If you think Mormonism is retarded, why you think the Bible is any different?

[Viking]

Just think how far we have come. We have been chasing god from all the gaps he has inhabited for millennia. This is why religion today has been made content free and just about feeling and inspiring. That is pretty much the only left that we can't test.

The reason no scientific experiment presently can test this is that every time a test becomes available the definition of the nature of god is changed.

This is a strawman.  There is no retreating god of gaps except in Dawkins' dogma.  The problem as it exists now was presented full and foresquare from the very beginning because Aristotlean science (whatever its deficiencies) claimed to be a comprehensive explanation of nature that left very little space indeed for a deity.  Dawkins' 21st century god of the gaps is no different or less ambitious in any material way than the God of Aquinas or Maimonides.

The shift to a Baconian paradigm only made the apologists task easier because science then modestly renounced all propositional ipse dixits and adopted the experimental method as its lodestar.  One price of that paradigm is to have to acknowledge that claims about God cannot be adjudicated by that method, and thus science really has nothing to say about such claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

The term goes back to Henry Drummond, a 19th century evangelist lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on the Ascent of Man. He chastises those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain—"gaps which they will fill up with God"—and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "... an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."[2][3]

The existence of god can only not be a scientific proposition if god has no effect on the world. It is the only truly common claim for all religions that the spiritual world affects the material one. These claims can and are tested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer) and found not to be significant.

If god is not a scientific proposition then god is without consequence in the world, this is a trivial statement, I know but true non the less.

[Berkut]

Sounds like very special pleading to me - there are plenty of examples of theological debate over how literlaly the bible should be taken. Just look at the Protestant reformation era - they were going hammer and tongs at biblical literalism.

No so.  This has already been discussed back-and-forth with Viking, but the sola scriptura of the Reformation era is quite different from the fundamentalist literalism of today.  The Reformers were claiming that every truth about Christ could be found in Scripture and that no extra-Sciptural source was required; but they did not claim that Scripture must or should be read using a word-for-word literalism devoid of any outside interpretive principles; indeed that kind of textual reading would have been incoherent to them.

Galileo was indicted on the basis that the bible states that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that it is the sun that rises and sets, not the Earth.

The idea that the bible is inerrant, and inerrant enough to justify setting legal standards on your ability to believe otherwise, is most certainly nothing "new". Whether it is "different' from today or not isn't the point - the point is that there have been people, many, many people, who believe that the bible is inerrant for as long as their has been a discernible bible, for the most part.

That kind of "textual reading" where they say things like "The bible says X, we think that it literally means X, therefore we are going to form a new splinter group that takes that as doctrine because you don't" has been going on for a very long time.

Hell, the entire Hesse scandal was based on the literal reading of the bible that never actually stated bigamy was wrong. And that was while Luther was still alive!

[crazy canuck]

Why would they have consequences for you, as a non-believer?

Are you seriously contending that people's belief in Jesus as God and what that means only impacts those who believe?


You do live in the Unities States of America dont you?

[The Brain]

Jesus Christ. Has Malthus talked at length about his precious mysticism yet?

[The Minsky Moment]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

OK - that seems to demonstrate that no one actually advocates a God-of-the-Gaps construct, which strongly suggests it is in fact a strawman argument.

The existence of god can only not be a scientific proposition if god has no effect on the world. It is the only truly common claim for all religions that the spiritual world affects the material one. These claims can and are tested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer) and found not to be significant. 

God has enormous effect on the world, but that is not really the inquiry because fiction and fictional characters have effects on the world.
I assume you intend by "effect" to mean some physical, natural effect in accordance with a law of nature.  But by definition, God cannot be cabined by the laws of nature, unless God itself is co-terminus with nature.  Either way, not a scientific proposition, but an axiomatic one.

[Barrister]

Sounds like very special pleading to me - there are plenty of examples of theological debate over how literlaly the bible should be taken. Just look at the Protestant reformation era - they were going hammer and tongs at biblical literalism.

No so.  This has already been discussed back-and-forth with Viking, but the sola scriptura of the Reformation era is quite different from the fundamentalist literalism of today.  The Reformers were claiming that every truth about Christ could be found in Scripture and that no extra-Sciptural source was required; but they did not claim that Scripture must or should be read using a word-for-word literalism devoid of any outside interpretive principles; indeed that kind of textual reading would have been incoherent to them.

Galileo was indicted on the basis that the bible states that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that it is the sun that rises and sets, not the Earth.

The idea that the bible is inerrant, and inerrant enough to justify setting legal standards on your ability to believe otherwise, is most certainly nothing "new". Whether it is "different' from today or not isn't the point - the point is that there have been people, many, many people, who believe that the bible is inerrant for as long as their has been a discernible bible, for the most part.

No one is denying that people have taken some or all of the Bible very literally at points in history.

This is more the counter to Viking's bizarre argument that in order to be a Christian you MUST believe everything in the bible to be literally true.  That really doesn't match with most Christians - both today and historically.

Galileo of course was prosecuted by the Pope, and Catholics certainly didn't then (and do not now) believe in a purely literal Bible.

[The Minsky Moment]

Galileo was indicted on the basis that the bible states that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that it is the sun that rises and sets, not the Earth.

