The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #1

Post by 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.
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #761

Post by Diogenes »

Purple Knight wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:17 pm
otseng wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 9:59 pmAlso, 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.
I also think this is an area deserving close examination. 30-40+ years ago when I was a Christian apologist I argued something similar, thinking that out there in the area where we cannot precisely explain phenomena, especially on the subatomic/quantum level where ordinary rules seem to waver, maybe there, there is room for God... for a bridge between the natural and the supernatural.

Today, and even back then, I realize this is merely fuzzy thinking, as if all things theoretical or difficult are the same. They are not. I ask again, is there even a theoretical framework for this supernatural world? Is there anything testable? The metadata on the efficacy of prayer, perhaps the most analyzed area of the supernatural, consistently shows "researchers found no differences between those patients who were prayed for and those who were not."
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/heal ... rayer.html

The atheist/non theist/naturalist should be open to new information showing he is wrong. This is the duty of the scientist - being open to new discoveries and having a willingness to correct opinions when given new data. But so far, there is simply nothing there, not even a theory as to how this supernatural realm involving spirits, souls, ghosts, and gods works or could work. There is not even a hint at a theoretical framework for this 'spiritual dimension.'
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #762

Post by Purple Knight »

Diogenes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:04 pmThe atheist/non theist/naturalist should be open to new information showing he is wrong. This is the duty of the scientist - being open to new discoveries and having a willingness to correct opinions when given new data. But so far, there is simply nothing there, not even a theory as to how this supernatural realm involving spirits, souls, ghosts, and gods works or could work. There is not even a hint at a theoretical framework for this 'spiritual dimension.'
If we all saw ghosts every day it wouldn't matter. The fact that we don't is what leads me to not believe in any of it, not the fact that we don't have a framework for how these things would function. Nobody ceased believing in bumblebees when people didn't think they should be able to fly.

It's an at-least-one deal.

If you have a framework that means plausibility, that means something is possible. That means at least don't dismiss it.

And if it's well-documented it doesn't matter if you have any idea how it works or not.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #763

Post by Diogenes »

Purple Knight wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 1:50 pm
Diogenes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:04 pmThe atheist/non theist/naturalist should be open to new information showing he is wrong. This is the duty of the scientist - being open to new discoveries and having a willingness to correct opinions when given new data. But so far, there is simply nothing there, not even a theory as to how this supernatural realm involving spirits, souls, ghosts, and gods works or could work. There is not even a hint at a theoretical framework for this 'spiritual dimension.'
If we all saw ghosts every day it wouldn't matter. The fact that we don't is what leads me to not believe in any of it, not the fact that we don't have a framework for how these things would function. Nobody ceased believing in bumblebees when people didn't think they should be able to fly.

My point is that there isn't even a framework to construct a theory upon to explain how ghosts/gods would function. It's completely in the realm of make believe. So I pose the question; can theists even demonstrate a plausible framework upon which to support their speculation of the supernatural?

The example of the bumblebee is good. It was always a myth that the bumble bee could not fly. It was based upon a poor theoretical framework that allowed the myth to grow among those who did not understand the true principles of flight. Whomever came up with the engineering myth applied the wrong theory and assumed insect wings flapped straight up and down. They don't. Their wings rotate as they move causing low pressure vortices which create sufficient pressure with much smaller wings.
The key is unsteady aerodynamics and leading edge vortices. Insects like bumblebees flap their wings so that a leading-edge-vortex forms above the wing and is stably held there for the duration of the downstroke. The high speed rotating flow within a vortex generates really low pressure

https://www.animal-dynamics.com/the-bum ... ight-myth/
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20496
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #764

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 10:16 pm 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.
Nobody on this forum is an expert in anything, but people all the time make claims. Are you an expert in Christianity and religious studies? Do you make any claims about it?

But, as you say, "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", yet you do not criticize cosmologists for making speculative claims. So why criticize theists for making claims?

Any criticism from skeptics of String theory? Not really. Even though it also breaches naturalism and proposes other dimensions.

