I don’t mind being the one who points out that believing in any miraculous stories, extraordinary claims, does require extraordinary evidence to be at all reasonable. As such if the bible were found to be correct on everything verifiable, that would up the probability that it were also correct on the unverifiable, to the point where it would actually be rational to believe in the god described therein. If the bible is found incorrect on verifiable claims (and we all know it is) then we should be less likely to believe in its unverifiable claims.
So while historical errors in the bible do not prove there is no god, it does make believing in the particular god described in the bible about as intelligent as believing in the tooth fairy. Or as fundamentalist Christian and creationist Ken Hamm put it:
“The Bible says God created the earth covered with water, the sun, moon, and stars on day one. Well that’s very different to the big bang. If the big bang’s true, well the Bible got it wrong on astronomy. The Bible says there was a global flood but today we have a lot of people who say no there wasn’t. Well if the Bible got it wrong on geology, and the Bible says God made distinct kinds of animals and plants to reproduce after their own kind. Well today evolutionists say no, one kind of animal changed into another over millions of years so the Bible gets it wrong in biology. Then why should I trust the Bible when it talks of morality and salvation.”
Ham’s argument, which is similar to my argument, may not prove that god does not exist, but it’s anything but a weak.
Well, I think what actually rendered them moot was when Peter dreamt that a watery tart threw a lobster at him. Nothing about the crucifixtion itself actually said anything about shellfish: that was a later interpretation based on Jesus’ apparent disdain for Jewish morality.
That’s my point. I originally questioned the term “religious truth.” I don’t believe there is any such thing except in the elemental sense of “it is true that the Bible says God created the heavens and the earth in six days.” What is spoken of as religious truth seems to me like religious belief as in the two different views on dietary laws. I see no justification for dragging truth into it.
It has been mentioned that a definition of truth is elusive. I think that’s merely a result of phosophers of all kinds multiplying complexity.
So the question for believers is: what is the minimal set of Biblical claims that need to be verified to justify belief. If the answer is none, then what is the basis for belief in your specific deity (as opposed to a general creator god.)
As the quote shows, the answer to this question is clear for Hamm and his ilk. I suspect that the resurrection is required for most Christians - but I agree with someone above that if someone came up with a body a spiritual resurrection could be substituted.
If this is too much of a hijack, I’ll start a new thread, but it is more or less in line with the OP.
Well, it’s Tuesday (I had a busy day yesterday and didn’t even turn the computer on), but here I am. I’m not going to claim that anything in the Old Testament can be proven to any reasonable degree.
What I will say (and I’ve made the point to Diogenes before, but I’ll have to search a bit for the thread) is that I find Finklestein and Silberman to be unpersuasive, I haven’t read their latest book on David and Solomon, but I did read the Bible UnEarthed. To summarize as briefly as possible, F & S don’t really address what Bible-believers actually believe. What their books adress is: take the non-supernatural parts of the Bible (ignoring the stuff described as miraculous), treat that as an independent claim, filter it through current beliefs about ancient Middle Eastern chronology, and try to disprove that. Granted, miracles are by definition impossible by the laws of physics. But ignoring those explanations means that they are not rebutting the actual Bible, they’re rebutting something completely different, which NO ONE believes in.
F & S are quite frankly very set in their faith that the OT LACKS historicity; the recent discovery of what very well might have been David’s palace, which was received with some interest by many archaeologists who are still reserving judgement, was hand-waved away by them. I wonder what, if anything could ever convince them that David or Solomon might have been bigger in their times than mere local cheiftains.
The other thing I will add is that my faith in the Bible’s veracity (and that of most other Orthodox Jews) is based less on any concrete evidence (which obviously does not exist) but rather on the testimony, handed down generation-to-generation for thousands of years, of a public divine revelation at Sinai, in which the original witnesses were the actual participants. Now, I realize that most (if not all) of you guys believe that it’s impossible that the chain of transmission was unbroken and uncorrupted for that long, but I find it more persuasive to believe that in the absence of a forced-conversion culture (such as existed in Christianity and Islam) or a monarchy with religious authority (which ancient Judea seems not to have been; there’s not a single king who escaped criticism in the Bible), that the tales tell of an actual event rather than a fabrication that was somehow perpetuated on a nationwide basis for no obvious immediate benefit.
