Interests:life, love, 'wisdom,' philosophy, history (esp. ancient history, philosophy, and religion), Greek and Latin, psychology, consciousness, evolution, the role of will and the possibility of conscious/willed evolution, evolutionary potential, environmental issues, business ethics, music, piano, guitar, frisbee, writing, food, sex, sleep. Expertise:none. but some older papers are on a website, www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity .
Face book: ask. Occupation:student Industry:education
This is a response to trunthepaige’s xanga, Sunday, May 11, 2008, Intelligent Design:
trunthepaige's original post:
The Appearance of Design or Intelligent Design: Simply defined, if you find a intricate machine (a watch) in a location were no human has ever been (Venus). You don’t assume that the watch grew there all by itself. Despite the fact that you can not prove anyone had ever been to Venus before you. You assume there was a watchmaker.
Irreducible complexity, reduced to a simplistic explanation.
The simplest of cells, even the smallest and simplest of self replicating proteins. ALL have functions in them that are vastly more intricate than any watch. More intricate than the computer you are reading these words off of. These functions, (like the parts of a watch) serve no purpose, unless all the parts are in place and working properly. In other words without a designer (watchmaker) evolutionary biologists were asking us to accept that a fully functioning watch, just happened for no reason.
It is a fact that cells are irreducibly complex. They appear to be designed. How did this just happen? How did it evolve piece by piece, incrementally?
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[Preliminary remark: If complexity requires design, then any designer capable of designing it also requires design, and one is stuck in an infinite loop. Creationists usually do not understand evolution. They often claim that complexity requires design, yet they simultaneously say they believe in a complex god who was not designed. ]
My reponse:
The questions you raise are important, and I find no fault with them, as questions. However, it seems to me that although you may have good intentions, the reasoning behind at least part the post is outdated. I want to bring this to your attention and see if I can offer anything of value in the debate. These are old arguments which have been refuted since they were originally developed and propagated. I will provide some brief explanation and LINKS, so that you can look into these things IF you are motivated by a genuine desire for understanding.
Your key phrase – “Irreducible Complexity” – is a concept that was promoted by Michael Behe in his book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (1996; 2006). Behe’s arguments have been refuted numerous times, but his work is still influential BECAUSE people do not read the scientific literature and are instead more inclined to listen to someone who’ll make them feel better about their religious ideas.
Behe’s book was rejected by the scientific community.
“Though influential within the intelligent design movement for several years, the book has lost some of its currency as more and more examples given by Behe as evidence of irreducible complexity have been shown to be explicable by known evolutionary mechanisms, something Behe conceded under cross examination while testifying as an expert witness on behalf of the defendants in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Black_Box )
“In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District [2005, Pennsylvania], the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense, and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges that they say further undermine his statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".[31] During this testimony Behe conceded that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[32] Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modeling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.[33] [34]
John E. Jones III, the judge of the case, [a conservative, church-going Christian appointed by President Bush] in his final ruling relied heavily upon Behe's testimony for the defense in his judgment for the plaintiffs, citing:
"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."[5]
"As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."[5]
"First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."[6]
"What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."[7]
"We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[8]
"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."[36]
"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex."[37]
“ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District)
----- -----
I highly recommend reading about the Kitzmiller v. Dover case; it is more interesting than fiction. The advocates of Intelligent Design measures in the school district turned out not to seem so morally upright either. Judge Jones, in his decision, wrote:
"Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions," Jones wrote. "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. … Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. … Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony."
To avoid repeating what has already been written . . .
Here are some LINKS to sites and articles that explain WHY Behe and other ID-advocates are wrong, and WHY “IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY” is no stumbling bock for EVOLUTION:
2. A Biochemist's Response to "The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution": A Review of "DARWIN'S BLACK BOX- the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", (The Free Press, New York, 1996). for Bios magazine; most of the text for this review was written in July, 1998. - http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html#update
3. Darwin v. Intelligent Design (Again) – A book review of Behe’s work by H. Allen Orr (1996-7) in the Boston Review - http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html - The latest attack on evolution is cleverly argued, biologically informed—and wrong.
4. Behe's Empty Box - John Catalano – an especially good resource, with links to numerous reviews - Reviews and Criticisms of Michael Behe's book: "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" ...and the hypothesis of Intelligent Design - http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml
----- ----- -----
GENERAL WEB SITES that treat EVOLUTION vs. INTELLIGENT DESIGN / CREATIONISM:
1. http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/ - This web site, a sub-site of TalkOrigins.org, is a response to the "Intelligent Design" movement of creationism. It is dedicated to: a.) Assessing the claims of the Intelligent Design movement from the perspective of mainstream science; b.) Addressing the wider political, cultural, philosophical, moral, religious, and educational issues that have inspired the ID movement; c.) Providing an archive of materials that critically examine the scientific claims of the ID movement.
