. It's people who do good or bad stuff.

I also agree with Nacho that religious people aren't better (and I mean that ethically, not superior or something) than non-religious people...although I think they should at least try to be (because let's face it: if God gave them the rules on how to be a good person, then they should know better).

..and that's exactly the point. If around 85% of the world population is religious.. then why isn't the world a better place? Perhaps it doesn't make you a better person at all if you're part of a religion? If you say religious people should know better, then you're implying that non-religious people don't share common rules and views... which is just plain wrong.

[miguel]

Scientists are behind nuclear weapons. Where is their born-with notion of right and wrong?

[Akatosh]

That's like blaming the Wright brothers for the terrorist attack on 9/11/2001, NYC. Science is a tool, nothing else. The problem lies within those who wish to kill the infidels.

Science doesn't kill people. People kill people, sometimes abusing science in the process.

[Misj']

If you say religious people should know better, then you're implying that non-religious people don't share common rules and views... which is just plain wrong.

I'm pretty sure that is in direct disagreement with what I was actually saying. What is was saying is closer to: If you know how to be a good person because God told you, than proof it to me by trying to be a better person (than someone who did not receive that message). Hence: they should know better.

Call it 'the do as you preach'-rule. To me that applies to just about everything: if you preach that you're against war, than try not to go to war. If you preach to know how to be a good person, than try to be a good person. If you claim to know how to write a good and engaging story for an adventure-game, than try to write a good and engaging story for an adventure-game. If you claim be non-selfish than don't try to sneak in front of me at the bus. Yes, and I only expect people to try...

[miguel]

Akatosh, the Wrigth brothers didn't build F-16 equipped with missiles did they?
If science is a tool then God is what make scientists stop and think "Shall I continue with this dangerous to human life experiments?"
Killing infidels? What do you know about it? Who are the infidels? The people in Afghanistan? Who's killing who?

[Khris]

Misj':
I'll see if I can find some of the reviews.
And I'm glad we managed to get back to a friendly exchange of opinions, btw.

miguel:
Blaming science for war is like blaming knives for stabbed people. Since you mentioned the atomic bomb, don't forget that the Americans built it mainly because they wanted to beat Hitler at it.
Also consider that the drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which is what actually caused the deaths of thousands of innocents) weren't ordered by the scientific community but President Truman, a Baptist (which is a denomination pretty similar to Catholicism).

So if you still decide to declare all scientists to be evil because a few of them conduct research that leads to discoveries that can be used to kill people, please also accept that I deem all Catholics to be evil because some of them like to stick their dicks into children.

[Vince Twelve]

Scientists are behind nuclear weapons. Where is their born-with notion of right and wrong?

And several popes, and other religious leaders and churches were behind the Crusades, which killed way way way more people.  Innocents and non-combatants included.  Where were the popes' bible-taught notion of right and wrong?

The most dangerous thing in the world is people, not science.  People and asteroids.  Fucking asteroids...

[Nacho]

Scientists are behind nuclear weapons. Where is their born-with notion of right and wrong?

God is behind the holocaust of the Universal Deluge...

[miguel]

Khris, I don't blame scientist for war but do blame scientists that made it possible to construct such things like the atomic bomb. And surely you can't say that Baptists built the bomb or even ordered its construction.
And I don't declare scientist evil as much as you declare God evil.
The difference here is that scientists do exist but you claim that God doesn't. So, how can something that doesn't exist be evil?

Vince, then we can accept that politicians are the new Crusaders of the modern world?

Nacho, the Deluge didn't exist, right?

To declare that God did then you do declare God is.

[Vince Twelve]

Vince, then we can accept that politicians are the new Crusaders of the modern world?

See? We can agree! 

[guitar_hero]

KhrisMUC and Misj', I've been reading some of your posts (sorry to the others ) and I'm beginning to really like this thread. I'm a theology student (protestant) so as you can imagine to me this is very interesting. KhrisMUC, I can totally understand why you wouldn't consider theology to be science. I'm a huge critic of theology myself.
What theology tries to do is to explain/express the christian faith in a way everybody (and this is important: not depending on his/her believes!) can rationally understand. Therefore we use scientific methods and work together with other disciplines such as archeology, philology... Academic discussions are based on reasonable arguments. Theology is science in the full sense of the word. Still it's not like biology or even mathematics. Theology faces the same problems as all humane disciplines. And believe me, arguing with "probabilities" is a struggle when you're dealing with... I'd like to call it "supernatural elements". But I don't agree that it's the premise "god exists" which is the real problem (because "no god exists" is a premise as well, so what we have here is a dilemma). And btw. theology works with the methodic doubt (etsi deus non daretur: "as if God were not a given").

I think the big question is, what is science? Or, what do we want it to be? Do we just need it to get results we can work with? Or is it about truth? I feel like those two shouldn't get mixed up. If we want the latter we're facing really big problems. I mean, what is the appropriate approach to "reality"? Just logic and reason? I don't think so, but that's what makes it so complex.

[Khris]

Khris, I don't blame scientist for war but do blame scientists that made it possible to construct such things like the atomic bomb. And surely you can't say that Baptists built the bomb or even ordered its construction.
And I don't declare scientist evil as much as you declare God evil.
The difference here is that scientists do exist but you claim that God doesn't. So, how can something that doesn't exist be evil?

Do not forget that science created a lot of things that are beneficial as well.
From the wikipedia article about Oppenheimer: "After the war Oppenheimer was a chief advisor to the newly created United States Atomic Energy Commission and used that position to lobby for international control of atomic energy and to avert the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union." I'll leave it at that.

Well, I don't know who ordered the construction of the bomb, but the guy who was the "primary military leader in charge of the Manhattan Project" was the son of an Army chaplain.

Where and when did I "declare God evil"? I said that child-molesting priests are evil.

But I don't agree that it's the premise "god exists" which is the real problem (because "no god exists" is a premise as well, so what we have here is a dilemma).

There's no dilemma here. "God exists" and "no god exists" aren't equally valid concepts. The latter one is the default position while the first one is an extraordinary claim that requires evidence (which still isn't there).

[guitar_hero]

There's no dilemma here. "God exists" and "no god exists" aren't equally valid concepts. The latter one is the default position while the first one is an extraordinary claim that requires evidence (which still isn't there).

Technically, those are equally valid concepts. But you're right, "no God" is some kind of default position for science since by definition it's based on reason and logic alone. But science has to question even it's premises (because that's it's concept) and so theoretically it can go even beyond the "no god" statement. If not so, it would admit it's failure. Therefore if "god exists" can be stated in a reasonable way it's only legitimate to do theology in a scientific context with this premise, in the same time theologians still work on the contradictory basis (as if God were not a given).

[Jim Reed]

In addition, I think you should try to be a good person because it's the right thing to do...not because of some gift (karma, heaven, friends, whatever).

And why would it be the right thing to do, KrisMUC?