Copenhagen school of thoughts (theology)

[Anders]

There is three "Copenhagen schools" coming from the University of Copenhagen. One is the physics of Niels Bohr, another is the International Relation theory from Ole Wæver combining realism, constructivism and regionalism. And lastly in the field of theology that, shortly put, reads the bible as stories, not history.

You can read more here: http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/athe/athe0312.htm

An excerpt

The Bible is a corpus of literary texts, first and foremost. They have to be treated as texts - as stories with characters and plots. It is a mistake, say 'Minimalist' scholars, to claim that they are historiography. That is, that they record history or that the biblical literature is like a history book. No, 'Minimalists' say that the Bible must firstly be treated as story, not history, because the authors of the biblical texts created stories - they did not write objective history. The texts were not written as historiography, not as newspaper articles. They were written as story, much like a novel today. There may be persons in the story that actually existed at some point in time, but that is irrelevant. What actually happened back in Syria-Palestine 3000 years ago is irrelevant to the story. What matters is the characters and what happens to them in the story.

Let us look at a more up-to date example: the play Julius Caesar by Shakespeare. It is a play. It is a story. It is not historiography. It contains characters, not people. Julius Caesar, in the play, is the creation of William Shakespeare - he is a character; he is not the real Julius Caesar. It portrays a plot, not actual happenings. Shakespeare has crafted his events and dialogue to suit his own themes, his own dramatic intentions, what he wants you to see and hear - not what actually happened to the real historical Julius Caesar. That is irrelevant to Shakespeare. He is interested in portraying a tragic play, not giving you a report of what we know about the real historical Caesar. Any resemblance to real persons is coincidental. We may say the same about the recent film Elizabeth starring Cate Blanchett. That movie is not about telling you what the real Queen Elizabeth I of England did; it is about what the director and the writers of the script want to portray and want you to see. It is what they want you to understand. It is a movie, not a documentary.

We have to treat the Bible in the same way, say 'Minimalist' scholars. So whether things happened the way they are portrayed in the Bible is completely irrelevant. The Bible is story, not a history encyclopedia. It has characters, it has plots, it has irony, it has drama, it has comedy. It tells us what the authors want to say, not what actually happened. In this way, 'Minimalist' scholars say the Bible is fiction. That does not mean that it is not fact. Both the play Julius Caesar and the film Elizabeth are fiction, not historiography. The Bible, say 'Minimalist' scholars, is fiction because it is firstly story, not historiography. Philip Davies goes into this idea in his book, In Search of Ancient Israel (Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1995).


Bible is fiction! You can guess what a lot of trained and untrained accuse these people of.

Is it okay to dissect a religious text like that or is it verbosen to tamper with holy texts like that? IMO this is a larger bomb under Christianity that the discovery of the big bang was.

Your opnion?

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by Anders


Is it okay to dissect a religious text like that or is it verbosen to tamper with holy texts like that? IMO this is a larger bomb under Christianity that the discovery of the big bang was.

Your opnion?

Everyone has the right to call any text what they want to call it. I respect the right of those in your post to consider the Bible what ever they wish to consider it.

I consider the Bible to be the Word of the living God and thus I see the Bible in a different light than those in your example. We can all agree to disagree about what the Bible is and if or if not a God exists. I believe we can all stand on our own feet and not have to fuss over what others think.

Fellowship

[Anders]

Actually have to make one thing clear. Fiction is not the same as "not true". You can´t read the bible like that (according to the school) and say this is true and this is false.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Anders
Is it okay to dissect a religious text like that or is it verbosen to tamper with holy texts like that? IMO this is a larger bomb under Christianity that the discovery of the big bang was.

Your opnion?

It's not a question of whether it's 'ok' - it's a proven fact that the Bible was written over the space of many hundreds of years by authors who obviously didn't know each other but in many cases, didn't know of each other and even those that did, did not, could not share the same frame of reference.

More than that, I think the Bible has a serious claim to the of origin certain literary devices. It is fascinating to consider Roman literature of the first century AD with say, John where he describe Judas leaving the upper room after Jesus gives him the sop. He finishes the whole chapter with Judas departure and the one short final sentence: "And it was night." That is the first historical instance of a (closing) sentence structured to simultaneously describe a fact and mirror a condition in a character. That is literature.

The only people who refuse to acknowledge these facts are the born-again fundamentalists of whom unfortunately, there are not a few. They are disingenuous though, because they have long sensed a problem (ie the Bible reads as literature, uses literary devices and contradicts itself across books some of which claim to be 'eyewitness') but they get around this by claiming 'divine inspiration' and when that doesn't fly, blatantly ignoring and /or distorting the issue.

I think the classic text on the Bible as literature is Jack Miles' Pulitzer prize winning 'God - a biography'. Lane Fox's 'The Unauthorised Version' is a must read too.

But to answer your 'big bang', I wouldn't count on it - these guys have some sort of inate resistance to truth. They've survived the rennaissance, Galileo, Darwin, the world's greatest philosophers and God knows how many more reasonable and believable religions, they sure a hell won't let this one wrongfoot them. No, the only hope is that the dinosaurs will eventually just die off when they have no further evolutionary function. Can't be long now....

[segovius]

Originally posted by Anders
Actually have to make one thing clear. Fiction is not the same as "not true". You can´t read the bible like that (according to the school) and say this is true and this is false.

No, but to take a fictional work (if it is such) and regard it as true is to completely miscomprehend the essential nature of that work. To forfeit any right to it in fact.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by segovius


The only people who refuse to acknowledge these facts are the born-again fundamentalists of whom unfortunately, there are not a few.


But to answer your 'big bang', I wouldn't count on it - these guys have some sort of inate resistance to truth. They've survived the rennaissance, Galileo, Darwin, the world's greatest philosophers and God knows how many more reasonable and believable religions, they sure a hell won't let this one wrongfoot them. No, the only hope is that the dinosaurs will eventually just die off when they have no further evolutionary function. Can't be long now....

So it all comes back to the evolution "Take it" or "Refuse to acknowledge facts" Fundamentalists are not intelligent argument??

I am glad I am not in the camp of people who seek only to rip on Christians every chance they get. I am a believer in God and I don't have to answer to any geek in some university. I am not here to put down God and Christians because I want my own moral agenda over that of God's.

God is eternal meaning he was never actually created.. That's right Never Created. God has always existed and always will. The academic efforts to subvert God is temporary to say the least.

With evolution I suggest the following LINK (http://www.marshill.org/audio/life.mp3) to those who have all the answers.

I suggest to you evolution has serious "issues".

Fellowship

[segovius]

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
So it all comes back to the evolution "Take it" or "Refuse to acknowledge facts" Fundamentalists are not intelligent argument??

I am glad I am not in the camp of people who seek only to rip on Christians every chance they get. I am a believer in God and I don't have to answer to any geek in some university. I am not here to put down God and Christians because I want my own moral agenda over that of God's.

God is eternal meaning he was never actually created.. That's right Never Created. God has always existed and always will. The academic efforts to subvert God is temporary to say the least.

With evolution I suggest the following LINK (http://www.marshill.org/audio/life.mp3) to those who have all the answers.

I suggest to you evolution has serious "issues".

Fellowship

Fellowship, I actually agree with your points believe it or not. Of course evolution as taught by academics is deeply flawed (as indeed are many academics). Fraudulent even. Even the fossil record speaks against it. Check out 'Forbidden Archaeology' by Thomson and Cremo for two academics ho dared to speak the truth on this and still do.