I am out of time, or I might post so many more that are well worth consideration.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lots of modern Christians have accepted evolution; some are among evolutions chief public proponents.
"Kenneth R. Miller (born 1948) is a biology professor at Brown University. Miller, who is Roman Catholic, is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design movement. He has written a book on the subject entitled Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, in which he furthers the argument that a belief in evolution is compatible with a belief in God." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller)
Even Pope John Paul II acknowledged that there was lots of support for the theory,
and did not consider it incompatible with the faith, as long as certain qualifications were in place.
However, allowing for exceptions, Christians who do accept evolution often fall into two camps: 1.) those who are liberal, well-educated, and do not actually believe the Bible is literally true, and 2.) those who don't even understand their own religion or its book(s) well enough to discern the problems.
- - - - -
Let it be an issue of evidence and not a matter of clinging to ancient myths regardless of evidence.
- - - - -
I also wish to note that what
the Bible has to say about creation and about ancient history is not a
factual, historical account, but a collection of Jewish and Christian
myth and legend with just a bit of history mixed in. I discovered this years ago when I was still Christian, and I wrote a bit about some of the problems with the Bible here:
The New Testament adopts much of the mythology of the old, along with
the severe chronological/historical problems, suggesting that there
were only 77 generations of humans from God to Jesus through Adam
(Luke) and that the Jewish stories were actual history.
"The globalization paradigm emphasizes the fact that information can
now travel 15,000 miles in an instant. But the most important part of
information’s journey is the last few inches — the space between a
person’s eyes or ears and the various regions of the brain. Does the
individual have the capacity to understand the information? Does he or
she have the training to exploit it? Are there cultural assumptions
that distort the way it is perceived? "
-----
New York Times
Op-Ed Columnist
The Cognitive Age
function getSharePasskey() { return 'ex=1367467200&en=cc3f18b330bcead4&ei=5124';}
function getShareURL() {
return encodeURIComponent('http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/02/opinion/02brooks.html');
}
function getShareHeadline() {
return encodeURIComponent('The Cognitive Age');
}
function getShareDescription() {
return encodeURIComponent('There’s a problem with the way the globalization paradigm has evolved. It doesn’t really explain most of what is happening in the world.');
}
function getShareKeywords() {
return encodeURIComponent('United States Economy,Economic Conditions and Trends,International Trade and World Market,Presidential Election of 2008,India,China');
}
function getShareSection() {
return encodeURIComponent('opinion');
}
function getShareSectionDisplay() {
return encodeURIComponent('Op-Ed Columnist');
}
function getShareSubSection() {
return encodeURIComponent('');
}
function getShareByline() {
return encodeURIComponent('By DAVID BROOKS');
}
function getSharePubdate() {
return encodeURIComponent('May 2, 2008');
}
If you go into a good library, you will
find thousands of books on globalization. Some will laud it. Some will
warn about its dangers. But they’ll agree that globalization is the
chief process driving our age. Our lives are being transformed by the
increasing movement of goods, people and capital across borders.
David Brooks
The globalization paradigm
has led, in the political arena, to a certain historical narrative:
There were once nation-states like the U.S. and the European powers,
whose economies could be secured within borders. But now capital flows
freely. Technology has leveled the playing field. Competition is global
and fierce.
New dynamos like India and China threaten American
dominance thanks to their cheap labor and manipulated currencies. Now,
everything is made abroad. American manufacturing is in decline. The
rest of the economy is threatened.
Hillary Clinton summarized
the narrative this week: “They came for the steel companies and nobody
said anything. They came for the auto companies and nobody said
anything. They came for the office companies, people who did
white-collar service jobs, and no one said anything. And they came for
the professional jobs that could be outsourced, and nobody said
anything.”
The globalization paradigm has turned out to be very
convenient for politicians. It allows them to blame foreigners for
economic woes. It allows them to pretend that by rewriting trade deals,
they can assuage economic anxiety. It allows them to treat economic and
social change as a great mercantilist competition, with various teams
competing for global supremacy, and with politicians starring as the
commanding generals.
But there’s a problem with the way the
globalization paradigm has evolved. It doesn’t really explain most of
what is happening in the world.
Globalization is real and
important. It’s just not the central force driving economic change.
