[_ Old Earth _] Atheist Darwinism vs the Bible "for Christians"

[BobRyan]

Subject thread started as apparently you have determined that it needed.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=33061#p392276

This is a reformatted and edited version of that last post I did on Exegesis -- open invitation to see just how widespread your notion of "rejecting exegesis" is -- and conversely how widely accepted my statements on the objectivity of Exegesis is -- (in case you have imagined to yourself that I make this up).

Your linked post fails to address any of the points I have made except to repeat your own claims

As I said "subject thread started" -- feel freel to add to the quotes "from you" that I already placed there.

regarding the objective certainty of exegesis. That mutiple religions and multiple denominations within individual religions can exegete the same texts with different conclusions - different conclusions that you seem to admit to - is sufficient grounds for my argument that exegesis only presumes objectivity and does not guarantee it. Nothing you have posted in the link suggests otherwise.

That fact that "opinions vary" or that "results vary" depending on the level of objectivity you will "allow yourself to embrace" is NOT sufficient grounds to abandon the objective practices of the scientific method OR the objective practices of exegesis.

Obviously.


1. You make wild claims about Exodus 20:8-11
2. I ask that you substantiate those wild assertions with actual objective methods used to reach them IN THE TEXT -- which is as we all know - exegesis. I do this so you will stop using eisegesis as it suits you.

3. You attack exegesis.

4. I show BY CONTRAST that not only do my methods EMBRACE the objectivity of exegesis where you condemn objectivity in Exegesis -- I ALSO SHOW that the conclusions reached are AGREED UPON by BOTH Darwinist and YEC groups -- so far you have done nothing to even approximate such a level of objectivity except to argue "some other people agree with my conclusions" -- as compelling as such an argument might be for "some".

What is there "to miss"?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

You seem to think that I fail to understand what exegesis claims to be able to achieve and how it claims to be able to do this. I understand this fully. I do not accept that the claim can be justified, however, because both the writer(s) and the analyst(s) interact with the text and that interaction is necessarily subjective.

Again - it is like saying "Democracy is not better than a dictatorship because selfish people will still exist" your argument makes no sense when one admits that objective methods like Exegesis AND The scientific method are NOT graded by their ability to "Delete humans" or human thinking --they are valued for their ability to get humans to be more OBJECTIVE.

You keep arguing against that objectivity AS IF to flee objectivity is a "better solution".

It is not.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And yet we find Pope Leo XIII warning Catholics against the soundness of Protestant exegesis:

Though the studies of non-Catholics, used with prudence, may sometimes be of use to the Catholic student, he should, nevertheless, bear well in mind -- as the Fathers also teach in numerous passages -- that the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt outside of the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith.

Quoted at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05692b.htm

Fine - go to the link on this board dedicated to that subject


viewtopic.php?f=14&t=33061#p392276



SHOW your work - SHOW that it is better to "make stuff up as it suits you" than to use the objective methods of exegesis.

Hint: Your NewAdvent link did NOT provide a BETTER method for reaching an objective reading of the text than Exegesis.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Acts 17:11 "They studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO".
Your argumentative response upon reading such a text would apparently be "IMPOSSIBLE!!".

Which brings us back to your whole "Bible is corruptly wrong... can't know what it says even in cases where it might be right... no need to try objectivity when reading it so for sure no Exegesis.." -- combined with your "claim" that you "are Christian". What exactly does that mean? So far all I see is you and our atheist friends posting in lock-step.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Also, much of the torah was an oral tradition right? Being passed through words, and then finally written down. Ever play the telephone game where you whisper something to a person on your right and they then do the same, continuing down a few times. Usually you come up with something very different than what was said.

Imagine that note being treated the same way.

wrong.

In Exodus and Deuteronomy we see that AT THE SPEAKING of the Ten Commandments the tablets of stone WRITTEN were place INSIDE the ark and prior to the death of Moses the BOOKS of Moses were place BESIDE the ark.

So in the case of anyone in Moses' day - we START with the WRITINGS.

You can not write off what LK is saying as people reading what they want to read. His point is very valid, and any objective person will see that.

The only way you can hold to your interpretation of that is to say that the NIV or KJ Bible is the inerrant word of God and at all times must be taken literal. Are you prepared to do that?

Wrong again. You need to find an accurate term for what you mean -- ALL Christians accept the statement of Christ "I AM THE DOOR" as symbolic AS they also take the SYMBOLS in Daniel 7 and 8 for example or those in Rev 12 and 13 for example...