The point is, modern cosmology and physics have already left naturalistic explanations. Skeptics like to critique theists for proposing non-naturalistic explanations, but yet cosmologists and physicists are already doing this.
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.
No, but I do believe they exist. Is it necessary for me to see something in order to believe something exists?
You are trying to equate theoretical frameworks with actual entities.
Cosmologists do this as well. They believe spacetime (which is a theoretical framework) is an actual entity. So again, the charge that you make apply also to cosmology.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20496
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #765

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:04 pm Is there anything testable?
I claim yes, there is something testable - the Shroud of Turin. You join in the discussion in How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Post #766

Post by Diogenes »

[duplicate]
Last edited by Diogenes on Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #767

Post by Diogenes »

Diogenes wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:46 pm
otseng wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:04 pm....
Nobody on this forum is an expert in anything, but people all the time make claims. Are you an expert in Christianity and religious studies? Do you make any claims about it?

But, as you say, "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", yet you do not criticize cosmologists for making speculative claims. So why criticize theists for making claims?

Any criticism from skeptics of String theory? Not really. Even though it also breaches naturalism and proposes other dimensions.
I may fail, but I try to criticize the theory, not the theorist. I thought my remarks were highly critical of the 'multiverse.' It strikes me as an invention to answer a question rather than something of substance. But it is an area in which I am far less confident than in, as you put it, "Christianity and religious studies." I don't claim professional expertise, but Christianity is a subject I've studied since I could talk. I'm at home with words and sentences, with language. Understanding the physical sciences requires mathematics. There I am out of my depth. I will leave that to Jose Fly and DrNoGods. I can only take a layman's approach.
So if I get the drift of your criticism, it isn't that I give certain areas of science a pass, it's just that I feel less qualified to opine.


The point is, modern cosmology and physics have already left naturalistic explanations. Skeptics like to critique theists for proposing non-naturalistic explanations, but yet cosmologists and physicists are already doing this.
This is an interesting point, if true. Theists proudly admit they are muddling in an area far removed from naturalism. I'm not sure cosmologists and physicists ARE proposing non naturalist explanations. I agree that supernatural explanations, whether given by theists or physicists, should be rejected as equally fanciful. This is exactly where I have to depart from science. To me it is NOT science if it relies on supernatural or "non natural" explanations.
I would be pleased if you could have an example of where physics or other hard sciences use supernatural [or non natural] explanations. Very pleased, because then I would feel less embarrassed at my failure to understand. As I've said, the 'multiverse' seems like a crazy theory. If it rests solely upon a supernatural foundation, then I'm glad to hear it. It would relieve me of feeling lame for not following. :)
otseng wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:08 pm
Diogenes wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 11:04 pm Is there anything testable?
I claim yes, there is something testable - the Shroud of Turin. You join in the discussion in How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?
I'll take a look, but last I studied the Shroud of Turin, it looked to be an obvious fake and even if not faked, certainly there is no evidence that it is Christ's face represented.
But I am not so concerned with testing relics, as I am in finding even a theory about how supernatural entities would interact with the natural world.

___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20496
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #768

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:46 pm I'm not sure cosmologists and physicists ARE proposing non naturalist explanations.
How would you then classify multiverse in cosmology and additional dimensions in string theory?
To me it is NOT science if it relies on supernatural or "non natural" explanations.
I actually agree with you. But, this is not the state of current cosmology and theoretical physics.
I would be pleased if you could have an example of where physics or other hard sciences use supernatural [or non natural] explanations.
What do you mean? I gave you two examples already. Do you mean additional examples?
Diogenes wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:55 pm I'll take a look, but last I studied the Shroud of Turin, it looked to be an obvious fake and even if not faked, certainly there is no evidence that it is Christ's face represented.
But I am not so concerned with testing relics, as I am in finding even a theory about how supernatural entities would interact with the natural world.
If it's an obvious fake, then it should be easy to demonstrate it is not authentic.

