Good book on science/religion

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Not at all! Its legitimacy as a moral guide is independent of its validity as a science textbook.

But does it really have that much validity as a moral guide? Lets face it, the book advocates stoning to death adulterers and gay people, says you'll go to hell if you eat shellfish and teaches that making an image of a false god is one of the 10 all time worst things you can ever do. Ok it perks up a bit in the second half but isn't its credibility more or less shot by then anyway?

Any moral guide that requires you to use common sense to distinguish the good advice from the crap isn't really worth much in my opinion. Especially when you consider just how many people lack the commonest of common sense.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

This attitude permaeates so many topics here - That if something in a position or party or text or discussion point has any single bit that is not contemporary or correct or, cripes, even phrased the way the reader wishes - then the entire content must be rejected. I'm amazed at all the absolutists on these boards.

From now on, all books must be one sentence long and only address a single very specific topic. Anything extra, even if completely non-related, would be jeapardized by other content.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Any moral guide that requires you to use common sense to distinguish the good advice from the crap isn't really worth much in my opinion.

Exactly... The bible is about as useful as a moral guide as any other fictional book out there. If you're capable of picking out which parts of it are "right" and which parts are "wrong" then you probably don't need a "moral guide" to begin with.

[billvon 2,406]

>The Bible claims to be The Truth.

A moral truth. Not a scientific one. The pope himself has acknowledged that evolution cannot be dismissed as a mere theory.

>Exactly what is it that makes the Bible a better moral guide than
>any other book?

It's a decent moral guide because it has worked for hundreds of millions of people.

>Rubbish. Heisenburg made no special pleading when he wrote down
>the uncertainty principle. He didn't claim an absolute truth just
>because his favourite sky pixie told him so through a burning
>blackboard.

Of course. You are free to doubt him as well, although I think it would be foolish to do so.

>On the other hand, the bible claims its truth exactly by special
> pleading. If the bits of the Bible that can be verified are found to
>be false (and they are) then how can you believe the bits you can't
> verify?

Fortunately, you don't have to. You can choose another book, or disregard all books on the subject. Which is the good thing about the US (at least, until very recently.)

[JackC 0]

Quote

>The Bible claims to be The Truth.

A moral truth. Not a scientific one. The pope himself has acknowledged that evolution cannot be dismissed as a mere theory.

These days, virtualy no one uses the Bible as the ultimate authority on morals. Even those that do pick and choose the nice bits and ignore the nasty bits. The God of the Old Testament for instance was jealous, racist, sexist tyrant with a bloodlust that would make the worst of genocidal maniacs blush. Superb role model there eh Bill?

And anyway, why does the Bible get special treatment for its moral claims but not for its scientific claims? Special pleading again are we?

Quote

>Exactly what is it that makes the Bible a better moral guide than
>any other book?

It's a decent moral guide because it has worked for hundreds of millions of people.

Argumentum Ad Populum is a logical falacy as you well know. And one that the untold thousands of people persecuted in the name of religion would disagree with.

Moral truth my arse.

[billvon 2,406]

>These days, virtualy no one uses the Bible as the ultimate authority
>on morals.

Right wing types use it as the ultimate authority quite regularly. Turn on any televangelist, or any speech by a creationist.

>The God of the Old Testament for instance was jealous, racist, sexist
> tyrant with a bloodlust that would make the worst of genocidal
> maniacs blush. Superb role model there eh Bill?

Not if you see it that way. You could describe a great many people that way, including many we use as role models. Our own president has been described in almost those terms, as have previous presidents. Yet they are used as role models as well, by people who have a different view of him.

>And anyway, why does the Bible get special treatment for its moral
> claims but not for its scientific claims?

Same reason Heisenburg gets special treatment for his physics while we ignore his mistakes on government. Same reason Pauling gets respect for most of the science he did even if he was monumentally wrong on one aspect of it (the vitamin C thing.)

>Moral truth my arse.

Then use a different one, or make up your own. Your having no use for it does not mean it has use for no one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Right wing types use it as the ultimate authority quite regularly. Turn on any televangelist, or any speech by a creationist.

Since were are wallowing in ignorant stereotypes - I know a lot of "left wing types" that use the bible "religiously" too.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,406]

>I know a lot of "left wing types" that use the bible "religiously" too.

Of course. But one side has been a lot more vocal about bringing faith back to government lately.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>I know a lot of "left wing types" that use the bible "religiously" too.

Of course. But one side has been a lot more vocal about bringing faith back to government lately.

- I could really do without religion altogether, but the only things I've heard have been to treat religious orgs the same as secular orgs. That is less "bringing faith back" as much as getting "religion" out of the decision making process.

Since it all has to do with social/charitable stuff, I'd just as soon keep the federal money away from both (religious and secular) and leave it up to local govs to do as they see fit - unfettered from all the federal junk.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[JackC 0]

Quote

Same reason Heisenburg gets special treatment for his physics while we ignore his mistakes on government.

Oh come on Bill, you know that is complete rubbish. Heisenberg got the same treatment for the uncertainty principle as he did for his toughts on government. There was no special pleading. One stood up to scrutiny (thus far), the other didn't.