Galileo ran afoul of Catholic doctrine of the time, and to a certain extent, his own lack of diplomacy.  But plenty of cotemporary Christians (includign Catholics) had no problem with heliocentrism, an idea with a long history by Galileo's time, and did not see anything in the Bible as contradictory.  Galileo himself was a believing and practicing Catholic.

[crazy canuck]

This is more the counter to Viking's bizarre argument that in order to be a Christian you MUST believe everything in the bible to be literally true.  That really doesn't match with most Christians - both today and historically.

To be fair to Viking there are some christians who hold that view.  The point he always misses is that not all (perhaps not even many) christians hold that view.

[crazy canuck]

Galileo ran afoul of Catholic doctrine of the time, and to a certain extent, his own lack of diplomacy.  But plenty of cotemporary Christians (includign Catholics) had no problem with heliocentrism, an idea with a long history by Galileo's time, and did not see anything in the Bible as contradictory.  Galileo himself was a believing and practicing Catholic.

Can you give some examples of these rather forward thinkers?

[garbon]

This is more the counter to Viking's bizarre argument that in order to be a Christian you MUST believe everything in the bible to be literally true.  That really doesn't match with most Christians - both today and historically.

To be fair to Viking there are some christians who hold that view.  The point he always misses is that not all (perhaps not even many) christians hold that view.

Tamas said one isn't Christian unless one holds that view.

[The Brain]

This is more the counter to Viking's bizarre argument that in order to be a Christian you MUST believe everything in the bible to be literally true.  That really doesn't match with most Christians - both today and historically.

To be fair to Viking there are some christians who hold that view.  The point he always misses is that not all (perhaps not even many) christians hold that view.

Tamas said one isn't Christian unless one holds that view.

I'm not a Christian and I don't hold that view. QED

[crazy canuck]

This is more the counter to Viking's bizarre argument that in order to be a Christian you MUST believe everything in the bible to be literally true.  That really doesn't match with most Christians - both today and historically.

To be fair to Viking there are some christians who hold that view.  The point he always misses is that not all (perhaps not even many) christians hold that view.

Tamas said one isn't Christian unless one holds that view.

Not sure what you want me to do with that tidbit of information.

[Berkut]

Sounds like very special pleading to me - there are plenty of examples of theological debate over how literlaly the bible should be taken. Just look at the Protestant reformation era - they were going hammer and tongs at biblical literalism.

No so.  This has already been discussed back-and-forth with Viking, but the sola scriptura of the Reformation era is quite different from the fundamentalist literalism of today.  The Reformers were claiming that every truth about Christ could be found in Scripture and that no extra-Sciptural source was required; but they did not claim that Scripture must or should be read using a word-for-word literalism devoid of any outside interpretive principles; indeed that kind of textual reading would have been incoherent to them.

Galileo was indicted on the basis that the bible states that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that it is the sun that rises and sets, not the Earth.

The idea that the bible is inerrant, and inerrant enough to justify setting legal standards on your ability to believe otherwise, is most certainly nothing "new". Whether it is "different' from today or not isn't the point - the point is that there have been people, many, many people, who believe that the bible is inerrant for as long as their has been a discernible bible, for the most part.

No one is denying that people have taken some or all of the Bible very literally at points in history.

This is more the counter to Viking's bizarre argument that in order to be a Christian you MUST believe everything in the bible to be literally true.  That really doesn't match with most Christians - both today and historically.

Galileo of course was prosecuted by the Pope, and Catholics certainly didn't then (and do not now) believe in a purely literal Bible.

Ahhh, so is this more about those who believe that EVERY part of the bible is literally true?

OK, carry on then.

Although I suspect Vikings point is more a matter of noting that the typical salad bar Christian doesn't really have any objective means by which understanding which parts of the bible one should believe literally (and hence throw poor Galieleo under arrest) and which parts one can simply assume are not to be taken literally, and so we can ignore them at our leisure ("That entire theme against amassing massive wealth? Clearly does not apply to me!"). From anyone not intimately involved in it, it all looks pretty much like most people just decide to believe whatever they like, and then figure out how to "interpret" the bible to suit those beliefs.

To the extent that most people even think about it - reality is that most "Christians" give a lot more thought to where they should have dinner than what their faith actually means beyond what their upbringing told them it means.

[garbon]

This is more the counter to Viking's bizarre argument that in order to be a Christian you MUST believe everything in the bible to be literally true.  That really doesn't match with most Christians - both today and historically.

To be fair to Viking there are some christians who hold that view.  The point he always misses is that not all (perhaps not even many) christians hold that view.

Tamas said one isn't Christian unless one holds that view.

Not sure what you want me to do with that tidbit of information.

Just further context for what's been discussed.

[The Brain]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

OK - that seems to demonstrate that no one actually advocates a God-of-the-Gaps construct, which strongly suggests it is in fact a strawman argument.

The existence of god can only not be a scientific proposition if god has no effect on the world. It is the only truly common claim for all religions that the spiritual world affects the material one. These claims can and are tested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer) and found not to be significant. 

God has enormous effect on the world, but that is not really the inquiry because fiction and fictional characters have effects on the world.
I assume you intend by "effect" to mean some physical, natural effect in accordance with a law of nature.  But by definition, God cannot be cabined by the laws of nature, unless God itself is co-terminus with nature.  Either way, not a scientific proposition, but an axiomatic one.

"natural effect in accordance with a law of nature"?