Some Americans have seen their jobs shipped overseas, but global
competition has accounted for a small share of job creation and
destruction over the past few decades. Capital does indeed flow around
the world. But as Pankaj Ghemawat of the Harvard Business School has
observed, 90 percent of fixed investment around the world is domestic.
Companies open plants overseas, but that’s mainly so their production
facilities can be close to local markets.
Nor is the
globalization paradigm even accurate when applied to manufacturing.
Instead of fleeing to Asia, U.S. manufacturing output is up over recent
decades. As Thomas Duesterberg of Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI, a
research firm, has pointed out, the U.S.’s share of global
manufacturing output has actually increased slightly since 1980.
The chief force reshaping manufacturing is technological change
(hastened by competition with other companies in Canada, Germany or
down the street). Thanks to innovation, manufacturing productivity has
doubled over two decades. Employers now require fewer but more highly
skilled workers. Technological change affects China just as it does the
America. William Overholt of the RAND Corporation has noted that
between 1994 and 2004 the Chinese shed 25 million manufacturing jobs,
10 times more than the U.S.
The central process driving this is
not globalization. It’s the skills revolution. We’re moving into a more
demanding cognitive age. In order to thrive, people are compelled to
become better at absorbing, processing and combining information. This
is happening in localized and globalized sectors, and it would be
happening even if you tore up every free trade deal ever inked.
The globalization paradigm emphasizes the fact that information can now
travel 15,000 miles in an instant. But the most important part of
information’s journey is the last few inches — the space between a
person’s eyes or ears and the various regions of the brain. Does the
individual have the capacity to understand the information? Does he or
she have the training to exploit it? Are there cultural assumptions
that distort the way it is perceived?
The globalization
paradigm leads people to see economic development as a form of foreign
policy, as a grand competition between nations and civilizations. These
abstractions, called “the Chinese” or “the Indians,” are doing this or
that. But the cognitive age paradigm emphasizes psychology, culture and
pedagogy — the specific processes that foster learning. It emphasizes
that different societies are being stressed in similar ways by
increased demands on human capital. If you understand that you are
living at the beginning of a cognitive age, you’re focusing on the real
source of prosperity and understand that your anxiety is not being
caused by a foreigner.
It’s not that globalization and the
skills revolution are contradictory processes. But which paradigm you
embrace determines which facts and remedies you emphasize. Politicians,
especially Democratic ones, have fallen in love with the globalization
paradigm. It’s time to move beyond it.
FORT RILEY, Kan. — When Specialist Jeremy Hall held a meeting last July for atheists and freethinkers at Camp Speicher in Iraq, he was excited, he said, to see an officer attending.
At center, the chapel at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. In 2005, new rules went into effect after cadets complained that evangelical Christian officers proselytized on campus.
But minutes into the talk, the officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, began to berate Specialist Hall and another soldier about atheism, Specialist Hall wrote in a sworn statement. “People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!” Major Welborn said, according to the statement.
Major Welborn told the soldiers he might bar them from re-enlistment and bring charges against them, according to the statement.
Last month, Specialist Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group, filed suit in federal court in Kansas, alleging that Specialist Hall’s right to be free from state endorsement of religion under the First Amendment had been violated and that he had faced retaliation for his views. In November, he was sent home early from Iraq because of threats from fellow soldiers.
Eileen Lainez, a spokeswoman for the Defense Department, declined to comment on the case, saying, “The department does not discuss pending litigation.”
Specialist Hall’s lawsuit is the latest incident to raise questions about the military’s religion guidelines. In 2005, the Air Force issued new regulations in response to complaints from cadets at the Air Force Academy that evangelical Christian officers used their positions to proselytize. In general, the armed forces have regulations, Ms. Lainez said, that respect “the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs.”
To Specialist Hall and other critics of the military, the guidelines have done little to change a culture they say tilts heavily toward evangelical Christianity. Controversies have continued to flare, largely over tactics used by evangelicals to promote their faith. Perhaps the most high-profile incident involved seven officers, including four generals, who appeared, in uniform and in violation of military regulations, in a 2006 fund-raising video for the Christian Embassy, an evangelical Bible study group.
“They don’t trust you because they think you are unreliable and might break, since you don’t have God to rely on,” Specialist Hall said of those who proselytize in the military. “The message is, ‘It’s a Christian nation, and you need to recognize that.’ ”
Soft-spoken and younger looking than his 23 years, Specialist Hall began a chapter of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers at Camp Speicher, near Tikrit, to support others like him.
At the July meeting, Major Welborn told the soldiers they had disgraced those who had died for the Constitution, Specialist Hall said. When he finished, Major Welborn said, according to the statement: “I love you guys; I just want the best for you. One day you will see the truth and know what I mean.”
