Standish is a nutcase. I’m not sure if she’s a true believer or just preying on the gullible but I wouldn’t put much stock in anything she says. Her suggested treatment for AIDS involves massive doses of beta carotene and colloidal silver for example.
I don’t know a whole lot about the others, but they’re all at least sort of questionable and any association with Standish is going to poison the well.
Dr. Amit Goswami is the quantum consciousness guy. Sort of “the Universe thinks, therefore it is” kind of thing. Mostly he just has a lot of pretty speeches about self awareness.
Dr. Fenwick is the guy who wrote The Art of Dying. He’s big into near death experiences and has some weird ideas about consciousness exiting independent of the brain. Not too surprising that he and Dr. Goswami would get along.
I don’t know anything about Grinberg other than the experiment with the Faraday cages was originally his. He’s big in to testing psychic things, I think.
I suppose given the thread Drs. Goswami and Fenwick are probably the closest you’re going to find on the Deity side. Fenwick’s take on consciousness is somewhat analogous to a belief in souls although Goswami’s quantum consciousness isn’t really something you could worship in any meaningful way.
If that’s an ideal to strive for, will it be present in heaven? Did those without crushed legs already attain a higher level spiritually and why is it necessary to crush legs to reach that level for some people?
I think there’s a disconnect with certain scientific concepts here. To use the language of falsifiability, we can disprove a claim (that there is a giant octopus in a wallet). However, we cannot conclusively demonstrate the lack of existence of a phenomenon or entity. We can assign a confidence value under experimental conditions to the existence of a phenomenon as long as we can devise a null hypothesis for the lack of existence of that phenomenon (the theory of gravity would be falsified if small objects such as a pen were not attracted to large ones such as the Earth). I’m not exactly sure how these principles apply to forensic data that can not be manipulated under experimental conditions, though falsifiable criteria for evolution have been posited.
I don’t like this line of reasoning. If we’re not literalists, we can hold that the Bible was divinely inspired but man’s interpretations corrupted the meaning. However, that makes certain passages essentially useless. For example, I think the flood would be barbaric if it were a historic event and is not instructive metaphorically. Other incidences, such as Jesus rescinding the need to wash one’s hands before meals or discussions of thought originating in the heart are typically chronistic. If unconventional moral sentiments or counter-intuitive facts would not survive (and there is good reason to believe they wouldn’t, given the antipathy to heliocentrism towards the end of the Medieval period) - then what difference is there between divinely inspired records of mistaken beliefs and mundane records of mistaken beliefs? God, being omniscient, must have known that his followers would misinterpret or misconstrue the instructions he sent. Could He have calculated that Young Earth Creationism would be a better alternative (ensure higher copying fidelity for the better moral sentiments, for example) than either leaving humanity alone until they were sufficiently advanced to accept ample evidence (apparently curing someone’s illness is not revoking their faith, unless done under laboratory conditions) or telling them a slightly different Creation story?
Parsimony.
I don’t doubt that they do convince you. Do you think that these types of evidence should convince others to become Chrisitans or Biblical literalists/Young Earth Creationists?
My uncle believes that his neighbours, 80 year old nuns, watch pornography early in the morning and keep him awake. He believes he’s the target of a CIA program for mind control. He believes his neighbours are hiding in his hedges. I have no reason to doubt that he actually believes these things, since he’s been persecuted for holding them. However, I don’t expect anyone else to share those beliefs. He has not provided any empirical evidence to support his claims. His claims are also unfalsifiable.
Then there’s this or this for instance, which would seem to indicate that Islam is the only true religion.
If you are going to take that approach then you must regard all recorded ancient history as possible fiction. After all, the same writings that you regard as historical fact may just be a work of fiction with real life names and places.
It’s just a lame excuse for atheists to not give the Bible any credibility.
Most people do not take all of the Bible as fictional, as I’ve said. Certainly we should be skeptical of it - just as we should be skeptical about the ancient history as presented by the scholars of the day. In fact, most people do just this. Practically no one today actually thinks that Alexander the Great had a God for a father. No one believes the miracles that Josephus attests too. No one thinks that Vespasian was a miracle worker and no one thinks that bodily fluids can cure the various maladies that the ancient ‘scholars’ did.
So in some respects, you are right, you should approach history with a skeptical eye.
Nonsense - there are good reasons to doubt a lot of the Bible’s material. Should we doubt all of it? No, but we should doubt quite a bit of it.
Not an illegitimate question, just one that I can’t really answer. I am a monotheist and my conception of a higher power is not a comic book wrestling match between bad and good in which one is at risk of being misled by a deceitful deity or seduced by an alternate evil one. Truth is, I don’t have a preconceived idea of a deity other than as a power that is inherently good, that is not entirely knowable but is accessible when sought.
