On the Necessity of Proving Things

[needimprovement]

Why do some believe that things must be proven (rationally) in order be known as true?

 

I ask this question because I have come to a realization that every philosophy and worldview is founded on unproven ideas. It is kind of like geometry, I think. There are theorems which are proven truths. But these theorems are based on "unproven truths" called postulates. Every belief is based on unproven ideas, even empiricism.For this reason (including others), I accept neither materialism nor empiricism to be true. Immaterial things could be just like the "unproven truths" (Christianity holds some to be revealed) mentioned previously. Just because something isn't proven (rationally) does not mean it isn't true.

 

I think that there has been an unfortunate underestimation of intuition and other things excluding the intellect in many materialist and empiricist circles. Intuition is vital to any philosophy. Things must just be known. So, if this is the case, why should the revealed truths of Christianity be thrown away? Why can't faith and reason work together? Why does the intellect and the intuition have to be separate in our search for Truth?

[Mr Skeptic]

Some of the "revealed truths" of the Bible turned out to make false predictions (eg the genetic diversity predicted by the Flood story).

 

However you are correct -- we know nothing, and there is no way to know anything. However, certain assumptions have proven to be very effective at predicting the things we will observe. Of course we can't guarantee that, for example, stuff won't start falling upwards tomorrow, but that doesn't mean considering that possibility has any benefit.

 

Much as I dislike the necessity of postulates, there doesn't seem to be any alternative. If you prefer, you can think of our statements as having an implicit (if postulates, then) before it, so that we can in fact make true statements.

[needimprovement]

Some of the "revealed truths" of the Bible turned out to make false predictions (eg the genetic diversity predicted by the Flood story).

Your meaning is unclear. The Flood story has nothing to say about genetic diversity. Genetics is a modern science, one completely unknown to the biblical writers. Also, the Bible does not teach science. The message of the Flood story is strictly theological and moral. It is a theological polemic against the Babylonian flood stories, especially the Epic of Gilgamesh.

 

Don't worry about things ever falling up. The laws of nature are stable. That is one thing about creation that the Old Testament gives assurance. It is part of the Noaic polemic against the Babylonian's false ideas about the gods who arbitrarily sent floods and other disasters to vent their capriciousness and anger on mankind.

[Mr Skeptic]

Your meaning is unclear. The Flood story has nothing to say about genetic diversity. Genetics is a modern science, one completely unknown to the biblical writers. Also, the Bible does not teach science. The message of the Flood story is strictly theological and moral. It is a theological polemic against the Babylonian flood stories, especially the Epic of Gilgamesh.

 

Some people interpret the Flood story to be literal and historically accurate. Such people are wrong. What the flood story says about genetics, is how many of each type of animal was on the ark and that the others died, which with current knowledge about genetics means the flood story says something about genetic diversity -- a bottleneck of 2 or 7 individuals, 4000 or so years ago. This makes verifiable predictions about what genetic diversity we should see, and the predictions are wrong. As you said, it is nothing more than a story, despite some treating it as revealed truth.

 

Don't worry about things ever falling up. The laws of nature are stable. That is one thing about creation that the Old Testament gives assurance. It is part of the Noaic polemic against the Babylonian's false ideas about the gods who arbitrarily sent floods and other disasters to vent their capriciousness and anger on mankind.

 

We assume that the laws of nature are stable. There is no way to prove it.

[jimmydasaint]

Why do some believe that things must be proven (rationally) in order be known as true?

 

I ask this question because I have come to a realization that every philosophy and worldview is founded on unproven ideas. It is kind of like geometry, I think. There are theorems which are proven truths. But these theorems are based on "unproven truths" called postulates. Every belief is based on unproven ideas, even empiricism.For this reason (including others), I accept neither materialism nor empiricism to be true. Immaterial things could be just like the "unproven truths" (Christianity holds some to be revealed) mentioned previously. Just because something isn't proven (rationally) does not mean it isn't true.

 

I think that there has been an unfortunate underestimation of intuition and other things excluding the intellect in many materialist and empiricist circles. Intuition is vital to any philosophy. Things must just be known. So, if this is the case, why should the revealed truths of Christianity be thrown away? Why can't faith and reason work together? Why does the intellect and the intuition have to be separate in our search for Truth?

 

I agree with you here, if I read your post correctly. IMHO, we imagine that what our senses tell us is real. However, I cannot see that we know the true nature of reality. So the materialism, and cause and effect relationships, provide a most compelling 'idea' of reality. It is so compelling that the scientific method is built around providing sound hypotheses. These hypotheses can provide a way to an objective truth which is also very compelling; in fact so compelling that most scientists will not look for another model of reality. For example a manufactured reality is not even considered because it is outside the scope of materialistic science. By this, I mean that if God made us enter a superbly created 3D/4D virtual reality which locked on to us at birth and from which we could not escape until death, why would anyone need anything except for their virtual reality 'machine?' Lives could be lived; and fulfilling lives lived within the 'machine.'

