Does Science Debunk The Bible?

[Data]

No Science does debunk the Bible.

For the purpose of this debate science is defined as the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained; a branch of knowledge; a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject and even knowledge of any kind. Debunk is defined as to expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief) as well as to reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), especially by ridicule.

Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?

[POI]

All I read here is more stalling....

Was Noah's flood a literal event, or not?
If literal, was it local or global?
If literal, was Noah's flood a few thousand years ago, or longer?

In order to determine IF science can debunk the Bible, we first need to establish a literal event in which science could possibly debunk. Starting with Noah's flood....

1) While I think it was probably based on a literal event, 2) I believe the details of it are not literal history, but a metaphorical telling of a shared human narrative making philosophical points about God and humanity in contrast to what other cultures were saying. 3) That shared memory was most likely a more localized flood 4) more than a few thousand years ago. 5) If you ask me to prove why that is how everyone else should look at it, then you are either shifting the question or shifting the burden, and you can play that game, but I won't play along, whatever additional empty rhetoric you want to paint my response with.

Okay...

1) Literal main event
2) Lacking literal details
3) Literal local event
4) About how long ago and where exactly?
5) (a) WHY do you believe this case exactly? (b) Why IS this the truth, since you are a seeker of THE truth? (c) Further, why is it so dang difficult to reach such a seemingly simple truth in the Bible, especially since you guys have had a couple of thousand years, or more, to try and figure it out? (d) Finally, why are you so concerned with "shifting"? Meaning, why not let the evidence speak for itself? I'm asking for your position, and you read quite "protective" of your stance. Seems you would want your view challenged.

****************************

CAN science falsify your view of this event, or not? If yes, how so, and if not, why not?

****************************

We may instead need to move to a literal event in which science can challenge? And if so, what exactly?

[The Tanager]

4) About how long ago and where exactly?

I have no idea.

5) (a) WHY do you believe this case exactly? (b) Why IS this the truth, since you are a seeker of THE truth?

It doesn’t matter for any claims I’ve made in this thread.

(c) Further, why is it so dang difficult to reach such a seemingly simple truth in the Bible, especially since you guys have had a couple of thousand years, or more, to try and figure it out?

You will always have people unwilling to budge because they don’t like how the consequences look. This is true for Christian and non-Christian alike. Is the realist/anti-realist debate in science settled yet? Not at all. And it won’t get there because of the nature of philosophical discussion which is a part of every single worldview.

(d) Finally, why are you so concerned with "shifting"? Meaning, why not let the evidence speak for itself? I'm asking for your position, and you read quite "protective" of your stance. Seems you would want your view challenged.

It is always much easier to critique someone’s view than to have your own critiqued. That’s not a bad thing, in itself. But it is bad when a discussion starts one way and then someone tries to flip it around (intentionally or unintentionally). Claims were made in this thread that science debunks the Bible. I wanted to challenge my view by listening to those claims and then analyzing those claims instead of this getting turned around to “you Christians prove your view and then I’ll tell you if science debunks the Bible.” That completely changes what this thread will be about because that debate can rage on forever and then we never get to the case for science actually debunking the Bible, which is what this thread is about. I’m not here for that discussion. Although it is a good one, it’s not this one.

If you think science debunks the Bible, then back it up. If that requires supporting your interpretation of the Bible, then you have to do that work. To try to put that on me is a bad shift (intended or not) so that you then have the easier task of poking holes in a case for it being non-literal than the harder task of supporting it is literal. If science can only debunk the Bible when it speaks literally, then to actually debunk it, you’ve got to show it is clearly literal, not just argue against people who think it is literal.

I do plenty of laying out positive claims and offering support for it on this forum. It’s the bulk of what I do because people know it’s much easier to critique others than support themselves. I have no problem with that, when the thread starts out that way and it is what I came to that thread for. Way too often people (non-Christians and Christians) try to turn those tables (intentionally or not) and I’m tired of it. Make a claim and maintain your burden or drop the claim. If you want to critique people’s cases for some other (even related) question, then go to a different thread.

CAN science falsify your view of this event, or not? If yes, how so, and if not, why not?

I don’t see how science could debunk my understanding of the flood narrative. I’m open to being shown that my understanding is incorrect.

We may instead need to move to a literal event in which science can challenge? And if so, what exactly?

Theoretically things like the Exodus, but I don’t think it would be easy at all because of the uncertainty of the archaeological field with that much passage of time. We’ve already discussed that and Transponder, at least, agrees it hasn’t hit the level of debunked, although thinks it could get there soon. Name what you think science debunks and I’ll tell you if I think it could based on my understanding of that story.

[TRANSPONDER]

You post pretty well, but I still feel there's a basic problem of approach. I already said that anything poetic, mythological or symbolic in the Bible can be ignored. It is only as a supposed factual claim that it needs debunking.