Major Welborn declined to comment beyond saying, “I’d love to tell my side of the story because it’s such a false story.”
But Timothy Feary, the other soldier at the meeting, said in an e-mail message: “Jeremy is telling the truth. I was there and witnessed everything.”
It is unclear how widespread religious discrimination or proselytizing is in the armed forces, constitutional law experts and leaders of veterans’ groups said. No one has independently studied the issue, and service members are reluctant to come forward because of possible backlash, those experts said.
There are 1.36 million active duty service members, according to the Pentagon, and since 2005, it has received 50 formal complaints of religious discrimination, Ms. Lainez said.
In an e-mail statement, Bill Carr, the Defense Department’s deputy under secretary for military personnel policy, said he “saw near universal compliance with the department’s policy.”
But Mikey Weinstein, a retired Air Force judge advocate general and founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said the official statistics masked the great number of those who do not report violations for fear of retribution. Since the Air Force Academy scandal began in 2004, Mr. Weinstein said, he has been contacted by more than 5,500 service members and, occasionally, military families about incidents of religious discrimination. He said 96 percent of the complainants were Christians, and the majority of those were Protestants.
Complaints include prayers “in Jesus’ name” at mandatory functions, which violates military regulations, and officers proselytizing subordinates to be “born again.” After getting the complainants’ unit and command information, Mr. Weinstein said, he calls his contacts in the military to try to correct the situation.
“Religion is inextricably intertwined with their jobs,” Mr. Weinstein said. “You’re promoted by who you pray with.”
Specialist Hall came to atheism after years as a Christian. He was raised Baptist by his grandmother in Richlands, N.C., a town of less than 1,000 people. She read the Bible to him every night, and he said he joined the Army “to make something of myself.”
“I thought going to Iraq was right because we had God on our side,” he said in an interview near Fort Riley.
In the summer of 2005, after his first deployment to Iraq, Specialist Hall became friends with soldiers with atheist leanings. Their questions about faith prompted him to read the Bible more closely, which bred doubts that deepened over time.
“There are so many religions in the world,” he said. “Everyone thinks he’s right. Who is right? Even people who are Christians think other Christians are wrong.”
Specialist Hall said he did not advertise his atheism. But his views became apparent during his second deployment in 2006. At a Thanksgiving meal, someone at his table asked everyone to pray. Specialist Hall did not join in, explaining to a sergeant that he did not believe in God. The sergeant got angry, he said, and told him to go to another table.
After his run-in with Major Welborn, Specialist Hall did not file a complaint with the Army’s Equal Opportunity Office because, he said, he was mistrustful of his superior officers. Instead, he told leaders of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, who put him in touch with Mr. Weinstein. In November 2007, Specialist Hall was sent home early from Iraq after being repeatedly threatened by other soldiers. “I caution you that although your ‘legal’ issues are yours and yours alone, I have heard many people disagree with you, and this may be a cause for some of the perceived threats,” wrote Sgt. Maj. Kevin Nolan in Specialist Hall’s counseling for his departure.
Though with a different unit now at Fort Riley, Specialist Hall said the backlash had continued. He has a no-contact order with a sergeant who, without provocation, threatened to “bust him in the mouth.” Another sergeant allegedly told Specialist Hall that as an atheist, he was not entitled to religious freedom because he had no religion.
Responding to questions about Specialist Hall’s experience at Fort Riley, the staff judge advocate, Col. Arnold Scott, said in an e-mail message, “In accordance with Army policy, Fort Riley is committed to ensuring the rights of all its soldiers are protected, including those of Specialist Hall.”
Civilian courts in the past have been reluctant to take on military cases, and the Justice Department has yet to respond to Specialist Hall’s lawsuit.
“Even if it doesn’t go through, I stood up,” Specialist Hall said. “I don’t think it is futile.”
----- ----- -----
This happens often, and it isn't limited to the military.
I grew up as a Christian hearing other Christians talk about the "evils of secular humanism and atheism." From local pastors and nationally televised ministries (e.g. 700Club - I used to be a member when I was younger), I often heard rhetoric about how America had "turned its back on God." Yet this is a country in which an openly non-Christian individual would not even stand a chance at being elected as president, according to national polls.
>> You wrote, “were the greek illiad, and Odyssey written solely to speak of Troy's existence? Of course not, hence this is again an erroneous argument.”
