Faith and Reason Part 2: Questioning what we "know"

[rudeguy]

In a previous thread, we discussed some basic questions relating to God, Science and our way of thinking. The questions we looked at were:

Does every question have one answer that is the truth, even if we don't yet know what that answer is?
Has science disproved anything that is said in the Bible?
Is the Bible infallible? And if it is not, can it be believed?
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2331204

I'd like to continue the discussion now that things at work have calmed down a bit.

My next question is:
Can we ever be sure that what we know is the truth?
Is there any way we can positively know anything? If so, how?

 

[dphantom]

Some good questions. Let me take a brief stab at it while I think about it some more.

#1 yes I think so but we may never know the ultimate answer
#2 don't think so but have disproved some misinterpretations of what is written
#3 yes but humans are very fallible so can make errors in understanding

more when I can have time to think about it some more.

 

[norseamd]

Has science disproved anything that is said in the Bible?

you can disprove some of the bible using the bible. also early hebrewism was not exactly the same thing as judaism. more or less polytheism. the queen of heaven was the wife of god.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh_(Canaanite_deity)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_heaven_(antiquity)

 

[PingviN]

1. Yes.

2. Yes. Creationism is debunked, through and through. That is if your interested in the truth and not the "truth".
Was there a flood that killed almost all life on Earth? Nothing other than the entry in the OT supports this. We've had mass death before in the history of Earth, but not 4000 years ago.
For the other claims (Jesus being the son of God, Moses parting the Red Sea, etc, we're still waiting for proof.

3. It cannot be believed if not supported by evidence. It should be treated like any other storybook until proven otherwise.

 

[AViking]

Science has disproved the bible in multiple ways so you have to almost be very specific. Linguistics for example has proved that the bible isn't dated correctly. There was a scene in a recent episode of The Big Bang Theory where they pointed out that the bible screwed up with respect to camels being in the bible. They had camels when they wrote it so they assumed they had them when they wrote about it. Archaeology has proved that the old testament is mostly made up with respect to the movement of peoples and battles. Biology has shown that being 9 feet tall does not make you a giant and magical like Goliath. We can also show that biologically Noah could not have been 900 years old or had children long after their eggs would have been gone and menopause would have kicked in. Psychology can explain that Paul was crazy with his visions and hearing voices. Astronomy debunked the bibles geocentric position of the sun and earth. Evolution explains life in a way that does not require a creator.

 

[AViking]

Science has also given us the scientific method. It is not the responsibility of normal people to go around proving all the ridiculous stuff in the bible but quite the contrary. We do not have to prove a negative.

 

[Retro Rob]

Science has disproved the bible in multiple ways so you have to almost be very specific. Linguistics for example has proved that the bible isn't dated correctly. There was a scene in a recent episode of The Big Bang Theory where they pointed out that the bible screwed up with respect to camels being in the bible. They had camels when they wrote it so they assumed they had them when they wrote about it. Archaeology has proved that the old testament is mostly made up with respect to the movement of peoples and battles. Biology has shown that being 9 feet tall does not make you a giant and magical like Goliath. We can also show that biologically Noah could not have been 900 years old or had children long after their eggs would have been gone and menopause would have kicked in. Psychology can explain that Paul was crazy with his visions and hearing voices. Astronomy debunked the bibles geocentric position of the sun and earth..

Is there any wonder why you don't believe the Bible? Getting your information from a sitcom is a good reason to not believe.

Btw, when I was a kid, there was this episode on a cartoon I was watching that said science is wrong about evolution because if we came from monkeys, there shouldn't be any more monkeys around.

Evolution explains life in a way that does not require a creator

How? Science hasn't accounted for the origin of life. Who's to say God didn't "get the process going" (which I don't believe in, btw) and evolution took over?

A man can roll a snowball down a hill and it can get bigger and bigger, sucking up more stuff and getting more complex. Explaining the path of complexity doesn't rule out the fact a "man jump started the snowball".

 

[SlowSpyder]

Is there any wonder why you don't believe the Bible? Getting your information from a sitcom is a good reason to not believe.

Btw, when I was a kid, there was this episode on a cartoon I was watching that said science is wrong about evolution because if we came from monkeys, there shouldn't be any more monkeys around.

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:8)

Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud. (1 Corinthians 13:4)

Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. (Exodus 34:14)


You don't need a sitcom to see why the story of god in the bible doesn't add up. If one part of the bible can be wrong then 10 parts can. If 10 parts can, then 100 can.

 

[Retro Rob]

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:8)

Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud. (1 Corinthians 13:4)

Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. (Exodus 34:14)


You don't need a sitcom to see why the story of god in the bible doesn't add up. If one part of the bible can be wrong then 10 parts can. If 10 parts can, then 100 can.

God is jealous because he wants exclusive devotion, as Webster's third definition is "vigilant in guarding his possession"...that possession is his Godship in which He doesn't share with anyone. In the same dictionary, its defined as " intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness". These describe the God of the Bible.