In your own words in reply to me saying "Heisenberg made no special pleading when he wrote down the uncertainty principle":

Of course. You are free to doubt him as well, although I think it would be foolish to do so.

If I came up with a testable theory that explained everything that Quantum Mechanics does, plus a bit more and provided a measurable way of falsifying the HUP, how long do you think Heisenbergs "special pleading" would last? Doubting the validity of any scientific theory is one of the basic tennets of science. Heisenberg gets no special treatment. No one does.

Where is the peer review system for the accepted validity of religions?

[billvon 2,406]

>Oh come on Bill, you know that is complete rubbish.

You honestly believe that his Uncertainty Principle is just as valid as the idea that democracy can never work in Europe? You can believe that, but that seems foolish.

>Heisenberg gets no special treatment. No one does.

He does from me. I tend to believe what he says about particle/wave duality (for example) more than I would believe your theory - at least until you had done the work to prove that you are correct. In the meantime he gets special treatment because he _did_ do the work.

>Where is the peer review system for the accepted validity of religions?

Peer review is specific to science. There is no official peer review system for popular music, literature, political analysis, modern art - you name it. Doesn't invalidate any of those things.

[JackC 0]

Quote

You honestly believe that his Uncertainty Principle is just as valid as the idea that democracy can never work in Europe? You can believe that, but that seems foolish.

That's not what I said. I said (and I'll repeat it word for word so there is no confusion) "Heisenberg got the same treatment for the uncertainty principle as he did for his toughts on government. There was no special pleading. One stood up to scrutiny (thus far), the other didn't."

Quote

He does from me. I tend to believe what he says about particle/wave duality (for example) more than I would believe your theory - at least until you had done the work to prove that you are correct. In the meantime he gets special treatment because he _did_ do the work.

Note the bold text. Why did the Thompson Model or Rutherford's Planetary Model or even Bohr's Model of the Atom fall out of favour? You don't need to give Heisenberg any special treatment, you can do his derivation yourself and read all the evidence and came to your own conclusion. 'tis not the kings stamp can make metal better or heavier.

Quote

There is no official peer review system for popular music, literature, political analysis, modern art - you name it. Doesn't invalidate any of those things.

Why did you throw in literature and politics in there? There is a peer review system for literature if it claims to be factual (unofficial perhaps). Same with politics. Communism was tried and seen to fail (mostly) so who in their right mind would try it again?

Now fictional literature, music and art are another ball game. Who cares if Eminem is better than 50 Cent, or whether the Picasso is better than Van Gogh. Nobody burns heretics for liking Country music (even if they really deserve it)

[billvon 2,406]

>Now fictional literature, music and art are another ball game. Who
> cares if Eminem is better than 50 Cent, or whether the Picasso is
> better than Van Gogh. Nobody burns heretics for liking Country
> music (even if they really deserve it)

You've hit the nail on the head. It's a different ball game. In the book that started this thread, those subjects would each be considered a non-overlapping magisterium. They're not just different aspects of the same thing, they are different aspects of different things. They don't overlap. If Bruce Springsteen gets a reference to New Jersey wrong, it doesn't "invalidate his music" or any such nonsense. If Heisenburg isn't popular, his science does not change.

And since they are different magisteria, the tools used are different. It would be silly to apply peer review to Rembrandt, Eminem or the Bible - just as it would be silly to take a popular vote on whether or not the Higgs boson exists.

As I said in the beginning, I recommend this book. It goes over, in great detail, the fallacy of applying scientific tests to the bible to validate or invalidate it. And Gould is a much better writer than I am, so I'm sure he will do a better job of explaining it.

[philh 0]

The fact that the bible gets it science wrong means its legitmacy as a source of so called "divine knowledge" is shown to be bullshit. So any moral philosophy has no more legitmacy than any other book. and its morality? hell thats even worse than its science:
it wants homosexuals, saabbath breakers and non believers executed.
It condones genocide
It has prohobitions against ridiculous thigs like making a graven image, but has nothing to say about slavery.
but at least the Old Testament only calls on death for non followers, the New Testament want its opponents tortured for all eternity - what a fantastic morality!

[billvon 2,406]

>The fact that the bible gets it science wrong means its legitmacy as
>a source of so called "divine knowledge" is shown to be bullshit.

The US constitution got a lot of things wrong. The original constitution, for example, says you have to return slaves to their owners. Even now, hundreds of years later, the original text is right there. It has never been removed. Is the constitution bullshit, since its legitimacy is shot?

[Zenister 0]

Quote

It would be silly to apply peer review to Rembrandt, Eminem or the Bible

not at all.

certainly, you must evaluate them in context and against their peers, but peer review of art is just as legitimate as peer review in science..

the difference is most laymen have more sense than to argue with a trained scientist about how 'their opinion' is just as valuable as someone who has studied the field for years...

you may LOVE your children's refrigerator drawings... that doesnt put them on the same level, or mean they have the same value, or attributes as a Picasso...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[JackC 0]

Quote

the fallacy of applying scientific tests to the bible to validate or invalidate it.