I never suggested that the Iliad and Odyssey were “written solely to speak of Troy's existence.” You were claiming that “The bible has been proven countless times to be factually and historically accurate.” There are certain details of the Bible that ARE accurate, but there are plenty that are not. Proving some things accurate does not make the whole thing historically accurate, just as proving some aspects of the Iliad and the Odyssey to be accurate does not make the entire works historically accurate.
Greeks and Jews both wrote literature describing their history. Much (not all) of the oldest Jewish literature is preserved in the Old Testament. Modern historians accept neither Greek nor Jewish writings as completely historical accurate.
----- ----- -----
>> You wrote, “Factual, and Historical representation speaks to the timelines in the Bible, the proclamations of it's participants, etc, and is obtained through vast, and all encompassing study.”
The entire chronology and the stories from Genesis to David and Solomon are NOT accepted as historical fact by academic historians.
I am NOT saying that there is NO historical information in the Bible; I AM saying that it is a fact that it was written by many different humans at many different times and contains human prejudices, motives, and errors.
Jewish stories (i.e. the Old Testament) had dreadful chronological (and other) problems, and Christianity inherited these problems.
c. 4100's BC - Adam and Eve are created by Yahweh. (Again, this is not some made up date; this is using the Bible’s own information. Follow my link for the scripture citations.)
c. 2400's BC - Noah and his family survive a world-wide flood in a big box with a bunch of animals. Supposedly all people and animals on the whole earth were destroyed except Noah's family and the animals in his big floating box.
c. 2400's - 2100's BC - Up until now supposedly all humans spoke the same language (and lived in the Middle East)!! But now, when Yahweh gets bothered by people building a really high tower [I wonder what he would think of skyscrapers!?] in the Middle East, he decides to scatter people around the globe and confuse all their languages. And that's how different languages supposedly developed and that's supposedly why the place was called Babylon (just because Babel sounds like Hebrew for confused.).
c. 2000's - 2100's - Abraham (a man named "Father of Nations"!) is supposed to be running around receiving divine promises of great things for certain of his descendants.
c. 1400's - Moses supposedly leads about 2.5 million people out of 400 years of Egyptian slavery amid great catastrophes for Egyptians and miracles for Israelites.
c. 1300's - Joshua supposedly defeats his Canaanite enemies as Yahweh performs miracles like stopping the sun in the middle of its sky-crossing for about a day so that the battle at Gibeon can last longer.
c. 900's - Solomon supposedly has a vast Israelite Empire from the Euphrates to the Egyptian border, 700 wives and 300 concubines, stables with 40,000 stalls of horses, 1,400 chariots, 12,000 cavalrymen, so much wealth that silver is "as common in Jerusalem as stone" (1 Kgs 10:27); he supposedly "excelled all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom" so that "the whole world" sought his presence (1 Kgs 10:23-4). [yet he is not even mentioned in a single known Egyptian or Mesopotamian text!]
On NONE of these subjects are the details provided by the Bible historically accurate.
Greeks, Egyptians, and Hindus all knew that people had been around on earth far longer than the Jewish writers of Genesis thought.
Archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age culture goes back much further than 50,000 BC, and people were around before the Stone Age. By 8,000 BC in Palestine, agriculture, animal domestication, and permanent town sites had already developed--and this is long before the Bible says Adam even existed! Even those radically conservative Christians who doubt scientists' dating methods should note that Adam supposedly lived 930 years; that means he would have died around 3181 BC, right around the time Egypt was developing into an advanced civilization and already had kings! Such a story simply does not fit with history.
The Noah story is but a Jewish variation on a much older story from the Babylonians, who themselves modified a still older Sumerian version. The Greeks made their own version too; they called the surviving couple Deucalion and Pyrrha.
The Abraham stories, too, are more legend than history. Many ancient tribes/nations created such stories to explain and justify their traditions and ideas and goals. See my paper for details.
What do you think would happen if one were to go to a university and ask a linguistics professor for his opinion on the Bible’s story for the origins of different human languages at Babel?
I give many more details about the following subjects in my paper: Adam & Eve; Jabal, Jubal, & Tubal Cain; The Flood; The Curse of Ham; The Descendants of Shem, Ham, & Japheth; The Patriarchs: Abraham & His Relatives; The Patriarchs: Isaac & Jacob; The Exodus; Moses; Late Authorship of the Pentateuch, Not Mosaic (again the URL is http://www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity/OTChrono.html).
----- ----- -----
>>You wrote, “For instance, in that we have the writings of Paul preserved, who lived not long after the Christ, and among men who had known Jesus, why are there not an equal amount of disputational writings from this time?"
A vast amount of ancient literature has been lost. The very books of the NT were written apologetically amid controversy. They were written to support certain views and the growth of the new religion.