That said I also said (somewhere) that Exodus isn't sure; still under discussion, because science isn't believe or not, like religious faith, but proceeds on discussion and discovery.

Now, unless one is doing science denial (and if one is, then serious discussion is otiose anyway) then the creation is debunked, really. And if metaphorical ... well, it's out of the discussion and merely has knock -on discussions (1).

But the ark and flood also debunked by science. Unless one denies geology and biology. Now I noted a post about local floods. As in any of these 'perfectly natural explanations' of Bible claims (except for the resurrection,of course ) they may (possibly) save the Bible but they trash God. The Flood did not do what God said it was for. Though one could argue for a limited global flood.

But Exodus, as I once said, was considered probably a real Event until a discussion on my Other board and (perhaps coincidentally) similar doubts raised elsewhere. Since then, other factors have arisen beyond anachronism, the problem of the Egyptian empire making a conquest and probably an Exodus impossible except for the Amarna lapse in political control over Canaan. Then I read of the style suggesting an Exilic composition c 600 BC, which I already suspected from the use of Sargon's life for Moses, and my wild theory that Moses was Ahmose I was bolstered when I realised that Josephus quoting Mmanetho on the Hyksos being the Exodus (Shepherd kings) linked the Exodus (wrongly) with the Hyksos, thus making a link that could make Ahnose I Moses.

As you say, not a slam dunk but a process of further evidence debunking the Biblical story of what the Exodus was, which I think we can pretty now much forget, anyway.

(1) like if Eden didn't happen, why is man to blame for evil, and why was Jesus needed to atone for it?

[The Tanager]

Now, unless one is doing science denial (and if one is, then serious discussion is otiose anyway) then the creation is debunked, really. And if metaphorical ... well, it's out of the discussion and merely has knock -on discussions (1).

If you mean out of the discussion of whether science debunks the Bible or not, then I agree. If you mean out of any meaningful discussion on truth, I disagree. The Eden story would still speak to humanity’s responsibility for evil in this world and our need for God to step in and do something about it.

But the ark and flood also debunked by science. Unless one denies geology and biology. Now I noted a post about local floods. As in any of these 'perfectly natural explanations' of Bible claims (except for the resurrection,of course ) they may (possibly) save the Bible but they trash God. The Flood did not do what God said it was for. Though one could argue for a limited global flood.

But that is still treating the Flood story as a literal, historical claim in its details. Narratively, humans keep getting worse. One thought might be, just start over and give humans another chance. This story makes clear that this won’t work. In the aftermath, the story has God saying the inclinations of man’s heart are wicked. That’s the problem. Even though Noah walks with God and is spared the flood, the next story has Noah getting drunk and one son committing an evil. This is a major theme throughout Genesis, the rest of the Pentateuch, and the Bible as a whole. So, I don’t see how this story trashes God.

As you say, not a slam dunk but a process of further evidence debunking the Biblical story of what the Exodus was, which I think we can pretty now much forget, anyway.

To me “slam dunk” and “debunk” are synonyms in this context. If it’s not a slam dunk, then it hasn’t debunked it, wherever one leans in the Exodus debate.

[TRANSPONDER]

Now, unless one is doing science denial (and if one is, then serious discussion is otiose anyway) then the creation is debunked, really. And if metaphorical ... well, it's out of the discussion and merely has knock -on discussions (1).

If you mean out of the discussion of whether science debunks the Bible or not, then I agree. If you mean out of any meaningful discussion on truth, I disagree. The Eden story would still speak to humanity’s responsibility for evil in this world and our need for God to step in and do something about it.

But the ark and flood also debunked by science. Unless one denies geology and biology. Now I noted a post about local floods. As in any of these 'perfectly natural explanations' of Bible claims (except for the resurrection,of course ) they may (possibly) save the Bible but they trash God. The Flood did not do what God said it was for. Though one could argue for a limited global flood.

But that is still treating the Flood story as a literal, historical claim in its details. Narratively, humans keep getting worse. One thought might be, just start over and give humans another chance. This story makes clear that this won’t work. In the aftermath, the story has God saying the inclinations of man’s heart are wicked. That’s the problem. Even though Noah walks with God and is spared the flood, the next story has Noah getting drunk and one son committing an evil. This is a major theme throughout Genesis, the rest of the Pentateuch, and the Bible as a whole. So, I don’t see how this story trashes God.

As you say, not a slam dunk but a process of further evidence debunking the Biblical story of what the Exodus was, which I think we can pretty now much forget, anyway.

To me “slam dunk” and “debunk” are synonyms in this context. If it’s not a slam dunk, then it hasn’t debunked it, wherever one leans in the Exodus debate.

