The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Various aspects of the creation story that Noah was telling(!) his sons – he was not writing a letter – in Genesis 5 do not exactly match Chapter 1, and Chapter 1 does not exactly match Chapter 2. To which I reply, "get over it!"

Where do you get that from? In my bible, there is no conversation between Noah and his sons about creation, certainly not in Genesis 5, since Noah is actually born at the end of that chapter! The following chapters that deal with the flood narrative contain no conversations between Noah and his sons either. I'd love to have a look at your bible if it has so much extra material in it.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Some of the myths in the early chapters of Genesis are so(!) old that they were originally oral traditions. The legends would be taught by father to son, who had to memorize them exactly.

Have you the least bit of evidence to support that? On the contrary, Jewish tradition holds that Noah took 11 writings into the ark with him. These were most likely clay tablets. Jewish tradition is reasonably good on facts, if fairly wild on interpretations.

Re: Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Some of the myths in the early chapters of Genesis are so(!) old that they were originally oral traditions. The legends would be taught by father to son, who had to memorize them exactly.

Originally Posted by business_kid Have you the least bit of evidence to support that? On the contrary, Jewish tradition holds that Noah took 11 writings into the ark with him. These were most likely clay tablets. Jewish tradition is reasonably good on facts, if fairly wild on interpretations.

The only possibility other than spoken preceding written language is that humans were always born with written language "built in". Is that what you're suggesting? Additionally, since we do know for a fact that all human cultures produce fanciful, overblown hero stories and myths, what evidence is there that this specific Noah ever existed? If it all comes back to tradition and one compliation of traditional mythology, how is that objective evidence of anything other than what those cultures believed?

Science cannot explain or answer:

1. Right or wrong (morality), love, justice, beauty, free will, laws of nature, laws of logic, our ability to reason.
2. Why we exist. Why anything exists.
3. What is the ultimate meaning of our existence?
4. How should we live? (What should we do with our knowledge of the natural world?)

Our morality determines our fate, not science. Albert Einstein

I totally agree that Science cannot answer "Why?" or give anyone "ultimate meaning" as the latter is each persons' own responsibility. I see "How we should live" as the same issue as "morality" and while I recognize that to a large extent religions, all of them, contributed to codifying morality, it seems to me that morality did not result from religion. Religion was by no means the cause of Morality. It resulted from the need to get along with one another within the parameters of ones' existence in each society's environment of Time and Place.

Societies with few resources created religions that bound tribes and at the same time de-humanized non-believers so it was still moral to rob, rape, enslave and kill "Others" to survive. It was only after Science improved Agriculture (and distribution and manufacturing), Hygiene, Medicine and to some extent education and defenses that societies began to become moral in the modern sense of peaceful collaboration, at least to what extent it exists in 2023. What will comprise morality a half century from now, in 2083, will not have evolved/changed because of religion (in some cases in spite of it) but because of Science.

Originally Posted by enorbet The only possibility other than spoken preceding written language is that humans were always born with written language "built in". Is that what you're suggesting? Additionally, since we do know for a fact that all human cultures produce fanciful, overblown hero stories and myths, what evidence is there that this specific Noah ever existed? If it all comes back to tradition and one compliation of traditional mythology, how is that objective evidence of anything other than what those cultures believed?

Enorbet, you say you're an atheist. Why ask questions you don't want answers to? What's your motive?

Written & spoken were pre-programmed into the 1st couple from Day 1 in all likelihood. God had conversations with Adam before the rebellion of Genesis chapter 3. Sure mankind is good at overblown myths, but the Divine record only has what God wants in there, and stands out among other books because of that. It's not the work of a human author.

The body of King Richard III Plantagonet was discovered (under a car park?) in England recently. I'm sure hazel has more detail; Was it 1485 that he died? Nobody doubts he once lived. And today's Royal family in England can probably trace some distant relationship to him.

