51. Comment #178549 by markg on May 11, 2008 at 3:19 pm

Dr. Benway,

I'm not sure if this was ever clarified, is it the "three strikes" rule as in baseball (where he may bat the next inning) or as in legal system where he goes to prison?

Other Comments by markg

52. Comment #178550 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Dr. Benway says:

There you have it, folks. No answer to the question: "How does one know which parts of the Bible are literal and which are metaphoric?"

But AD has said:

Comment #148107 by Artful_Dodger on March 22, 2008 at 5:11 am

Re "metaphorical" v "Literal" and the difference between the two, one knows by being familiar with the genre, and by not mistaking one genre for another. The book of Job does not read like history, it reads like epic poetry. Anyone who is familiar with epic poetry will be guarded against the danger (a minor danger mind you) of taking it as a historical biographical account of the life of a man called Job.

The books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ruth, Daniel, Esther read like history - and the events can be substantiated in many cases by reference to contemporary Mesopotamian (for example) historiography.

So, there you have it.
You know which parts are metaphorical because they look metaphorical and the parts which don't seem metaphorical are not.
That is his answer.
Perfectly simple.


Swing and a miss!

Other Comments by Frankus1122

53. Comment #178552 by Mark Smith on May 11, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Artful

I really can't get over the fact that nobody on this site is willing to challenge Dawkins on the glaring inconsistncy here. The obvious question is this: if we get everything from natural selection, and natural selection "selects" for individual and group survival, where do we get the idea that we must transcend this natural impulse? If all nature is "red in tooth and claw", how on earth can human nature be exempted from that, from where on earth does it derive the inclination to fight against nature?

There are numerous reasons why your reasoning here is wrong. But that aside, your basic argument is 'If everything is caused by [natural selection], you must accept everything humans do is caused by [natural selection] and it is wrong to say we can get away from it'. Do you see where I am going with the square brackets? Just substitute with a certain three letter word that rhymes with cod. Now tell us why, if your reasoning above is valid, you don't accept god is to blame for every nasty thing humans do.

Other Comments by Mark Smith

54. Comment #178553 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Or are you seriously saying that you fail to see any survival advantage in the possession of a decision-making capacity along with a set of inbuilt moral guidelines?

No I did not say that. There is a survival advantage, a posteriori. You cannot explain the presence of consciousness (conscience) in terms of survival advantage.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

55. Comment #178555 by Cartomancer on May 11, 2008 at 3:30 pm

The books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ruth, Daniel, Esther read like history - and the events can be substantiated in many cases by reference to contemporary Mesopotamian (for example) historiography.

By Jove I think he's got it! Treat the bible as you would any other example of its literary genre. Most sensible thing he's ever said on here.

Of course, the thing about historical writing is that when it makes fanciful claims without any corroborating evidence (or in the face of the evidence) then it positively behoves the historian to dismiss what it says as fabrication or misrepresentation. It also behoves him to treat it as a product of its own time and culture, rather than trying to pretend it has any relevance in modern society.

Well done Artful, you'll be an atheist by the end of the week if you keep this one up!

Other Comments by Cartomancer

56. Comment #178556 by Dr Benway on May 11, 2008 at 3:30 pm

People can be non-responsive for several reasons:

1. they didn't realize the question was pressing
2. they didn't see the question
3. they were going to answer it eventually
4. they want to pretend they have an answer when they don't
5. they want to pretend they have a good answer, when they have a shameful one.

Three strikes is a means of ruling out hypotheses 1-3.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

57. Comment #178558 by Cartomancer on May 11, 2008 at 3:32 pm

You cannot explain the presence of consciousness (conscience) in terms of survival advantage.

Apart from the fact that they are two separate things, why on earth not?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

58. Comment #178561 by Dr Benway on May 11, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Ah yes, Frankus1122, I remember that exchange. Artful_Dodger's answer boils down to, "trust me, it's obvious."

That answer doesn't explain why Christians, Jews, Mormons, Witnesses, etc., do not all see the same "obvious" interpretation.

I'd think the above would be sufficiently obvious to prove Artful's answer useless.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

59. Comment #178565 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Dr. Benway and Cartomancer,
I just want to take this opportunity to say I love you guys.
By guys I mean people, and by love I mean I like.
I am afraid that your brilliance may be lost on Arty and his ilk, but the genius of your subtle wit is greatly appreciated by me.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

60. Comment #178566 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Sorry Cartomancer I meant "moral consciousness" (concience)

The origin of consciousness or conscience HAS NOT been explained in terms of natural selection . This is widely recognised by most philosophers. Most physicalist / naturalist philosophers adopt a "watch this space" approach. "Naruredidit, just wait and see". "Nature of the gaps".

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

61. Comment #178567 by Mark Smith on May 11, 2008 at 3:44 pm

By Jove I think he's got it! Treat the bible as you would any other example of its literary genre. Most sensible thing he's ever said on here.

Of course, the thing about historical writing is that when it makes fanciful claims without any corroborating evidence (or in the face of the evidence) then it positively behoves the historian to dismiss what it says as fabrication or misrepresentation. It also behoves him to treat it as a product of its own time and culture, rather than trying to pretend it has any relevance in modern society.