 

Is there room for doubt? Yes. But I consider that God would not leave us without revelations and apostles. As you have correctly stated, the Bible is a book of ethics (as are the Koran and Torah) not a book of science and should be read as a source of metaphor and allegory which guides the reader towards a better life. Good thread, it has taught me something new (about postulates)

Edited August 13, 2010 by jimmydasaint

[swansont]

Intuition fails a lot. Revealed truths are often wrong.

 

"Just because something isn't proven (rationally) does not mean it isn't true" is fine, but how do you distinguish between things that are "unproven and true" and "unproven and false?"

[Dak]

Why do some believe that things must be proven (rationally) in order be known as true?

 

[...]

 

There are theorems which are proven truths. But these theorems are based on "unproven truths" called postulates. Every belief is based on unproven ideas, even empiricism.

 

I think the point isn't 'rationally/empirically prove everything' because that's not possible; rather, keep the number of assumptions to an absolute bear minimum necessary, and then rationally/empirically prove everything else (partially derived from these axioms).

 

The axioms/postulates/whatever are somewhat indirectly proven to at least be workable, inasmuch as, by making these assumptions, the understanding of reality that we get is good enough to manipulate it (make helicopters fly, generate lasers, etc), so they must be onto something. Or if not, they're at least useful lies.

 

why should the revealed truths of Christianity be thrown away? Why can't faith and reason work together?

 

Because the assumption that god exists, jesus was his messanger, etc, aren't neccesary, and also accepting them doesn't modify our understanding of reality in such a way that any other truths that are rationally/empirically derived from them allows us to demonstratedly manipulate reality any better.

 

More short: believing in Jesus doesn't let us cure cancer, no matter how rational you are after assuming that axiom, therefore it's not even a useful lie.

[Marat]

I agree entirely. Just because science has to begin with a very few unproved assumptions doesn't make it indistinguishable from belief systems which allow an undisciplined proliferation of ambitious and unnecessary assumptions. All scientific inference for example has to make the suppressed assumption that the future will be like the past, since otherwise the predictive power of its inferences loses its basis, but since the scope and number of assumptions is kept as small as possible, while the positivistic status of all assertions is strictly insisted upon, science remains clearly distinct from superstition, which freely allows itself any number of positivistically undisciplined explanatory entities and assumptions.

[needimprovement]

"Just because something isn't proven (rationally) does not mean it isn't true" is fine, but how do you distinguish between things that are "unproven and true" and "unproven and false?"

I was so intrigued by this response that I felt it needed its own thread. So I started one HERE.

[needimprovement]

Some people interpret the Flood story to be literal and historically accurate. Such people are wrong. What the flood story says about genetics, is how many of each type of animal was on the ark and that the others died, which with current knowledge about genetics means the flood story says something about genetic diversity -- a bottleneck of 2 or 7 individuals, 4000 or so years ago. This makes verifiable predictions about what genetic diversity we should see, and the predictions are wrong. As you said, it is nothing more than a story, despite some treating it as revealed truth.

First, I never said anything that would imply the Flood story "is nothing more than a story." You have profoundly misinterpreted my post. I said the Deluge story is a theological polemic. I did not say which elements of the polemic are derived from historical fact. Furthermore, the Deluge story reveals many truths. The key to understanding those truths correctly lies in the ability to understand and appreciate the genus litterarium.

 

Second, you have involved yourself in a contradiction by saying that the Flood story is not literal and historical, but then you treat it exactly as if it were literal and historical. You can't have it both ways.

 

BTW, how did kangaroos and polar bears get on the Ark?

[ydoaPs]

Second, you have involved yourself in a contradiction by saying that the Flood story is not literal and historical, but then you treat it exactly as if it were literal and historical. You can't have it both ways.

If P, then Q

~Q

Therefore, ~P

 

If the Flood story was meant to be literal and historical, then it has been falsified. That's all he did.

[Mr Skeptic]

It's a proof by negation. You assume something you want to prove false to be true, then you show that assumption leads to a contradiction, which means it is false. That of course only applies to a literal interpretation.

[ydoaPs]

It's a proof by negation. You assume something you want to prove false to be true, then you show that assumption leads to a contradiction, which means it is false.

Which is, coincidentally, how science works.