No, dammit there it is again, basic faithbased skewing of the discussion. Sure, any work of legend, fiction or even philosophy can talk about the problem of human morals as Our own problem, but your bias and basic flawed logical approach is shown by jumping not only to a divine intervention solution, and Only solution, but a particular god and religion. Don't you see even as an argument (whether or not you can accept it) how your argument assumes the existence of an intervening god (never mind which one) as Given, without which (and there is no really good evidence for it) your whole argument fails?

You see, our dear Tanager, If you put your hands up and said "Ok, the evidence isn't as good as it should be, and half only gets us to which god? And I am really arguing from Faith but I respect your reasons for disbelief as empirical and logical", we could do business; but all the time you are insisting that your faithbased argument is evidence - based and logical when it is really based on denying evidence and logic in favour of a Particular religious faith, then we can't get to a logical end and, like our pal 1213, you have to rely on social and political faith - support or you and your religion will lose.

Mindset and worldview dealt with let's see what else you produce.

Your Noah story as an analogy of the moral problem is the same problem. If you dismiss it as 'metaphorical (Not True) then we have no disagreement other than I think humanity and humanism is the only possible solution, and appealing to a dieu ex machina is a futile hope. Give it up.

And your slam dunk debunk denial is yet more of the same illogical fallacy. A mindset of Believe - or not. Never mind weight of evidence, because all the time you can think up any excuse - even the feeble one of 'metaphorically true' which we saw was just an excuse to appeal to a particular God - is considered a refuter of the debunk. But even Theists recognise probability and weight of evidence - but only when it suits them (e.g the miserable 'heap of bad evidence makes a bit of good evidence' argument intended to improve theist probability). Can you not comprehend (if not believe or accept) how you are doing evidence and logic the wrong way and all you are doing is excuses to keep a less probable faithbased belief afloat? I'm not asking you to give up the Faith but see clearly that your arguments are faithbased, not based on good evidence or sound logic.

[Data]

If you dismiss it as 'metaphorical (Not True) then we have no disagreement other than I think humanity and humanism is the only possible solution, and appealing to a dieu ex machina is a futile hope. Give it up.

And your slam dunk debunk denial is yet more of the same illogical fallacy. A mindset of Believe - or not. Never mind weight of evidence, because all the time you can think up any excuse - even the feeble one of 'metaphorically true' which we saw was just an excuse to appeal to a particular God - is considered a refuter of the debunk. But even Theists recognise probability and weight of evidence - but only when it suits them (e.g the miserable 'heap of bad evidence makes a bit of good evidence' argument intended to improve theist probability). Can you not comprehend (if not believe or accept) how you are doing evidence and logic the wrong way and all you are doing is excuses to keep a less probable faithbased belief afloat? I'm not asking you to give up the Faith but see clearly that your arguments are faithbased, not based on good evidence or sound logic.

You fail to appreciate that it doesn't matter if the gods that have been created exist or not. You are insentient on proving that which you can't prove. Instead of looking at the evidence you accept a faith based alternative of your own while the fact that every society known to man throughout history did the same eludes you.

[POI]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #242]

The Tanager, I think you are a smart person and I respect your analytical responses. But, and I'm pretty sure you felt a 'but' coming.... Your responses ultimately reads as a 'protect the Bible at all costs'.

You gave an example of another dead writer, Tolken. I see this example as a false comparison. Why? We know who wrote TLoR and The Hobbit, Tolken. Aside from the 'obvious' of his works being intended to be fiction, we also have him, on record, expressing he is a fictional writer. We also have documented occurrence(s) of others helping him with his fictional work(s). Genesis is another animal completely. We do not know whom/who wrote genesis. Hence, the 'evidence' you did provide, for Tolken, cannot begin to apply for the author of Genesis.

Here is what we do know... A large book of claims has been made. Since the author(s) are dead and may never be known, you get to create a protective scenario for which the Bible could never be falsified. Is the stated claim literal, figurative, philosophical, other? Hmmm? It has been established to be a book of truth. As you and I both know, if you were to place this book in the fiction or non-fiction section, we would both place this book in the non-fiction section. Just like we would do with the Quran, Rig Veda, Book of Mormon, etc... Thus, the default for all these publications is "factual" or non-fiction. However, in your protective efforts (intentional or unintentional), we will never really know if each and every claim was meant to be literal, figurative, philosophical, other? Why? The Genesis author(s) cannot even be identified, let alone investigated. For The Exodus account, we will never gather enough information to truly determine a sound conclusion. And the NT is a set of claims which is unfalsifiable, as there is no way to disprove an ancient man walking on water, rising from the dead, etc....

Thus, for you, 'science' cannot debunk the Bible.

[TRANSPONDER]

If you dismiss it as 'metaphorical (Not True) then we have no disagreement other than I think humanity and humanism is the only possible solution, and appealing to a dieu ex machina is a futile hope. Give it up.