That is not my point. It is some Christians opposition to logic that I am against. Where it manifests itself in science I am against it equally.
I have problems with evolution but not because I believe in God (I do) but because it's bad science. In any event, evolution to me doesn't rule out God or vice versa.

I believe that Jesus meant it when he said the' truth will make you free' and truth is truth. No degrees of it, something is either true or it is not. If we don't know then we are free to have a belief but if we do know something then we must progress from belief to knowledge.

Right now we don't know whether, say, God exists or his nature. We cannot know this and so we are free to believe in our own way or faith. When it becomes clear (if it ever does) then we will no longer believe (or disbelieve) we will know and people who reject that knowledge will reject truth in a way that is not possible now.

But we do know some things in the Bible are false. I'm not interested in why or how, but they demonstrably are according to certain established disciplines. So I have a choice - reject the truth or accept the Bible as truth. It's not about Christian bashing, it's about truth.

And it doesn't affect my belief in God at all. You don't need scripture for such a belief do you ?

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by segovius
Fellowship, I actually agree with your points believe it or not. Of course evolution as taught by academics is deeply flawed (as indeed are many academics). Fraudulent even. Even the fossil record speaks against it. Check out 'Forbidden Archaeology' by Thomson and Cremo for two academics ho dared to speak the truth on this and still do.

That is not my point. It is some Christians opposition to logic that I am against. Where it manifests itself in science I am against it equally.
I have problems with evolution but not because I believe in God (I do) but because it's bad science. In any event, evolution to me doesn't rule out God or vice versa.

I agree completely with what you say above. I too have problems with evolution not because I believe in God but because it is bad science. I also would point out I agree that Christians who oppose logic are something that is sad as well. Christians do not have the lock on this however it is something people of all backgrounds trip over.

I believe that Jesus meant it when he said the' truth will make you free' and truth is truth. No degrees of it, something is either true or it is not. If we don't know then we are free to have a belief but if we do know something then we must progress from belief to knowledge.

Right now we don't know whether, say, God exists or his nature. We cannot know this and so we are free to believe in our own way or faith. When it becomes clear (if it ever does) then we will no longer believe (or disbelieve) we will know and people who reject that knowledge will reject truth in a way that is not possible now.

I do know God exists personally but you are right when you say "we" don't know above. Collectively not all people are aware of God so that is a true statement. Those who know His voice know. Those who do not know His voice do not know.

But we do know some things in the Bible are false. I'm not interested in why or how, but they demonstrably are according to certain established disciplines. So I have a choice - reject the truth or accept the Bible as truth. It's not about Christian bashing, it's about truth.

I believe the Bible is written as it is for a purpose that you or I may never know. A purpose intended for us none the less.

And it doesn't affect my belief in God at all. You don't need scripture for such a belief do you ?



I respect this last post of yours as the two prior to it seemed a bit hostile towards fundamentalists. It is your right to not like fundamentalists or agree with them. If you compose a post in a manner which takes aim at such it is only expected I may reply to defend my view.

With respect,

Fellowship

[segovius]

Felowship

Apologies if I came accross as a bit abrasive. It happens ;)

Actually I've always respected your posts and don't class you as a fundie in my definition (if that helps !).

Imo a fundie is someone who reduces God to their own level, that is they claim they know God or His will but really they are saying "I know God...". You observably don't do this.

Umm...that's it....cheers !

[Matsu]

Originally posted by Anders
Actually have to make one thing clear. Fiction is not the same as "not true". You can´t read the bible like that (according to the school) and say this is true and this is false.

Theists, read this again and think anew on it. I always say that the literary mind is better attuned to making sense of the bible, but then, to me, to call something literature means to automatically elevate its status as a meaningful work, and not to criticise its adherence to "facts."

[DiscoCow]

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

I too have problems with evolution not because I believe in God but because it is bad science.


Why exactly is it bad science? Do you happen do believe in an alternative, empirically testable theory?

[segovius]

Originally posted by Matsu
Theists, read this again and think anew on it. I always say that the literary mind is better attuned to making sense of the bible, but then, to me, to call something literature means to automatically elevate its status as a meaningful work, and not to criticise its adherence to "facts."

I agree with you that the Bible as literature is somehow more elevated than Bible as Scripture. But only on a literal level - the Biblical myths (in the proper sense of the word) are among the greatest human archetypal symbolism we have yet developed. To claim 'literal truth' imo is to devalue them and render them impotent. So therse two issues are intrinsically linked.

Personally, on the most basic level my individual conception of God is not one of a being who would be capable of producing so flawed a document as the Bible when viewed in a literal factual sense. On a literary level though it is a sublime work and one which would convince me of Divine reality were I not so convinced already.

Still, some Christians believe that the Bible is literally written by God working through man and I suppose we must allow them that. But it is still worth noting that to them the 'literary' approach poses a problem and they find it offensive because it implies a greater or lesser degree of 'human input' with consequent specific emphases and personal bias that are more clearly derived from socio-historic factors than divine plan..

Then again, some academics wield the 'literary' theory as a weapon due to some inner issue they have with religion rather than a dedication to the truth of the matter.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by DiscoCow
Why exactly is it bad science? Do you happen do believe in an alternative, empirically testable theory?

I do not have to have an alternate theory to say a given theory is bad science. That is nonsense. The record is clear with the problems the theory of evolution has. The problems with schools is that it is not allowed to question the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is pretty much taught as "fact". So many do not know how to even question it. I suggest a start in a little nutshell to question just a few aspects of the theory of evolution is to listen to the streaming MP3 link I had in a prior post above.

It is only a start.

Fellowship

[Anders]

Oh god. EVERYBODY read Matsus post. Religion is not on the same level as science. Why can´t it just be right for you? Why does it have to be true?

There is a reason why theology is placed in faculties for the human sciences, not the natural sciences.

[DiscoCow]

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I do not have to have an alternate theory to say a given theory is bad science. That is nonsense.

My question boils down to this:

What do you believe about our origins?

More specifically, what is your interpretation of Genesis? Do you believe it is objective history (this is pretty much a given based on your comments) or a parable? If it is indeed objective history, then one should be able to submit evidence supporting it.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Anders
Oh god. EVERYBODY read Matsus post. Religion is not on the same level as science. Why can´t it just be right for you? Why does it have to be true?

There is a reason why theology is placed in faculties for the human sciences, not the natural sciences.

It has to be addressed (and assessed) as true because it claims to be true. If one wishes to dismiss the claims of something without subjecting them to analysis on the basis of what they claim, then of course one is free to do so. One cannot at the same time though claim a knowledge of the subject or any real objectivity in relation to it.

Which leads naturally to the academic placement issue - it's been placed in with the human sciences because that department is the academic equivalent of a large festering, smothering and moth-eaten rug whose only purpose in existing is so that things can be swept under it and 'tolerated' out of existence while the 'real study' continues elsewhere.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by DiscoCow
My question boils down to this:

What do you believe about our origins?

More specifically, what is your interpretation of Genesis? Do you believe it is objective history (this is pretty much a given based on your comments) or a parable? If it is indeed objective history, then one should be able to submit evidence supporting it.

I know almost nothing about our origins. I believe that is true for most if not every human alive. The context of the Bible such as within Genesis is written in many contexts and I never read the Bible always as "literal" I read the Bible in the contexts which are appropriate. People can and will disagree with which context to read passages within the Bible and such is life. We will each have a different view.

