How can we trust skeptics...

[The Laughing Man]

...when they can't even get the simplest things right? For example, the skeptic-favorite accusations of "the Bible says pi = 3" and "the Bible says bats are birds." IMO, the latter is a case of ignorance of the original languages the Bible was written in, and the former is just plain dishonest. This isn't brain surgery or rocket science, folks. Anyone with even the tiniest bit of interest in research and scholarship can easily discover how both of those accusations are completely without merit. Skeptics still tout them as examples of "biblical errors." How then can we trust them with other claims of "contradictions" and/or "errors?"

[DivineOb]

And I could say the same thing about creationists who insist that the eye presents some sort of difficulty for evolution... Really, though, I've seen a number of theists handwave away much more serious challanges as if they were not more of a difficulty that those trivial examples you cited, so I'd ask how you draw the line as to what a 'reasonable' challenge to the bible is and what isn't. Also, doesn't this imply that there do exist 'reasonable' challeges to the bible?

[Socrates]

DivineOb:

• Really, though, I've seen a number of theists handwave away much more serious challanges as if they were not more of a difficulty that those trivial examples you cited, so I'd ask how you draw the line as to what a 'reasonable' challenge to the bible is and what isn't.

Fact is, many atheists DO raise those completely crass arguments against the Bible. In my own country of Australia, this is illustrated by the most prominent and vicious anti-creationist, Ian Plimer (see his bloopers).

It's really about time that skeptics exercised some quality control.

[The Laughing Man]

And I could say the same thing about creationists who insist that the eye presents some sort of difficulty for evolution...

I expected someone to say something like that. Exactly what does that comment have to do with this issue? How does it defend skeptics? If the answer is, "It doesn't" (and that is the answer), then it amounts to nothing by a diversionary cheap-shot.

Really, though, I've seen a number of theists handwave away much more serious challanges as if they were not more of a difficulty that those trivial examples you cited, so I'd ask how you draw the line as to what a 'reasonable' challenge to the bible is and what isn't.

A reasonable challenge would be one based on actual research and scholarship, which would include at least some knowledge or confirmable reference to the languages, the periods of time and cultural settings in which the books of the Bible were written. The challenges would also have to take into account biblical context (e.g. paying attention to full passages instead of focusing on one verse, as is done by skeptics in regards to pi and 1 Kings 7:23). Finally, the skeptic should have some semblence of openness to learn and to admit when they are wrong. I haven't seen many skeptics who are willing to do either, though, which is a shame. I actually respect and am more willing to interact with those who are. Sam Gibson (aka "Cygnus") - who you may have heard of - is a prime example of a skeptic who is not willing to learn nor admit his errors.

Also, doesn't this imply that there do exist 'reasonable' challeges to the bible?

Of course there are. I don't deny that and I've even seen a few, but the vast majority of skeptic challenges are those which are easily disproven with surprisingly little effort. I use the "pi" and "bats" challenges as primary examples since they are the most familar and also because they provide a "blueprint" of challenges and the lack of merit thereof.

[The Laughing Man]

In my own country of Australia, this is illustrated by the most prominent and vicious anti-creationist, Ian Plimer (see his bloopers.

Ow! Geez, Socrates! (Hey, that rhymes!) Warn us first, would you? That was painful to read.

[John Powell]

JINX72:
How can we trust skeptics...

...when they can't even get the simplest things right?

POWELL:
Good question. I think skeptics should avoid using bad arguments. Unfortunately, I don't yet know which arguments are good and which ones are bad.

Imagine a good friend told you that a certain book they just read was the infallible guide to happy computer use. Given the likelihood of errors of all sorts in any book, especially non-scientific self-help ones with exaggerated claims, you might find that to be incredibly unlikely.

Now, suppose you decide to silence your friend's over exuberance by showing him errors in his perfect book. You quickly find pieces of off-set text and typos and such things. Your friend then explains that there was a reason for that offset type, it was not a printing error, and he appears to be right. He tells you that the typos were an error of the typesetter, but the original typed copy given to the printer was flawless.

That might put you in an analogous position of many of the skeptical arguments against an inerrant Bible.

Then there's the "more educated" errantist. This would be like you looking more carefully in the book and finding where the author apparently contradicted himself or contradicted "known" scientific facts. Some of these problems would be more easily "harmonized" than others.

Some of these might be like the less significant bat - bird issue, or the more relevant death of Judas issue.

