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.

[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.

This is somewhat true, but it is more than just taking Genesis literally. I can take Aesop's fables literally without committing myself to believing frogs talk. It is not like the fable is a metaphor, say the one of the Ox and the frogs. It is a story I read literally, I don't read it metaphorically. I read the words to mean exactly what they state. I just happen to know that what the words stated are about a fantasy world, not our actual world.

So the problem comes when someone reads Genesis as though everything it says is about the actual world. They read it as though it were a history book, or even sometimes as though it were a book of science, which is it not.

I agree and appreciate your more nuanced take on "literally."
But to this I would add that another fundamental problem is taking Genesis as 'The Word of God' instead of "The Word of Men" trying to understand God.

[AquinasForGod]

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.

This is somewhat true, but it is more than just taking Genesis literally. I can take Aesop's fables literally without committing myself to believing frogs talk. It is not like the fable is a metaphor, say the one of the Ox and the frogs. It is a story I read literally, I don't read it metaphorically. I read the words to mean exactly what they state. I just happen to know that what the words stated are about a fantasy world, not our actual world.

So the problem comes when someone reads Genesis as though everything it says is about the actual world. They read it as though it were a history book, or even sometimes as though it were a book of science, which is it not.

I agree and appreciate your more nuanced take on "literally."
But to this I would add that another fundamental problem is taking Genesis as 'The Word of God' instead of "The Word of Men" trying to understand God.

I think it is both. God moves them to write about a specific topic or story, then the men do their best within their knowledge base to do that.

[The Barbarian]

The fact is that 90% of all living organisms that lived on this planet have become extinct in catastrophic events that involve water.

That is an assumption that is not supported by the evidence. I suppose that 90% is a nice round number, but it reminds me that 90% of all statistics on the internet are just made up on the spot. How would you even begin to support such a belief?

They have to involve water otherwise no fossils would form.

First, that's a misunderstanding, since we have fossils forming in desert sands. Although trace amounts of water would have been involved, an observer would have at no time, noted flowing or standing water.

Second, while fossils most readily form in water sediment, the assumption that no organism existed unless there are fossils of them, is also an unwarranted assumption, which is obviously false. Fossilization, for most organisms, is a rare event, and the vast majority of fossils have not been found.

[Diogenes]

What has no truth is anyone claiming there is no supernatural.

There is no supernatural. If there were, we'd see evidence. Without evidence it is speculation at best, a vain hope, utter nonsense. Literally it is NON SENSE.

When one entertains the silly idea of the 'supernatural' he is just as open to belief in Godzilla as God.

[otseng]

What has no truth is anyone claiming there is no supernatural.

There is no supernatural. If there were, we'd see evidence. Without evidence it is speculation at best, a vain hope, utter nonsense. Literally it is NON SENSE.

You need to come into the 21st century. Naturalism has long been dead as evidenced by modern cosmology and physics. We've covered some of this starting here:
viewtopic.php?p=1106026#p1106026

[Diogenes]

There is no supernatural. If there were, we'd see evidence. Without evidence it is speculation at best, a vain hope, utter nonsense. Literally it is NON SENSE.

You need to come into the 21st century. Naturalism has long been dead as evidenced by modern cosmology and physics. We've covered some of this starting here:
viewtopic.php?p=1106026#p1106026

Perhaps you are confusing the literary movement, "naturalism," with naturalism in physics where it is very much alive. Or do you think I am mistaken in my belief that 2016 is in the 21st Century?

It is time to face reality, California Institute of Technology theoretical physicist Sean Carroll says: There is just no such thing as God, or ghosts, or human souls that reside outside of the body. Everything in existence belongs to the natural world and is accessible to science, he argues. In his new book “The Big Picture: On the Origin of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself,” out this week from Dutton, Carroll describes a guiding philosophy along these lines that he calls poetic naturalism. It excludes a supernatural or spiritual realm but still allows plenty of room for life to have a purpose.

“I think we can bring ideas like meaning and morality into our discussions of the natural world,” Carroll says. “The ways that we talk about the universe are what make it meaningful.” He eloquently argues that point in his far-ranging book, which takes on the origins of consciousness, the likeliness of God based on a rigorous application of Bayesian probability statistics, and many other “big” questions that scientists are often loath to tackle.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... in-nature/

"Naturalism is the belief that nature is all that exists, and that all things supernatural (including gods, spirits, souls and non-natural values) therefore do not exist."
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_naturalism.html

"Naturalism, in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural."
Encyclopedia Britannica, Jun 14, 2017

Naturalism denies the existence of truly supernatural realities; however, it makes allowance for the supernatural IF, and only if, knowledge of the supernatural can somehow be detected; that is, if the alleged "supernatural" can effect the natural world. To date there is no such evidence. Hence the supernatural is wholly speculative. You might just as well speculate that a wristwatch is powered by invisible, microscopic leprechauns.

