Scientifc accuracy in the Scriptures.

[bluethread]

Based on the concept of omniscience, many claim the plain language of the Scriptures should be scientifically accurate. So, if there were a verse that said that the Sun is the center of the solar system, would that make it acceptable on that basis?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 4 by bluethread]

No it would not. It was not a revelation since there were a number of cultures that understood that as every day common knowledge.

I am not addressing how we got the information. I am asking whether the information is sufficient to pass the a deity would know better test. That is that, if there is anything attributed to a deity, it must be scientifically accurate.

Yes you are, the entire concept of a revelation is based on the idea that the information was revealed by a deity, if something is common knowledge it can not be "revealed" except in a Monty Python skit.

Regardless of whether the statement in the OP is a revelation or not, can the document containing that statement be discredited based on the scientific accuracy of the statement? That is the question.

[bluethread]

I think I get the purpose of this thread. If there is a deity, and he thinks himself smart, then whatever he says should at the very least be in line with what basic scientific inquiry should show. That is, any deity can be shown to be a moron if he claims the planets orbit the Earth; similarly, as long as the information presented isn't incorrect, a non-revelation verse can still show basic scientific literacy as long as it's actually correct.

But the thing here is, when putting pen to paper, the Scriptures clearly have the influence of other cultures in them. Everything from the polytheistic undertones to the myriad expressions of Yahweh's attributes (that vary based on author and time period), without enough consistency to even make the claim that the same entity is the one present throughout biblical history. I certainly don't care if Yahweh is quoted as saying "Well earth is round, so there you go," if in previous books he went with, "Yeah, I stretched out the sky like a tent." Because the deity being written about has had wildly different expressions, and scientifically accurate was never actually been one of the iterations of Yahweh shown throughout the Old and New Testaments. And the reason for that is pretty basic: The authors were scientifically illiterate, and saw no reason to have the god they write about be anything more than a "father, king, savior, shepherd, refuge," without ever really doing a good job of selling the idea that he is also a "teacher," or "scientist."

What is so hard to understand here. It has been repeatedly argued that if a statement in a document is not scientifically accurate, it can not be a revelation from a deity. If the statement in the OP were in such a document, would it indicate that document was not inspired by a deity, based on that view? You scientific types seem to like to come up with all kinds of excuses for not answering a basic question.

[benchwarmer]

Man, there is a lot of concern over whether an accurate scientific statement would prove that there is a deity. However, that is not the question. It is the opposite question. It has been argued that information in a holy book that is not accurate scientifically discredits that holy book. It appears that you believe the statement in the OP would not, in and of itself, discredit that holy book on those grounds. Is that indeed you position?

I wasn't concerned about accurate statements in a holy book proving a deity, but your post #4 that I replied to had the words "revelation from a deity". Thus, I, perhaps wrongly, assumed you meant that we should somehow think the statements in this holy book were indeed revealed by some deity.

Let me start again.

If any book has accurate claims in it, then we can only say the book contains some accurate claims. Directly answering your OP, yes, accurate claims in a book would be acceptable in so far as there would be nothing to complain about concerning those accurate statements.

So, what does that buy us? Maybe I don't understand the point of the OP.

I only jumped in when I saw the word 'revelation'. If you were reading a math textbook and everything seemed consistent and based on previous information, but all of a sudden there is a paragraph that said "Thus sayeth the unicorn of purple and pink." What would you think? The rest of the book seems fine, I guess I'll buy this odd statement as well?

The title of this discussion is "Scientific accuracy in the Scriptures". So, can we also talk about what we do when we see inaccurate stuff that supposedly was inspired by the one who created everything? Lack of detail is one thing, completely wrong is another. Fully grown trees require light to grow. Light (on this planet) comes from the Sun primarily. The Bible says fully grown trees were around before the Sun. Clearly the author either didn't think this through or wasn't actually inspired by anyone who should know what happened. Thus, this discredits, at the very least, the entire creation account in Genesis. Now, does this discredit the other documents that were tacked into the same volume? Not directly no, but it doesn't help. There's plenty of wrong things and contradictions to go around so no need to worry about just one document pulling the rest down.

[Neatras]

I think I get the purpose of this thread. If there is a deity, and he thinks himself smart, then whatever he says should at the very least be in line with what basic scientific inquiry should show. That is, any deity can be shown to be a moron if he claims the planets orbit the Earth; similarly, as long as the information presented isn't incorrect, a non-revelation verse can still show basic scientific literacy as long as it's actually correct.