Fellowship

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by segovius
It has to be addressed (and assessed) as true because it claims to be true. If one wishes to dismiss the claims of something without subjecting them to analysis on the basis of what they claim, then of course one is free to do so. One cannot at the same time though claim a knowledge of the subject or any real objectivity in relation to it.

Which leads naturally to the academic placement issue - it's been placed in with the human sciences because that department is the academic equivalent of a large festering, smothering and moth-eaten rug whose only purpose in existing is so that things can be swept under it and 'tolerated' out of existence while the 'real study' continues elsewhere.

segovius don't you see the conflict within your statement above? On the one hand it seems you discount the authority of the Bible in what it says within. You discount it namely because you note that it is all but impossible for one to retain "any real objectivity in relation to it" because it claims it is Truth however not 30 seconds later you write in your post that: it's been placed in with the human sciences because that department is the academic equivalent of a large festering, smothering and moth-eaten rug whose only purpose in existing is so that things can be swept under it and 'tolerated' out of existence while the 'real study' continues elsewhere.

("real study" continues elsewhere)

Don't you see that now you place "yourself" as the authority by making such an assertion. By doing so you remove yourself from any real objectivity in relation to the matter.

See the problem here?

Fellowship

This is exactly why all is chosen belief. Not just what Christians choose to believe but in fact what all people choose to believe.

[DiscoCow]

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
The context of the Bible such as within Genesis is written in many contexts and I never read the Bible always as "literal" I read the Bible in the contexts which are appropriate.


What do you believe the “context” of say, Genesis 1 through 3 is?

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
People can and will disagree with which context to read passages within the Bible and such is life. We will each have a different view.



Yes. But if the Bible is the "Word of the living God", one would think that there would be an ultimate objective interpretation. Not a “your view true, and mine is too” interpretation. For instance, one could use certain interpretations to condone the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals.

Is the bible ultimately objective or not (i.e. one interpretation is correct)?

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by DiscoCow
What do you believe the “context” of say, Genesis 1 through 3 is?



Yes. But if the Bible is the "Word of the living God", one would think that there would be an ultimate objective interpretation. Not a “your view true, and mine is too” interpretation. For instance, one could use certain interpretations to condone the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals.

Is the bible ultimately objective or not (i.e. one interpretation is correct)?

I believe the Bible is correct in many interpretations at different times(Not all interpretations however). That is to say it is dynamic and in a given season a given set of passages can speak to a given person in a direct way which may be interpreted by another person in a different way and also be correct in the season and context in that 2nd person's life. I know this is not what some would like to hear but the Bible is not always black and white.

Fellowship

[Anders]

Originally posted by segovius
it's been placed in with the human sciences because that department is the academic equivalent of a large festering, smothering and moth-eaten rug whose only purpose in existing is so that things can be swept under it and 'tolerated' out of existence while the 'real study' continues elsewhere.

Hey watch it:mad:

[segovius]

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
segovius don't you see the conflict within your statement above? On the one hand it seems you discount the authority of the Bible in what it says within. You discount it namely because you note that it is all but impossible for one to retain "any real objectivity in relation to it" because it claims it is Truth however not 30 seconds later you write in your post that:

("real study" continues elsewhere)

Don't you see that now you place "yourself" as the authority by making such an assertion. By doing so you remove yourself from any real objectivity in relation to the matter.

See the problem here?

Fellowship

This is exactly why all is chosen belief. Not just what Christians choose to believe but in fact what all people choose to believe. [/B]

Fellowship, the problem such as it is, is with my lack of ability to express myself !

I'll try to be clearer:

It is the job of academics to find out the truth about things.

To be objective they must study that thing in terms of itself rather than their own preconceptions.

If the subject under consideration claims 'big things' like religions do (but also parapsychology, revisionist history, certain branches of archaeology) then the academics never study the subject in terms of itself. Because they are not equipped to and also because they are afraid to - too much is at stake amd they might not like what they'd find.

So they shunt it off to a department that doesn't quite have the academic kudos but that is tolerated in a sort of mutual hegemony. Neither side has to really examine the subject and everyone agrees to just tolerate it and people can believe whatever they like with the guarantee it will never be rigorously tested and a judgement arrived at one way or another.

Oh and the "double quotes" were meant to signify irony.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by segovius

It is the job of academics to find out the truth about things.

To be objective they must study that thing in terms of itself rather than their own preconceptions.



I respect the effort you make to make yourself clear with your views.

I would say that I very much appriciate and respect many many academics in their journey to locate and understand the "truth about things".

As you say they must (in order to be objective) study that thing in terms of itself rather than their own preconceptions.

Indeed this is where for example I have found some academics who have failed. The theory of evolution has consumed many in this worldview that has led to a lack of objectivity. They no doubt are free to go down this path I only point out that within a field of "science" and "education" it is less than genuine for some in this group to make claims that are less than true to further their wished preconceptions. To build up their own credentials in the field, to go down in the history books; But all the while leading by deception and fraud.

That is neither proper "science" nor proper "education"

I believe we indeed should be objective and be free to question any assertions. This can be done with logical questions and within the absence of insults and labels.

This MP3 Audio Link approx 1 hour (http://www.marshill.org/audio/life.mp3) is a great start for issues that face some academics who promote the theory of evolution.

Fellowship

[DiscoCow]

Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I believe the Bible is correct in many interpretations at different times(Not all interpretations however). That is to say it is dynamic and in a given season a given set of passages can speak to a given person in a direct way which may be interpreted by another person in a different way and also be correct in the season and context in that 2nd person's life. I know this is not what some would like to hear but the Bible is not always black and white.

Fellowship

So what do you get out of this passage?

Leviticus 13, verses 47-53

"If any clothing is contaminated with mildew-any woolen or linen clothing, any woven or knitted material of linen or wool, any leather or anything made of leather- and if the contamination in the clothing, or leather, or woven or knitted material, or any leather article, is greenish or reddish, it is a spreading mildew and must be shown to the priest. The priest is to examine the mildew and isolate the affected article for seven days. On the seventh day he is to examine it, and if the mildew has spread in the clothing, or the woven or knitted material, or the leather, whatever its use, it is a destructive mildew; the article is unclean. He must burn up the clothing, or the woven or knitted material of wool or linen, or any leather article that has the contamination in it, because the mildew is destructive; the article must be burned up.


What about this one?

Leviticus 24, verses 10-16

Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them. Then the LORD said to Moses: "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.

[Chinney]

Originally posted by DiscoCow
So what do you get out of this passage?

[quotes passages]



I must admit, as a liberal Christian, I sometimes have difficulty with the Old Testament, much more than I do with the New.

Whether the Bible is always history in the sense that is commonly understood, I cannot say. I do believe, however, that a man called Jesus walked this Earth, that He is the son of God, and that He suffered and died for our redemption.

My overall view is that the role of the Bible is to teach. Not all of its lessons can be taken literally. Not all of them are easy to understand, even for those who dedicate their lives to trying.

[Aquafire]

Hi fellas..( he says dodging the chairs flying thru the pub door..)

I suspect that Anders has another reason for posting the link..Ie the very existence & idea of Israel in the modern sense & it's historical / archeological foundations...

Now if you all took the time to read the link that Anders posted I think you might find it largely boils down to whether the Biblical Israel is the same as the Archeological Israel.

I actually saw a documentary based on this very question not so long ago. It threw up some very interesting pieces of evidence both supporting everything that the Israelites claimed to be, as well as proof suggesting that they were not much more than a branch of local tribes people, who literally saw themselves as distinct by virtue of the fact they lived in the upper highlands.

I remember enough of the documentary to suggest that the whole existence of the Israelites was thrown into relief.

