Entirely missing the point. The point is the plausibility of any set of core claims. It’s not that there necessarily are turtle backers, but they serve as a hypothetical case which show how easy it is TO build up principles and historical facts around any belief, and modify them just as easily once the unfalsifiable is available. None of this makes them more or less plausible, nor does whether or not this scenario appeals to you, or many.
Not true. We can verify very little of the Bible, actually, and almost none of the major players. Major players who can’t be confirmed include:
Adam
Eve
Cain
Abel
Noah
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Joseph
Moses
Joshua
Solomon
God
There is archaeological evidence for David, although his kingdom seems to have been much smaller than is claimed in hebrew scripture.
There is circumstantial but not direct evidence for Jesus.
Major Biblical events which can be proven not to have occurred include the literal story of Creation in Genesis and the worldwide flood.
Major Biblical events which cannot be confirmed include:
(In the Hebrew Bible)
Abraham’s covenant with God
God testing Abraham by telling him to sacrifice Isaac
The enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt.
The Exodus
The parting of the Sea of Reeds
The giving of the law to Moses by God
The conquest of Canaan by Joshua
A unified kingdom under David and Solomon
(In the New Testament)
The Virgin Birth
Herod’s slaughter of the innocents
The divinity of Jesus
Any of Jesus’ miracles (or any other miracles anywhere else in either Bible)
The resurrection
So really, we have some vague confirmation of a couple of major players but we don’t have a lot of the really, really big ones including the star of the whole show, Yahweh.
We have virtually no confirmation of any major events and we can prove categorically that some of them didn’t happen. Many of the other claims made in the Bible are prima facia impossible and we have no compelling reason to believe they are any more historical than the events of Homer’s Odyssey.
So what makes Christianity any more plausible than Scientology or a Discworld scenario? (Maybe the turtles are invisible)
As others have pointed out, this is only the case if the stated religions are mutually exclusive. You will find that the more enlightened theists on these boards find the idea of exclusivity abhorrent, and indeed the last thing that eg. Jesus would teach.
As for the word “proof” in the title, this appears to be a poor choice. What you have offered is merely some reasoning based on the assumption of exclusivity. It certainly does not count as “proof” in a mathematical or formal logical sense, since your premises might be false and, even if they are true, you might be proposing false conclusions.
Finally, taking the word to mean scientific proof runs into yet deeper trouble. You cannot offer evidence of the nonexistence of an entity, be it the angel Gabriel, Fungus the Bogeyman or the faeries at the bottom of teh garden. All you can do is point to an absence of evidence and provide evidence for an alternative explanation for any phenomenon which that entity is proposed to cause.
Surely the word “enlightened” in this context actually means “liberal”. How does the liberal theist gel their ideas with those of the same faith who are exclusivist? If they think the exclusivists are wrong/misguided, are they not being exclusivist themselves?
jjim, by “enlightened” I meant “well versed in the origins of theistic texts and the study of theistic religion” - it was merely a value judgement on their expertise rather than their “rightness/wrongness”.
And yes, exclusivity of exclusivists would constitute exclusivity. However, every exchange I have witnessed between exclusivists and these unusually enlightened suspects has entailed patient and tolerant explanation, shielding the poor exclusivist sap’s slowly-opening eyes from the incandescent brilliance of his or her ignorance: Fighting exclusivity with inclusivity.
I’m sorry, but I really think the people argue that some religions are demonstrably truer (or at least less false) than others are just missing the boat here. As was pointed out earlier, logic and religion can’t coexist since the supernatural is, by definition, not explainable by logic or the scientific method.
Yes, it may be possible to verify some aspects of a religion’s background and history, but not the core beliefs. Even if you could somehow prove, for example, that somebody named Jesus lived 2000 years ago and went around teaching people good things, there’s no way to verify that he was the son of God, that he performed miracles, that he died for our sins, that he rose from the dead, or anything else that actually forms the foundation of Christian belief (unless, of course, you’re one of those Christians who denies the divinity of Christ and just thinks his teachings are worth following, which is fine except then I’m not really talking to you, now am I?)
When pressed to provide proof of the existence of God, the divinity of Christ, or what have you, a good Christian can only really claim that some things are not meant to be proved and can only be accepted on faith. Faith is, in fact, the unwavering belief on that which cannot be proven, whether it be the existence of God, the divinity of Christ, the existence of souls or an afterlife, that killing infidels will earn you 70 young virgins in the afterlife, or that the Earth is supported on the back of a giant turtle.
Yes, we’ve been in outer space and haven’t seen any giant turtle supporting the Earth. We’ve also studied geology and biology and haven’t found any evidence that the Earth was created in 7 days 6000 years ago, or that humanity sprung from Adam and Eve 6000 years ago. Of course, if you tell a fundamentalist Christian about the scientific evidence that proves the Earth is billions of years old, or that mankind has been around for tens of thousands of years and clearly evolved from lower species, he or she will claim that science has got it wrong, or that God purposely made it LOOK that way as a test of faith. So I really don’t think there’s much a difference between a Turtlite claiming that the Turtle is invisible and/or metaphorical and a Christian claiming that God is invisible and that the biblical story of the creation is metaphorical.
Sure, one could pick and choose one’s religious beliefs, discarding any that conflict with science. And, in fact, the Catholic church has done that for over a thousand years, changing its official doctrines time and time again to match whatever was “proven” to be true (like the fact proven by Aristotle that the Earth was at the center of the Universe and that the other planets and stars revolved around it embedded in giant crystal spheres).
Anyway, my point remains: No religion can be proven to be true, nor can one religion be proven to be truer or less false than any other religion. ALL religions are based on faith in something that cannot be proven (and therefore lies outside the realm of science). And most people’s faith is based entirely on how and where they were raised (the number of people who have actively selected a religion apart from the one their parents believed is vanishingly small in comparison with those who follow the faith of their parents). Heck – there are entire countries with state religions.