BTW, I did not use the word 'naturalism' in the post you reacted to. You used that term. However, I stand by and ascribe to the definitions I've given whether or not you agree that, that is naturalism.

[JoeyKnothead]

You need to come into the 21st century. Naturalism has long been dead as evidenced by modern cosmology and physics. We've covered some of this starting here:
viewtopic.php?p=1106026#p1106026

The Bible promoter asking folks to come into the 21st century is as goofy as the bible promoter asking us to go back to the 1st.

[otseng]

"Naturalism is the belief that nature is all that exists, and that all things supernatural (including gods, spirits, souls and non-natural values) therefore do not exist."
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_naturalism.html

"Naturalism, in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural."
Encyclopedia Britannica, Jun 14, 2017

Naturalism denies the existence of truly supernatural realities; however, it makes allowance for the supernatural IF, and only if, knowledge of the supernatural can somehow be detected; that is, if the alleged "supernatural" can effect the natural world. To date there is no such evidence. Hence the supernatural is wholly speculative. You might just as well speculate that a wristwatch is powered by invisible, microscopic leprechauns.

BTW, I did not use the word 'naturalism' in the post you reacted to. You used that term. However, I stand by and ascribe to the definitions I've given whether or not you agree that, that is naturalism.

Sure, I can agree to those definitions of naturalism. But it depends on what is meant by "nature" and "universe".

Is a multiverse a part of nature or part of the universe?
Are other dimensions in string theory part of nature or part of the universe?

Also, why can't I also claim spirits, souls, ghosts, etc are part of nature and our universe? People claim to see them and experience them in our universe.

[Diogenes]

"Naturalism is the belief that nature is all that exists, and that all things supernatural (including gods, spirits, souls and non-natural values) therefore do not exist."
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_naturalism.html

"Naturalism, in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural."
Encyclopedia Britannica, Jun 14, 2017

Naturalism denies the existence of truly supernatural realities; however, it makes allowance for the supernatural IF, and only if, knowledge of the supernatural can somehow be detected; that is, if the alleged "supernatural" can effect the natural world. To date there is no such evidence. Hence the supernatural is wholly speculative. You might just as well speculate that a wristwatch is powered by invisible, microscopic leprechauns.

BTW, I did not use the word 'naturalism' in the post you reacted to. You used that term. However, I stand by and ascribe to the definitions I've given whether or not you agree that, that is naturalism.

Sure, I can agree to those definitions of naturalism. But it depends on what is meant by "nature" and "universe".

Is a multiverse a part of nature or part of the universe?
Are other dimensions in string theory part of nature or part of the universe?

Also, why can't I also claim spirits, souls, ghosts, etc are part of nature and our universe? People claim to see them and experience them in our universe.

I don't pretend to be an expert in quantum mechanics or astrophysics. I defer to the experts in those fields. My impression of the theory of the multiverse is that it is highly speculative and unnecessary, almost as speculative and useless as the supernatural concept of gods and ghosts.
String theory, on the other hand, is a very broad area and has solved a number of problems in mathematical physics. Like the 'multiverse' it is a theoretical framework rather than an actual entity. Neither approaches something like evolutionary theory which has such an abundance of supportive evidence it can be considered factual.

As to claiming "spirits, souls, ghosts" as part of nature and the universe, I'm guessing YOU have never seen or experienced them. Tho' there are those who have made such claims, their claims are dubious at best. You are trying to equate theoretical frameworks with actual entities. This is an inapt comparison. Perhaps you an correct me or give an explanation, but I am not aware there are even definitions of ghosts, spirits, and souls other than that they exist in some undefined "spiritual realm." Is there even a hypothetical theory on what they might be? There appears to be no working theory on what ghosts are. Do you have a mathematical framework to suggest? Something akin to string theory?

[Purple Knight]

Also, why can't I also claim spirits, souls, ghosts, etc are part of nature and our universe? People claim to see them and experience them in our universe.

That's a good question I have pondered myself. The playing board we have sneakily rules out the supernatural in a cheaty definitional manner, because if someone were to verifiably document ghosts, they would come into the realm of the natural, even if we couldn't explain what makes them go. There was once a myth that bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly but that never made anybody call them apparitions.