Also, from Constantine on, authorities and rulers used Christianity and the church as a tool in the assistance of the state. Christian authorities suppressed a great amount of anti-Christian literature that had been written. Some of it we do have, often by extracting it from the writings of Christian apologists, since the works themselves were usually destroyed by Christian authorities; some we have in fragments; much was lost because it conflicted with official ideology. Alleged writings of Paul were preserved (and edited) first by followers presumably, but ultimately because they conformed (and were sometimes on small points possibly made to conform) to official ideology of the official religion of the Empire. Documents and ideas that did not conform were destroyed. Also, there were many forms of Christianity with varying beliefs – the form that won the political battles got to write the story their way.
Further, there is no guarantee that all the words ascribed to Paul are authentic. Very many NT scholars hold that 1, 2 Timothy and Titus, for example, were written well after Paul’s death, and quite a number believe that Ephesians and Colossians were not written by Paul. The epistle to the Hebrews was once ascribed to Paul; now hardly anyone thinks so. Some pseudepigraphic literature made it into the New Testament (like the “Pastoral Epistles”) whereas other pseudepigraphic literature did not (like some pretended correspondence between the Apostle Paul and the philosopher Seneca). A good basic introductory New Testament class at a non-fundamentalist university will cover these topics. So will college textbooks. Here are two for starters:
From Jesus to Christianity : How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith, by L. Michael White (Dec 1, 2004)
New Testament Story: An Introduction, by David L. Barr (2001)
- - -
It is a demonstrable fact that Christians tampered with Biblical texts as time went on. One need only purchase a Greek text of the Bible with a critical apparatus in it, showing the textual variations among surviving copies. For a brief essay with some interesting examples, check out “Which Bible?” by Steven Carr (1997), which is available on-line both at http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/976which.html and also on my web page http://www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity/index.html. We have proof that variants exist, and although some variants may be accidents, it is a fact that Christians edited/'doctored' their texts. Here’s one example: Mark 13:32 says Jesus is not omniscient, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” And some manuscripts of Matthew 24:36 say the same, but unknown Christians took that phrase "nor the Son" out of other manuscripts, because it conflicted with their doctrine. They did not succeed in reaching every manuscript! And that's the only way we know what they were trying to pull off. This betrays yet another attempt to change their story, to shape the "facts." Who knows how many cases of tampering and 'editing' went unnoticed?
Early Christians were CREATING religion. They invented all kinds of stories and they were even willing to forge testimony to support their cause. The books that made it into the New Testament are only a small fraction of what they wrote and tried to write. For a more pertinent discussion of these things along with “the words of Jesus” and their dubious (in many cases) authenticity, I point you to a xanga post I made: http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/640522016/the-words-of-jesus.html .
----- ----- -----
>> You wrote, “Hmm.. Why are there not an equal number of factually, and historically proven writings from the times of Moses, or Noah, or David, or ..... written disputationally?”
The much-better-documented history of Egypt is itself a testimony to the fallaciousness of many details of Jewish mythology.
First, the Biblical date for the Exodus conflicts even with other information provided in the Bible itself. The Jews who wrote I and II Kings said (I Kings 6:1) the Exodus was 480 years before Solomon (c. 1446 BC), and Exodus says the Jewish slaves in Egypt built Pithom and Rameses (Exodus 1:11). This place called Rameses is mentioned also in Gen. 47:11, Ex. 12:37, and Num. 33:3,5, and is doubtless named after the great pharaoh Ramesses II. But Ramesses II hadn't even been born in 1446 BC, so no city at that time would have been named after him. That is one of the reasons why many modern Christians think the Exodus happened in the 1200s (the time of Ramesses II) instead of the 1400s, and the movie "The Ten Commandments" puts Moses in this later period. If it did happen in the 1200s, then the Bible is wrong when it says it happened 480 years before Solomon.