This is why I accept it unreservedly. The historical “shakiness” of events that happened thousands of years ago is hardly, for me, strong enough reason to disbelieve what generations upon generations of my ancestors and millions upon millions of my cousins (to whatever degree removed) have lived as truth.
If I understood you correctly, you questioned the idea of “religious truth” because the very act of interpetation means that people can construct contradictory religious truths from the same source material. I’m pointing out again that this assumes truth is an objective, identifiable thing, visible in reality. That’s not a bad assumption to make, but it’s clearly not the driving force behind religious truth, where many of the connections between truth and reality are at best obscure (e.g. moral claims) and in many cases impossible to verify (the various attributes of God).
The concept of truth is, indeed, a complex thing. “Correspondence to reality” is one potential definition, but there do seem to be things that are true independent of real-word examples (e.g. logical tautologies, perfect forms of government, and the characteristics of categories of similar things). “Self-consistent” may be a better word for these things than “true”, but they are hardly trivialities. Furthermore, “true” = “correspondence to reality” carries problems of perception; who verifies something as “true”? Do we take a vote if people disagree?
I don’t have solid answers to these questions, but I realize the problems exist. I note also that religious people often refer to “the Truth”, and it is clear they are talking about something other than “correspondence to reality”. I believe they are partially justified–even if I don’t share their vision of thruth–because of some of the complexities associated with knowledge, perception, and truth.
That seems a bit strong. I think plenty of people believed in the existence of the Davidic empire without the need for miraculous explanations. I certainly did. F&S are working as scientists, and as such explanations such as you proposed in the referenced thread (the walls of Jericho sinking into the sand) would be out of bounds. I was not aware that apologetics (pardon the expression) in the Mishna counted as the actual Bible. Adequate reasons are given for the 40 years in the desert, letting the Canaanites rebuild is not one of them. How would they know of the Israelites’ intention, why didn’t they attack, and why weren’t they more ready to defend?
Could you provide a link to this discovery? I’m quite a fan of David, and I must admit I was quite disappointed in their findings. However, I did not find them set in their faith any more than any other scientist expounding a hypothesis is set in his faith. They published a picture of the stele with a reference to the Davidic dynasty, after all, which I think provides evidence of the existence of a Davidic kingdom, if not a big one, so I think it is unfair to claim that they are withholding evidence against their position. I’m quite sure historical evidence of a large and important Hebrew Empire found someplace else would make them change their minds.
Is there any evidence of knowledge of the Torah during this period? There is plenty of mention of the Ark. But whether or not things go back 300 years, there is no dispute that Judaism goes back 2500 years (without forced conversion, as you say) which is miraculous enough.
BTW, how widely accepted is the chronology you mention in the other thread? When I was in Hebrew School we learned that David lived about 1,000 BCE - but I was Conservative, so that might not count.
What this really amounts to is a public building in Jerusalem which dates to about the 10th century. That’s it. There is thus far no evidence that the building has any connection to the Biblical David other than the circular argument that it’s from the TIME of David therefore it BELONGED to David, therefore David was real. It should also be pointed out that this particular dig is being funded and conducted by a group who has an expressed desire to prove the accuracy of the Bible.
While this is certainly a very signficant find and ANR archaeologists are quite interested in it, the “King David’s Palace?” language really has more to do with wishful speculation and PR hype on the part of the dig team rather than any conclusion which is anywhere near being validated yet.
Incidentally, even if this were proven to have some kind of connection to David, it wouldn’t affect F & S’s theories very much. They pretty much accept historicity for David already, and the mere existence of a public building in Jerusalem is not in itself any evidence for a giant, unified kingdom.
Not so. Bible-believers also believe in the non-supernatural events of the Biblical narrative, and that’s what F&S are rebutting. If the Exodus had happened, it would have left some extrabiblical historical and archaelogical evidence – unless God went out of his way to erase it, an idea which should strain credulity even by your standards.
