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
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #811

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 9:16 pm ...
Do you have any evidence that one day we will have the technology to identify, observe, or measure other universes and other dimensions?
Just do like so many theists, and declare it's there because we believe it's there?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #812

Post by Clownboat »

otseng wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 9:16 pm
Clownboat wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 11:55 am
otseng wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:18 am We have to go by our current understanding, rather than appeal to the future. It is actually a faith claim that one day we will have the technology to identify, observe, or measure other universes and other dimensions.
Faith is a religious thing often foisted on to others. The above, at least to me is a probability claim, as no faith needed.
Faith does not have to be a religious thing. It can be irreligious as well.

See following definitions:

"firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

"belief that is not based on proof"
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith

"a high degree of trust or confidence in something or someone"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... lish/faith

Do you have any evidence that one day we will have the technology to identify, observe, or measure other universes and other dimensions?
Again, I abhore faith and actively seek to never employ it as a mechanism for arriving at (supposed) truths.
Let me once again illustrate the difference.

Probability: (As an answer to your question above) I cannot provide you with evidence that one day we will have technology to observe other universes or dimensions. Due to the track record of technology, that being a track record of advancing, it is probable that someday we will have the technology to observe other universes or dimensions. If ever technology stops advancing or other universes or dimensions are shown to be impossible to observe, the probability then becomes zero and there would then be a reason to accept that we will never observe such things.

Faith: We will never be able to observe other universes or dimensions.
- or -
We will have the ability someday to observe other universes or dimensions.
- or -
There is a God that created our universe.

The above 3 are faith claims and faith claims make assertions and involve beliefs and not probabilities. Evidence nor probabilities need come in to play, marking a stark difference between these two mechanism for arriving at a (supposed) conclusion.

I think you know that faith is not a reliable way for arriving at conclusions. Therefore you actively place faith on others as a mechnism they also use in order to level the playing field.

Probabilities will not allow for believing that a 3 day dead body can reanimate to life. To hold on to such a belief, faith must be used in place of probabilities. Therefore they cannot be the same.

Conclusion: It is probable that we will one day have the technology to observe other universes or dimensions. I am completely open to being shown that this is in fact not probable if you can make that reasoned argument, but I will not employ faith so I can believe one way or the other.

Am I wrong about faith? (Seems not from the lack of an answer). Is working off of faith superior to working from probabilities? (Seems not from the lack of an answer). Could employing faith even be considered as debilitating? :-k (Possibly as faith has not been defended and I in fact argue that faith is a bad mechanism).
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
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 #813

Post by otseng »

Clownboat wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:28 pm
otseng wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 9:16 pm Do you have any evidence that one day we will have the technology to identify, observe, or measure other universes and other dimensions?
Conclusion: It is probable that we will one day have the technology to observe other universes or dimensions. I am completely open to being shown that this is in fact not probable if you can make that reasoned argument, but I will not employ faith so I can believe one way or the other.

Am I wrong about faith? (Seems not from the lack of an answer). Is working off of faith superior to working from probabilities? (Seems not from the lack of an answer). Could employing faith even be considered as debilitating? :-k (Possibly as faith has not been defended and I in fact argue that faith is a bad mechanism).
I fail to see any evidence in your argument that one day we will have the technology to identify, observe, or measure other universes and other dimensions. What exactly is your evidence instead of just making claims?

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #814

Post by Clownboat »

otseng wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 5:16 pm
Clownboat wrote: Wed Feb 08, 2023 3:28 pm
otseng wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 9:16 pm Do you have any evidence that one day we will have the technology to identify, observe, or measure other universes and other dimensions?
Conclusion: It is probable that we will one day have the technology to observe other universes or dimensions. I am completely open to being shown that this is in fact not probable if you can make that reasoned argument, but I will not employ faith so I can believe one way or the other.

Am I wrong about faith? (Seems not from the lack of an answer). Is working off of faith superior to working from probabilities? (Seems not from the lack of an answer). Could employing faith even be considered as debilitating? :-k (Possibly as faith has not been defended and I in fact argue that faith is a bad mechanism).
I fail to see any evidence in your argument that one day we will have the technology to identify, observe, or measure other universes and other dimensions. What exactly is your evidence instead of just making claims?
See, you are looking for a faith answer! I abhore faith and will not employ it so I can then form a belief about future technologies.

Copy/Paste - "I cannot provide you with evidence that one day we will have technology to observe other universes or dimensions. Due to the track record of technology, that being a track record of advancing, it is probable that someday we will have the technology to observe other universes or dimensions. If ever technology stops advancing or other universes or dimensions are shown to be impossible to observe, the probability then becomes zero and there would then be a reason to accept that we will never observe such things."

I'm not willing to employ faith so I can make an assertion about future technologies just to supply you with an answer to an unknown question. This question must remain unknown for now. I understand that many humans perfer to know or at least think they know things that are unknowable. For them, there is another mechanism that is used over and beyond probability, and that mechanism is faith. Something I personally abhore, but realize its usefulness for supplying comfort in others.