Although I recognize that there are explanations for the bat-bird issue, the fact of the problem makes sense to my atheist attitude about the origin of the Bible. If the Bible were the word of man rather than the word of God then I would expect there to be things wrong like thinking birds are like fish because they both "swim" in water (birds in the blue sky water) and thinking rabbits chew the cud, and thinking that bats are more similar to birds than cows.

JINX72:
For example, the skeptic-favorite accusations of "the Bible says pi = 3" and "the Bible says bats are birds." IMO, the latter is a case of ignorance of the original languages the Bible was written in, and the former is just plain dishonest.

POWELL:
Probably not dishonesty, but just ignorance of the inerrantist harmonizations.

JINX72:
This isn't brain surgery or rocket science, folks. Anyone with even the tiniest bit of interest in research and scholarship can easily discover how both of those accusations are completely without merit.

POWELL:
Someone who already believes there must be errors in any book isn't likely to look too deeply to harmonize it when they find what appears on the surface to be an error. It's the person who has a vested interest in defending its perfection that might go to the trouble.

JINX72:
Skeptics still tout them as examples of "biblical errors." How then can we trust them with other claims of "contradictions" and/or "errors?"

POWELL:
We should probably stick with the "best" examples of problem texts, but even those end up being harmonized by the skilled apologists.

I wonder if just about any reasonable book could be harmonized by some of the methods used to harmonize the Bible. Certainly Mormons defend the Book of Mormon in similar ways.

John Powell

[Socrates]

John Powell:

• Some of these might be like the less significant bat - bird issue, or the more relevant death of Judas issue.

Why? Both have long ago been answered. For the latter, see
www.tektonics.org/judasdeath.html

• Although I recognize that there are explanations for the bat-bird issue, the fact of the problem makes sense to my atheist attitude about the origin of the Bible.

The only "problem" is modern chronological snobbery which states that Linnaean classification is Right with a capital R and every other classification scheme is wrong.

• If the Bible were the word of man rather than the word of God then I would expect there to be things wrong like thinking birds are like fish because they both "swim" in water (birds in the blue sky water)

I know not what thou meanest.

• ... and thinking rabbits chew the cud,

They DO bring up what has been swallowed, but by refection, and their jaw motion is practically identical. It's perfectly reasonable for God to inspire Moses to compose a practical guide for the Israelites than worry about modern classifications on rumination. See www.tektonics.org/cudchewers.html

• .... and thinking that bats are more similar to birds than cows.

They are, in their mode of locomotion. So would Mr Powell also question the knowledge of modern marine ecologists who classify water-dwelling life in a very similar way according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers).

[mickiel]

[They poses a quality i like, they just don't swallow anybodys teaching of the bible. In my view that is an admirable quality to have. There are many translation errors in the bible, just because one can see them does not make them a skeptic.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 09:34 AM
Socrates:
It's perfectly reasonable for God to inspire Moses to compose a practical guide for the Israelites than worry about modern classifications on rumination.

Why? Is this because the Israelites were ignorant barbarians and therefore the Old Testament was written for ignorant barbarians?

And if the Israelites had thought the Earth was flat, presumably God would have given them the practical advice not to sail too close to the edge, or they might fall off, rather than worry about modern classifications of sphericity.

Presumbaly the wonderful advice in Numbers 5 was practical advice given by God, who was not concerned with modern classifications of justice and fair trials.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 06:58 AM
Jinx72:



Ow! Geez, Socrates! (Hey, that rhymes!)

I've seen Bob and Ted's Excellent adventure twice. It does not rhyme.

[Evangel]

Today @ 01:05 AM post located here
DivineOb:

And I could say the same thing about creationists who insist that the eye presents some sort of difficulty for evolution... Really, though, I've seen a number of theists handwave away much more serious challanges as if they were not more of a difficulty that those trivial examples you cited, so I'd ask how you draw the line as to what a 'reasonable' challenge to the bible is and what isn't. Also, doesn't this imply that there do exist 'reasonable' challeges to the bible?

show me an example of abiogenesis. what about irreducably complex organisms?

if you think about it logically in order for an organism to develop lungs and have them function at the same time he would have to have his brain evolve and be able to regulate the new organ all at the same time. Show me examples of transitional fossils, i personally would like to see nonvertebrate examples.