Yes, there are pockets of “enlightened” believers who do not dwell on exclusivity, who accept that any faith is “correct” if it leads you become a better person. But these believers are in the vast minority and are also a very recent innovation in the long history of religion.
I still think that the fact that most religions claim to be the only correct religion, coupled with the fact that most members of those religions are only members because of how they were raised, is proof at the very least that most people have got it wrong, and possibly proof that everybody has got it wrong. If the Moslems and Christians and Jews and Zorastrians and Pagans and Turtlists are all equally convinced they are right, and if NONE of these faiths can be verified scientifically, than what makes you so sure that YOUR particular faith is the correct one? Maybe you just were born into the wrong family.
Regards,
Barry
If you’re going to bring up the “science and logic don’t apply to the supernatural” point, it’s worth noting that by this reasoning, the supernatural cannot be discussed, reasoned about, or considered.
We can’t even make assertions about the supernatural, since “by definition” it can’t have any meaningful properties. If it did, logic would apply to it.
“By definiton”, nothing supernatural exists or interacts with this universe, since supernatural things are necessarily beyond the laws that define this universe.
Well, I only brought up the whole faith vs. science dichtomy in response to comments such as the following from ElJeffe:
My basic premise is that all religions are equally “implausible” since all of them rely on faith to explain that which cannot be proved. And since one’s religious beliefs are, in most cases, determined by the happenstance of where and when one was born, nobody really has a right to claim that their [belief in] God is any “truer” or more correct than anybody else’s.
Barry
Nothing supernatural exists within this universe you mean?
Incidentally, if nature is merely a subset of that which exists, why must the prefix “super” in “supernatural” be taken as denoting a strictly mutually exclusive relationship? You appear to be arbitrarily prohibiting Zeus from taking the form of a swan, or Gabriel from emitting photons detectable by the retina of shepherdfolk.
If it’s “outside” this universe, it can’t be said to exist. The criteria we used to determine whether something exists simply don’t apply any more.
Zeus and Gabriel can do what they like – but only if those actions are within the laws of nature. (Even limiting ourselves to the laws as we know them, incredibly powerful entities are logically possible. It’s just that they’re not more than possible, if you follow me.)
Just because we cannot determine whether or not it exists is no reason to declare its nonexistence, surely?
That smacks of the 2-D ants declaring the nonexistence of the 3-D giant, after first declaring that the 3-D world has no intersection with their 2-D one. After all, I did say if nature is merely a subset of that which exists…
That’s science.
If the 2D world truly doesn’t interact with the 3D world, in what way can the giant ever be said to exist? Neither the giant’s presence nor absence change one thing about the 2D world.
English doesn’t really have any words to describe this concept, but what if there “are” things outside the universe? In what way is it meaningful to say that they exist?
The only way to meaningfully define “existence” is as a relative property: something exists relative to something else if it can interact with that thing, directly or indirectly. The 3D giant can therefore not be said to exist relative to the ants.
Just then, the giant poked his finger through the planar world of the ants, who had no explanation whatsoever for the appearance of the giant finger-shaped circle which had appeared in their midst.
We cannot know anything about the potential for an interaction to take place. To be sure that the supernatural does not interact with the natural, one would have to observe every event in the universe for all time. One can believe that the supernatural has never interacted and never will interact with the natural, but to define them to be mutually exclusive is, IMHO, akin to ascribing necessary existence to a being, for example.
Does the OP agree that his analysis does not extend to someone who chose a religion after careful study, as opposed to simply having been born into it and unquestioningly accepting it?
Only if you believe that there is, in fact, a religion out there that is “correct”. Also, since there are plenty of people who have each chosen a different religion after careful study, I think there’s still a good chance that whichever one you have chosen is likely wrong.
What I said in my original post was that if everybody selected their religious beliefs after careful study, as opposed to simply believing what their parents or community believe, then it might be possible to say that the majority of people have it right. As long as all religions are equally implausible and there remains no clear consensus as to which one is “right” (at least, no consensus based on careful study), I’m going to have to stick with the conclusion that nobody can really be sure that their religion is the right one.
Barry
Pascal should have known better.
He asked the question “Is there a benevolent God?” And then claimed that – if you believe and yet you are wrong it cost you nothing, but if you believe and you are right you gain everything, may as well believe.
But, if he had asked “Is there an Evil God?” (you know the sort who would perversely punish you for believing in it), the same logic still works – if you believe and he exists you lose everything, if you believe and he doesn’t exist you lose nothing, may as well not believe.
Worse, he only considered one half of the payoff matrix, a payoff matrix where there is not the row-dominance that his conclusion seems to suggest.
If it wasn’t for the fact that he invented the triangle (before Pascal people would walk past pyramids saying “what the hell is that?” and you couldn’t get a Toblerone for love nor money), I’d say he was an idiot.
** Thus proving that the 2D world and the 3D world were really part of the same system.
Incorrect. We can know that no impossible things occur because an “impossible” event is one that cannot occur. We may err in considering some event as impossible; an event we’ve labeled as impossible might occur. But then we were mistaken, not the universe.
The universe cannot be mistaken by definition.
Ghosts, vampires, unicorns, and Eskimos might exist, but they’re not supernatural. They might be supernatural, but then they don’t exist.
I believe this is a mistake. I see no reason to arbitrarily contend mutual exclusivity between the natural and the existent.
Unless I am misreading you: In the same way that Lib makes the universe a subset of God, are you are making God a subset of the universe? If the universe is “everything which exists”, does that include entities which violate physical laws?
supernatural and the existent, sorry