[throng]

One just makes a guess which seems plausible then experiments, if the experiment shows it works the experience is it works, if the experiment doesn't work experience shows it.

 

Basically, experience verifies and constitutes proof.

 

If you want to believe bible stories fine, but they are not verified by experience.

[needimprovement]

If P, then Q

~Q

Therefore, ~P

 

If the Flood story was meant to be literal and historical, then it has been falsified. That's all he did.

I think I am starting to catch on to your meaning.

 

One of the problems is that I treat the term "literal" differerntly than do most people. For me, a literal reading is one that correctly identifies and appreciates the literary genre of a text. Thus, if I take the Noah account as a theological polemic, I am reading it literally, even though it is not necessarily historical. As a theological polemic worked into a history of salvation, the Noah story is true. It teaches a number of theological and moral truths.

 

There are different ways of communicating truths. A story need not be historical in order for it to be true. Fundamentalists have a hard time with that fact.

 

It is a modern bias that says something must be historical in order for it to be true. However, the ancient Hebrews did not have our notion of history. They wrote very differently about historical matters. If they had had a more scientific notion of history, like Thucydides, then we would not have so much difficulty with interpretation.

 

Taking the Noah story as literal and historical, in the modern sense of those terms, creates innumerable problems. Just to mention a couple of problems, the Ark was not a sea-worthy vessel. It was shaped like a barge or a giant box. It's dimensions, as recorderd are all symbolic numbers.

 

Also, there is no scientific evidence for a global deluge. In fact, there is geological evidence which conclusively disproves a global deluge. The global deluge in the Noah story is, rather, symbolic for God justice, which reaches to the ends of the earth.

 

In sum, the Noah story is true, yet it is not necessarily historical. The account has elements that are based in history, but it is not primarily an historical narrative. Does this mean that it is "just a story"? Not by any means. It teaches a number of profound theological and moral truths.

 

Science can help show that aspects of the Noah story are not literal-historical. What science can never do is show that the Noah story, when properly interpreted, is false or untrue.

[Edtharan]

Science can help show that aspects of the Noah story are not literal-historical. What science can never do is show that the Noah story, when properly interpreted, is false or untrue.

The problem with this is you can also say that "Lord of the Rings" has equal weight to the bible as it has many moral and social issues and guidance in it. It is of course, not litteral-historical, but the there are truths in it (friendship, loyalty, standing against injustice and evil is a good thing, etc).

 

By stating that the Bible is not a literal-historical truth, then you are saying that the Bible is a work of fiction. This then raises the question of the existance of God: Is God just a fictional literary device?

 

It rasises the unconfortable (for believers) question of wheter or not God is real or fiction.

 

Actually, this sort of answers your initial question: "Why do some believe that things must be proven (rationally) in order be known as true?"

 

The answer is: To avoid ambiguity and unanswered questions.

 

If you don't use rigourious methodolgy in determining if a question is true or not, then it leaves open the possiblity for anyone to indert the answer that suits them best. This ambiguity means that what you have is not a truth, but an oppinion.

 

Because you have taken the position that the bible is not a litteral-historical truth, it leaves open any work that is not a litteral-historical truth to be substituted as equally "true" according to your criteria and "Lord of the Rings" has equal footing in that respect.

 

In another thread I described waht I meant by evidence: That it is a methodolgy to differentiate which of several positions are true or not. If you argue a point, but the arguments you give allow someone to reach a different (or even contradictory) conclusion than you do, you really haven't successfully argued your point.

 

As a better example:

 

In the Bible the first commandment is: You shall have no other Gods before me.

 

Now, for the sake of argument we will take that as true. But, imagine you are discussing God with someone and you putforward an argument that they should belive in your God. But, because you don't use arguments that preclude other Gods from being worshiped, or that they argumentsd don't properly describe your God, the person you are discussing this with ends up believing in the wrong (or false) God.

 

So, even if you accept the Bible as truth, you are under a form of obligation to make sure that you pass of the belief in the correct God, and the only way you can do that is to use a rigiours methodology that eliminate the posibility of a mistake.

 

That is: That things must be proven (rationally) in order be known as true?

[needimprovement]

The problem with this is you can also say that "Lord of the Rings" has equal weight to the bible as it has many moral and social issues and guidance in it. It is of course, not litteral-historical, but the there are truths in it (friendship, loyalty, standing against injustice and evil is a good thing, etc).

 

By stating that the Bible is not a literal-historical truth, then you are saying that the Bible is a work of fiction. This then raises the question of the existance of God: Is God just a fictional literary device?

Sorry to say, but your argument is a text-book example of a straw-man fallacy.