How much time would be necessary for evolution to occur? What is the likelihood of a planet being created that has the ability to support life? What are the odds of that planet actually developing life? seems to me like the odds aren't to good for our existence.

evolution has plenty of hurdles to overcome, scientific incompetence and the eye are a small portion of them. Unless the factual data coming in to scientists makes a dramatic change and suddenly evolution gains evidence instead of losses it, the theory you hide behind (the scapegoat for your actions) will come crumbling down and burn like Soddom and Gommorah.

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 01:02 PM post located here
Evangel:
What is the likelihood of a planet being created that has the ability to support life?

A strong likelihood. Life can exist in various different conditions. Earth is especially well suited to supporting life, but there's a good chance that life could exist (or have existed) on Mars, for instance.

What are the odds of that planet actually developing life? seems to me like the odds aren't to good for our existence.

In such an incomprehensibly large universe, the odds are very good.

Unless the factual data coming in to scientists makes a dramatic change and suddenly evolution gains evidence instead of losses it, the theory you hide behind (the scapegoat for your actions)

Which actions are those? Are you under the delusion that Christians are better people than atheists?

...will come crumbling down and burn like Soddom and Gommorah.

Yeah. Or maybe not. And as the years pass, you'll look gradually more ridiculous as the evidence continues to mount against you.

Paul

[DivineOb]

Today @ 06:45 AM post located here
Jinx72:
I expected someone to say something like that. Exactly what does that comment have to do with this issue? How does it defend skeptics? If the answer is, "It doesn't" (and that is the answer), then it amounts to nothing by a diversionary cheap-shot.

Well, my point is that if we're going to follow a rule of 'if one raises widely discredited objections in one area, then nothing that person says is of value' (which is the impression I got from your OP), then it seems that the opinions of a great number of people are ruled out. I'm down with applying this rule if you are... my question was an attempt to inquire as to whether you really are serious about applying this principle.

A reasonable challenge would be one based on actual research and scholarship, which would include at least some knowledge or confirmable reference to the languages, the periods of time and cultural settings in which the books of the Bible were written. The challenges would also have to take into account biblical context (e.g. paying attention to full passages instead of focusing on one verse, as is done by skeptics in regards to pi and 1 Kings 7:23). Finally, the skeptic should have some semblence of openness to learn and to admit when they are wrong. I haven't seen many skeptics who are willing to do either, though, which is a shame. I actually respect and am more willing to interact with those who are. Sam Gibson (aka "Cygnus") - who you may have heard of - is a prime example of a skeptic who is not willing to learn nor admit his errors.

Can you give some examples of biblical 'difficulties' which justify a skeptical outlook?

Of course there are. I don't deny that and I've even seen a few, but the vast majority of skeptic challenges are those which are easily disproven with surprisingly little effort. I use the "pi" and "bats" challenges as primary examples since they are the most familar and also because they provide a "blueprint" of challenges and the lack of merit thereof.

I don't know... If there were very specific and very precise rules for biblical analysis and interpretation then I might be inclined to agree with you, and maybe for extremely trivial cases you can state that anyone raising particular 'challenges' should not be taken seriously. But, as soon as you move beyond very trivial 'difficulties' you are getting into a realm where there people (even christians) will no longer interpret passages in the same way... and I think at that point you lose all claim to someone making no effort to properly interpret the text.

[DivineOb]

Today @ 01:02 PM post located here
Evangel:



show me an example of abiogenesis. what about irreducably complex organisms?

if you think about it logically in order for an organism to develop lungs and have them function at the same time he would have to have his brain evolve and be able to regulate the new organ all at the same time. Show me examples of transitional fossils, i personally would like to see nonvertebrate examples.

How much time would be necessary for evolution to occur? What is the likelihood of a planet being created that has the ability to support life? What are the odds of that planet actually developing life? seems to me like the odds aren't to good for our existence.

evolution has plenty of hurdles to overcome, scientific incompetence and the eye are a small portion of them. Unless the factual data coming in to scientists makes a dramatic change and suddenly evolution gains evidence instead of losses it, the theory you hide behind (the scapegoat for your actions) will come crumbling down and burn like Soddom and Gommorah.

I'll be happy to discuss this with you if you create a thread in the Biology section, but I don't want to sidetrack this thread. I raised the example of the eye merely as an example of a different sort of argument which continues to come up despite being widely discredited by both 'sides'.

[Ryokan]

and aside from the legitimacy of the arguement, isn't it unfair, bigoted in fact, not unlike the way you accuse atheist of acting, to judge an entire group by the stupidity of some its members? You and I are both conservatives, Jinx, but if liberals could judge us by our less stellar members, we'd be in trouble.