Will we ever have the technology to ______?
I might find it reasonable to have a discusion about whether something is or will someday be probable or not.
I do not find it reasanable to employ faith and then make a claim that we will or wont have the said technology.

Faith can lead a person to the gods, or that long dead people have returned to life, or that someone sorcered up fish and bread. Probabilities are not a mechanism that can be used lead a person to such conclusions.

So once again, I cannot provide you with the evidence you ask for. No one can, besides for a person that would employ faith in order to do so.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
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 #815

Post by otseng »

Clownboat wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 1:05 pm I cannot provide you with evidence that one day we will have technology to observe other universes or dimensions.

So once again, I cannot provide you with the evidence you ask for. No one can, besides for a person that would employ faith in order to do so.
This is precisely my point. Claiming we might have the technology in the future to detect other universes or dimensions involves faith.

I want to get back to this...
I think you know that faith is not a reliable way for arriving at conclusions. Therefore you actively place faith on others as a mechnism they also use in order to level the playing field.
I agree that faith is not a valid scientific way to arrive at conclusions.

As for leveling the playing field, my argument is not really about faith, but about the use of non-natural explanations employed by modern cosmologists and physicists.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #816

Post by Clownboat »

otseng wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 11:34 pm This is precisely my point. Claiming we might have the technology in the future to detect other universes or dimensions involves faith.
Then you need to ammend your point.
Clownboat has zero faith that we will or wont have the technology in the future to detect other universes or dimensions. This is my stance and no faith is required to hold it.
Clownboat does recognize that technology continues to advance and therefore there is some measure of probability that we may have this tech someday.
Clearly my stance is of one of "I don't know" and I'm not going to employ faith just so I can make a claim about future tech when it is truly unknown.

Is Jesus the savior to the world?
If your answer is "I don't know", then perhaps I will accept the way you are trying to use the word faith.
If your answer is anything other than "I don't know", you are employing faith and your are doing something that I am not when discusing possible future technologies.
I agree that faith is not a valid scientific way to arrive at conclusions.

Af course it isn't, that much is obvious. Faith is not a valid way to arrive at any conclusion. Therefore, avoid faith at all costs.

You can't believe in any god concept without faith and you can't believe that lizard people are running the government without faith.
Faith is a required mechanism in order to believe that false things are true. This is why I abhore faith and do not use it in my life.

Yes, by mere chance a faith belief could end up being true (see lizard people). This I acknowledge, but why employ a mere chance mechanism when seaking to find truth? Humans don't do this, except when discussing the gods or conspiracy theories... things we both know to be false (less one god concept in your case).
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
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 #817

Post by otseng »

Clownboat wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 1:58 pm
otseng wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 11:34 pm This is precisely my point. Claiming we might have the technology in the future to detect other universes or dimensions involves faith.
Then you need to ammend your point.
Clownboat has zero faith that we will or wont have the technology in the future to detect other universes or dimensions. This is my stance and no faith is required to hold it.
Clownboat does recognize that technology continues to advance and therefore there is some measure of probability that we may have this tech someday.
Clearly my stance is of one of "I don't know" and I'm not going to employ faith just so I can make a claim about future tech when it is truly unknown.
If you have zero faith, you cannot likewise claim "there is some measure of probability that we may have this tech someday". Yes, technology continues to advance, but that does not lead to non-zero probability of having the technology of detecting universes or dimensions. By this reasoning, there is a non-zero chance of any claim to be true. So, to be consistent, you need to strike out this assertion and simply say:

1. Clownboat has zero faith that we will or wont have the technology in the future to detect other universes or dimensions. This is my stance and no faith is required to hold it.
2. Clearly my stance is of one of "I don't know" and I'm not going to employ faith just so I can make a claim about future tech when it is truly unknown.
Is Jesus the savior to the world?
If your answer is "I don't know", then perhaps I will accept the way you are trying to use the word faith.
If your answer is anything other than "I don't know", you are employing faith and your are doing something that I am not when discusing possible future technologies.
My answer is yes. And of course I'm employing faith. It is not me rejecting faith, but you.
I agree that faith is not a valid scientific way to arrive at conclusions.

Af course it isn't, that much is obvious. Faith is not a valid way to arrive at any conclusion. Therefore, avoid faith at all costs.
Yet we see faith when it comes to scientists proposing explanations that we have no current scientific basis to demonstrate they exist.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #818

Post by Clownboat »

otseng wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 7:50 am If you have zero faith, you cannot likewise claim "there is some measure of probability that we may have this tech someday".
This is where you lose me, because there is some measure of probability that we may have this tech someday. So I have acknowledged this probability, but do not make a claim one way or the other. Faith would be needed in order to do that and therefore faith is an additional mechanism.
Yes, technology continues to advance, but that does not lead to non-zero probability of having the technology of detecting universes or dimensions.