Reading the entire Bible, you'd see that it describes him as jealous in the definitions above, not envious, as if we have something he himself cannot posses.

You can still be loving and be intolerant of blasphemy at the same time, but the Jealousy its talking about in your Corith passage is the envious type which causes people do to unloving things.

 

[smackababy]

Is there any wonder why you don't believe the Bible? Getting your information from a sitcom is a good reason to not believe.

Btw, when I was a kid, there was this episode on a cartoon I was watching that said science is wrong about evolution because if we came from monkeys, there shouldn't be any more monkeys around.



How? Science hasn't accounted for the origin of life. Who's to say God didn't "get the process going" (which I don't believe in, btw) and evolution took over?

A man can roll a snowball down a hill and it can get bigger and bigger, sucking up more stuff and getting more complex. Explaining the path of complexity doesn't rule out the fact a "man jump started the snowball".

True, but evolution never claimed to give the answer the origin of life, just the origin of biological diversity.


Science has proven a lot of stuff in the Bible is very unlikely to have happened. Noah and the ark, for instance. Age of the Earth and fossil layering.

As for the OP, why should we consider the Bible as anything other than a story? It wasn't written by anyone who had first hand knowledge of the events nor by anyone even at the time of the events. Why can't a person simply use it as an example of how to be a better person?

 

[Retro Rob]

True, but evolution never claimed to give the answer the origin of life, just the origin of biological diversity.

I didn't say evolution explains the origin of life either, but I was saying that if you make the statement "no creator was needed" as was stated, then you'd better explain why by showing life didn't originate with a creator.

The snowball analogy was made to address that very point -- explaining the natural progress to complexity doesn't address the origin of the snowball.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I didn't say evolution explains the origin of life either, but I was saying that if you make the statement "no creator was needed" as was stated, then you'd better explain why by showing life didn't originate with a creator.

Tell you what -- First you show us that life "originated" and THEN we'll worry about who has the best answer for how that happened.

The snowball analogy was made to address that very point -- explaining the natural progress to complexity doesn't address the origin of the snowball.

What origin would you have us explain?

 

[dphantom]

True, but evolution never claimed to give the answer the origin of life, just the origin of biological diversity.


Science has proven a lot of stuff in the Bible is very unlikely to have happened. Noah and the ark, for instance. Age of the Earth and fossil layering.

As for the OP, why should we consider the Bible as anything other than a story? It wasn't written by anyone who had first hand knowledge of the events nor by anyone even at the time of the events. Why can't a person simply use it as an example of how to be a better person?

The Bible does not specify the age of the Earth. There are those who make some assumptions about it, but those may or may not be correct. So you cannot assert that as fact. Only a few take the age of the Earth to be somewhere around 6000 years.

 

[Retro Rob]

The Bible does not specify the age of the Earth. There are those who make some assumptions about it, but those may or may not be correct. So you cannot assert that as fact. Only a few take the age of the Earth to be somewhere around 6000 years.

Right, and to add, the Bible says "in the beginning, God created". In essence, the heavens and earth were in existence before the first creative "day".

It doesn't even specify a starting point. He's really arguing a Fundamentalist interpretation which ignores the very opening verse of Genesis.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The Bible does not specify the age of the Earth. There are those who make some assumptions about it, but those may or may not be correct. So you cannot assert that as fact. Only a few take the age of the Earth to be somewhere around 6000 years.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

It looks like it is more than a few. If anything the link above would suggest that most christians in this country believe the earth is ~6000 years old. Pretty sad, really.

 

[dphantom]

Right, and to add, the Bible says "in the beginning, God created". In essence, the heavens and earth were in existence before the first creative "day".

It doesn't even specify a starting point. He's really arguing a Fundamentalist interpretation which ignores the very opening verse of Genesis.

It is the classic pick verses out of context. I don't mind discussing the topic but it gets so tiresome seeing the same misinformation over and over. Too many on the atheist side take as "The Truth" small parts of various sects of Christianity to make their supposed point when most have not truly made a detailed study of any religion and instead simply pick inflammatory fundamentalist viewpoints that may or may not be correct and may or may not reflect the rest of Christianity.

 

[dphantom]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

It looks like it is more than a few. If anything the link above would suggest that most christians in this country believe the earth is ~6000 years old. Pretty sad, really.

I would have to agree with the 10,000 year one. I think in our present form God created us. Now what form exactly he created us from is open to discussion. And before you say clay, that could mean clay was an analogy to describe a previous version of some entity.

Certainly our present form is around 10k years old.

 

[norseamd]

Certainly our present form is around 10k years old.

do you want to discuss evolutionary anthropology?

 

[Retro Rob]

It is the classic pick verses out of context. I don't mind discussing the topic but it gets so tiresome seeing the same misinformation over and over.

Yep, it always happens that way. Even if the Bible granted you that God created the animal and human life in 6 literal days, that still doesn't mean the world is 6000 years old as it doesn't tell you when the Heavens and Earth came into existence.

