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.

[dad1]

[Replying to dad1 in post #126]

All within the dreamscape la la land of faith based circular what if fable manufacturing.

So you still have nothing to offer but this kind of meaningless word salad? Since you obviously can't refute any of the actual science, how about telling us when the "times of Genesis" were, and how you come up with that time period? And please don't resort to a "dreamscape la la land of faith based circular what if fable manufacturing" ... that would discredit your answer.

The creation was 6000 and change actual years ago. The flood was probably something like 4500 actual years ago. In imaginary time of science, the flood was likely about 70 million years ago. The time when nature likely changed was around the time of the tower of Babel. That was over a century after the flood. So our forces and laws were here after that. There is no actual science to determine what nature was like before that time of the Babel incident. Nothing to refute. So far it has been a game of whack a mole where you and others offer some strawman arguments as if they either related to the issue or were science rather than belief based.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #131]

The creation was 6000 and change actual years ago. The flood was probably something like 4500 actual years ago. In imaginary time of science, the flood was likely about 70 million years ago. The time when nature likely changed was around the time of the tower of Babel. That was over a century after the flood. So our forces and laws were here after that. There is no actual science to determine what nature was like before that time of the Babel incident. Nothing to refute. So far it has been a game of whack a mole where you and others offer some strawman arguments as if they either related to the issue or were science rather than belief based.

Fortunately for the world, and science, views like this (ie. young earth creationism) are not taken seriously anymore and represent extreme literal interpretation of the Genesis stories. These stories have been shown, positively and without any doubt whatsoever, to be false for so long now that very few people still accept a literal interpretation. No amount of handwaving and science denying can change this situation. Your battle to support these old tales as being a correct description of ... anything ... was lost long ago.

[dad1]

[Replying to dad1 in post #131]

The creation was 6000 and change actual years ago. The flood was probably something like 4500 actual years ago. In imaginary time of science, the flood was likely about 70 million years ago. The time when nature likely changed was around the time of the tower of Babel. That was over a century after the flood. So our forces and laws were here after that. There is no actual science to determine what nature was like before that time of the Babel incident. Nothing to refute. So far it has been a game of whack a mole where you and others offer some strawman arguments as if they either related to the issue or were science rather than belief based.

Fortunately for the world, and science, views like this (ie. young earth creationism) are not taken seriously anymore and represent extreme literal interpretation of the Genesis stories. These stories have been shown, positively and without any doubt whatsoever, to be false for so long now that very few people still accept a literal interpretation. No amount of handwaving and science denying can change this situation. Your battle to support these old tales as being a correct description of ... anything ... was lost long ago.

Fortunately your opinion is shown to be completely unsupportable with a double dose of anti God bias.

Work on that

[Inquirer]

Christ revealed profound knowledge, knowledge undiscoverable through any other means. Of course you don't see that, you don't accept that and that's fine, each in his own time, but it is true.

Please support your claim by providing examples for us to scrutinise.

Why?

[Inquirer]

[Replying to dad1 in post #84]

People lived many centuries.

No Homo sapien has ever lived for many centuries.

If this is a conclusion based on evidence, I'd love to see that.

It is physiologically impossible.

If this is a conclusion based on evidence, I'd love to see that.

But that is just one of many details from the Bible that can be dismissed as nonsense (along with global floods, talking snakes, a man living in the belly of a"great fish" for 3 days, a ~6000 year old universe, etc.).

Anything can be dismissed as nonsense, all it takes is the desire to do so.

There is a lot of myth, allegory, story telling, etc. that cannot be taken literally.

What does "cannot be taken literally mean"? Christ revealed the concept of revelation through parables, and further more he did so to hide the truth from those not intended to receive it. Therefore if you see the Bible as mumbo-jumbo then that fact that you do so proves he was right, it's not your time just yet.

but some people do take it all literally and are forced to deny science because it so convincingly destroys many of the fundamental biblical claims.

You are mistaken, science "destroys" no Biblical claim, what it might destroy is your interpretation of a Biblical claim.

From your posts you appear to be a perfect example of this kind of person, but fortunately science will carry on and not be influenced by old religious tall tales. You're fighting a battle that has already been lost.

Although your post is not directed at me, I must point out that I've had to repeatedly explain many of the core foundations of science to rather a lot of people in this forum recently, including many self professing "scientists". The degree to which science is misunderstood here is astonishing, basics too like the definition of a law, the role of assumption and belief in science, the history of how scientific explanations are regularly cherished then later abandoned and new ones pursued, all of these and more are epistemologically foundational to science yet almost completely misunderstood by many here in the science area.

Those who claim to "understand science", to speak as "scientists" to imply that their interpretation of science is the "right" interpretation, have no intellectual credibility with me, not when they do not understand these fundamental concepts, you are fortunate to be able to engage with me, one day you'll appreciate this.

[Inquirer]

Science is a method.
1) Ask a question.
2) Perform research.
3) Establish your hypothesis.
4) Test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment.
5) Make an observation.
6) Analyze the results and draw a conclusion.
7) Present the findings.

Please tell us where this faith is that enters the equation. If your being honest, is it the same type of faith as believing in one of the available gods?

Allow me:

1. Questions always reflect one's worldview, one's existing beliefs about reality.
2. Research requires faith in one's abilities to interpret what they find, correctly.
3. To form a hypothesis relies on assumptions that we can represent reality through human imagination.
4. Experiments assume that a yet to be performed experiment will always yield the same result as a past experiment.
5. All observations are interpreted, different worldviews held by different people will often yield different interpretations.
6. Analysis assumes that apparent relationships prove real relationships.
7. This last step is to establish whether others agree with your interpretations.

