The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

[Diogenes]

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

[The Barbarian]

OK. You and your holy book know more than the hundreds of thousands of highly intelligent and experience cosmologists and physicists around the world. Take it up with them. I'm sure they are waiting for your game changing contribution with bated breath. Although, if your criticism does have any merit, it seems odd that none of them have considered it worthy of consideration.

Keep in mind, that it's dad and his new interpretation of the Bible that's at issue here. The Bible actually doesn't conflict with anything in science. Many of these cosmologists and physicists are theists, most of them Christians.

[Difflugia]

The Bible actually doesn't conflict with anything in science.

You can't reasonably assert this without heavy qualification. There's certainly allegory in the Bible and I won't claim that acknowledged allegory conflicts with reality, but it seems to me like you're now doing the same thing as inerrantists, just from the other direction: if the Bible conflicts with reality, then it must be allegory.

Is the story of Jacob's goats in Genesis 30 meant to be allegory? Is Elijah's fire from heaven in 1 Kings 18 allegory? Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus meant to be allegory? Is the speaking/hearing in tongues in Acts 2 allegory?

Or is the size of the miracle important? Can a miracle affecting relatively few people at Pentecost or the single man-god Jesus be historical without conflicting with science the way a miraculous global flood can't?

[dad1]

M

One example was the belief that time and space were uniform in the universe. Total conjecture and belief.

And yet you are unable to provide a rational, logical or scientifically reasoned basis for it to be otherwise. Your position is based on wishful thinking alone because it challenges one interpretation of your holy book.

Science has zero knowledge of time in the distant universe, so to pretend there is some 'rational, logical or scientifically reasoned basis' For what it is like is unsound and dishonest. (or pretending others should have some science for their beliefs about the unknown)
"My position' is facing the what should be obvious fact that science does not know. Therefore pretending it does know and squawking for some proof that the beliefs and guesses of so called science are wrong is a bogus position.

You do not know, science does not know. Period. Your guess or belief is not any better than anyone else's. Get over it.

OK. You and your holy book know more than the hundreds of thousands of highly intelligent and experience cosmologists and physicists around the world. Take it up with them. I'm sure they are waiting for your game changing contribution with bated breath. Although, if your criticism does have any merit, it seems odd that none of them have considered it worthy of consideration.

Most posts of yours contain this vitriol against the bible for some reason. Usually people (especially priests in the payroll) of religions (in this case so called science) are not 'waiting' for truth. They are all about preaching their beliefs. I do not measure reality and truth by the utterances of blind religious zealots, sorry.

[brunumb]

M

One example was the belief that time and space were uniform in the universe. Total conjecture and belief.

And yet you are unable to provide a rational, logical or scientifically reasoned basis for it to be otherwise. Your position is based on wishful thinking alone because it challenges one interpretation of your holy book.

Science has zero knowledge of time in the distant universe, so to pretend there is some 'rational, logical or scientifically reasoned basis' For what it is like is unsound and dishonest. (or pretending others should have some science for their beliefs about the unknown)
"My position' is facing the what should be obvious fact that science does not know. Therefore pretending it does know and squawking for some proof that the beliefs and guesses of so called science are wrong is a bogus position.

You do not know, science does not know. Period. Your guess or belief is not any better than anyone else's. Get over it.

OK. You and your holy book know more than the hundreds of thousands of highly intelligent and experience cosmologists and physicists around the world. Take it up with them. I'm sure they are waiting for your game changing contribution with bated breath. Although, if your criticism does have any merit, it seems odd that none of them have considered it worthy of consideration.

Most posts of yours contain this vitriol against the bible for some reason. Usually people (especially priests in the payroll) of religions (in this case so called science) are not 'waiting' for truth. They are all about preaching their beliefs. I do not measure reality and truth by the utterances of blind religious zealots, sorry.

Wow. Saying that someone regards their holy book so highly is vitriol? Good grief. Then you have the temerity to refer to scientists as blind religious zealots. Why am I not surprised? Your constant harping on about time in distance space has nothing to do with any measuring of reality and truth, just wild speculation with no basis.

[The Barbarian]

The Bible actually doesn't conflict with anything in science.

You can't reasonably assert this without heavy qualification. There's certainly allegory in the Bible and I won't claim that acknowledged allegory conflicts with reality, but it seems to me like you're now doing the same thing as inerrantists, just from the other direction: if the Bible conflicts with reality, then it must be allegory.