When you say "At all times take LITERALLY" you either make a gross err not knowing what you are saying OR you simply MEANT to say "take the bible as actually being TRUE or factual not knowing that sometimes the Bible is a corrupt innaccurate text" as L.K believes and as many or most athiests and agnostics would agree.

Care to "clarify" your statement because right now it looks like you meant to say "inerrant word of God and at all times must be taken as being actually true".

Since I believe you claim to be an atheist -- that last statement is probably the closest to what you and L.K are agreeing to -

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

....1. You make wild claims about Exodus 20:8-11

Not true. I have made no 'wild claims' about Exodus 20:8-11. If you think I have and can show this I will acknowledge it. All I have done is contest the grounds for your certainty about the conclusions you draw from your exegesis of Exodus 20:8-11..

2. I ask that you substantiate those wild assertions with actual objective methods used to reach them IN THE TEXT -- which is as we all know - exegesis. I do this so you will stop using eisegesis as it suits you.

Again not true. There are no 'wild assertions'. My only argument has been that exegesis does not provide the certainty of objective understanding and is prey to the subjective baggage that both writer(s) and analyst(s) bring with them.

3. You attack exegesis.

True, although I prefer thoughtful questioning as a description of my approach. You have shown me nothing that supports your argument that exegesis is a tool capable of providing objective certainty.

4. I show BY CONTRAST that not only do my methods EMBRACE the objectivity of exegesis where you condemn objectivity in Exegesis

Not true for the third time. I do not condemn objectivity; I only say that it is illusory. True, your methods may claim to 'embrace the objectivity of exegesis', but sadly this is not a substitute for demonstrating unequivocally that exegesis is as wholly objective as you assert, nor that its conclusions are in and of themselves evidence for anything.

-- I ALSO SHOW that the conclusions reached are AGREED UPON by BOTH Darwinist and YEC groups

Not true yet again. You have shown no such thing. Yes, you have repeatedly claimed that this agreement exists, but you have never evidenced it.

-- so far you have done nothing to even approximate such a level of objectivity except to argue "some other people agree with my conclusions" -- as compelling as such an argument might be for "some".

Rubbish.

What is there "to miss"?

Apparently everything that makes you uncomfortable in your narrow complacency.

 

[lordkalvan]

.... it is like saying "Democracy is not better than a dictatorship because selfish people will still exist"....

No, it is vaguely like saying democracy is not perfect and has many failings, though perhaps not as many as dictatorship.

....your argument makes no sense when one admits that objective methods like Exegesis AND The scientific method are NOT graded by their ability to "Delete humans" or human thinking --they are valued for their ability to get humans to be more OBJECTIVE.

Which does not mean that either will necessarily be successful in this endeavour. And again I question your attempt to place exegesis on an equal footing with the scientific method. How can the experimental result from a particular exercise in exegesis be falsified?

You keep arguing against that objectivity AS IF to flee objectivity is a "better solution".

It is not.

I do not argue against objectivity. I argue that in the example of the textual analysis we are discussing there is no objective certainty about the understanding that results, nor about what it provides evidence for. I have yet to see you provide any evidence persuasive of the alternative view you espouse.

 

[lordkalvan]

Fine - go to the link on this board dedicated to that subject

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=33061#p392276

Your link does not work. What about the remainder of the points I made in this post?

SHOW your work - SHOW that it is better to "make stuff up as it suits you" than to use the objective methods of exegesis.

How many times can you miss this point? I do not 'make stuff up as it suits [me]', nor do I say that exegesis is not a useful tool for looking at biblical text. I only say that it is a tool of limited value and must be understood as such because it only presumes objectivity, cannot guarantee that objectivity, and does not provide evidence for anything beyond the text itself.

Hint: Your NewAdvent link did NOT provide a BETTER method for reaching an objective reading of the text than Exegesis.

Did I ever claim it did? I used this and other links and references only to illustrate the fact that there are different opinions from yours as to the value of exegesis and that different understandings result from and are assigned to exegesis based on the religion and denomination of those carrying it out.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
SHOW your work - SHOW that it is better to "make stuff up as it suits you" than to use the objective methods of exegesis.

L.K
How many times can you miss this point? I do not 'make stuff up as it suits [me]', nor do I say that exegesis is not a useful tool for looking at biblical text. I only say that it is a tool of limited value and must be understood as such because it only presumes objectivity, cannot guarantee that objectivity, and does not provide evidence for anything beyond the text itself.

Fine -- then either USE the objective methods of exegesis to render the text of Ex 20:8-11 OR use something EVEN MORE objective. I am good with that -- just "do something" other than talk about what you might do or what gaps exegesis might leave you with in your efforts to render the text.