On the contrary, there was one such king – Josiah, author of the Deuteronomic Reform. F&S’ theory is that the Torah as we now know it actually dates from his reign, and it was a fabrication* perpetuated on a nationwide basis for the immediate benefit of instilling the people of Judah with a sense of national-religious solidarity. They also posit Josiah got the idea, and most of the story and doctrine, from refugee priests (or the descendants of such) from the destroyed northern kingdom of Israel.
*Of course, those who perpetuated the fabrication might well have at least half-believed it themselves. It often works that way in this business, you know. I mean, Joseph Smith knew damned well he didn’t have any golden tablets in his closet, but he was ready to claim it as a “pious fraud” to get across what he believed to be the higher truth of a new revelation from God. Just the same with “I have found the book of the Law in the house of the LORD.”
I accept all of the things you say about the difficulties with the word “truth.” However it is not clear to me that religious people who speak of “the Truth” are talking about something other than reality. I think that they think they are describing reality.
I have been hoping that someone would come along and give an example of a “religious truth” that was strictly religious. As things stand right now I hold that when the term is used, the user is trying to use the word “truth” as a mantle to lend an air of authority to their personal belief.
This is about the same as admitting that evidence is far insufficient to support any supernatural claims made in the bible.
This makes it difficult for you to hand-wave off all the killing of man, woman, and suckling child committed by the Jews of nearly every external race they came across, wherever and whenever they had the power to do so. By identifying with such people and actions, how can one reasonably condemn guys like Hitler?
Thanks. I’m not surprised. I suppose the discovery of a palace bigger than what could be supported by the small Davidic kingdom that appears to have been in place could be evidence of an empire, but this isn’t it.
True…the further forward you move in history, the less miracles are involved in the Biblical narrative. That statement of mine mainly refers to the Five Books of Moses period of Biblical history. The 160-year chronology gap is the main issue with the later stuff.
And I can respect that…really, I can. But you’ve got to realize that by dismissing it out of hand, their archaeology fails to speak directly to those who believe in the Bible.
Parable: Believer says “Superman flew from here to the other side of this muddy field.” Skeptic says, “I don’t believe a man can fly. Since I see no footprints in the field, you must be wrong.”
Did the skeptic’s proof address the believer’s belief?
Unless you count the Karaites…which sect was created as a political move and not due to believing what they preach…anyone who believes the OT is literal truth also believes the Mishna’s and Talmud’s explanations.
I beg to differ; the Midrashim say that G-d had that as a secondary agenda.
Going by the Biblical account, the Israelite G-d had just very publicly defeated the regional superpower (Egypt), so they didn’t think they could mount an adequate defense, and many of the local tribes were relatives (Moab, Ammon, Midian and Edom all descended from Abraham or his brother) so they and those they had contact with (i.e., the Canaanites, Emorites, etc) knew where the Israelites had in mind to go from there.
Diogenes has provided that quite nicely. Read some of the links on that page to see Finklestein’s quick dismissal of what most others agree is a significant find, even if they are not yet ready to declare it to be David’s palace.
Hard evidence? No.
I’d wager it’s mainly amongst the Orthodox.
Diogenes:
It’s more than that, Dio. Its presence was PREDICTED based on deduction from the Biblical verse. Isn’t that the essence of scientific method, making a prediction and then proving it true? It’s not merely “a public building in Jerusalem,” it’s a LARGE public building, clearly of Phoenecian construction. That’s not absolute proof that it’s David’s palace…even I wouldn’t go so far as to say that…but it clearly contains properties that would be expected of David’s palace, not just “ho-hum, a building.”
No way. If this really turns out to be a Phoenecian-built palace from the Davidic period, it means that rather than being a local chieftan, David must have had enough riches and/or influence to earn the notice and favor of at least one other pretty impressive king. F & S’s “minimize David” theories rest on the lack of grand structures in or around Jerusalem from that era; discovering such a structure would be a serious blow.
BrainGlutton:
…or unless the supernatural manner in which it was described to have happened would not leave the traces expected of a natural event. A nation subsisting on magical manna will not leave behind garbage heaps of bones and rinds to be found. Or, to put another point on it, see my Superman analogy above.