But the documentary closed by strenuosly pointing to the fact that the "evidences' both for & against the existence of Israel & the israelites ...was indeed finely balanced & that none of the research was conclusive one way or the other...

[New]

Do we have to draw Israel into every discussion here? :err:

I don't believe Anders wanted to adress the issue of Israel at all (...this time).

[Anders]

Originally posted by Aquafire

I suspect that Anders has another reason for posting the link..Ie the very existence & idea of Israel in the modern sense & it's historical / archeological foundations

HA. Finally someone fell into the trap.

No I have no problem with Israel existence and this reading of the bible have absolutely nothing to do with what ISrael is today. What matters is the people living on the land today.

I disagree with the desition to form Israel but people have been born in the land and therefore it now have reality and I would probably join in the army if the existence of the land was threatened.

But the point of this thread is that the people behind the Copenhagen school have been accused of anti-semitism solely based on their method of reading the bible. One does not lead to the other.

Did you know that it is believed that the most of the population of Denmark is believed to decent from fleeing swedes? Should Denmark be given "back" to Sweden for that reason ;) No. Because now we are Danes. Just like the population of Israel are israelis.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Anders
But the point of this thread is that the people behind the Copenhagen school have been accused of anti-semitism solely based on their method of reading the bible. One does not lead to the other.


As is well known (but equally well ignored) the Jewish scriptures are quite explicit that the state of Israel cannot be established until the appearance of the Messiah.

Therefore, if the charge of anti-semitism is derived from the historical question of Israel viz it's present status (which it is) then it is irrelevant. Irrelevant because according to Judaism itself Israel shouldn't exist.

Btw, if this really was the point of this thread, isn't that a bit disingenuous ? I mean why not be more up-front about it ? But then I suppose it was bound to meander off-topic anyway so I guess it matters not...

Actually I've inspired myself. Let's get this thing back on track. I'll start:

There are two contradictory creation stories in Genesis. For now it doesn't matter the manner they are contradictory. The point is that, unlike the most of the hundreds of other Biblical contradictions, they occur in the same book.

We know that Genesis was an amalgam of two different authors but stylistic renderings strongly suggest that the later author incorporated the first (rather than a seperate individual combining both). Therefore we know that he was aware of the contradiction when writing and still chose to insert a creation story he knew was contradictory to one a few chapters earlier. This strongly suggests fiction - ie he knew it was a story and not Holy Writ at the time of writing.

There are many examples like this in the Bible - basically it is beyond doubt that not only were the books written by others than are claimed (at least in the case of Moses who describes his own death) but that the authors were aware of their status as writers.

In the beginning was the word....

[zaphod_beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Anders
Oh god. EVERYBODY read Matsus post. Religion is not on the same level as science. Why can´t it just be right for you? Why does it have to be true?
Paul addressed this:
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. (1 Corinthians 15: 12-19)
Any Christian worth his (or her) salt knows very well the cliff they stepped from.

[shetline]

The trick is creating sense, not making sense.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by DiscoCow
Why exactly is it bad science? Do you happen do believe in an alternative, empirically testable theory?

Would you care to explain how evolution is an empirically testable theory?

Theorys that are valid are testable and often have predictable results. I would be happy to see how evolution has given us the ability to predict when mutation will occur and what they results of that mutation are likely to be. By mutation I mean new traits of course and not manipulation of existing traits.

Nick

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
Theorys that are valid are testable and often have predictable results. I would be happy to see how evolution has given us the ability to predict when mutation will occur and what they results of that mutation are likely to be. By mutation I mean new traits of course and not manipulation of existing traits.
By that "reasoning", the so-called "laws" of probability are completely worthless, simply because you can't always predict which exact numbers with come up whenever a pair of dice are thrown. Never mind the wonderful power of statistical analysis and mathematical likelihood, Real Men demand a working crystal ball with which to view the future and won't be fooled by frivolous guesswork.

[Harald]

Originally posted by shetline
By that "reasoning", the so-called "laws" of probability are completely worthless, simply because you can't always predict which exact numbers with come up whenever a pair of dice are thrown. Never mind the wonderful power of statistical analysis and mathematical likelihood, Real Men demand a working crystal ball with which to view the future and won't be fooled by frivolous guesswork.


... watch him ignore this very good and salient point.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by shetline
By that "reasoning", the so-called "laws" of probability are completely worthless, simply because you can't always predict which exact numbers with come up whenever a pair of dice are thrown. Never mind the wonderful power of statistical analysis and mathematical likelihood, Real Men demand a working crystal ball with which to view the future and won't be fooled by frivolous guesswork.

Shifting the point? The definition of probability is not to guess what the exact number will be. So to take a word redefine it, say "see it isn't that definition," and declare yourself right?

The definition of probability means..likelyhood, not exactness.

Nick

[segovius]

Originally posted by Harald
... watch him ignore this very good and salient point.

Yes, he'll probably be 'unavoidably detained' for a little while yet.

But he's wrong on other counts too - the Uncertainty Principle, Chaos theory and the Schrodinger's Cat model in quantum mechanics certainly would not give predictable results any time.

I suppose that now that quantum physicists acknowledge Chaos as the bedrock of the universal system, conservatives (whose drive is towards forcible impostition of order and subsequent black and white reductionism) must be regarded as representing some form of a glitch in the evolutionary blueprint ;)

[chu_bakka]

Plus there's no way to prove creationism...
There's nothing testable. It is predicated on a "what if..." scenario.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by segovius
Yes, he'll probably be 'unavoidably detained' for a little while yet.

But he's wrong on other counts too - the Uncertainty Principle, Chaos theory and the Schrodinger's Cat model in quantum mechanics certainly would not give predictable results any time.

I suppose that now that quantum physicists acknowledge Chaos as the bedrock of the universal system, conservatives (whose drive is towards forcible impostition of order and subsequent black and white reductionism) must be regarded as representing some form of a glitch in the evolutionary blueprint ;)

(Schrodinger's Cat) Actually it gives a predictable result. The result just isn't know until you observe it can be argued that part of the result is in fact you observing it. Likewise the fact that overtime (say past the hour) we would have an ever increasing probablity that the isotope had decayed would make a result more likely.

So you may not know whether the cat is dead or not or whether the radioactive material decayed or not until you crack open the box, but you wouldn't open the box and expect to find a dog.

Many of the things you have mentioned deal with how we can spot the trends but not know exactly what every little step is going to be along the way.

If evolution were anywhere near this, we wouldn't have a problem. I'm not claiming that we have to know exactly which amino acids are going to switch, at what time due to what cause. However for example we don't even have a rate of speciation of things of that nature. We don't have anything.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
Plus there's no way to prove creationism...
There's nothing testable. It is predicated on a "what if..." scenario.

I'm sorry I'm not arguing this in an "or" manner. It doesn't have to be creation or evolution. It isn't creationism bad so evolution good.

Evolution should stand on its own.

Nick

[Powerdoc]

The subject of this interesting thread is The Copenhagen school of thouhgths and not Creationism VS Evolution. There is already threads about it, and people are free to ressuracte it, but not free to transform this one.

Thanks in advance. :)

[segovius]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
The subject of this interesting thread is The Copenhagen school of thouhgths and not Creationism VS Evolution. There is already threads about it, and people are free to ressuracte it, but not free to transform this one.

Thanks in advance. :)

Maybe we can segue the two ;)

The Copenhagen issue essentially boils down to: the Bible - man-made or God-made ?