 

Nowhere did I say that the Bible is not literal-historical truth. What I said is that the literary genre of the Deluge story is not necessarily literal-historical. It is a theological polemic worked into the salavation history of the Jews.

 

I also said the ancient Hebrews did not think of or write history the way we do. I noted that the manner in which Thucydides wrote history was more scientific. This is just a fact about ancient Hebrew culture that is above dispute. Consult any reputable bible scholar. I will be glad to recommend resources.

 

Next, it does not follow that if a text is not literal-historical then it is fiction. Your statement is not logically or literarily sound. For example, a parable is not necessarily historical. Do you think then if it is said that a biblical parable is not historical then one is implying that it is not true and a mere fiction? On the other hand, if you think a parable must be literal-historical then you have involved yourself in a blatant contradiction about the literary nature of a parable.

 

Many people, especially in modern times, have an unwarranted bias for the literal and historical as if that is the only way, or even the best way, to convey fact or truth. This is just a modern prejudice of those who do not understand how literature works, how diverse literary genres work. The Bible contains many types of literary genres. Understanding the literary genre of a text, and how it works, is the key to unlocking the message being conveyed.

 

In addition, the most profound truths cannot be expressed in literal terms. Plato understood well this fact, a truth which moderns uncultivated in literature have yet to learn. Plato called philosophizing tragic because whoever philosophizes is always forced back upon myths, because no 'purely' philosophical interpretation of the world could ever be complete and pursued to the point at which it formed a perfectly closed circle.

 

Hence, Plato taught very profound truths using myths. "Myth" in this sense does not mean something that is not true, as we often use the word today when we might say "That is just a myth".

 

The Bible in many places uses allegories and other figurative language. Oftentimes figurative (non-literal) language better conveys a truth than does the literal, scientific, or historical. Some truths, especially regarding spiritual realities, can only be expressed in figurative language. The "Apocalypse" or "Revelations" is replete with symbolism and other figurative expressions.

 

Figurative language cannot necesarily be re-stated in literal terms without losing something of its meaning. We often ask "what" a text means. This can be the wrong question to ask. The proper question for some literary genres is "how" does this mean. The meaning is not independent of the particular way the author used his words to convey his message. You cannot take the dancer out of the dance.

 

In sum, I suggest you re-think and re-state your argument, if you still have one, because nowhere did I claim that the Bible is not literal-historical. Literal-historical texts are found in the Bible, but so are many are literary genres. This is an undeniable fact. It's all about identifying the genus litterarium, and fully appreciating how it functions to convey the author's message.

Edited August 23, 2010 by needimprovement

[Edtharan]

Sorry to say, but your argument is a text-book example of a straw-man fallacy.

 

Nowhere did I say that the Bible is not literal-historical truth. What I said is that the literary genre of the Deluge story is not necessarily literal-historical. It is a theological polemic worked into the salavation history of the Jews.

First of all, I'm not talking about truth here, but reality.

 

Fiction is a work that is not dealing reality, where as non fiction is a work dealing with reality.

 

When you were talking aobut the Ark ("Just to mention a couple of problems, the Ark was not a sea-worthy vessel. It was shaped like a barge or a giant box. It's dimensions, as recorderd are all symbolic numbers."), you indicated that you didn't think the Ark was a story based in reality. Therefore you indicated that you thought the story of the Ark (although holding some religious truths) was a work of Fiction.

 

 

Therefore it is not a strawman to argue that you were saying that you thought the bible was not based in reality and was a work of fiction. What I whent on to say is that if any part of the bible can be considdered as a work of fiction, you have to question that all of it could be (this does not say that it is all a work of fiction, but that it might be).

 

It means that if you pick a part of it to be considdered a work of non-fiction, you have to provide reasions as to why you think one part is fictional (ie not based on reality) and an other part is non-fictional.

 

To do otherwise is called cherry picking and is a logical fallacy.

 

I also said the ancient Hebrews did not think of or write history the way we do. I noted that the manner in which Thucydides wrote history was more scientific. This is just a fact about ancient Hebrew culture that is above dispute. Consult any reputable bible scholar. I will be glad to recommend resources.

Either something is real or it isn't. Reality is not something that has degrees of existance (remember I am discussing reality, not truth).

 

Next, it does not follow that if a text is not literal-historical then it is fiction. Your statement is not logically or literarily sound. For example, a parable is not necessarily historical. Do you think then if it is said that a biblical parable is not historical then one is implying that it is not true and a mere fiction? On the other hand, if you think a parable must be literal-historical then you have involved yourself in a blatant contradiction about the literary nature of a parable.

Again, reality is an all or nothing proposition. So if a story is not real, then it is not real and is a work of fiction.