But the thing here is, when putting pen to paper, the Scriptures clearly have the influence of other cultures in them. Everything from the polytheistic undertones to the myriad expressions of Yahweh's attributes (that vary based on author and time period), without enough consistency to even make the claim that the same entity is the one present throughout biblical history. I certainly don't care if Yahweh is quoted as saying "Well earth is round, so there you go," if in previous books he went with, "Yeah, I stretched out the sky like a tent." Because the deity being written about has had wildly different expressions, and scientifically accurate was never actually been one of the iterations of Yahweh shown throughout the Old and New Testaments. And the reason for that is pretty basic: The authors were scientifically illiterate, and saw no reason to have the god they write about be anything more than a "father, king, savior, shepherd, refuge," without ever really doing a good job of selling the idea that he is also a "teacher," or "scientist."

What is so hard to understand here. It has been repeatedly argued that if a statement in a document is not scientifically accurate, it can not be a revelation from a deity. If the statement in the OP were in such a document, would it indicate that document was not inspired by a deity, based on that view? You scientific types seem to like to come up with all kinds of excuses for not answering a basic question.

Chill with the "you scientific types" for a moment. That's already grating my nerves.

Let's go through this point by point. "It has been repeatedly argued that if a statement in a document is not scientifically accurate, it can not be a revelation from a deity." Honestly? I don't argue that.

It's entirely possible that a deity exists which is a total moron. It's entirely possible it would relay information to humans that is scientifically illiterate. I actually think such a scenario is hilarious. So this statement, by itself, doesn't actually move the discussion forward for me.

Now, that's not satisfactory, I imagine. Instead, what you want is whether or not we can touch specifically on the Yahweh character in the Bible. The thing is, nearly every apologist will argue that Yahweh is super smart, and if he's not super smart, then he's not God; but, he totally is super smart, and that's one reason we can be sure that he's God. So in order to be smart, there's a basic level of intelligence required to deserve that mantle; us skeptics aren't going to just declare somebody to be smart.

"If the statement in the OP were in such a document, would it indicate that document was not inspired by a deity, based on that view?" Wait, you mean this statement? "So, if there were a verse that said that the Sun is the center of the solar system, would that make it acceptable on that basis?"

Okay, I need to walk through this one.

If the statement in the OP [that the Sun is the center of the solar system] were in such a document, would it indicate that document was not inspired by a deity, based on that view [that if a statement in a document is not scientifically accurate, it can not be a revelation from a diety]?

The above doesn't actually parse. Its structure is contradictory. Let's set up some terms. Statement A will refer to the statement "The Sun is the center of the solar system." Premise A will be the premise "This was inspired by a deity."

"If statement A were in a document, would it indicate that Premise A is false, based on the view that if statement not-A were in a document, then premise A is false."

You've somehow flipped the script here. And this is partially due to your If-Then structure being reconfigured to pose entirely as an accusatory question. And I think you've managed to completely misunderstand our arguments. Under no circumstances are we arguing that "if the statement in the OP were in a document, it would mean that document did not come from a deity." There isn't a logical argument to follow there based solely on the information presented.

You might think I'm being pedantic, but I'm legitimately concerned. You phrase so many statements as questions that unpacking them is difficult. Your "question" which you seem to be annoyed I haven't answered is built in a way I can't actually answer it without being contradictory.

"If statement A, then premise A is false. Based on that view mentioned (which is not coherent) not making statement A makes premise A false."

Please walk me through this again. I want to understand. Did you accidentally negate a term you wanted to be positively asserted? Or did you want to double negate something so that it would have a logical structure? Or is there a meaning I'm not able to grasp based on a cold reading of the structure? The reason why I'm holding us up here is because I don't believe that I've understood the argument you're making, and pressing onward would be a violation of the Principle of Charity, which necessitates arguing against the strongest version of my opponent's arguments.

EDIT: And one last thing: When I say this, I mean it with all seriousness. I am not trying to be a smart-ass. I'm not trying to trip you up, or be sarcastic, or be a jerk who tries to make you spell out every detail just to annoy or rattle you. My tone here, which I want to make as clear as possible, is one of equal parts inquisitiveness and constructive criticism. So please don't lay into me about how I'm avoiding the question (if that's what you're going to do, based on your earlier possibly derogatory term "you scientific types"). That's not my purpose with this post.

[bluethread]

If any book has accurate claims in it, then we can only say the book contains some accurate claims. Directly answering your OP, yes, accurate claims in a book would be acceptable in so far as there would be nothing to complain about concerning those accurate statements.