If it is the latter then we would expect some details revealing the inner workings of the cosmos. In the 3000 or so years since the earliest of the Bible books we would also expect some of these to be confirmed by science. This hasn't happened.

You don't even need to invoke contradictions or evolution - dinosaurs, non-earth centric views of solar system, round earth - all things we had to find out for ourselves when one would reasonably expect that the creator of the universe might mention them if he happened to write a book. He didn't because this book is demonstrably a product of the human mind and we should be proud of that.

So let's judge it as literature but first we need to split it up - these 66 books have almost no continuity and the vast majority don't even belong together. They're even from 2 different and contradictory religions, 3 if you count Paul's outrageous hijacking of the original Jesus teaching.

Time to see it for what it is - some of the greatest literature humankind has yet produced but nothing more.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by segovius
Maybe we can segue the two ;)

The Copenhagen issue essentially boils down to: the Bible - man-made or God-made ?

If it is the latter then we would expect some details revealing the inner workings of the cosmos. In the 3000 or so years since the earliest of the Bible books we would also expect some of these to be confirmed by science. This hasn't happened.

You don't even need to invoke contradictions or evolution - dinosaurs, non-earth centric views of solar system, round earth - all things we had to find out for ourselves when one would reasonably expect that the creator of the universe might mention them if he happened to write a book. He didn't because this book is demonstrably a product of the human mind and we should be proud of that.

So let's judge it as literature but first we need to split it up - these 66 books have almost no continuity and the vast majority don't even belong together. They're even from 2 different and contradictory religions, 3 if you count Paul's outrageous hijacking of the original Jesus teaching.

Time to see it for what it is - some of the greatest literature humankind has yet produced but nothing more.

For me the bible is hand human made by people who have the faith in god. Some people will argue that in this way, god speak directly via this people, and some others says it's just a fantastic compilation of theoligal thoughts.

Most of the people i know personally and who believe in god, do not take in a litteral sense the bible, and thus will not oppose bible and science or history and bible. Their faith is deeper than that, and is based upon a search for meaning in life and existence. God is the only absolute concept able to fill the terrible emptiness of life for them, and as they are human, their god has a human face (not in the litteral way). Some scientists like the astrophysicians are more friendly with sciences and will tend to discribe god (the only thing that can give sense to the whole thing) more in a abstract way.

I think that the more a people feel the emptiness, the more chances he will be inclinated to believe in god. But you don't need only to feel the emptiness to believe in god, this idear of god, must also bring you positive things. My idear of god is so abstract and non human that it doesnt bring me positive things, and thus does not change the way i view life. Even in time where i feel emptiness, the idear of god did not make feel me more confortable, thus i do not believe in it because it do not make a difference for me.
Anyway i respect people who believe in god, when it's bring them happiness and peace in their mind. Same naturally do not apply for those where their idear of god contains hate and pain.

[trumptman]

I think the author himself makes the best case against the minimalist approach right here in his own article.

((i) Firstly, it is a fundamental mistake to think that archaeology is an exact science. It is not. It is an inexact science. We cannot dig up an ancient city, take it into a laboratory, put it in a beaker, perform an experiment on it and come up with the history of Ancient Israel. The nature of what we are dealing with does not allow this. One of the catchcries of 'Minimalist' scholars, we will remember, is that biblical texts are biased and subjective, whereas artifacts are mute, unbiased, and objective. It is somehow assumed that what an archaeologist digs up is objective history, firm history. The truth of it, though, is that an archaeologist is just digging up something that exists in the here and now. The only real firm concrete conclusion that an archaeologist can arrive at, is to say, "This is the way we found the ruins". The job of archaeologists is to see if they can somehow piece together how the artifacts and the ruins got into the state that the archaeologists found them in. Archaeologists are digging up yesterday and only trying to figure out how things looked 3000 years ago from these items. In that way, archaeologists are not digging up the history of ancient Israel; they are digging up yesterday and hoping that it will lead them to what happened 3000 years ago.

(ii) That is a very philosophical point, but then we start getting into just how inexact archaeology is. Historians reach conclusions by looking at the data the archaeologists find and applying certain logical equations to them. For example, if a city was conquered, we should expect to find some evidence of this, like burnt debris from fires, bones strewn here and there, some walls knocked down, and so on. One of the points that actually led many scholars to claim that there was no such thing as an Israelite Conquest of Canaan under Joshua in about 1220 B.C.E., is that we do not find any evidence for it - no debris, no bones, no broken walls. How could it possibly have happened, this mammoth blitzkrieg, if we do not have the signs of one? This led to some scholars looking to other interpretations. Perhaps the Israelites came into Canaan peacefully and not with war? Perhaps they did not come in at all - maybe they were there all along as the Canaanites. Yet now, thanks to 'Minimalist' methods, more and more scholars are coming to the conclusion that there was no Israelite Conquest of Canaan under Joshua and that it is just epic myth or legend. But what 'Minimalist' scholars and those they have influenced have not considered is the possibility that a conquest can occur without debris, strewn bones, and broken walls.

In 1066, William the Conqueror conquered England. There are very few doubts about it. Yet there is no debris, no strewn bones, no broken walls to show us that that is indeed what he did. However, no one doubts it. In about 539 B.C.E., the Babylonian Empire which spanned a huge area, the biggest of its day, ceased to exist. The empire was conquered by another, that of the Persians, but we do not find any rubble or debris amongst the ruins of Babylon to show it. In fact, if the ruins are all we had to go by, we'd be forgiven for thinking that Babylon never was conquered because it continued to flourish as a city with hardly any change. Yet, it was conquered. It was conquered by Cyrus, king of Persia.

A note of caution is needed here. These equations that are used to extract meaning from the mute artifacts are actually very good. We have just picked on one very simple equation. But if we find so many problems and different possibilities with such a simple equation, imagine what can happen if the artifacts and the equations are complex. These equations can often have their limitations and these limitations might make an historian completely misconstrue what actually happened. If we apply 'Minimalist' scholars' own principle - "What would we say about the artifacts if we did not have the literary texts?" - to the example of Ancient Babylon or Medieval England, what would we come up with? We would probably never come up with the idea that either of them were conquered.

Then when you also consider what he cites that the Bible has been helpful in interpreting/finding, etc.

And indeed, the first discoveries of archaeologists in the Middle East just seemed to confirm what the Bible said. Archaeologists found King Mesha of Moab's inscription on the Moabite stone, mentioning Omri the King of Israel and the Israelite tribe of Gad. The Bible in II Kings recounts a story of how this man, Mesha king of Moab, rebelled against his Israelite overlords and how the Kings of Israel and Judah marched out to war against him. It recounts how Mesha sacrificed his own son to his god, Kemosh, and in the Mesha Stele we read Mesha boasting of how he defeats Israel, recaptures territory and always boasts about his close relationship with his god, Kemosh. That was in the Bible. They found the dedicatory inscription for King Hezekiah's tunnel under Jerusalem. That was in the Bible too. They found a cache of clay tablets at places like Ugarit on the Syrian coast and at Mari on the Euphrates River which seemed to inform us about the customs of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. They found the Code of Hammurabi which contained certain laws that were very similar, if not the same, to those found in the Pentateuch. John Garstang found the walls of Jericho which crumbled at the war cry of Joshua and the Israelites. Solomon' s stables were found at Megiddo. Everything just seemed to fall neatly into place. It was just like picking up the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle which just seemed to slip into place automatically.

He spends a lot of time harping on Jerico, the walls and the work of one scientist that dramatically changes the likelyhood that the walls weren't there, but the entire city wasn't there yet as well. Perhaps it was destroyed on an even greater scale that left no artifacts. Just as with William in England.