This is what we have to repeatedly point out; science can't say anything about the miraculous. Can't support it, can't reject it. Science is limited to the physical universe. It's possible to assert that there is nothing but the physical universe, but science can't support that belief.

Is the story of Jacob's goats in Genesis 30 meant to be allegory?

Likely so. Seems that God would have no point to make a miracle like that.

Is Elijah's fire from heaven in 1 Kings 18 allegory?

Not certain, from the text.

Is the bodily resurrection of Jesus meant to be allegory? Is the speaking/hearing in tongues in Acts 2 allegory?

These are miracles. The key is that miracles are not done because God has to mess with creation to make it work. It's to teach us something.

Or is the size of the miracle important?

Who experiences it, is important.

Can a miracle affecting relatively few people at Pentecost or the single man-god Jesus be historical without conflicting with science the way a miraculous global flood can't?

Well, the Bible doesn't say that it's global. There was a huge regional flood in the Middle East at about the right time, but we just don't know if it refers to a real event, or if it's an allegory based on the Mesopotamian/Anatolian flood events. We just don't know. The part about windows in the dome of the sky opening up to let water fall on the earth is obviously figurative, but there can be allegories about real events, so that's not much help.

[dad1]

Wow. Saying that someone regards their holy book so highly is vitriol?

When you constantly refer to that instead of admitting your belief based so called science models are unsupportable, yes. A cheap diversion. Don't worry about beliefs of others, worry about beliefs relied upon and used by science.

Good grief. Then you have the temerity to refer to scientists as blind religious zealots.

That is the truth, they do not know and offer faith based guesses. They are flying blind. That is why we whould not follow their fables and lead, because it will just lead to some ditch.

[The Barbarian]

That is the truth, they do not know and offer faith based guesses.

Evidence. You've confused faith and evidence. The big bang theory came about because the evidence indicated that is what happened. Then more evidence in the form of confirmed predictions made by the theory was found. This is why most scientists Christian and otherwise, accept it as true.

Incidentally, a Christian, a Catholic priest, first proposed the theory. And it was bitterly attacked by an atheist (Fred Hoyle) because it suggested a beginning, which seemed to him a lot like "let there be light."

[dad1]

Evidence. You've confused faith and evidence. The big bang theory came about because the evidence indicated that is what happened.

False. Only a belief based misreading of the evidence.

Then more evidence in the form of confirmed predictions made by the theory was found.

Same as above, misreading things. The cosmic background could be the creation remnant background. (or etc) No one needs an imaginary event to explain it!

This is why most scientists Christian and otherwise, accept it as true.

Believers, however, do not.

Incidentally, a Christian, a Catholic priest, first proposed the theory.

Not my problem. Did I claim they were clever or inspired?

And it was bitterly attacked by an atheist (Fred Hoyle) because it suggested a beginning, which seemed to him a lot like "let there be light."

So what? They are religious nutballs and of course get offended at any hint of the truth.

[The Barbarian]

Evidence. You've confused faith and evidence. The big bang theory came about because the evidence indicated that is what happened.

False.

No, it's quite true. The evidence is what convinced a Christian physicist of the fact.

Then more evidence in the form of confirmed predictions made by the theory was found.

The cosmic background could be the creation remnant background.

Yeah, that's what the discoverer thought. As you learned, an atheistic scientist attacked it, because it suggested a beginning.

This is why most scientists Christian and otherwise, accept it as true.

Believers, however, do not.

You have it backwards. LeMaitre was a Catholic priest. The nonbeliever was Fred Hoyle, who attacked the theory.

So what?

So believers accepted it and an atheist did not. And you don't. So maybe that's why you don't get what believers know.

They are religious nutballs and of course get offended at any hint of the truth.

Why am I not surprised that you are angry at Christians?

[dad1]

You have it backwards. LeMaitre was a Catholic priest.

So does that mean we should take his opinion on whether to get married? Or how God created the universe? Why would I care what church outfit he hitched up to?

The nonbeliever was Fred Hoyle, who attacked the theory.

So what? At least he had the good sense to suspect the new theory was baloney, which it was.

So believers accepted it and an atheist did not.

Catholics accepted a lot of things. Not something I am interested in or care about. If your catholic believed God and His word (or even read it) he might have realized that the earth was created first, and stars later. The poor guy never even made it to first base.

Why am I not surprised that you are angry at Christians?

Don't conflate christians with religious dreamers who invented things that are opposed to Scripture and for which there is no evidence.