Yeah, fundamentalism is wrong all the way on that.

Too many on the atheist side take as "The Truth" small parts of various sects of Christianity to make their supposed point when most have not truly made a detailed study of any religion and instead simply pick inflammatory fundamentalist viewpoints that may or may not be correct and may or may not reflect the rest of Christianity.

Could not agree with you more. It becomes easy to ignore the facts behind the Bible one you've isolated one erroneous interpretation and apply that to everyone/everything.

 

[Retro Rob]

do you want to discuss evolutionary anthropology?

Or you mean "take one data-point and extrapolate from there"? No, that's not science.

We didn't "invent writing" to about 6000 years ago or so, hence, that's the only evidence we have of human civilization in any sort of detail.

Anyone stating otherwise is just guessing, which is the only way they can know anything about life, culture, religion etc that our "ancestors" allegedly had.

 

[dphantom]

do you want to discuss evolutionary anthropology?

http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/human-evolution-timeline.html

note the overlaps

 

[norseamd]

Or you mean "take one data-point and extrapolate from there"? No, that's not science. We didn't "invent writing" to about 6000 years ago or so, hence, that's the only evidence we have of human civilization in any sort of detail. Anyone stating otherwise is just guessing, which is the only way they can know anything about life, culture, religion etc that our "ancestors" allegedly had.

civilization started some time in the last 8 to 10 thousand years ago. if that is what you meant then fine. but our physical form at least for much of the world is much older than that. also the thinning of western europeans is about the same age of 10 thousand years ago and is because of the reliance of agricuture for many of them. hence why the decreasing tooth and bone size over the last 20 thousand years is not applicable across all human populations. unfortunately western scientists often are apathetic to non anglo populations and possible differences from the mainstream standard. the fact they talk about decreasing pronogathism when melanesians and africans still often have quite a lot of pronagathism. also the cro magnons were not a seperate population as that article may make them out to be.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/

 

[Retro Rob]

civilization started some time in the last 8 to 10 thousand years ago. if that is what you meant then fine. but our physical form at least for much of the world is much older than that. also the thinning of western europeans is about the same age of 10 thousand years ago and is because of the reliance of agricuture for many of them. hence why the decreasing tooth and bone size over the last 20 thousand years is not applicable across all human populations. unfortunately western scientists often are apathetic to non anglo populations and possible differences from the mainstream standard. the fact they talk about decreasing pronogathism when melanesians and africans still often have quite a lot of pronagathism. also the cro magnons were not a seperate population as that article may make them out to be.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/

Yeah, I'm not disputing the age, just the start of human civilization(s).

 

[crashtestdummy]

My next question is:
Can we ever be sure that what we know is the truth?
Is there any way we can positively know anything? If so, how?

Probably not.

There is no form of observation that is entirely infallible. I believe I see a computer screen in front of me. It's entirely possible that this vision of a screen is just an illusion, and that somewhere between the light hitting my retina and the image being processed in my brain, it has been altered. Hell, my entire consciousness could be an elaborate computer simulation. I can make no absolute statements of Truth or of the nature of the universe.

The better question, though, is whether this is a useful determination. Even though I don't know for certain what I'm seeing, I am able to make reliable predictions of what I will see based on what I do. That typing on these keys makes text appear is repeatably predictable. As long as that predictable pattern is maintained, I will say that I am typing on a keyboard, making text appear on the screen, even though I cannot absolutely prove it. This predictiveness (known in science as a "theory") is the closest to any kind of certainty that I can achieve. If I were to find that my predictions do not work in certain circumstances, I am forced to reconsider how I understand the universe.

I can describe much of the universe this way: human behavior, gravity, electricity, quantum mechanics, needing to poop. I cannot, however, deal this way with God. There is (at least currently) no set of predictable, repeatable observations I can make regarding the nature of God. Therefore, regardless of the Truth of whether God exists or not, I act as if one does not exist. This is necessary for my sanity, because once I start considering every possibility that might exist without the ability to test them, I am suddenly faced with an infinite set of possibilities that are all equally viable and none of them useful.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'll spare y'all the parable language that I usually use to make this point, but I think it is useful to explain certain things about "truth".

Truth can have a variety of attributes, most notably 3:

1.) It can be absolute -- meaning it is true in all places and all times regardless of circumstances.

2.) It can be objective -- meaning it does not depend on any particular person or individual mind.

3.) It can deal with external reality -- meaning it describes a fact of our universe.

The catch is that truth can only feature at most 2 of these attributes simultaneously.

It can be absolute and objective, but then it doesn't deal with external reality -- this is mathematical/logical truth.

It can be absolute and deal with external reality, but then it can't be objective -- this is religious/moral truth.

It can be objective and deal with external reality, but then it can't be absolute -- this is scientific truth.

It is important to avoid equivocating among these.

I'll have more to contribute to this thread concerning "knowledge" but I don't have to time at the moment to put that post together.