Only a fool doubts if Jesus Christ lived. In Matthew 1:2-16 we have his paternal genealogy back to Abraham. In Luke 3:23-38 the maternal genealogy is traced back through Abraham and Noah to Adam who was a son of God. All of the more ancient characters are corroborated by other Bible writers. If you, a man of science, believe some man came into existence without a parent in times past, put forward your convincing evidence. Witnesses believe God's existence never commenced, and that life only comes from preexisting life.

Mytholohies are recorded much later than the events. For example Babylonian mythology survived as one of the earlies cities built but was only recorded about 300BC by Berossus. Fragments survive.

Sorry but what has Richard III to do with anything? His time was relatively recent and very well documented. Now if they'd found King Arthur in a car park...

Originally Posted by business_kid Enorbet, you say you're an atheist. Why ask questions you don't want answers to? What's your motive?

Business_kid after so many posts I sincerely have lost confidence you will ever understand this, but I will try. There are absolutely zero questions I don't want answers to... ZERO. My identity is not tied up in beliefs. I have "no dog in that race". As an engineer who relies on Math and Science for important conclusions as much as I'm able to discipline myself to, I fully accept the most basic precept of Science that Science is never done, that conclusions are imperfect and will always continue to be updated, sometimes slightly sometimes catastrophically. I don't require rigid dogma. In fact I resist it.

When I was but 7 years old in 1953 my Uncle gave me an Astronomy book as a gift. I was too young and ignorant to understand what all the reprint dates meant so I didn't know it was severely outdated. The cover looked brand new, and the binding crackled when I opened it, but it still said The Universe IS The Milky Way and all the "fuzzy stuff" was just clouds of gas near the Milky Way. The Universe was maybe a half million light years across. By the time I was 9, I discovered that first book was mistaken, that astronomers on ever increasing size and resolution telescopes, including Dr. Edwin Hubble decades earlier, demonstrated that "the fuzzy stuffs" were other galaxies much like the Milky Way but millions and billions of light years distant. My world exploded, or rather expanded immensely. It was even more glorious than I'd imagined.

Dr. Carl Sagan, whom i greatly admire, has been quoted referring to the age of our Universe as 15 Billion years. Just a few years after his death, more accurate means arrived at 13.7 billion years age. IIRC in 2023 it has been cross-checked more thoroughly and thought to be closer to 13.8. It is entirely possible that JWST will adjust that number. I'm perfectly fine with all that. It's a feature not a bug. It's progress.

Furthermore, recently I suffered what was probably a TIA, losing almost all bodily motor control on one side. It took me a half hour to move less than 2 meters from my chair to my bed. I considered that it was entirely possible I was about to die. It felt regrettable as there is so much more I want to do, so much more I'd love to learn, but I was unafraid and if "this was It" so be it. My greatest regret was that I was unable to speak so I couldn't say my good-byes to my family, but few of us can expect that bit of luck so OK, I had to accept it.

I would literally, given decent health, LOVE to live forever. I'd like to witness Andromeda's collision with the Milky Way, our Sun expanding to consume the Earth. I'd love to know how the Human Story will go, but I have no problem accepting that is not my lot. I had friends who died in or shortly after High School. I got three quarters of a Century. I think I've been quite fortunate. It has been an incredible privilege to get to even be alive, breathe the air, smell the grass after a rain, and know others on the same basic path and share experiences and knowledge... and to wonder.

There are zero questions I don't want answered. Zero answers I don't want questioned. I don't need dogma. I resist it.

Originally Posted by business_kid Let me explain: If I say the Bible is infallible, it is a sweeping statement which indicates everything should be treated as infallible pronouncements of doctrine. But Witnesses sometimes differ in their accounts of events. One version is probably wrong. Or King Saul, who Jehovah would not answer, went to see a witch in Endor on the eve of a battle. The witch summoned some spirit pretending to be Samuel, who gave him a doom-laden prophecy. But the real Samuel would not speak to him when he was alive. The prophecy was basically correct but inaccurate in details. Further, once you say the Bible is infallible, some dweeb will throw you some random misunderstanding, and you'll have to divert from whatever you were trying to say into explaining some random piece of trivia. Lastly, I know of only one Creation account in Genesis, i.e. 1:1-2:4. Where's the second one?