If the statement in the OP was in a document, would you say that document was suspect based on that statement? Yes or no?

[Neatras]

If any book has accurate claims in it, then we can only say the book contains some accurate claims. Directly answering your OP, yes, accurate claims in a book would be acceptable in so far as there would be nothing to complain about concerning those accurate statements.

If the statement in the OP was in a document, would you say that document was suspect based on that statement? Yes or no?

DUDE. Please stop for one second. Your OP is phrased as a question. "If the Bible had a verse that said the sun was the center of the solar system, would that make the document acceptable?" Now you're asking "if the statement in the OP was in a document, would you say that document was suspect based on that statement?"

The reason why we haven't given you a yes or no yet is because you changed the script. Suddenly we have to answer "Well, making a scientifically accurate statement means the document itself is at least scientifically literate." But we also have to say "no, having a scientifically accurate statement does not mean the document is false." But how were we to anticipate the second question? We're STILL WORKING ON YOUR FIRST QUESTION. What are you asking for? What answer do you want? What can we honestly say that will satisfy you without you changing the script again later?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 13 by benchwarmer]

Not that you have done this, but grouping people together and telling them that they are avoiding answering a question does seem to be a common approach when a theist goes into a detailed explanation on this forum.

That said, I was not asking whether you agreed with the premise. I simply stated that this is the premise of some on this forum. I am now testing that premise by asking a simple question. If a statement, common to many grade school science texts, was found in a document that many claimed to be inspired by a deity, would it be reasonable to reject that claim based entirely on the scientific accuracy of that one statement?

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 17 by bluethread]

I don't see how that's the case, bluethread. If someone makes a scientifically accurate statement, that does not mean they are "suspect." If anything, I would trust someone more the more often they were right.

However, that does not mean I must then agree with the claim that the text is inspired by a deity. That is, in fact, one of the possibilities. It simply isn't a basis for rejecting the text.

To put it simply: I will not reject a text for being scientifically accurate. I will not reject the claim that it is inspired by a deity for being scientifically accurate. If appropriate, I will decide if I think a book is inspired by a deity based on factors including scientific literacy; however, I will only "count points against it" if it is scientifically inaccurate.

[bluethread]

If any book has accurate claims in it, then we can only say the book contains some accurate claims. Directly answering your OP, yes, accurate claims in a book would be acceptable in so far as there would be nothing to complain about concerning those accurate statements.

If the statement in the OP was in a document, would you say that document was suspect based on that statement? Yes or no?

DUDE. Please stop for one second. Your OP is phrased as a question. "If the Bible had a verse that said the sun was the center of the solar system, would that make the document acceptable?" Now you're asking "if the statement in the OP was in a document, would you say that document was suspect based on that statement?"

The reason why we haven't given you a yes or no yet is because you changed the script. Suddenly we have to answer "Well, making a scientifically accurate statement means the document itself is at least scientifically literate." But we also have to say "no, having a scientifically accurate statement does not mean the document is false." But how were we to anticipate the second question? We're STILL WORKING ON YOUR FIRST QUESTION. What are you asking for? What answer do you want? What can we honestly say that will satisfy you without you changing the script again later?

[bluethread]

If any book has accurate claims in it, then we can only say the book contains some accurate claims. Directly answering your OP, yes, accurate claims in a book would be acceptable in so far as there would be nothing to complain about concerning those accurate statements.

If the statement in the OP was in a document, would you say that document was suspect based on that statement? Yes or no?

DUDE. Please stop for one second. Your OP is phrased as a question. "If the Bible had a verse that said the sun was the center of the solar system, would that make the document acceptable?" Now you're asking "if the statement in the OP was in a document, would you say that document was suspect based on that statement?"

You misquoted the OP. It says, "would that make it acceptable on that basis?" In the first sentence I mentioned the Scriptures, plural, as what is being judged , in this forum, based on scientific accuracy. Also, I did not mention a document in the OP. So, the "it", singular, can not be referring to either one of those. The "it" refers to the verse. Next we have "on that basis". On what basis? The beginning of the OP refers to scientific accuracy. So, that is the basis on which I am asking that the acceptability of the verse be judged. Now, is that hypothetical verse acceptable based on scientific accuracy? Yes or no?

Regarding post #18, I did not ask if you would accept that the text was inspired by a deity, but whether that verse would be rejected based on scientific accuracy, if one considered scientific accuracy to be a litmus test.