What do you mean by theory of how supernatural entities interact with the natural world? As you say, this would be outside of science, so there would not exist any theory.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #769

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:43 pm I actually agree with you. But, this is not the state of current cosmology and theoretical physics.
....
What do you mean? I gave you two examples already[of hard sciences use supernatural]. Do you mean additional examples?
....
What do you mean by theory of how supernatural entities interact with the natural world? As you say, this would be outside of science, so there would not exist any theory.

Honestly, I am not aware of 'current cosmology and theoretical physics' using supernatural explanations. Speculative, yes, but 'supernatural?' As I understand it, the 'multiverse' is just an idea. I agree, it has no more substance than the idea of heaven:
If they exist, those universes are separated from ours, unreachable and undetectable by any direct measurement (at least so far). And that makes some experts question whether the search for a multiverse can ever be truly scientific.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... multiverse

This is why I am just as skeptical of the multiverse as I am of heaven.

It seems to me that whether we are talking of science or theism, multiverses or heaven, there should at least be a theory as to how this 'unknown' would work... at least a framework, a proposal. Without a theory or anything to observe, I agree multiverses and heavens are equally speculative.
As for string theory, I understand it is more of a mathematical construct than a separate reality, but as I say, this is beyond my even vague/general understanding.

As for the "Shroud of Turin,"
... have used modern forensic techniques to show that apparent blood spatters on the shroud could only have been produced by someone moving to adopt different poses – rather than lying still, in the manner of a dead and yet to be resurrected Messiah.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 50101.html
I've never thought the 'shroud' should seriously be considered an authentic relic. It just does not look right. It's too perfect.
It reminds me of one of my first cases that went to trial. My client was accused of stomping on a guy's chest. The prosecution brought out the "victim's" T-shirt. Sure enough it had two very clear dusty shoe prints on the chest.

I argued to the jury that it looked faked, that it looked exactly as if someone had placed a clean shirt on the ground and carefully stamped two dirty boots on it. If it was an honest piece of evidence, I argued, it would be smudged and look as if a person was inside the shirt when stepped on. Instead, this print looked as if a shirt were laid flat on the floor with no body inside.
"Not Guilty!"
In addition to the scientific tests, the shroud of Turin looks just like the T-shirt exhibit - faked - too well done to represent natural evidence.Image
"While the blood images could have come from a contact mechanism, the body image could not. The mapping between body-only image densities and expected cloth–body distances is not consistent with the image having been formed by direct contact with a body, as it is present even when it does not seem possible for the cloth to be in contact with the body."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

Besides, I have it on good authority Jesus wore a 'Charlie Chaplin' mustache. ;)
Image
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20496
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #770

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 11:51 pm Honestly, I am not aware of 'current cosmology and theoretical physics' using supernatural explanations. Speculative, yes, but 'supernatural?'
Again, if not supernatural, then how would you classify it? Certainly it is not natural. If not natural, then it would be supernatural.
As I understand it, the 'multiverse' is just an idea.
It is a proposed solution to problems in cosmology. So, it is more than just an idea.
This is why I am just as skeptical of the multiverse as I am of heaven.
Sure, you might be skeptical, but the point is cosmologists are proposing non-natural explanations.
It seems to me that whether we are talking of science or theism, multiverses or heaven, there should at least be a theory as to how this 'unknown' would work... at least a framework, a proposal.
Again, what do you mean by "theory"? Non-naturalistic explanations are outside of science, so theories would not really apply.
As for string theory, I understand it is more of a mathematical construct than a separate reality, but as I say, this is beyond my even vague/general understanding.
String theory is an attempt to explain what are the fundamental parts of nature. So, it is not just an idea that is totally detached from reality.
As for the "Shroud of Turin,"
... have used modern forensic techniques to show that apparent blood spatters on the shroud could only have been produced by someone moving to adopt different poses – rather than lying still, in the manner of a dead and yet to be resurrected Messiah.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 50101.html
Please present your case in the other thread. Also, I've addressed many things already so you should start reading what I've posted on the Shroud of Turin from post 1599.

Post Reply