And your slam dunk debunk denial is yet more of the same illogical fallacy. A mindset of Believe - or not. Never mind weight of evidence, because all the time you can think up any excuse - even the feeble one of 'metaphorically true' which we saw was just an excuse to appeal to a particular God - is considered a refuter of the debunk. But even Theists recognise probability and weight of evidence - but only when it suits them (e.g the miserable 'heap of bad evidence makes a bit of good evidence' argument intended to improve theist probability). Can you not comprehend (if not believe or accept) how you are doing evidence and logic the wrong way and all you are doing is excuses to keep a less probable faithbased belief afloat? I'm not asking you to give up the Faith but see clearly that your arguments are faithbased, not based on good evidence or sound logic.

You fail to appreciate that it doesn't matter if the gods that have been created exist or not. You are insentient on proving that which you can't prove. Instead of looking at the evidence you accept a faith based alternative of your own while the fact that every society known to man throughout history did the same eludes you.

Odd. I wrote a reply but it vanished. Or maybe got deleted because i started rabbitting about Shostakovich ...but I said that you fail to get it. Even though I've explained it time and again. I know that religions, gods and holy books are inventions of humans - on instinct, but inventions none the less. The burden of proof falls rather on you to show that some other explanation is better on evidence and reason....off you go.

[The Tanager]

No, dammit there it is again, basic faithbased skewing of the discussion. Sure, any work of legend, fiction or even philosophy can talk about the problem of human morals as Our own problem, but your bias and basic flawed logical approach is shown by jumping not only to a divine intervention solution, and Only solution, but a particular god and religion. Don't you see even as an argument (whether or not you can accept it) how your argument assumes the existence of an intervening god (never mind which one) as Given, without which (and there is no really good evidence for it) your whole argument fails?

You see, our dear Tanager, If you put your hands up and said "Ok, the evidence isn't as good as it should be, and half only gets us to which god? And I am really arguing from Faith but I respect your reasons for disbelief as empirical and logical", we could do business; but all the time you are insisting that your faithbased argument is evidence - based and logical when it is really based on denying evidence and logic in favour of a Particular religious faith, then we can't get to a logical end and, like our pal 1213, you have to rely on social and political faith - support or you and your religion will lose.

Mindset and worldview dealt with let's see what else you produce.

I didn’t say it was an argument for anything. You see, our dear Transponder, if you would stop having discussions with straw tanagers, we could do business.

And your slam dunk debunk denial is yet more of the same illogical fallacy. A mindset of Believe - or not. Never mind weight of evidence, because all the time you can think up any excuse - even the feeble one of 'metaphorically true' which we saw was just an excuse to appeal to a particular God - is considered a refuter of the debunk. But even Theists recognise probability and weight of evidence - but only when it suits them (e.g the miserable 'heap of bad evidence makes a bit of good evidence' argument intended to improve theist probability). Can you not comprehend (if not believe or accept) how you are doing evidence and logic the wrong way and all you are doing is excuses to keep a less probable faithbased belief afloat? I'm not asking you to give up the Faith but see clearly that your arguments are faithbased, not based on good evidence or sound logic.

Another straw conclusion you’ve run with. I’ve never said a failure to debunk the Bible means its claims are true. The real impetus behind joining this thread was that I think 100% certainty (beyond pure math and definitions) is a fool’s errand is too prevelant in the discussions I often have on here. If we can get past exaggerated claims of 'debunking', then we can have more fruitful discussions.

[The Tanager]

You gave an example of another dead writer, Tolken. I see this example as a false comparison. Why? We know who wrote TLoR and The Hobbit, Tolken. Aside from the 'obvious' of his works being intended to be fiction, we also have him, on record, expressing he is a fictional writer. We also have documented occurrence(s) of others helping him with his fictional work(s). Genesis is another animal completely. We do not know whom/who wrote genesis. Hence, the 'evidence' you did provide, for Tolken, cannot begin to apply for the author of Genesis.

It’s not a false comparison. I brought in Tolkien because Transponder said all they needed to do was to paste the text to support a literal interpretation. You’ve also said that that’s just how the text clearly reads, as literal. So does Tolkien’s work. But you don’t come to the same conclusion with that work. That proves that you don’t really think one just needs to paste the text and read it straightforwardly. Except for the Bible.

What we know about the author, his worldview, the cultural context that these kinds of stories were written in, etc. is what makes it “obvious” that The Hobbit is meant as fiction. That is what you need to support Genesis being “obviously” literal. Those kinds of things are why I interpret Genesis the way I do. It’s not to protect the Bible from being falsified. It isn’t trying to make Genesis concord with science. It’s literary analysis. Argue for genres, stop trying to make this about something as though you know my "real" motives.