I’m plenty familiar with Josiah. However, if he had such power, why is it that even he did not escape prophetic censure? Not to mention that the Midrashim about his reign paint the people as being idolatrous behind his back, and that this brought about his downfall - not the level of influence that I would think is required for a religion to take root and survive a diaspora which occurred less than fifty years later.
But more than either of those issues, just the fact that a person in the generation that the Torah was “invented” could have asked his grandfather, or any of his friends’ grandfathers, “Was this really the story of our ancestors, the way your father told it to you?” Moreover, not only was this possible, but the text of the Torah ENCOURAGES such inquiries. Would someone trying to perpetuate a nationwide fraud do that? Of course, it’s possible that he did, but it’s certainly a dumb way to go about it.
…OR
…that David was a complete Phoenecian vassal and lackey, who had to let his “Phoenecian advisors” build a civic centre from which their vassal state was [del]administered[/del] assisted.
Is there any proof that my interpretation of the prescence of a Phoenecian building is any worse than yours?
Uh, predicted? The claim there looks pretty weak, and while there isn’t enough detail there, it could easily also be an after the fact significance (i.e. it seems like they dug in lots of different places based on Bible findings, and in this case happened to turn up something that fit the very vague prescription of “down”)
I still don’t get your incredulity about the idea that myths can evolve over time, even in a society with some scholarly tradition. Even in our society, stories and emphaseses on those stories are in constant flux, even within the span of a decade! And we have near total information accesibility!
What I like about cmkeller is that he doesn’t try to make pseudo-scientific arguments for Biblical claims and that he doesn’t dispute or deny whatever hard evidence does exist. He does what a lot of Christian Fundamentalists should do in that he basically just says, “Hey, it was a miracle. If God wanted the evidence to disappear then it disappeared. If he doesn’t want to leave physical evidence, he doesn’t have to. I take it on faith that it happened but you can believe whatever you want.”
I don’t have a problem with this kind of argument because it’s at least intellectually honest and doesn’t try to distort known facts or scientific method to its own end.
I also appreciate that Chaim actually took the time to readThe Bible Unearthed instead of just waving his hands at it or declaring F&S to be “liberal atheists” out to “disprove the Bible” like a lot of knee-jerk religionists have done. Anybody who can read a book he knows he’s going to disagree with just so he can be informed in his response to it is ok in my book.
I’ll bite. Knowledge–the mental embodiment of truth–is belief with justification. Knowledge of the existence of God is a religious truth. It is not verifiable by direct correspondence to reality; any verification relies on a concept for judging truth different from this, and I’ll label that “religious justification”.
If one’s notion of knowledge does not allow for “religious justification” of truth, that person will not accept that justification, and therefore consider “religious truths” to be merely “religious beliefs”. That’s completely OK on a personal basis, but given the difficulties acknowledged in the word “truth”, I believe it is unjustified to declare religious justifications of truth to be invalid.
I’ll concede that some religious people may say they know God’s existence by a clear manifestation in reality, and for them the unquestioned accuracy of the Bible or other religious text is a key necessity. However I believe if you spoke more carefully to these folks, most would keep believing even if they accepted the scholarly consensus of the Bible’s poor historical value, and they do this because they still sense something as “true” in their religion. That seems irrational to the scientific mind, which makes notions of truth subservient to reality, and so they marshall explanations from psychology and sociology to explain this behavior. I don’t believe that’s either helpful or necessary; understanding how the religious world-view is constructed contrary to the predominant, modern scientific viewpoint is required before these other arguments can be made. cmkellar’s Superman analogy touches on this exact point.
When dealing with matters historical, one can almost always concoct some sort of alternate scenario to explain the evidence. Merely positing an alternate explanation doesn’t refute cmkellar’s point.
C. Behan McCullagh, for example, identifies various criteria that historians should consider, such as explanatory scope, explanatory power, ad hoc-ness, conformance with accepted facts, and so forth. Could David have been nothing but a lowly Phoenician vassal, as you suggested? Perhaps… but where is the independent evidence to support such a view? If anything, stating that David was nothing but a lowly lackey strikes me as an ad hoc explanation – one concocted to support a particular viewpoint – rather than anything suggested by the documentary evidence.