Well yes, exactly. This is how we can tell which parts of Herodotus are probably accurate and true, and which were stories the Egyptians fed to a potentially gullible tourist.
The same criteria for determining historicity are applied to all ancient writings. If it can be confirmed by independent sources, that item is provisionally accepted as factual. Facts and fancies can be in the same work, and before modern concepts of History were developed there were very few writers who felt constrained to only record what actually happened.
Even that criteria is dubious. I do agree that the same criteria should be applied to all ancient writings, but the criteria themselves shouldn’t be set in stone (not saying you are implying this).
Further thoughts:
Thinking about it - you seem to mean just this by saying ‘provisionally accepted’.
Yes, it’s all possible fiction - it may not be true. It has to be supported by evidence and potentially revised when it’s contradicted by better evidence. Only then is it going to be widely accepted. I get the sense you think everybody else so blinded by bias against you that they can’t compose an argument or think through what they are saying. Historical documents of all kinds have to be examined and backed up by other sources.
No historian, worth his salt, would take an ancient text at face value, as gospel.
Texts, books, are written for a reason. They are usaully an attempt by the writer to actively change peoples’ perception on a certain subject.
Hardly any text is purely descriptive, certainly not ancient texts where there was no idea of something like objective journalism..
So yes, even a straightforward looking book like Caesar’s De Bello Gallico is poured over by historians wondering what is fact and what is fiction.
For surely Caesar wrote the book not for a fun read, but as propaganda for himself. The Gallic wars were just one step in his career, they were to boost his popularity for future politics, so he would milk them for all their worth..
So when reading the book today you have to be aware of Caesars’ agenda and be prepared for scholars pointing out “errors”.
So too has the bible been written by men with agenda’s. The more you learn about the times in which the books of the bible were written, learn about the why of a certain text, the more interresting the bible becomes actually.
Alas, with discovering the true meanings in the bible also comes the realisation that the book isn’t holy.
It is not the Word of God, it is the words of men. Men living in early iron-age Iudaea, with early iron-age Iudaean ideas.
Wait, didn’t you claim yesterday that no one was claiming that the Bible is all fiction, but now you are saying it’s possible? Where is the consistency?
The Bible passes every test for verifying historical events:
Real names and places of the time period - check
Archaeological finds to support the stories - check
Extra-Biblical sources that support the Bible’s stories - check
Ancient finds that support modern translations - check (dead sea scrolls)
One compelling piece of evidence is the Merenptah Stela. Israel is signficant enough to be mentioned in this Egyptian campaign. This evidence certainly flies in the face of atheists who claim that the Egyptians never made any mention of the Israelites.
Please cite any “Archaeological finds to support the stories” you have please.
Extra-Biblical sources that support the Bible’s stories? please provide that also, for the big stuff not that there was a minor war lord named David once.
The dead see scrolls are old for us, but 150BCE is centuries after the Pentateuch had been assembled.
There are so many things wrong with your assertion that I don’t know where to start. Suffice to say that you are looking at everything with pious-colored glasses, and all dis-confirming evidence is invisible to you, so there’s no point in my presenting it.
You are also confusing atheists with historians. Even rabbis admit some parts of the Old Testament are not true.
You are misinterpreting him fairly badly. He said it’s possible it’s all fiction, he did not say that he thought it was.
This is a statement of faith.
Real names and places - this is disputable - there is some evidence to suggest that characters such as Lazarus and Barabbas were invented.
But aside from that - real names and places do not mean that the miracles occurred (do you believe Vespasian did miracles?).
Archaeological finds do not support the Bible’s narrative in all cases - this has been brought up already (flood, exodus).
What extra-biblical sources are you referring to? At best, they can verify that Christians believed X, not that X actually happened.
Dead sea scrolls are not NT texts and they have discrepancies with the OT (IIRC, the book of Daniel is heavily in dispute).
What, that there were Isrealities? Exactly what do you think the stone points to?
I’ve seen nothing in this thread by atheists that make this claim - it’s the claim that there was an exodus, that the Isrealites were slaves that is disputed.
I actually agreed with GEEPERS that all history has to be treated as possible fiction: evidence has to be scrutinized and compared against other evidence. Claims can’t just be taken at face value. I didn’t mention the Bible at all. I guess GEEPERS realized that that viewpoint has to include the Bible and is now offended.
Being treated as possible fiction is not the same thing as thinking it is - I agree with your over all analysis and I think we might be saying the same thing.
However, to clarify, are you saying that you think all of the Bible actually is fiction? Or just that we should treat it all as potential fiction?