This is old hat, basic fundamentals of science and rationalism, it's rather sad that so few self professing "scientists" seem unaware of this.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #135]

Although your post is not directed at me, I must point out that I've had to explain many of the core foundations of science to rather a lot of people in this forum recently, including many self professing "scientists". The degree to which science is misunderstood here is astonishing, basics too like the definition of a law, the role if assumption and belief in science, the history of how scientific explanations are regularly cherished then later abandoned and new ones pursued, all of these and more are epistemologically foundational to science yet almost completely misunderstood by many here in the science area.

Those who claim to understand science, to speak as "scientists" to imply that their interpretation of science is the "right" interpretation, have no credibility with me, not when they do not understand these fundamental concepts, you are fortunate to be able to engage with me, one day you'll appreciate this.

This is just another example of your insistence that only your interpretations are correct and everyone else is wrong, only you know how science works, yada yada yada. I've interacted with scientists in various disciplines for 40 years at work, conferences, collaborations, field missions, as associate editor of a science journal, etc. and have never once encountered someone with your "know it all" attitude who constantly talks down to eveyone who doesn't agree with their personal take on things. That kind of attitude is not at all representative of any member of the scientific community I've met or read.

As a result, it certainly doesn't phase me in the least if I have no credibility with some unknown internet person having outlier views on science and how it works. There's certainly nothing to be learned from it, or any consequences. The flat earth community might welcome you though ... many of them have similar attitudes and a similar playbook when their flat earth talking points are challenged with real science. The "globetards" just can't see the errors in their interpretations of just about everything, so they stupidly continue to believe the Earth is spherical despite all of the "proof" by the flat earthers that it is shaped like a pizza.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #135]

Although your post is not directed at me, I must point out that I've had to explain many of the core foundations of science to rather a lot of people in this forum recently, including many self professing "scientists". The degree to which science is misunderstood here is astonishing, basics too like the definition of a law, the role if assumption and belief in science, the history of how scientific explanations are regularly cherished then later abandoned and new ones pursued, all of these and more are epistemologically foundational to science yet almost completely misunderstood by many here in the science area.

Those who claim to understand science, to speak as "scientists" to imply that their interpretation of science is the "right" interpretation, have no credibility with me, not when they do not understand these fundamental concepts, you are fortunate to be able to engage with me, one day you'll appreciate this.

This is just another example of your insistence that only your interpretations are correct and everyone else is wrong, only you know how science works, yada yada yada.

I never once stated that my interpretations are right and every other interpretation is wrong, if the only way to progress your position to make up false accusations then it doesn't help your credibility.

What I said is what I said, we each interpret the world like it or not, this is a fact.

I've interacted with scientists in various disciplines for 40 years at work, conferences, collaborations, field missions, as associate editor of a science journal, etc. and have never once encountered someone with your "know it all" attitude who constantly talks down to eveyone who doesn't agree with their personal take on things. That kind of attitude is not at all representative of any member of the scientific community I've met or read.

It isn't my concern if you interpret what I write as "talking down" to you, such an interpretation says rather a lot about you, you need to realize that.

As a result, it certainly doesn't phase me in the least if I have no credibility with some unknown internet person having outlier views on science and how it works. There's certainly nothing to be learned from it, or any consequences. The flat earth community might welcome you though ... many of them have similar attitudes and a similar playbook when their flat earth talking points are challenged with real science. The "globetards" just can't see the errors in their interpretations of just about everything, so they stupidly continue to believe the Earth is spherical despite all of the "proof" by the flat earthers that it is shaped like a pizza.

OK, so after venting all that, are you disagreeing with me on some point? if so what? if not, why the rambling?

[brunumb]

Christ revealed profound knowledge, knowledge undiscoverable through any other means. Of course you don't see that, you don't accept that and that's fine, each in his own time, but it is true.

Please support your claim by providing examples for us to scrutinise.

Why?

So we can assess if you are speaking the truth or simply making more unsupported claims.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #138]

I never once stated that my interpretations are right and every other interpretation is wrong, if the only way to progress your position to make up false accusations then it doesn't help your credibility.

You often don't directly call someone an idiot either ... you just imply it constantly with thinly veiled comments to that effect. I'll requote your comments in post 135 (underlines mine):

"Although your post is not directed at me, I must point out that I've had to explain many of the core foundations of science to rather a lot of people in this forum recently, including many self professing "scientists". The degree to which science is misunderstood here is astonishing, basics too like the definition of a law, the role if assumption and belief in science, the history of how scientific explanations are regularly cherished then later abandoned and new ones pursued, all of these and more are epistemologically foundational to science yet almost completely misunderstood by many here in the science area.

Those who claim to understand science, to speak as "scientists" to imply that their interpretation of science is the "right" interpretation, have no credibility with me, not when they do not understand these fundamental concepts, you are fortunate to be able to engage with me, one day you'll appreciate this."

If the underlined parts aren't "talking down" then you don't know what that phrase means.

It isn't my concern if you interpret what I write as "talking down" to you, such an interpretation says rather a lot about you, you need to realize that.

An interpretation? Try reading the underlined parts in the quote above.

OK, so after venting all that, are you disagreeing with me on some point? if so what? if not, why the rambling?

I disagree with most of your views on things, as stated in my posts. Specifically, that you seem to think you have to explain science to anyone here who doesn't believe everything you claim about evolution, interpretation, assumptions, etc. Did it ever occur to you that it may be you who is wrong?