This is not a fallacy. If a book claims to be fact, it should stand up to scrutiny. If it does not stand up to scrutiny in the areas that can be verified, it casts serious doubt on the rest. When that book claims to be the word of an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God; then logical absurdities, incosistencies and scientific errors are fatal for the legitimacy of that book. The word of God is one seriously big claim that should require seriously big evidence to back it up.

Fiction on the other hand remains fiction even if scientifically and logically it is a load of crap. Now if thats your point, why didn't you just say so?

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

This attitude permaeates so many topics here - That if something in a position or party or text or discussion point has any single bit that is not contemporary or correct or, cripes, even phrased the way the reader wishes - then the entire content must be rejected. I'm amazed at all the absolutists on these boards.

A single bit? Its a hell of a lot more than that.

Lets look at the first four commandments,
1, no gods but me
2, no false idols
3, dont misuse the name of god
4, keep the Sabbath.

Thats well over a third of the most important commandments, completely bloody useless! Just how much of a book can be wrong before we say 'hmm, hang on a minute, perhaps it isn't that great after all'. 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, how much?

Now I'm not saying that the bible doesn't have some good points in it, but if we have to use our own sense of right and wrong to decide which bits are correct, then whats the point?

At the end of the day, a guide we have to pick and choose from is a pretty useless guide.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,406]

> If a book claims to be fact, it should stand up to scrutiny.

And if a book is not used as fact it does not need to stand up to the same scrutiny that a science book does. Just as it would be absurd to say that thermodynamics isn't fair, and therefore invalid - because that would be to apply a principle (fairness) to something that has nothing to do with emotional principles. But rather than try to replicate the chapter in which Gould discusses this very issue, I would refer you to his book.

[philh 0]

Im glad you accept that the bible is not fact and not scientifically accurate.
So lets talk about fair then , when jesus said
"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."
was he really being fair? Hes basically encouraging the burning of those that dont follow Christianity. This passage was used to justify the burning of thousands perhaps millions of people. If Jesus was divine then he would be able to see the future and know this would happen - if he wasnt then hes just anothr despot trying to do away with his rivals. either way, whether you take this passage (and there are so many more) literrally or figuratively its hard to see how the bible is anything other than a philosophy of fascism and obedience, fair is not exactly a word I would use to describe it.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

And if a book is not used as fact

unfortunately the bible IS used and cited as 'fact' everyday by religious zealots.. many of them in political positions...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[JackC 0]

Quote

And if a book is not used as fact it does not need to stand up to the same scrutiny that a science book does.

So let me get this straight. You say the Bible is a moral truth (ie a fact). You also say that the Bible should not be scrutinised in the same way a factual science book would be. You concede that factual book can be subjected to scrutiny but fictional ones may be exempted. So either your position is incoherent or you want the Bible to get special treatment. Which is it?

[StreetScooby 5]

I went through a period of my life (a long time ago) where I tried to reconcile God and Science (1st law of thermo). It finally dawned on me that God is best viewed as a verb, not a noun, IMO.

1st law of thermo basically says "Nothing changes by itself". So, any time there is change, we need to ask what are the "reservoirs" of energy involved?

When you apply that to free will, I don't believe our science have fully identified all the reservoirs of energy that are out there, due to the requirement of strict reproducibility independent of the observer (...puts a huge burden on language). So, when we use our free will, that fraction that isn't biochemically based, may/probably is interacting with one or more generally unidentified reservoirs of energy.

You can lump those unidentified reservoirs of energy into, for the lack of a better phrase, the "fabric of the universe".

Your thoughts count, alot...

In summary:
1) God is more likely a verb than a noun
2) Kind of like a big river that we are part of, whether you want to be or not
3) Stay in your inner tube
4) Keep the cooler close
5) Watch out for the rocks
6) Laugh, it's good for you

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,406]

>You say the Bible is a moral truth (ie a fact).

No. The two are not the same. "You should help others" may be a moral truth for me, but unsupportable in fact. Indeed, speaking in terms of evolution, it is often better to kill as many other people as possible, making "you should help others" unsupportable as an evolutionary fact. Morals and facts are not the same thing.

>So either your position is incoherent or you want the Bible to
>get special treatment.

The Bible, the Koran, the Pali Canon, and the Vedas should get different treatment. You should scrutinize them in terms of moral relevance, not scientific accuracy.

Science books should get different treatment. You should scrutinize them in terms of scientific accuracy and ability to be understood, not moral relevance.

Poetry should get different treatment. You should evaluate it on how it sounds and how it makes you feel, not on scientific accuracy.

Treating everything the same is silly. Everything is not the same.

[Deuce 1]

Quote

Treating everything the same is silly. Everything is not the same.

Yeah!

"Bell Curve"? Women can do anything men can do?

I love scientific investigation. I am so looking forward (as I've said a ton of times) to the complete unravelling of the human genome.

It'll be neat to find out if human DNA allows for "evolution" or if it's just selection from the strands.

Does human DNA allow for cro-magnon right there, or was cro-magnon man a whole different animal?

I'm not really interested in arguing it now. The truth is coming. It'll be fun.