 

There is a branch of litterature called "historical Fiction". ALthough these stories are based on historical events, these storyies and what occurs are not real and therefore a work of fiction (that is why they are called fiction).

 

Many people, especially in modern times, have an unwarranted bias for the literal and historical as if that is the only way, or even the best way, to convey fact or truth. This is just a modern prejudice of those who do not understand how literature works, how diverse literary genres work. The Bible contains many types of literary genres. Understanding the literary genre of a text, and how it works, is the key to unlocking the message being conveyed.

Fact and Truth are not the same thing. Something can be true even if it is not a Fact. For instance "Justice" you can examine the univiers in the most minute detail and you will not find a single particle of justice. So justice does not have a factual existance, but it is true that justice exists none the less.

 

In addition, the most profound truths cannot be expressed in literal terms. Plato understood well this fact, a truth which moderns uncultivated in literature have yet to learn. Plato called philosophizing tragic because whoever philosophizes is always forced back upon myths, because no 'purely' philosophical interpretation of the world could ever be complete and pursued to the point at which it formed a perfectly closed circle.

Yes these are called analogies. But this does not address the questions I asked: If there are passages in the bible that are not based on reality, then what in the bible is based on reality? And does this mean that God is not real (or is He an analogy - for a parent maybe)?

 

Hence, Plato taught very profound truths using myths. "Myth" in this sense does not mean something that is not true, as we often use the word today when we might say "That is just a myth".

I understand that a truth can be expressed as a parable or fictional story, but Lord of the Rings can also be seen in that light (a parable how friendship and loyalty can overcome great adversity), but that does not mean that Frodo really exists.

 

And this is the core of the questions I am asking.

 

I can accept God as an analogy and as a fictional construct, and that the lessons learned from the stories in the bible have some teaching value, but none of that means that GOd has to exist and that I have to worship Him or believe that He is real.

 

There are many good things to learn from the bible, but there are also many bad things to learn form it too (for on: that Genocide is acceptable - Joshua chapter 10). So even as a "figurative" work, the morality it conveys can be somewhat questionable. Just because something is true, does not make it good or right.

 

The Bible in many places uses allegories and other figurative language. Oftentimes figurative (non-literal) language better conveys a truth than does the literal, scientific, or historical. Some truths, especially regarding spiritual realities, can only be expressed in figurative language. The "Apocalypse" or "Revelations" is replete with symbolism and other figurative expressions.

I have never denied that therea re truths in the bible, but what I question is the reality of it and therfore the reality of God.

 

Figurative language cannot necesarily be re-stated in literal terms without losing something of its meaning. We often ask "what" a text means. This can be the wrong question to ask. The proper question for some literary genres is "how" does this mean. The meaning is not independent of the particular way the author used his words to convey his message. You cannot take the dancer out of the dance.

I understand this, but you have missed the "truth" of what I was asking.

 

In sum, I suggest you re-think and re-state your argument, if you still have one, because nowhere did I claim that the Bible is not literal-historical. Literal-historical texts are found in the Bible, but so are many are literary genres. This is an undeniable fact. It's all about identifying the genus litterarium, and fully appreciating how it functions to convey the author's message.

Ok, I'll restate it:

 

What in the bible is a statement about Reality and what eveidence do you have to support that conclusion (and remember evidence is data or argument that diferentiates one position from the other - in this case it is differentiation the parts of the bible that are reality and the parts that are not).

[Marat]

Needimprovement adopts the view of most modern Christians, which is that parts of the Bible are purely allegorical, like the Deluge, while parts are literally true, like the resurrection of Christ. But the problem with switching back and forth between construing some parts of a document full of magic and miracles as purely metaphorical while other parts are taken as factual reports is that the fantastic quality of the document fails to indicate which elements are meant literally and which are meant only figuratively.

 

So while a scientific text on evolution might say, "If someone shows me a single skeleton and calls it the 'missing link,' then I'll be a monkey's uncle," it is obvious that the phrase, "I'll be a monkey's uncle" is meant only figuratively, since it clearly stands apart from the sober, fact-based, inductive inference-based character of the rest of the document. But in the case of the Bible, the resurrection of Christ is just as mystical as the Flood, so what criteria do we have which are internal to the document to show us which statement to construe as metaphorical and which as literal? Without that, Biblical exegesis becomes entirely arbitrary, since each historical period will just assign elements of it to the metaphorical or literal categories according to what that interpretive era finds doctrinally unpalatable or acceptable, which says more about the interpretive culture believes than it does about what the document itself means.

[Mr Skeptic]

Fiction is a work that is not dealing reality, where as non fiction is a work dealing with reality.