But neither a 1200s-BC nor a 1400s-BC date for the exodus solves the problem. After the Exodus, Israel supposedly numbered about 2.5 million (deduced from Num. 1:44-46, which gives the number of Hebrew fighting men), but the entire population of Egypt at that time was only 3-4.5 million; scholars know that the numbers are exaggerated, or even complete fabrications. Indeed, the loss of a servile population of 2.5 million, the pillaging of the gold and silver, the destruction of "the entire army of pharaoh" (Ex.14:28), and the great and horrible Ten Plagues (all mentioned in Exodus) would have had a totally devastating effect on Egypt,
In fact, Egypt had a mighty empire throughout that period, as is attested by both archeology and the historical record (for a brief summary, see The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypthttp://www.amazon.com/Penguin-Historical-Atlas-Ancient-Egypt/dp/0140513310/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208028958&sr=1-1). Egypt was ruled by Thutmose III for most of the 1400s, and by Ramesses II for most of the 1200s. Both of these rulers were among the greatest pharaohs who ever existed, and both even fought great battles in Canaan and the surrounding area: Thutmose III was hero of the Battle of Megiddo (c. 1457), and Ramesses II fought the Hittites of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) to a stand-still at Kadesh (c. 1275). Around 1259, Egypt and the Hittites signed a treaty dividing control of Syrian trade-routes. The entire period from around 1518 to 1087 BCE was called the New Kingdom, a time in which Egypt was very strong and was a respected international power.
This undercuts both the 1400s and the 1200s as likely time-frames for the Exodus, at least the kind of exodus described in the Bible, with its devastating plagues, parting of the Red Sea, and destruction of the entire army of the pharaoh. In other words, the biblical Exodus account is at the very least extremely exaggerated and most likely misplaced in historical chronology. Some historians believe that the events which grew into the legend of the Exodus could have happened during the time of the Hyksos, who held power in the eastern Nile delta from around 1636 until 1518, when Pharaoh Ahmose drove them out and established the New Kingdom in Egypt (Redford 412-422 argues that the Exodus story is a memory of the Hyksos age kept alive and modified among the Canaanites and adopted by the Hebrews). Others think the exodus may have happened in the New Kingdom, but was nothing like the Biblical account.
----- ----- -----
>> You wrote, “and as an aside... greek mythology is simply that. mythology, of it's own admittance.... the Bible does not claim myths, it proclaims truth.”
The Greeks traditionally believed that their myths were true, just as you think yours are true. Spartans really believed their kings were descended from Heracles. Greeks really believed that Zeus was “king of gods and men.” They really believed in the power of Athena. They really believed in the healing power of Apollo and Asclepius. They really believed Heracles had been to the underworld and had come back (and Orpheus and others). They really believed Heracles became a god and went into the sky.
In the 400’s BC and afterward, when Greek philosophers questioned the existence of the Gods or questioned the stories about the Gods, some of them were killed and some were exiled for doing so. The same things have happened in Christian and Jewish history. Two quick examples: Spinoza’s life was threatened when he realized and demonstrated that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. More recently, my friend’s grandfather said, “Somebody oughta shoot that fellow,” when he heard a scholar say that the virgin birth was not a historical fact.
We call them myths. By “myths,” some people mean “un-true stories,” but other people simply mean “stories,” which is what the original Greek word μῦθος (mythos) meant. The Greeks would have considered many of the Jewish writings to be mythoi as well. It is common in university/ academic circles to refer to much of the Bible as “Jewish mythology.” The designation does not, of itself, mean there is NO truth to the stories.
Kings and Chronicles come closer to what we call “history,” but historians and archaeologiests do not think these books are all factual either. A good historian always asks questions of his/her sources: who wrote it, when, where, to whom, why, how, under what influences, with what assumptions, with what world-view, etc.
----- ----- -----
>>You wrote, “I sincerely hope you stop attempting to trust in your own wisdom. The Bible proclaims that the fool says in his heart "there is no God." consider that.”
Even IF I had said, “There is no God,” I certainly would not be shaking in my boots simply because some ignorant, ancient Jewish dude thought atheists were foolish. Uneducated Greeks in the 400’s BC also thought it was foolish to deny Zeus and the rest. Muslims think it is foolish to deny Allah. Mormons may think I’m foolish not to believe in Joseph Smith’s special tablets or Jesus’ trip to America. So what? How did these people get their faith? On what did they base their “claims”?
The Mormon at my door said, “Just ask God if the book is true, and he will tell you. You will feel it in your heart that it is true.”
This Mormon hears from God!!! What do YOU think about Mormonism?
-----
More to the point ...
Do YOU claim to have a “personal relationship” with a or “the” “one true” god?
If so, what can you show for it? If you ask “him” a question, will "he" answer you?
If you say yes, then I propose we test this hypothesis. I will give you the question to ask your “god,” and IF you REALLY have a “relationship” with this so-called god and “his” “spirit” really does “dwell” inside you and you are not just deluding yourself with empty words, then he will answer you and you can tell me what he says. THAT might give me some evidence that maybe, just maybe you have something REAL, as opposed to some ancient words.
Will you say, “Oh, but you should not put the Lord your God to the test”??!!
