Well Kieren, what you're doing there is you take a 'leap of evidence' so to speak. Let me use your own example:
What if geological evidence exists backing the biblical story of a great flood?That would indicate that the Bible chronicled events as they happened. However, and this I find is important, what indigious Indians refer to as The Great SnowGod That Comes From The Mountain, we today refer to as "an avalanche set off because ofcertain snow conditions on slopes with a certain character".
That is, there is geological evidence of a flood. Or rather, of thousands of floods. Let's assume the Bible had it absolutely right (and I think it is a rather accurate "logger of events"). There was a flood. The Bible now takes the GIGANTIC leap and says "the flood was the workings of God, for this and that reason".
Much like theindigenous indians would say "the SnowGod is angry because I pissed my name in the snow yesterday", or some other reason.
What I am saying is there is the event, the fact which may be covered in various degrees of accuracy, and then there is the interpretation of it.
And, the leap of faith is that one says "A happened, therefore A must mean B" - but there's no supporting evidence of that assertion.
What if historical writings from diverse cultures verify events and places as described by the Bible? Again, the Bible was written by men, in times of men. They're bound to chronicle events. The biblical interpreations of these vents as divine in nature and whatnot is what I dispute. And, I also dispute certain areas of ttheir reporting, where it is inconsistent with scientific facts.
What if archaeologists uncover the remains of destroyed civilizations (such as Sodom and Gomorrah)?They could do that, and I could claim it was done by Nirfur, God Of All Things Yellow And Furry Taht's my interpretation of an established fact. My leap of evidence is no bigger than the one made by Christians.
You will still never consider for a second the biblical accounts are true, because you've already decided they are not. That is the antithesis of scientific observation.I think you've misread me, or I've presented my opinions in such a way they cannot but be misread.
I think that in the bible, there are toejameloads of truisms, and there's a strong foundation for construction of a personal moral system. I also believe that it chronicles events as it happened, seen from the authors point of view and the geo-political situation of the day.
However, when they report a natural phenomenon and not only say "god-did-it" on reflex, but also "and he did it because A and B" without supporting that claim, then I object.
Now before you flip that around and say, "Sure, have you considered religion might be false" let me say, "of course".
Before I came to religion I asked that question a lot. But even if I didn't, hey, that's science's way. Close minded? Sure, but so is making up your mind religion is utterly false in the face of even the slightest evidence of corroboration.I won't knock your personal beliefs. In fact, I don't really care about them in the sense that I don't regard them as bad or good. It's just the facts I'm interested in. If someone, anyone, says to me "A is true, because something invisible made it with B, and the proof is circular in nature", then I'll probably say "uhm, wait a minute here dude..."
Kieran, I don't know if you believe this; I wish, very intently, that there is a god or some other supreme being out there. I have a desire so strong for an afterlife that thoughts about not existing are nearly consuming me. I would like nothing more than be able to surrender critical thought and accept something dogmatically.
However, I am not capable of it. I was raised with the idea of evidence precedes faith. Was raised to be a skeptic, to doubt, to demand and produce evidence.
And, lacking such, I regretfully must conclude that although my desires are there, the very fact that they are so strong forces me to question any conclusions I reach about deities and the afterlife, if there is such a thing.
Still, I think I cop out on things from time to time
. A friend lost his mother a while back, and he was naturally complaining about why she was taken from him. I said, and this I believe, that they're not ours to have. We borrow their wonderful beings for just a brief period of time, and then they go back to where they belong.
I refuse to define where that is
. In that sense, I am spiritual, or religious, but even so, I see it as just a bunch of my own weakness/double standards (hey if standards are good, double standards are twice as good)
.
Interesting discussion from e vs c to science and faith in general. Thanks for keeping it civil kieran: I find that every discussion we have about this subject, I gain a little more insight in how the world is seen from the other side, so to speak.