 

I don't think it's as simple as that. Take mathematics, for example, which is considered non-fiction. It simply makes a bunch of stuff up, and then draws conclusions based on the premises it made up. An even better example would be Einstein's famous thought experiments. They consisted of "experiments" set up in one's mind, because doing them in real life would have been either impossible or extremely impractical.These would be comparable to Jesus' parables -- not literally true, but you can learn something from it anyways.

 

So long as it is clear what is literally true and what is metaphorical, there is no problem. Unfortunately, unless such is clearly spelled out, later generations might not be able to distinguish which was meant how, even if it would have been obvious when written. And so we have, for example, people who think that everything in the Bible is literally true, from Genesis to Revelations (shudder) -- except the parables. Why not the parables? They are labeled as metaphorical.

[needimprovement]

I have never denied that therea re truths in the bible, but what I question is the reality of it and therfore the reality of God.

You do not deny that there are truths in the Bible, but you question the reality of it. That sounds to me like a contradictory statement. Explain yourself further. I am not sure we speak the same language, yet.

 

I understand this, but you have missed the "truth" of what I was asking.

 

 

Ok, I'll restate it:

 

What in the bible is a statement about Reality and what eveidence do you have to support that conclusion (and remember evidence is data or argument that diferentiates one position from the other - in this case it is differentiation the parts of the bible that are reality and the parts that are not).

Sorry, but I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "reality" in the Bible, and that which is not "reality"? You will need to elaborate.

[Edtharan]

You do not deny that there are truths in the Bible, but you question the reality of it. That sounds to me like a contradictory statement. Explain yourself further. I am not sure we speak the same language, yet.

As you said yourself: "Hence, Plato taught very profound truths using myths. "Myth" in this sense does not mean something that is not true, as we often use the word today when we might say "That is just a myth"."

 

Even though Plato taught using myths, and those myths were not seen as being reality, they did hold lessons that could be learnt, and that the values and ideas behind those lessons were true.

 

As another example: In Asops fables (and for example: specifically the Ant and the grasshopper), they often featured talking animals and such, but we know that ants, or grasshoppers can't talk. So these fables (and fable is a bit indication that they aren't real) were fiction, but the lessons learnt by them (eg: it is a good idea to work in times of plenty so you will have resources for when there is not) are true (would you deny the truth that it is a good idea to work and save for lean times?)

 

Sorry, but I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "reality" in the Bible, and that which is not "reality"? You will need to elaborate.

You were talking about how you understood the word "litterally" to mean "written" (or at least pertaining to being written). I was trying to avoid using "litterally", and so I used a different term: "Reality".

 

For example: In Exodus, the Egytians were supposed to have kept massive amounts of slaves, in fact a whole country (the Isralites). However Archeologists have not found any records in egypt that confirm this.

 

Yes, the egyptians did keep slaves, but this was for hostage reasons (to keep tribute kingdoms in line) or as house hold servents. They never kept large number of general slaves (not enough to constitute an entire culture). In bible studdies I have had, the pyramids were explained as being built buy such slaves as evidence that these bible stories were real, but to build the pyramids requiered skilled labour and no slave constitutes as skilled labour, plus they have very good records that the pyramids were built by egyptian citizens. They have their work huts, payment records, medical records (no slave would have complex and costly surgery performed on them), they even know the names of some of these people and can tract them through other various records availabel from that time.

 

So, no, at not time did enough slaves exist in Egypt to constitute an entire culture of people. This means that the story of Exodus is fiction and not real. It might have some lessons to be learnt that can be considdered "true", but it is most conclusivly not real.

 

If the story is not real, then it is a fable, or analogy. But God exists in this fable, and that means that God might just be a fiction too.

[needimprovement]

As you said yourself: "Hence, Plato taught very profound truths using myths. "Myth" in this sense does not mean something that is not true, as we often use the word today when we might say "That is just a myth"."

 

Even though Plato taught using myths, and those myths were not seen as being reality, they did hold lessons that could be learnt, and that the values and ideas behind those lessons were true.

 

As another example: In Asops fables (and for example: specifically the Ant and the grasshopper), they often featured talking animals and such, but we know that ants, or grasshoppers can't talk. So these fables (and fable is a bit indication that they aren't real) were fiction, but the lessons learnt by them (eg: it is a good idea to work in times of plenty so you will have resources for when there is not) are true (would you deny the truth that it is a good idea to work and save for lean times?)

 

 

You were talking about how you understood the word "litterally" to mean "written" (or at least pertaining to being written). I was trying to avoid using "litterally", and so I used a different term: "Reality".