I agree entirely. When I was thinking of differing eye witness accounts, or even just different accounts, the creation story came to mind, I guess since it's the first dual account with differences in this book, the differences being what @hazel pointed out--order of creation.

I was curious how @mrmazda responds to your valid points about broad sweeping claims of infallibility to the Bible, as he has made such broad sweeping claims in this thread. I personally concur with @sundialcvs, and can appreciate both accounts for what they are: creation myths in our traditions that have survived time but the origins of which were too long ago to concern myself with debates over accuracy or discrepancies between them, etc. Anyways, there has never been enough information or even nudging of spirit, to ever even tempt me into concluding that the universe is only 6000 years old, and I wonder if he genuinely believes that, or if such remarks are from a facetious inner prankster deriving joy from dumping dogma into the salt...

Originally Posted by enorbet Furthermore, recently I suffered what was probably a TIA, losing almost all bodily motor control on one side. It took me a half hour to move less than 2 meters from my chair to my bed. I considered that it was entirely possible I was about to die. It felt regrettable as there is so much more I want to do, so much more I'd love to learn, but I was unafraid and if "this was It" so be it. My greatest regret was that I was unable to speak so I couldn't say my good-byes to my family, but few of us can expect that bit of luck so OK, I had to accept it

I hope it was a short one.

Originally Posted by enorbet ...it seems to me that morality did not result from religion. Religion was by no means the cause of Morality. It resulted from the need to get along with one another within the parameters of ones' existence in each society's environment of Time and Place.

Perhaps, you've heard them before, but I liked these questions when I first heard them:

Is it wrong to kill because God said "thou shall not kill"? Or, did God say, "thou shall not kill," because it is wrong to kill?

Enorbet is quite right when he says that early religions were not about morality. It was the people of Israel who first fused these two things, with incalculable consequences for subsequent history. If you ignore the possibility of divine revelation (as Enorbet surely will!) you can only marvel at how these people arrived at such a wildly original idea.

Originally Posted by mrmazda Science cannot explain or answer: Right or wrong (morality), love, justice, beauty, free will, laws of nature, laws of logic, our ability to reason. Why we exist. Why anything exists. What is the ultimate meaning of our existence? How should we live? (What should we do with our knowledge of the natural world?) Our morality determines our fate, not science. Albert Einstein

I agree with MrMazda! ... and Einstein! Of course, nobody else can explain or answer those four bullets either.

Originally Posted by hazel Enorbet is quite right when he says that early religions were not about morality.

Heheh. I don't think I said that, though I see how it could be thought of that way. I was thinking that early religions, especially among poor societies, justified a very different morality from what we at least pay lip service to in modern times. My initial thoughts were of Vikings and Mongols because they were poor and so obviously reveled in battle for spoils. Then it hit me that it is still going on just a bit more two-faced in attitude and practice, albeit a bit less as general day-to-day or seasonal policy..

Originally Posted by hazel It was the people of Israel who first fused these two things, with incalculable consequences for subsequent history. If you ignore the possibility of divine revelation (as Enorbet surely will!) you can only marvel at how these people arrived at such a wildly original idea.

That's quite interesting, hazel. Did this precede Hammuarbi's Code?

Originally Posted by enorbet That's quite interesting, hazel. Did this precede Hammuarbi's Code?

No, but Hammurabi's code isn't about morality. It's simply a convenient set of rules for running a functioning society, a way to determine what to do when citizens are at daggers drawn. Every society has some kind of rules, and an urban society like Hammurabi's Babylon needs a large and complex code. But it doesn't need to be a moral code as we would understand morality. In disputes between citizens in ancient Babylon, only the poor got punished for offending their neighbours. The rich just had to pay a fine. There are parts of the Torah that are a bit like this, for example the rules in Exodus for settling disputes between farmers.

But a moral code in the sense of transcendant obligations that are binding on all is a much later development, and I think the Jews were the first to link this with religion.