Which is why I said: "If ever technology stops advancing or other universes or dimensions are shown to be impossible to observe, the probability then becomes zero and there would then be a reason to accept that we will never observe such things." (At this point, faith would not be needed to make this claim as it stems from a zero probability).
By this reasoning, there is a non-zero chance of any claim to be true.

This would be true for many claims, but not claims like creating matter out of nothing for example. For such a claim, I cannot point to a mechanism that would allow for such a thing and we already know that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, it would seem reasonable to conclude that there is zero probability that a human can conjure up food for just one example. Faith would allow such a belief though.
My answer is yes. And of course I'm employing faith. It is not me rejecting faith, but you.

This is correct. I abhore faith and do not see it as a valid mechanism for arriving at truth (quite the opposite in fact).
Why do you employ faith when it comes to your religion? I submit that faith is used to justify religious beliefs because probabilities would not allow a person to hold such beliefs.
There is zero probability, best I can tell that a decomposing body can reanimate to life.
There is zero probability, best I can tell that matter can be created out of nothing.
In spite of the above, faith still allows for such things to be considered as true.
Yet we see faith when it comes to scientists proposing explanations that we have no current scientific basis to demonstrate they exist.
Please evidence this claim and we can see if faith is really being used. Again, the faithful like to impose faith on to those that abhore faith, so I'm hesitant to believe this claim of yours.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
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 #819

Post by otseng »

Clownboat wrote: Fri Feb 17, 2023 4:09 pm This is where you lose me, because there is some measure of probability that we may have this tech someday. So I have acknowledged this probability, but do not make a claim one way or the other. Faith would be needed in order to do that and therefore faith is an additional mechanism.
I think the fundamental difference is thinking that other dimensions and other universes is somehow "natural". To assert that somehow we can have the ability to directly measure or interact with them in the future is pure speculation. If something is asserted to exist that we cannot measure in our own dimensions or our own universe (like dark matter or dark energy) and can be classified as natural, I can possibly accept, though I would strongly question.
Why do you employ faith when it comes to your religion? I submit that faith is used to justify religious beliefs because probabilities would not allow a person to hold such beliefs.
I define "faith" as belief absent of proof. I define "blind faith" as belief without any evidence.

My faith in my religion is the former, not the latter. The difference is "blind faith" has no evidence, whereas "faith" does have evidence.
There is zero probability, best I can tell that a decomposing body can reanimate to life.
Well, if you're so confident of this assertion, I welcome more debaters in the debate on the Shroud of Turin that has started in post 1599 of How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?.
There is zero probability, best I can tell that matter can be created out of nothing.
Of course there's a zero probability, yet here we are. So, how can that be resolved?
Yet we see faith when it comes to scientists proposing explanations that we have no current scientific basis to demonstrate they exist.
Please evidence this claim and we can see if faith is really being used. Again, the faithful like to impose faith on to those that abhore faith, so I'm hesitant to believe this claim of yours.
What is being used then if there's no empirical evidence that other universes or other dimensions exist? At a minimum, wouldn't it be faith that someday we will have empirical evidence for it?

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

Post #820

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to otseng in post #819]
I think the fundamental difference is thinking that other dimensions and other universes is somehow "natural". To assert that somehow we can have the ability to directly measure or interact with them in the future is pure speculation. If something is asserted to exist that we cannot measure in our own dimensions or our own universe (like dark matter or dark energy) and can be classified as natural, I can possibly accept, though I would strongly question.
The difference between other dimensions and universes, and dark matter and dark energy, is that the latter two are both inferred from direct observations that cannot be explained using known physics. Galaxies should not hold together based on the total visible mass we can ascertain from our observations, and expansion of the universe is accelerating which also requires something acting like negative gravity. Dark matter and dark energy are the terms that have stuck for describing these, and if we do work out what they actually are they would both be natural (new particles, forces, etc.).

Other dimensions and universes are interpretations from mathematical models rather than being inferred from direct observations, so are indeed speculative and we may have no way of every determining whether they are legitimate ideas. But if by some means we did obtain the ability to identify such things, they would also be natural (ie. they are not postulated to be non-natural things if they actually do exist).
What is being used then if there's no empirical evidence that other universes or other dimensions exist? At a minimum, wouldn't it be faith that someday we will have empirical evidence for it?
They are inferred from mathematical models rather than inferred from direct observations. It may take some amount of faith to believe that we could one day detect extra dimensions, but mathematical and theoretical models have predicted many things that were subsequently shown to exist or be possible (eg. the Higgs boson, powerful bombs based on nuclear fission and fusion, etc.). Multiverses, and extra dimensions needed by string theory, have yet to progress beyond ideas on paper, and don't have the direct observational support of dark matter and dark energy as far as their potential existence as part of the natural world.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Post Reply