At any rate I don't think I would declare the Bible worthless to archeologists just yet.

Nick

[segovius]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
I think that the more a people feel the emptiness, the more chances he will be inclinated to believe in god. But you don't need only to feel the emptiness to believe in god, this idear of god, must also bring you positive things. My idear of god is so abstract and non human that it doesnt bring me positive things, and thus does not change the way i view life. Even in time where i feel emptiness, the idear of god did not make feel me more confortable, thus i do not believe in it because it do not make a difference for me.
Anyway i respect people who believe in god, when it's bring them happiness and peace in their mind. Same naturally do not apply for those where their idear of god contains hate and pain.

I think you've hit on a really important point - why should God even be aware of our existence ?

I have a similar take to you - although I believe in God, not through the Bible which is, imo, transparently human, but through creation itself which to me is non-human. But I can't believe God is aware of us anymore than we are aware of our own atoms. The feeling of emptiness is there though as you say, but just because it can't be filled doesn't mean there's no-one there.

That's why people need a Bible to fill that gap - it's also why the Bible is necessarily fiction.

Real spirituality is (imo) having the courage to face this void - God exists but we can't make contact, the lines are down. This is much harder to live with as a paradigm than either faith or atheism. Ironically enough this topic is even touched on in the Bible. Particularly in the OT.

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by segovius
I think you've hit on a really important point - why should God even be aware of our existence ?



This is an interesting point, it's depend of the representation of god. Is it an omni all thing aware only of the whole thing (past present and future in all the dimensions of spaces) or is he aware of the tiny details like human lifes and their uniques destiny ?
In other words, and pardon this comparison, is god multi-tasking and lets say infinite tasking, or is he only one tasking, but one infinitely huge and complex tasking ?

The feeling of emptiness is there though as you say, but just because it can't be filled doesn't mean there's no-one there.



you are right, we may be, simply be blind.



Real spirituality is (imo) having the courage to face this void - God exists but we can't make contact

Some people IMO, claims to have this direct contact, unfortunately i have no telepathic skills, and thus canno't have direct contacts with another human beings and thus cannot see what these kind of people means, if they see god really or if they are victims of an illusion.

hat's why people need a Bible to fill that gap - it's also why the Bible is necessarily fiction

Right, it's because i don't 'buy' this necessary fiction, that the question of god is worthless for me. My representation of what could be god, seems to very near than your own representation. I even believe that it's possible that he could be not aware of us. As i am not a very mystic people (well only sometimes in AO for example) , this kind of thought do not passionate me, and thus i make the reverse bet of Pascal : god is so immetarial that believing in it or not won't change anything to my life or my after-life.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Some people IMO, claims to have this direct contact, unfortunately i have no telepathic skills, and thus canno't have direct contacts with another human beings and thus cannot see what these kind of people means, if they see god really or if they are victims of an illusion.


Well maybe God is all the things we're not - totally 'other' in the way an alien race might be. Couple that with omnipotent powers and you have a being that is unknowable and a situation where anyone who claims to know cannot by definition. Belief is a different matter and as you say, should be respected because it may be just as correct as any other belief - we just can't know.

In a way it's like the infinite universe or eternity, we cannot concieve of it though we can infer its existence. The Bible is just a book about that inferring not the root cause of it.

[Aquafire]

Originally posted by Anders
HA. Finally someone fell into the trap.

No I have no problem with Israel existence and this reading of the bible have absolutely nothing to do with what ISrael is today. What matters is the people living on the land today.

I disagree with the desition to form Israel but people have been born in the land and therefore it now have reality and I would probably join in the army if the existence of the land was threatened.

But the point of this thread is that the people behind the Copenhagen school have been accused of anti-semitism solely based on their method of reading the bible. One does not lead to the other.

Did you know that it is believed that the most of the population of Denmark is believed to decent from fleeing swedes? Should Denmark be given "back" to Sweden for that reason ;) No. Because now we are Danes. Just like the population of Israel are israelis.

Hardly a "trap "old boy...
I know enough about your old bear baiting ways to see what was clearly on your mind....8)

[trumptman]

Originally posted by segovius
Well maybe God is all the things we're not - totally 'other' in the way an alien race might be. Couple that with omnipotent powers and you have a being that is unknowable and a situation where anyone who claims to know cannot by definition. Belief is a different matter and as you say, should be respected because it may be just as correct as any other belief - we just can't know.

In a way it's like the infinite universe or eternity, we cannot concieve of it though we can infer its existence. The Bible is just a book about that inferring not the root cause of it.

I remember reading a chapter in a book that essentually attempted to explain how God could know everything that has occured and everything that will occur and yet we have free will.

It is very hard to sum up but I essentually boiled it down to this. Take a piece of paper. Draw an point and then an arrow leaving from that point. The arrow is how we experience time. The paper is how God experiences time. (essentually more than one dimension)

When you here how it gets hard to seperate time from matter and thus you get phrases like "space-time" this gets even more interesting to imagine.

Nick

[Matsu]

You Kant argue with him and you Kant argue against him. ;)

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Matsu
You Kant argue with him and you Kant argue against him. ;)

I hate being Hegeled by the audience.

Nick

[DiscoCow]

Originally posted by trumptman
Would you care to explain how evolution is an empirically testable theory?


Simple. Evolution makes claims. We test those claims.

I won’t go into specific claims because I’d be wasting my breath (or typing, whatever.)
No amount of evidence will convince you anyway.

And I wont post (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html) links (http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Evolution.html) to lists of observed speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html). Nope (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html).

And I wont post a picture of bones from a whale leg that was cut off a living whale back in July of 1919. No way. Will not do it.


Originally posted by trumptman
Theorys that are valid are testable and often have predictable results.

You are absolutely right. All theories must be testable, or there’s no point in opening your mouth. And yes, theories that are valid often have predictable results. Often, but not always.




http://home.comcast.net/~neverwhere/picts/whale_leg.jpg

[segovius]

Originally posted by trumptman
I remember reading a chapter in a book that essentually attempted to explain how God could know everything that has occured and everything that will occur and yet we have free will.

It is very hard to sum up but I essentually boiled it down to this. Take a piece of paper. Draw an point and then an arrow leaving from that point. The arrow is how we experience time. The paper is how God experiences time. (essentually more than one dimension)

When you here how it gets hard to seperate time from matter and thus you get phrases like "space-time" this gets even more interesting to imagine.

Nick

This is interesting but still essentially reducing God to human terms - trying to find a way of explaining God's (postulated) powers in a way that make sense to us.

Another model would be God as 'super-user' who knows all possible outcomes and variations in an infinite universe because he designed them, perhaps even to lead to one (and one only) eventual outcome. That way we keep freewill and He keeps foreknowledge because although we have seemingly milions of choices, in the end they lead to only one outcome (death ?).

[Aquafire]

Here are some "mysteries" that science can't apparently resolve.

1: The sub-atomic world of particle physics keeps throwing up stranger & stranger families of sub atomic particles, but still hasn't touched bottom in its chase for the smallest particle.

2: 95% of the mass of the universe cannot be accounted for..excepting to call it "dark matter"

3: Despite over 50 years of trying, scientists are no closer to creating " Life " from "organic compounds" than they were when the experiments were first conducted.

4: No physicist can explain the way in which light appears to almost conciously interact with the person or persons conducting the experiments, so that depending on who is conducting what, light acts as particles or waves..