BAck to the point - SHOW that your views survive Ex 20:8-11 "in the most objective way you know how to use" FOR THE TEXT of Ex 20.

Hint the answer can not be "avoid Ex 20 at all costs".

It also can not be "imagine stuff in and around Ex 20 as needed". You have to use the actual language IN THE TEXT and SHOW that the Moses' readers are getting something from it other than the glaringly obvious meaning we all see in it.

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

"SIX days you shall labor ... for IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE..."

.. ready set "go".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

.... it is like saying "Democracy is not better than a dictatorship because selfish people will still exist"....

No, it is vaguely like saying democracy is not perfect and has many failings, though perhaps not as many as dictatorship.

Whatever - I am simply asking that you use it -- or something better.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
-- I ALSO SHOW that the conclusions reached are AGREED UPON by BOTH Darwinist and YEC groups

Not true yet again. You have shown no such thing. Yes, you have repeatedly claimed that this agreement exists, but you have never evidenced it.

What ???!!

Darwin -

Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused thee. But I had gradually come by this time, i.e. 1836 to 1839, to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus….

By further reflecting… that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracle become, - that the men of the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,- that they differ in many important details///

I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation…. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans… which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

Darwin (1887) III p. 308 [Barlow (1958)].

See the Movie Expelled to get BOTH Dawkins and Provine on this same point - -going from Christian to atheist due to the clear and undeniable gap between the Bible and Darwinism.

Or see the PBS interview with Dawkins

PBS – Dawkins Segment
http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/trans ... frame.html
Salient Points


QUESTION: If you could wave a magic wand and have the world be the way you think it should be, what would you see as being the proper relationship between science and religion today?

MR. DAWKINS: If I am asked is there a role for religion, would I just like to wave a magic wand and wipe it out? It's not quite so straightforward as that…
At the present we think DNA really is a double helix. If ever that's found to be false we throw it out of the window and we start again, and we don't try to rediscover some inner symbolic meaning, which is exactly what they're trying to do with things like the Book of Genesis. They have thrown it out as historical fact, which is what it always was thought to be, and which many of its authors presumably intended it to be -- and they have now replaced it with a symbolic meaning: the true meaning of the Book of Genesis is this that or the other. You know the kind of thing I'm talking about. I think that it is a waste of time. I think it's nonsense.

You criticize intelligent design, saying that "the theistic answer"--pointing to God as designer--"is deeply unsatisfying"--presumably you mean on a logical, scientific level.

DAWKINS: Yes, because it doesn't explain where the designer comes from. If they're going to emphasize the statistical improbability of biological organs-"these are so complicated, how could they have evolved?"-- well, if they're so complicated, how could they possibly have been designed? Because the designer would have to be even more complicated.


Obviously, a lot of people find the theistic answer satisfying on another level. What do you see as the problem with that level?

DAWKINS: What other level?


At whatever level where people say the idea of God is very satisfying.

DAWKINS: Well, of course it is. Wouldn't it be lovely to believe in an imaginary friend who listens to your thoughts, listens to your prayers, comforts you, consoles you, gives you life after death, can give you advice? Of course it's satisfying, if you can believe it. But who wants to believe a lie?

Is atheism the logical extension of believing in evolution?

DAWKINS: They clearly can't be irrevocably linked because a very large number of theologians believe in evolution. In fact, any respectable theologian of the Catholic or Anglican or any other sensible church believes in evolution. Similarly, a very large number of evolutionary scientists are also religious. My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17889.html

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, your quotation from Darwin bears no relation whatsoever to your claim. I have no idea what the point is you think you are making here as it appears lost in the realms of whatever bizarre logic you follow. Your 'What ??!!!' is tiresome, disingenuously incredulous and wholly irrelevant. If you have shown 'that the conclusions reached are agreed on by both Darwinist and YEC groups', please provide a link or shut up about it.

I have no intention of watching Expelled for quotemined footage of the individuals you name, only to discover that whatever else they may say they say nothing that supports your claim.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, your quotation from Darwin bears no relation whatsoever to your claim.

My claim is that Darwin ADMITS that there is no way to "imagine" the Bible fitting Darwinism.

My claim is that the simple reading of the text is sooo obvious EVEN DARWIN "gets it".

I have no idea what the point is you think you are making

I find that response -- odd in the extreme.