Well now, how convenient for your claims, huh?! Couldn’t any prayer request be considered a “test”? Yet your holy book says God/Jesus will give you ANYTHING you ask for in faith. I guess we will see what kind of faith you have.
----- ----- -----
Where are the gods of Sumer, Egypt, Babylon, Phoenicia, Judea, Persia, India, China, Greece, Rome? Where is the Christian god now? Science has taken over much of the domain of the old gods, inlcuding Yahweh. Who controls the weather? Does disease come from demons? If you are seriously sick or diseased, do you rely on God alone, in true faith, or do you see a doctor? (See my post on Prayer and the sometimes tragic results of truly relying on a “god” http://www.xanga.com/WindOnReed2/650081546/prayer.html.)
. . .
Why do you think Jesus never bothered to appear to Roman rulers? Why only allegedly to some suspicious people with no credentials who belonged to a largely anti-Roman ethnic group frequently in revolt? Why not stay on earth and show himself to Pilate, Tiberius, all the people and rulers of the world? If he allegedly blinded Saul/Paul and revealed himself, why doesn’t he treat everyone equally and fairly? Is it just b/c “God works in mysterious ways” and isn’t always fair in OUR sense of the word? Is it because he doesn’t want to make things too obvious?!?! Why HIDE the truth?! [... b/c it’s just a story.]
Is Jesus up in the sky just waiting for the right time to come back down in a cloud the same way he went up? If so, does he stay above Jerusalem? Or does the earth revolve under him? Do you even claim to know? This obviously was not an issue for the people who made up the story, since their cosmology was so primitive. [see #25 at my site http://www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity/ListofReasons.html.]
The Roman king Romulus ascended into the sky too, long before Jesus did (700's BC) ... if you are into believing such things. And Romulus also was divine and was a son of God (Mars) and a Vestal virgin. The Roman historian Livy recorded a version of the ascension of Romulus before Christianity was invented.
And what is Jesus doing up there in heaven day after day, millennium after millennium? I thought he said he was coming "soon"? (Rev 22:7 and many over verses have such implications, IF taken literally.) But even if he didn’t say so, what IS he doing? Is he busy watching over things? Answering prayers? Is that hard work? Is he just chillin’?
----- -----
Mormonism is false if taken as literally true, yet it grows. Millions are faithful to its teachings.
Islam is false if taken as literally true, yet it grows. Millions are faithful to its teachings.
Christianity is false if taken as literally true, yet it grows. Millions are faithful to its teachings.
Judaism is false IF it’s sacred writings are taken as literally true. At least it isn’t growing as fast as the other religions.
What is the answer to these chains upon the species? Education. IF only people were more willing and able.
----- -----
There have, for thousands of years, been those educated enough to know that their societies’ religions were man-made, but too often they considered religion useful for controlling “the masses,” and they would not question it openly. The same is often true today. Among many, there is a kind of “conspiracy of silence.” I am not one of the silent, because I grew up taking it seriously, and I wasted too many years stuck in Christianity, believing I had a relationship with Jesus. I see children being brainwashed by their parents, singing songs about the
“B I B L E, yes that’s the book for me. I stand alone on the Word of God, the B I B L E.”
And I know that all over the world various religions are doing the same kinds of things to their children and teenagers.
So many Americans [I grew up this way] prepare their children for religious faith from the earliest days possible, using "God" and religious language to explain anything they don't know and to provide a mental framework. Then they take their children and teenagers to church, revivals, camps, crusades, etc., where persuasive charismatic evangelists work their emotional manipulations of these young minds, explaining how God created them and loves them sooo deeply; and how despite their inward wickedness and unworthiness of God's love, he long ago became a man and did amazingly wonderful loving miraculous things and then suffered horribly FOR US just to show us how much he loved us; and how he died but rose again 3 days later and "proved" it to his followers. And if they will only believe in Jesus, he will give them eternal life with him in paradise. And the children and teens are deeply moved, and of course they want to know and have "a personal relationship with" the God of the universe, and of course they want to live forever, and of course they don't want to go to hell, and of course they don't know any better because they have not been shown the other sides of the issues, and of curse so many of them dedicate their lives to following Jesus' teachings and reading the Bible.
Yet I do not give up, because I’ve been one of the brainwashed and I’ve experienced the psychological turmoil, the cognitive dissonance, of coming across "facts" that do not square with the Biblical teachings of my sheltered youth and first college years, leading me to question my entire value system and mental schema. Although happy to break free, I resented being lied to. When I know that others are still dominated by the ideas which I finally broke free of, I care. That's why I write so much and address these topics whenever they come up.