 

For example: In Exodus, the Egytians were supposed to have kept massive amounts of slaves, in fact a whole country (the Isralites). However Archeologists have not found any records in egypt that confirm this.

 

Yes, the egyptians did keep slaves, but this was for hostage reasons (to keep tribute kingdoms in line) or as house hold servents. They never kept large number of general slaves (not enough to constitute an entire culture). In bible studdies I have had, the pyramids were explained as being built buy such slaves as evidence that these bible stories were real, but to build the pyramids requiered skilled labour and no slave constitutes as skilled labour, plus they have very good records that the pyramids were built by egyptian citizens. They have their work huts, payment records, medical records (no slave would have complex and costly surgery performed on them), they even know the names of some of these people and can tract them through other various records availabel from that time.

 

So, no, at not time did enough slaves exist in Egypt to constitute an entire culture of people. This means that the story of Exodus is fiction and not real. It might have some lessons to be learnt that can be considdered "true", but it is most conclusivly not real.

 

If the story is not real, then it is a fable, or analogy. But God exists in this fable, and that means that God might just be a fiction too.

I think one reads a text more literally the more he understands and appreciates the particular literary genre of the text, how it functions to convey the author's message.

 

The answer to the discrepancies about the number of Hebrew slaves in Egypt is found in understanding how primitive cultures told their own history. Stories of an event, person, or situation were passed down orally from generation to generation. As the stories are told they get embellished and modified in various ways common to the phenomenon of story telling. The Hebrews like any other ancient culture have their tribal stories which were traditions. Oftentimes, there is more than one account or tradition about the same thing.

 

Eventually, these oral traditions were committed to writing. The writer oftentimes combined the different traditions. The oral traditions were sacred traditions, so the redactor worked to preserve each one.

 

We look at the written account of Hebrews rescued from slavery by Moses. The account has been embellished over the generations of oral story telling. Hence, Moses is described as rescuing a great number of Hebrews from slavery. Most likely, it was a small band of runaway slaves. And there are other embellishments that make for a great story.

 

But we must ask ourselves what is the message the author is conveying in this account of Moses. The message is that God is being faithful to the promise He made to Abraham, and that He is truly the God of the Hebrew people.

 

The scientific accuracy of the details is inconsequential to the primary message of the story, a message that is absolutely true.

 

Scripture is both human and Divine. As human it has all the characteristics of the literature of the cultural milieu in which it arose, except that its religious message is inerrant or necessarily true.

 

This is a good example of my previous statements that the ancient Hebrews did not write history in a scientific manner. We can wish that they would have written their stories differently, but that would be an unrealistic expectation for the cultural milieu of the Ancient Near East.

 

Plato can convey philosophical truths using myths. Aesop can teach moral lessons using fables. And the writers of Genesis can convey religious truths by using a "religious" history of the Hebrews that relies on the customary methods of story telling and oral traditions.

[Moontanman]

I think one reads a text more literally the more he understands and appreciates the particular literary genre of the text, how it functions to convey the author's message.

 

The answer to the discrepancies about the number of Hebrew slaves in Egypt is found in understanding how primitive cultures told their own history. Stories of an event, person, or situation were passed down orally from generation to generation. As the stories are told they get embellished and modified in various ways common to the phenomenon of story telling. The Hebrews like any other ancient culture have their tribal stories which were traditions. Oftentimes, there is more than one account or tradition about the same thing.

 

Eventually, these oral traditions were committed to writing. The writer oftentimes combined the different traditions. The oral traditions were sacred traditions, so the redactor worked to preserve each one.

 

We look at the written account of Hebrews rescued from slavery by Moses. The account has been embellished over the generations of oral story telling. Hence, Moses is described as rescuing a great number of Hebrews from slavery. Most likely, it was a small band of runaway slaves. And there are other embellishments that make for a great story.

 

But we must ask ourselves what is the message the author is conveying in this account of Moses. The message is that God is being faithful to the promise He made to Abraham, and that He is truly the God of the Hebrew people.

 

The scientific accuracy of the details is inconsequential to the primary message of the story, a message that is absolutely true.

 

Scripture is both human and Divine. As human it has all the characteristics of the literature of the cultural milieu in which it arose, except that its religious message is inerrant or necessarily true.

 

This is a good example of my previous statements that the ancient Hebrews did not write history in a scientific manner. We can wish that they would have written their stories differently, but that would be an unrealistic expectation for the cultural milieu of the Ancient Near East.

 

Plato can convey philosophical truths using myths. Aesop can teach moral lessons using fables. And the writers of Genesis can convey religious truths by using a "religious" history of the Hebrews that relies on the customary methods of story telling and oral traditions.

