Most improbable Bible story?

[Difflugia]

In the Samson thread, it's noted that the story includes a number of improbable elements: he killed a lion with his bare hands, single-handedly killed thirty men of Ashkelon, found three hundred foxes and tied them together, and killed a thousand men with a donkey bone. Since each of these must be true individually for the story to be true as a whole (at least in a literalist sense), the probability of the whole story being true is the individual probabilities multiplied together.

Taken in a literal way, which Bible story requires the most outrageous set of contingent probabilities? Is Samson the worst?

[JehovahsWitness]

Thank you for providing readers with a religious perspective on these matters.

You are most welcome. If one first decides that there is no God, and then fits the bible narrative around that disbelief, it is naturally impossible to come to an objective conclusion about the reasonableness of the text. Confirmation bias will always result in a distorted analysis.


JW

[Zzyzx]

.

Thank you for providing readers with a religious perspective on these matters.

You are most welcome. If one first decides that there is no God, and then fits the bible narrative around that disbelief, it is naturally impossible to come to an objective conclusion about the reasonableness of the text. Confirmation bias will always result in a distorted analysis.

If one first decides that there is a God, and then fits the bible narrative around that belief, it is naturally impossible to come to an objective conclusion about the reasonableness of the text. Confirmation bias will always result in a distorted analysis.

Fortunately there are some who do not claim to know whether there is a god or not. Read my signature.

From that perspective, the Bible is no more rational than other ancient religious texts or folk tales -- and is not useful in making modern life decisions.

[JehovahsWitness]

Fortunately there are some who do not claim to know whether there is a god or not. Read my signature.

Your signature is of no interest to me.

If one approaches the biblical text from s strictly neutral point of view, one can, as I said conclude that if there is a God, then his enabling a human to overpower a lion would logically be possible and given the circumstances described, probable. A preconceived bias rejecting that possiblility can aways be imposed. Indeed such a bias is a necessary premise for those for suggestions that supernatural events as "improbable" (or even"ludicrous") rather than simply infrequent and inexplicable.




JW

[Tcg]

If one approaches the biblical text from s strictly neutral point of view...

Nobody who is convinced that God exists could do so. Convinced theists have concluded before reading the text that God exists. This is the opposite of approaching the text from a strictly neutral point of view.


Tcg

[SallyF]

This is pretty high on the improbability list.

But if we brainwash Christian kiddies with enough of the stuff …


Some of them are going to grow up and know that in "faith" …


It's NOT just human-imagined make-believe …


It's REAL …!

[Purple Knight]

If one approaches the biblical text from s strictly neutral point of view...

Nobody who is convinced that God exists could do so. Convinced theists have concluded before reading the text that God exists. This is the opposite of approaching the text from a strictly neutral point of view.

I think anyone can be neutral if they set their mind to it. It's difficult, and actually achieving it makes you a sort of broken person inside, but I don't buy that people are incapable of overcoming their biases.

I don't buy that people are incapable of logic, which is basically what you're claiming here.

Everyone is told at least some things when they're a child - things they have no idea whatsoever the truth-value of. Humans are programmed to accept and adopt these beliefs, and their minds grow up around those beliefs like a vine over a sturdy tree. You do need a tree, or your vine won't grow, which is why we have to be so very, very careful what we tell our children.

It's a terrible experience, but you can actually cut down your tree and choose Reason. If your vine has grown well enough, it's possible for it to stay.

People do convert to atheism. People also convert to religion from atheism, which is a hard and fast example of someone reading the texts neutrally who believes in them, for when atheist, they must have been neutral to the texts. (I can't fathom how this could happen, but it does happen, C.S. Lewis being an example.)

We atheists do likewise also have a tree for our vine. It's important to understand that. It may be a slightly better tree, but we're not unbiased. We, also, must take off our own glasses - rip out the very lenses of our own eyes - to look at the matter of religion neutrally. It's not easy.

[Difflugia]

If one approaches the biblical text from s strictly neutral point of view, one can, as I said conclude that if there is a God, then his enabling a human to overpower a lion would logically be possible and given the circumstances described, probable. A preconceived bias rejecting that possiblility can aways be imposed. Indeed such a bias is a necessary premise for those for suggestions that supernatural events as "improbable" (or even"ludicrous") rather than simply infrequent and inexplicable.

Please explain what you mean by "strictly neutral." As far as I can tell, a "strictly neutral" approach still has miracles being grossly improbable, either in terms of any given miracle or of miracles in aggregate. The only way one can come to the conclusion that miracles are probable is by not actually evaluating the quality of evidence for miracles. Rather than neutrality, it sounds to me like you're advocating for a special, credulous approach that's reserved only for the Bible. Have you (or will you) approach the following with the same kind of neutrality? Note that each of these are claimed by its author to be nonfiction.

• The Teachings of Don Juan by Carlos Castaneda?
• Science and Health with Key to the Scripture by Mary Baker Eddy?
• Out on a Limb by Shirley MacLaine?
• The Book of Mormon by God?
• The Wars of Gods and Men by Zecharia Sitchin?
• The Great Controversy by Ellen G. White?
• Children of the Matrix by David Icke?

[SallyF]

Moses and all the amazing tricks he performed with his magic wand are right up there on the improbable list too.


And provide more great fodder with which to brainwash the Christian kiddies into treating "faith" as reality.

[JehovahsWitness]

As far as I can tell, a "strictly neutral" approach still has miracles being grossly improbable, either in terms of any given miracle or of miracles in aggregate.]

Why improbable? Unusual yes, even unique. But based on what would one conclude improbable?

[SallyF]

This scriptural truth from the "Word of God" goes WAY beyond improbable.


And it takes a LOT of contortion and choosing of the meanings of words to make it metaphor.


It's how the humans who made this stuff up saw the world.

With NO evidence of any input from ANY version of "God".