5: Further, no-one can satisfactorily account for the strange compressive behaviour of light in relation to time.

6: Or how it is possible (despite the speed of light being considered absolute), that things are known to break that law when travelling through a solid barrier...

The list goes on...

[Token]

I can't believe how religion can make people disregard evolution theory that much.

Just because a scientific theory isn't perfect, doesn't mean it has to be dismissed altogether in favour of interpretations of a religious book, written +1000 years ago by people that knew absolutely nothing about cell structures, genes, amino acids, geophysical events, symbiotic behaviour, etc..

Researchers have studied creation/evolution in a scientific contect (making hypotheses, testing them, reformulation, peer reviewing, etc) - theres a huge literature on the subject. Scientific theories are not 'true', they are 'better' than 'belief', at least when you are trying to discover facts about the world. And no, they are not just 'interpretations' that equals the interpretations of any religious fundamentalist. The knowledge created through natural science is what thousands of scientist and theorists can agree on.

It is of course perfectly possible to find some reasonably sound passage that could be applied to a natural science problem in just about any text.
That doesn't make this text any authority of the problem, or 'disprove' any theory.

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by Aquafire
Here are some "mysteries" that science can't apparently resolve.

It's beautiful how someone can sum up so much ignorance in one short sentence.

I have to ask what the hell kind of a point you think you're making, cos that was just a bizarre non-sequitur.

[DiscoCow]

Originally posted by Aquafire
<SNIP>

We still don't have flying cars or Mr. Fusion either. Your point?


Bah, forget it. I'm off to sacrifice a pig to the goat idol I just made out of wet tolet paper.


This "science" & "logic" stuff is for the birds.

[Aquafire]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
It's beautiful how someone can sum up so much ignorance in one short sentence. I assume your referring to your own scientific ignorance...;)

" I have to ask what the hell kind of a point you think you're making, cos that was just a bizarre non-sequitur."

It is more pro sequitor than non sequitor...

I'll give you a clue..the limits of measurement, observation, and the interactiveness of all energy...

... Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est....8)

[stupider...likeafox]

I'm not asking for a clue. I want you to spell out what you think you're saying about science by listing those "mysteries".

[DiscoCow]

I'll give you a clue..the limits of measurement, observation, and the interactiveness of all energy...


What about the limits of mathematics?



*crickets chirping*

[DiscoCow]

I think we can use the same logic Aquafire is making inferences to, to make a statement along the lines of:

"Everything that can be invented has been invented™"


Because we have no flying cars or Mr. Fusion™.



No different than say:


"Everything that can be learned empirically has been learned empirically."


Because an electron happened to tunnel through a barrier.


...anyone want to join in on my pig sacrificing party? The more the merrier (as long as you don't bring casserole.)

[Aquafire]

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I'm not asking for a clue. I want you to spell out what you think you're saying about science by listing those "mysteries".

OK..

The nice little world of Newtonian matter : of cause & effect ( Classical science ) you think you live in is a shell..if you will..

Certainly your "day to day" experience of existence holds true, but it is when you get down to the bizzare world of Quantum Physics / Mechanics that things start to get " Bizzare " to say the least.

Things and events concieved as seperate , parted in both space and time, are seen by the quantum physicist as so intergrally linked that their bonds mock the apparent "reality " of time & space.

The quantum mechanical notion of "relationship" follows as a direct result of the wave/particle dualism ( aforemmentioned in my post ) and the tendency of the matter wave / particle front to behave as though it were some how or other "smeared out " across time & space. Offering the quanta of all potentialities and infinities at the same time and starting from the same potential: with all potentialities arise from this ghostly smearing of wave / particle action.

Are you familiar with the term.." Action at a distance " ?

In Quantum physics, experiments carried out with light photons have shown independent and seperate photons being effected by an experiment being carried out on one or the other seperately... It is as if the distance ( vacuum ) were not even there!

Yet if a classical science approach were taken to the photon experiment, no measurable force or other influence would be detectable. Yet time and again the ghostly & instantaneous " communication " ( if you will ) occurs between these seemingly " seperate at a distance " photons.

In Quantum Physics this is instananeous action at a distance is called the " Non-Locality " effect. It directly relates to where something can be "effected in the absence of any measurable cause "..
.
This has obviously " mystical " overtones ( hence my connecting it to this topic ) and serves to illustrate more particularly how our " Classical " models of scientific methodology falter at the quantum level.

I could go on, but I am getting tired, so I will leave you to ponder upon the conundrum discovered by Einstein in his own Theory of Relativity.

It was Einstein who first demonstrated that his equations predicted the necessity of " instantaneous non-locality " And thus undermining one of the solid planks of Newtonian "reality "... it is referred to as the
" EPR Paradox "

Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Paradox..

[Powerdoc]

Originally posted by Aquafire
OK..

The nice little world of Newtonian matter : of cause & effect ( Classical science ) you think you live in is a shell..if you will..

Certainly your "day to day" experience of existence holds true, but it is when you get down to the bizzare world of Quantum Physics / Mechanics that things start to get " Bizzare " to say the least.

Things and events concieved as seperate , parted in both space and time, are seen by the quantum physicist as so intergrally linked that their bonds mock the apparent "reality " of time & space.

The quantum mechanical notion of "relationship" follows as a direct result of the wave/particle dualism ( aforemmentioned in my post ) and the tendency of the matter wave / particle front to behave as though it were some how or other "smeared out " across time & space. Offering the quanta of all potentialities and infinities at the same time and starting from the same potential: with all potentialities arise from this ghostly smearing of wave / particle action.

Are you familiar with the term.." Action at a distance " ?

In Quantum physics, experiments carried out with light photons have shown independent and seperate photons being effected by an experiment being carried out on one or the other seperately... It is as if the distance ( vacuum ) were not even there!

Yet if a classical science approach were taken to the photon experiment, no measurable force or other influence would be detectable. Yet time and again the ghostly & instantaneous " communication " ( if you will ) occurs between these seemingly " seperate at a distance " photons.

In Quantum Physics this is instananeous action at a distance is called the " Non-Locality " effect. It directly relates to where something can be "effected in the absence of any measurable cause "..
.
This has obviously " mystical " overtones ( hence my connecting it to this topic ) and serves to illustrate more particularly how our " Classical " models of scientific methodology falter at the quantum level.

I could go on, but I am getting tired, so I will leave you to ponder upon the conundrum discovered by Einstein in his own Theory of Relativity.

It was Einstein who first demonstrated that his equations predicted the necessity of " instantaneous non-locality " And thus undermining one of the solid planks of Newtonian "reality "... it is referred to as the
" EPR Paradox "

Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen Paradox..

At the contrary of what people used to think in the late 19 th centurie, Science is a never ending road : the more you learn, the more mysteries appears, and the more we have to find.

In parallelar, it become almost impossible for a man alone, to know everything in science, and our general knowledge beside our better education, tend to represant a more and more tiny part of the knowledge.

People tried to solve mysteries in two manner, by scientific research, or by metaphysic thoughts. There is no necessity to oppose the two, in fact for many scientists, the fruit of the research, and the knowlegde bringed by science is a precious spiritual food.
More than to be limited to only one type of spiritual food (aka the bible for christians, or the Coran for Muslims), it's good to have an ecclectic choice.

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by Aquafire

This has obviously " mystical " overtones ( hence my connecting it to this topic ) and serves to illustrate more particularly how our " Classical " models of scientific methodology falter at the quantum level.


So old paradigms of science get superceded by newer ones. That doesn't seem like much of a point. Unless your claiming that quantum science doesn't have a methodology of its own.