Darwinism is not served by denying all facts at hand nor be censoring yourself from seeing things like the movie Expelled just because it is not the obligatory pablum-for-darwinism.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Getting a lot of silence on these two posts -

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31943&p=392524#p392516

Kinda looks like you are challenging Exodus 20:8-11 by avoiding it as often as possible.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I have no intention of watching Expelled for quotemined footage of the individuals you name, only to discover that whatever else they may say they say nothing that supports your claim.

"See no evil?"

Why not be open to the facts instead?

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

I have no intention of watching Expelled for quotemined footage of the individuals you name, only to discover that whatever else they may say they say nothing that supports your claim.

"See no evil?"

Why not be open to the facts instead?

Why not give me referenced quotations, citations or links that, when I follow them, actually support your claims rather than having not even peripheral relevance to them? I have no intention of following you down the diversionary path opened by the factual or otherwise worth of Expelled.

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, your quotation from Darwin bears no relation whatsoever to your claim.

My claim is that Darwin ADMITS that there is no way to "imagine" the Bible fitting Darwinism.

This is a blatant shifting of the goalposts. I feel like I am trying to herd cats.

[quote:29cc8]
I have no idea what the point is you think you are making

I find that response -- odd in the extreme.[/quote:29cc8]
Maybe you should reflect on your communication skills.

Darwinism is not served by denying all facts at hand nor be censoring yourself from seeing things like the movie Expelled just because it is not the obligatory pablum-for-darwinism.

I am not 'censoring' myself from seeing Expelled - although the reviews I have read would not lead me to rush to spend money on doing so - I am only doubting that, if I did see it, I would find it supported your claim as you say it does, given that none of your supposedly supporting references have so far done so.

 

[lordkalvan]

.... -- then either USE the objective methods of exegesis to render the text of Ex 20:8-11 OR use something EVEN MORE objective. I am good with that -- just "do something" other than talk about what you might do or what gaps exegesis might leave you with in your efforts to render the text.

There is no wholly objective rendering of the text that allows me to either fully contest or fully agree with your conclusions. This is the point you fail to grasp.

Do you understand that the action of writing is itself necessarily subjective?

Do you understand that the meaning assigned to words by translators is necessarily subjective?

Do you understand that the analysis of the meaning of text is necessarily subjective?

Do you understand that different religions and denominations draw different conclusions from their exegesis of OT verse?

Do you understand that the conclusion which must follow from the last point is that the 'objectivity' of exegesis is therefore shown to be wholly subject to the baggage of conscious and unconscious assumptions, prejudices, biases, pre-conceived ideas and doctrinal attitudes that those carrying out the exegesis bring with them?

BAck to the point - SHOW that your views survive Ex 20:8-11 "in the most objective way you know how to use" FOR THE TEXT of Ex 20.

Hint the answer can not be "avoid Ex 20 at all costs".

Missing the point again. I neither avoid nor engage with Exodus 20:8-11 as such; I only point to the obvious weaknesses in your claims for absolute objective certainty for your conclusions from exegesis of that or any other biblical verse.

It also can not be "imagine stuff in and around Ex 20 as needed". You have to use the actual language IN THE TEXT and SHOW that the Moses' readers are getting something from it other than the glaringly obvious meaning we all see in it.

As opposed to your showing that the hypothetical readers you refer to are getting from it what you claim they are getting from it. I am as capable of reading the text as the next person. What do you think I get from it, as to opposed to what do you think I should get from it? What reasons can you put forward for persuading me that I should agree with what you take away from it? And by reasons, I do not mean, 'it's soooo incredibly obvious' or 'it's glaringly obvious'. Provide some evidence other than the text that supports the conclusions you draw from the text. I very much doubt that you can do this.

"SIX days you shall labor ... for IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE..."

.. ready set "go".

Unfortunately there's a nasty little full stop/period in that ellipsis between 'labor' and 'for' that rather ruins your assumption that day must necessarily be used in the same sense throughout the verses. As I have said before, neither you nor anyone else can claim absolute certainty about this; you cannot even know that the story of creation week occurring over seven days was not devised to mimic the already existing seven days of the Jewish week in order to rationalize doctrinal concordance between the two.

 

[Free]

I think much of the difficulty in all of this is that yom can mean a literal 24-hour period or an indeterminate period of time.

 

[lordkalvan]

I think much of the difficulty in all of this is that yom can mean a literal 24-hour period or an indeterminate period of time.

Yes, this is one complicating factor, but it is also the case that in English - and, I presume, in Hebrew as well - words can be used figuratively, metaphorically or allegorically. Writing and the analysis of writing are both influenced by subjective factors and the substance of my argument is that because of this we cannot be absolutely certain that the conclusions we draw from our analysis are objectively definitive.