Stamp out anti-science in US politics

[Viking]

No, I believe that this text (the bible) is much more badly suited to teach moral lessons than say Huck Finn, Oliver Twist or James and the Giant Peach. If Bible stories can result in opposite conclusions then it doesn't lead to the truth. If the Bible doesn't lead to truth then what is the point of the bible?

Well it might not.  But everybody is familiar with it and it is referenced constantly in popular culture and people are used to considering it sacred.  Teaching moral lessons using the Bible is generally more impactful than citing Oliver Twist as very few Americans will be familiar with it outside of the musical and British Lit students.

Good, we agree. Where we disagree is that I think the Bible is a bad moral example and you are agnostic on the issue. Do I understand that correctly?

[Razgovory]

Where do you get Prostitutes out of this?  If you are going to arguing about this stuff, you really should brush up on your theology.

I have sound reason to considering the Adulteress to be equivalent to a modern Prostitute, you should really brush up on your theology.

What is that sound reason?

Read some theology books and get back to me...

I have.  Are you going to answer?

[Viking]

Wait a minute, I thought you didnt do that sort of thing Viking.  I though you learned your morality from Huck Finn.

Don't consider anything I say to Raz to be part of any attempt at a constructive discussion.

I am very bible literate. I had "Knowledge of Christianity" and (after a Human Rights Court Ruling on Religious Discrimination) "Knowledge of Religion" (same course as before only now with one lecture on islam, one on buddhism and one on other religions). I know the bible and I find it stupid. I know my Luther, Calvin and Aquinas. I even know my Plantinga. I've read both and found that Huck Finn is a much much better source of morality than even the best book of the bible.

[Razgovory]

Ah, so you are simply a dishonest hatemonger who has no willingness to debate the issue.  Good day, sir.

[Viking]

If you think that the Bible is nothing more than literature then I have no problem with that. You'd do much better getting your morality from Huck Finn though.

I guess I disagree.  A book written over hundreds of years by many different authors has alot more to say about things than one book written by one dude.  But I guess less damage would come out of people thinking Huck Finn was literally true

A Physics Graduate who wrote a book about Physics would have infinitely more to say about the topic than a book written by every innovator in physics from Archimedes to Newton to Boyle to Faraday to Einstein. The same applies to chemistry, history, medicine, mathematics, geography, literature, languages, biology, education, book binding, beer brewing, car racing etc. etc. This applies to all fields we can define and I assert that it also applies to Morality. If Newton and Archimedes were still considered to have been true then this computer would not work. We can see from Afghanistan that applying the moral truths of Abraham and Moses does not work.

[Barrister]

If you think that the Bible is nothing more than literature then I have no problem with that. You'd do much better getting your morality from Huck Finn though.

I guess I disagree.  A book written over hundreds of years by many different authors has alot more to say about things than one book written by one dude.  But I guess less damage would come out of people thinking Huck Finn was literally true

A Physics Graduate who wrote a book about Physics would have infinitely more to say about the topic than a book written by every innovator in physics from Archimedes to Newton to Boyle to Faraday to Einstein. The same applies to chemistry, history, medicine, mathematics, geography, literature, languages, biology, education, book binding, beer brewing, car racing etc. etc. This applies to all fields we can define and I assert that it also applies to Morality. If Newton and Archimedes were still considered to have been true then this computer would not work. We can see from Afghanistan that applying the moral truths of Abraham and Moses does not work.

*drags fingers away from keyboard, desparate fighting desire to yell at Viking for being stupid again*

[Viking]

*drags fingers away from keyboard, desparate fighting desire to yell at Viking for being stupid again*

If this is all that is needed to bring you to an insensible rage in a discussion maybe I should move to Winnipeg and become a consultant to criminal defense lawyers.

What am I saying that is stupid? What, if any, errors do I have in my reasoning? What, if any, poor assumptions do I make? Unlike religious truth, my truth changes when the facts change or when I get proved wrong. Please help me be more right more often by showing me the errors I made.

[Barrister]

*drags fingers away from keyboard, desparate fighting desire to yell at Viking for being stupid again*

If this is all that is needed to bring you to an insensible rage in a discussion maybe I should move to Winnipeg and become a consultant to criminal defense lawyers.

What am I saying that is stupid? What, if any, errors do I have in my reasoning? What, if any, poor assumptions do I make? Unlike religious truth, my truth changes when the facts change or when I get proved wrong. Please help me be more right more often by showing me the errors I made.

I don't live in Winnipeg any more than you live in Iceland.

[crazy canuck]

Yes, religious morality from a book is necessarily tautologous given the non-existence of god; Socrates sort of makes that clear about 300 years before Jesus. I keep having to repeat this, John 8:1-11 is not a parable. I understand the parable and I understand it's interpretations. I'm possibly the only person here who has taken a comparative religion course of any sort so I know the interpretations that the pastor is not telling you.

The reason I picked this story is because it is Euthyphro's dilemma in the bible. It is religion attempting to deal with a 300 year old philosophical problem that the Gospel writers were almost certainly aware of (given that many of them were greek). Jesus is confronted with an obviously unjust situation. This woman is about to be killed because she could only feed herself by relying on the favor of men she was not married to. This was obviously morally wrong to kill her for trying to feed herself and not die, it was also GOds law that she must die for this crime. Stoning her is obviously wrong, but GOd already said it was right. Euthyphro's dilemma is solved by Jesus threatening to out the Johns among those who are about to stone her.