I think what you might be saying is that "common sense" breaks down at the quantum level, however science continues unabated as people continue to make discoveries and breakthroughs in e.g. quantum physics with measureable results in the real world.

You listed some things that science has no hypothesis for as if that was some kind of slur against science, as if admitting that it didn't know things was a weakness rather than a strength of science and insinuating that if it hadn't been discovered/proved by now it then never will be (at least that is my interpretation of your post).

[Chinney]

There need not be any conflict between religion and science. Science is the search for the key to God’s rule book. We are still trying to learn all the rules. There may be some we never learn.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by segovius
This is interesting but still essentially reducing God to human terms - trying to find a way of explaining God's (postulated) powers in a way that make sense to us.

Another model would be God as 'super-user' who knows all possible outcomes and variations in an infinite universe because he designed them, perhaps even to lead to one (and one only) eventual outcome. That way we keep freewill and He keeps foreknowledge because although we have seemingly milions of choices, in the end they lead to only one outcome (death ?).

How is it reducing God to human terms? We are experiencing time one point at a time on that line. We can't see the past of that line. We can't see the future. We can see the one point in which we currently reside.

God can see the whole line. (Beginning through end)He can experience time and space in multiple dimensions at the same time and move easily through them.

One point versus an entire plane is hardly saying we are the same.

;)
Nick

[chu_bakka]

Does god wear guess jeans and drive a DeLorean too?


McFly!!!!!

[Aquafire]

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
"You listed some things that science has no hypothesis for as if that was some kind of slur against science, as if admitting that it didn't know things was a weakness rather than a strength of science and insinuating that if it hadn't been discovered/proved by now it then never will be (at least that is my interpretation of your post)."

That's the trouble with internet Foxy: you can't possibly get the intonation or emphasis I am driving at without hearing my voice.
.
if I may, my whole point is not anti science..far from it.but rather I am pointing to the limitations of "science" as we presently know it and generally practice it..

It is not an anti-science rant..

I actually have been reading up on quantum mechanics for 20 years..It's a hobby..go figure..what a nut I am..

My point is in dealing with reality & mystery.

Just as classical science nibbled away at the concepts of " GOD " causal effect boundaries . so to Quantum Mechanics & physics is nibbling away at the conventional practice of Newtonian / Cartesian science to seperate everything into the observed and the observer.

The upshot is that there is no independent observer / phenomena in the classical sense...
And BTW quantum mechanics doesn't claim ( like clasical science ) that everything is ultimately predictable & understandable..even in a filtered down conventional reality sense.

I just happen agree with the Quantum Physicists, that there are things that simply cannot be measured or predicted no matter what type of investigative process we put into play.
I know that makes some classically trainedscientists squirm but they'd better get used to dealing with such smeared realities..because like or not, we are approaching boundaries that are totally unpredictable or measureable..
There in lies the mystery.. " Ut humiliter opinor "

[Chinney]

..and even if we do, someday, learn all the rules, that does not mean that we will be refereeing the game or even that we will be able to stay out of the penalty box. I mean that, when it is the end of the third period and we are down a goal, we might still be called for too many men on the ice….

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by Aquafire

My point is in dealing with reality & mystery.


Are you sure you have a point? I'm not seeing one (and I have a fair grasp of the science you're throwing about). Certainly not one related to the rest of this thread.

Any chance of spelling it out for the slower amongst us (and preferably linking it to the rest of the discussion).

Is it really just "some things are unknowable"? If so, I'm not sure how well how your original list supports that thesis.

[stupider...likeafox]

Originally posted by trumptman

One point versus an entire plane is hardly saying we are the same.


"Reducing god to human terms" is hardly saying that we are the same, especially when he goes on to outline another scenario for god and the ways in which this hypothetical god is different from a human.

In fact it's more like "trying to find a way of explaining God's (postulated) powers in a way that make sense to us."

[Chinney]

Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Are you sure you have a point? I'm not seeing one (and I have a fair grasp of the science you're throwing about). Certainly not one related to the rest of this thread.

Any chance of spelling it out for the slower amongst us (and preferably linking it to the rest of the discussion).

Is it really just "some things are unknowable"? If so, I'm not sure how well how your original list supports that thesis.

I don’t see any problem with Aquafire’s posts here.

Over the last few hundred years, some have seen science as lifting the veil on, what they view as, false religious theory and as fundamentally replacing it. And certainly the church has had to adjust to scientific discoveries. This does not disprove the existence of God, however. It only proves that our understanding of God and his rules has been incomplete. Most churches today have no problem accommodating science, even on issues such as evolution.

On the flip side of the question, as scientific discoveries advance, we are becoming aware of areas that are, and may always remain, unpredictable and mysterious. While this may not prove the existence of God – something that is, in any case, a matter of faith, not proof – it does fill some of us with the wonder of God’s creation. Allow us that.

[chu_bakka]

I think some of us feel the world we live in and the people who live on it... are amazing things to behold as they are. Not as some grand creation.

Giving a god credit for something that is truly amazing seems to do a disservice to nature and the universe itself.

[Chinney]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
I think some of us feel the world we live in and the people who live on it... are amazing things to behold as they are. Not as some grand creation.

Giving a god credit for something that is truly amazing seems to do a disservice to nature and the universe itself.

We are amazed at the same thing. Whether an individual person believes that God created it is, however, a matter of personal faith. I don't see how those who believe in God are doing a "disservice to nature and the universe". Indeed, I am not sure that, if you don't believe in something like God in the universe and nature, how you can advance a theory of 'disservice' to it. The universe and nature - according to the athiest view - is just 'there'. Unless, of course, you accept at some level that there is something good and to be respected in the universe and nature itself. If the latter, then great - I fully agree. The point is that this does not conflict with faith in God, for those that choose to believe.

[james808]

I have a very pro-science/technologist mindset. That said, in the words of Einstein:

"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike"

In regards to evolution:
The scientific truths of today may well be tomorrow's flat earth theory.

[Aquafire]

Originally posted by Chinney
I don’t see any problem with Aquafire’s posts here.

Over the last few hundred years, some have seen science as lifting the veil on, what they view as, false religious theory and as fundamentally replacing it. And certainly the church has had to adjust to scientific discoveries. This does not disprove the existence of God, however. It only proves that our understanding of God and his rules has been incomplete. Most churches today have no problem accommodating science, even on issues such as evolution.

On the flip side of the question, as scientific discoveries advance, we are becoming aware of areas that are, and may always remain, unpredictable and mysterious. While this may not prove the existence of God – something that is, in any case, a matter of faith, not proof – it does fill some of us with the wonder of God’s creation. Allow us that.


Thank-you Chinney. Eloquent as ever.

So Foxy, If you don't mind my borrowing Chinney's statements...

It turns out from the Quantum perspective that the universe & everything in it is profoundly mysterious in that the sum is greater than the number of its parts.

Or if you will allow me another phrase..

The universe is an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, folded into a puzzle and open to mystery..

That's what is so awesome & beautifully intoxicating..
& sublime...
cheers.:)

[Outsider]

Originally posted by chu_bakka
I think some of us feel the world we live in and the people who live on it... are amazing things to behold as they are. Not as some grand creation.

Giving a god credit for something that is truly amazing seems to do a disservice to nature and the universe itself. That's the point. How do you personify nature and the universe? Why give 'nature' and the 'universe' credit? Credit for what? Putting a face, so to speak, on the physical world is basically a belief in a super-being beyond our scope of understanding, i.e. God™.