 

 

The literal problems with the bible in general and the story of Moses in particular has nothing to do with the number of slaves he saved or the accurate accounts in the bible of people places and events. It has to do with the claimed miracles God preformed, the story claims he parted the red sea, rescuing slaves is entirely possible but the claim of parting the red sea and other miracles is where the story runs into trouble. The bible has many accurate descriptions of events, cities and and even individual people, morality plays based on the morals of that time and place. But this does not mean it is a message from god nor does it show any evidence of the existence of god or the over all truth of the story of the bible.

 

I could write a book about aliens invading New York City, I could use the names of real people and real places describe real events, I could describe the moral choices the people of that city would have to make and the results of those choices, slanted to my own sense of morality and much of it would be accurate, I could describe many miraculous things the aliens could do but the premise of the book, alien invasion would be false. The fact that the bible contains accuracies doesn't mean it is true or that God is real, it is just a work of fiction used by the priest class to gain control over their people, to suggest it is something more requires evidence you have thus far been unable to provide in even a tiny amount....

[Edtharan]

I think one reads a text more literally the more he understands and appreciates the particular literary genre of the text, how it functions to convey the author's message.

 

The answer to the discrepancies about the number of Hebrew slaves in Egypt is found in understanding how primitive cultures told their own history. Stories of an event, person, or situation were passed down orally from generation to generation. As the stories are told they get embellished and modified in various ways common to the phenomenon of story telling. The Hebrews like any other ancient culture have their tribal stories which were traditions. Oftentimes, there is more than one account or tradition about the same thing.

 

Eventually, these oral traditions were committed to writing. The writer oftentimes combined the different traditions. The oral traditions were sacred traditions, so the redactor worked to preserve each one.

 

We look at the written account of Hebrews rescued from slavery by Moses. The account has been embellished over the generations of oral story telling. Hence, Moses is described as rescuing a great number of Hebrews from slavery. Most likely, it was a small band of runaway slaves. And there are other embellishments that make for a great story.

 

But we must ask ourselves what is the message the author is conveying in this account of Moses. The message is that God is being faithful to the promise He made to Abraham, and that He is truly the God of the Hebrew people.

 

The scientific accuracy of the details is inconsequential to the primary message of the story, a message that is absolutely true.

 

Scripture is both human and Divine. As human it has all the characteristics of the literature of the cultural milieu in which it arose, except that its religious message is inerrant or necessarily true.

 

This is a good example of my previous statements that the ancient Hebrews did not write history in a scientific manner. We can wish that they would have written their stories differently, but that would be an unrealistic expectation for the cultural milieu of the Ancient Near East.

 

Plato can convey philosophical truths using myths. Aesop can teach moral lessons using fables. And the writers of Genesis can convey religious truths by using a "religious" history of the Hebrews that relies on the customary methods of story telling and oral traditions.

Ok, so it seems that you are not disagreeing with my premise that what is in the bible is not necesarily something that is real. That of course includes God.

 

But is God is not real, then why should I believe in Him rather than in some other God that is not real (like Aphrodie is Zeus or Thor)?

 

There are truths in the religious works of the Asgardian Gods, should I consider them just as valid a God as your God? So if all it takes is "truth" in religious writeings to convinve you to believe in a God, then why do you reject Thor (He is the God of lighting, and I notice that even christian churchs put lightning rods on their steeples, are they afraid that Thor will take offense that they don't worship Him?). We even have a day of the week named after Him, does this count as evidence that Thor is the God we should be worshiping?

 

I bet you don't think all that. Why, because you don't think Thor is REAL.

 

And that is the point. This is not about whetther there is truth, or utility in a religious text, it is about whether or not a particular God is real (or any Gods for that matter). You would be willing to admit that Thor is not real because there is no evidence (see my other posts concerning evidence) for His existance. But this is exactly the same case as with the christian God.

 

The stories of the Norse Gods have litterary merit, they have truths to them and even good story telling (The Opera: Ring of the Nibelungen : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Ring_des_Nibelungen - lord of the rings was loosely based on this too). These are the criteria you have identified as being the reasonons that you believe in the christian God, but these apply equally well to the Norse Gods, the Greek God, the Roman Gods or any single religion ever followed.

 

As I said about evidence: The purpose of evidence is to distinguish between claims. So at the very least it has to do that. And, as your criteria don't do that, either become a Thor worshiper, or admit that we need to have the "necesity of proving things" (as per the topic of this discusion).

 

But, if we have a necesity to prove thing, then you need to provide proof of Gods existance (and that requiers evidence that distinguishes firstly that God or Gods exist as compared to their non existance, and then that your God is the one that exists rather than any other God).