This is an exceptionally unsatisfactory morality tale because at the end what is right and just is still obviously impious and criminal and the only salvation for this woman was the grace of Jesus (Calvin FTW). It is a story where the moral content is completely reliant on the divinity of Jesus and the inherent sinful nature of man (again Calvin FTW).

Now the point I was trying to make to Valmy that got this discussion started was that this story is completely immoral unless it presumes Jesus as God. It does not stand on it's own merits without the divinity of Jesus. I had gotten Valmy to the point where he agreed that there was not spiritual realm outside of the material world and I had gotten him to agree that happiness, love, envy etc. were artifacts of the material brain. He did argue at that point that the Bible was still a good source for morality, I disagree with that.

You realize that you are now asserting your position is correct because of a particular interpretation of the parable.  Surely you must recogize there are more ways then one to read that particular passage of text.  Your admittedly literalist view and a more nuanced view which understands the deeper lesson.  Socrates can be read in much the same way - In Eythrypho, there is, on the surface, a delimma of morality.  But the deeping meaning of that dialogue is Socrates search for truth.  In other words a literalist approach will always miss the deeper meaning within.

[Razgovory]

I'm a bit surprised by CC on this thread.  He's not exactly the most religious person out there.  I'm surprised by the stance he's taking here.

[Ed Anger]

I'm a bit surprised by CC on this thread.  He's not exactly the most religious person out there.  I'm surprised by the stance he's taking here.

He sees the comedy value.

[Viking]

*drags fingers away from keyboard, desparate fighting desire to yell at Viking for being stupid again*

If this is all that is needed to bring you to an insensible rage in a discussion maybe I should move to Winnipeg and become a consultant to criminal defense lawyers.

What am I saying that is stupid? What, if any, errors do I have in my reasoning? What, if any, poor assumptions do I make? Unlike religious truth, my truth changes when the facts change or when I get proved wrong. Please help me be more right more often by showing me the errors I made.

I don't live in Winnipeg any more than you live in Iceland.

Do you think I'd acatually live in Yellowknife? WTF? Winnipeg has civilisation and the correct pastries.

[Viking]

You realize that you are now asserting your position is correct because of a particular interpretation of the parable.  Surely you must recogize there are more ways then one to read that particular passage of text.  Your admittedly literalist view and a more nuanced view which understands the deeper lesson.  Socrates can be read in much the same way - In Eythrypho, there is, on the surface, a delimma of morality.  But the deeping meaning of that dialogue is Socrates search for truth.  In other words a literalist approach will always miss the deeper meaning within.

You forget how the Euthyphro dialogue ends. Euthyphro asserts that piety is whatever the gods like and leaves. Socrates is then carted off to his trial for impiety. This is not the fuzzy niceness of the pursuit of truth. It is a condemnation of the concept of Divine Command Ethics.

Your post-modern anything goes view of religion is presumably only useful for debate purposes. Do you actually believe that God thinks it is ok for whoever to interpret the holy book in any way they please?

The constant reference to the deeper meaning within is just silly. This deeper meaning is never articulated. In short you are saying that the true meaning of the passage is not directly related to the words used in the passage. Your deeper meaning is ultimately what you brought with you to the passage.

[Oexmelin]

Your deeper meaning is ultimately what you brought with you to the passage. 

Indeed, for that is what interpretation is all about. By definition, one cannot interpret something from elements he can't fathom. Which doesn't mean that it is unchanging, nor that one only reads what one wants. One can certainly argue about the best fits - but one can never positively "prove" meaning.  Which is why I am puzzled by your positivist view of morals.

[Viking]

Your deeper meaning is ultimately what you brought with you to the passage. 

Indeed, for that is what interpretation is all about. By definition, one cannot interpret something from elements he can't fathom. Which doesn't mean that it is unchanging, nor that one only reads what one wants. One can certainly argue about the best fits - but one can never positively "prove" meaning.  Which is why I am puzzled by your positivist view of morals.

I am trying to to convince my debate partners here that

1) The Bible is not a source of knowledge itself (e.g. from God)
2) The Interpretation and Analysis of the Bible only serves as a buffet for you to pick and choose what supports your existing moral and ethical ideas
3) Moral and Ethical knowledge improves over time just like knowledge of Physics and Geography and thus more modern works which either contemplate or are on Ethics and Morality are more relevant

The reason you are confused is that the defense against these claims of mine shift from pre-modern to post-modern views of knowledge. At one time the Bible is a good book with good content and should be used as a source of morals, it then being shown that the Bible has obvious immoral claims then the defense is that it is all a matter of interpretation.

My argument against the Good and True Bible is that it is neither good nor true by showing evil and untruth in the Bible.
My argument against the Liberal Interpretative Bible is that in that case Religion is irrelevant and Mark Twain and Charles Dickens are better sources of Morality and Ethics.

I think the reason you are confused is that I'm debating on two fronts against not a consistent view of nature, but rather a shifting ground fallacy which one moment argues that it is all in the interpretation and the next that the Bible is good and true. They also think I'm a dick for saying the Bible is a bad and immoral book, but they refuse to show that it is good and moral.