Absolutely. But just as important is the question of how you treat the metaphorical parts. Genesis 1 is clearly poetry and so, prima facie, metaphor. So why do believers say that its main character, god, is real? Surely he is metaphorical too! etc etc

Other Comments by Mark Smith

62. Comment #178570 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 3:56 pm

"Naruredidit, just wait and see". "Nature of the gaps".

Nice analogy except that 'Nature' DOES provide explanations all the time. Our knowledge and understanding of he world is increasing daily because of the natural explanations of science.
'Nature' IS replacing 'godddiit' and the god of the gaps.
The need for God as an explanation is increasingly diminishing because answers ARE provided by science.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

63. Comment #178572 by Cartomancer on May 11, 2008 at 3:57 pm

I meant "moral consciousness" (concience)

If you're talking about why we are aware of our instinctive moral urges, and have the ability to override them if we decide to, the mechanisms behind those are very complex indeed. If you want a good model of how and why they evolved, you would have to ask a neuroscientist who can explain the mechanisms in terms of neural pathways, synapses, protein structures etc. But working on the macro-level of animal behaviours, it is precisely the sort of thing that gets selected for. If possession of moral awareness and the ability to make moral decisions rationally increases the durability of an animal's social networks then it will result in increased survivability. Being able to organise effective societies is hugely beneficial, and moral awareness enables that on a completely different level to the one other social creatures such as ants or wolves operate on. On the most basic level, if people do their own moral policing then it frees up the social group from having to devote resources to weeding out advantage-takers, rogue elements and those unhelpful to cooperative endeavour.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

64. Comment #178573 by DNAproduct on May 11, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Dodger's original question was:

The obvious question is this: if we get everything from natural selection, and natural selection "selects" for individual and group survival, where do we get the idea that we must transcend this natural impulse? If all nature is "red in tooth and claw", how on earth can human nature be exempted from that, from where on earth does it derive the inclination to fight against nature? This is a question which, try as he might and mince it as he will, Dawkins has abjectly failed to address.

And I'm glad people have given more thoughtful and in-depth answers than "Just listen to the very post that we are discussing."
But, as seems to happen SO often, someone is asking a question of Dawkins that he's already directly addressed:

How can I on the one hand say that we are the product of Darwinian selection,
which is incorrigibly short-sighted and selfish, but at the same time say that salvation lies in
humanity's capacity for looking far ahead? And the answer lies in the fact that brains,
although they are themselves the natural product of natural selection, follow their own rules,
which can rise above the rules of natural selection. This is obvious in the case of the example
of contraception. Contraception is clearly anti-Darwinian. It would be hard to imagine
anything more anti-Darwinian than deliberately limiting your own reproductive success yet we
do it. The brain is big enough to override the imperative of the selfish genes. The brain exists
originally as a device to aid gene survival; the ultimate rationale for the brain's existence and
very large size in our own species is, like everything else in the living world, gene survival,
which tends to imply short-term selfishness. But as part of this the human brain has been
equipped by the natural selection of genes with the power to make its own decisions, which
can override the ultimate goals which were originally used to programme it.

Seriously, what percentage of the time do Dawkins' critics actually read or listen to what he says? Sure there's confirmational bias acting on my part, but it seems very much like 95% of the time I've already seen his answer to their questions.
Even if it's really only 50% of the time, he must get very tired of repeating anwers he just gave.


Thanks, Barry Pearson, for the link to the PDF.

Other Comments by DNAproduct

65. Comment #178574 by Frankus1122 on May 11, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Arty,
Try listening to this podcast:

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/marc_hauser_moral_minds/

Here is an introduction:

In this interview with D.J. Grothe, Marc Hauser expounds his theory that morality has biological origins while challenging the common view that morality comes from God. He compares the human capacity for morality with Noam Chomsky's notion of a universal grammar, arguing that there is a "morality module" in the brain. He explains how his theory accounts for differences in morality across cultures, and discusses how morality could have evolved and what genetic benefit it might have afforded. He also explores the implications of his theory for the legal system, and for cultural institutions like religion and the family.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

66. Comment #178575 by Cartomancer on May 11, 2008 at 4:02 pm

"Naruredidit, just wait and see". "Nature of the gaps".

Last time I checked we had fairly good evidence that nature exists...

Other Comments by Cartomancer

67. Comment #178576 by MaxD on May 11, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Artful Dodger,
Simply having some adaptation that would increase some quantity you call survival advantage isn't important to selective concerns unless that survival advantage also confers a reproductive advantage.

Consciousness, morals or any other thing you may want to bring up may be unnecessary to survival per se(though treating contemporaries well might arguably lengthen a life seems in little doubt) this simple fact alone may not increase one's differential reproductive success. I could be utterly ruthless in my apey dealings and this might indeed give me a longer a life, but if I alienate myself from the group I may have hurt my reproductive success (this has to be counted as children who reach child bearing age and also reproduce successfully).

Other Comments by MaxD

68. Comment #178581 by Prosthetic Head on May 11, 2008 at 4:11 pm

Any chance of getting an MP3 version for those of us (may be just me?) on prehistoric hardware that can't cope with Macromedia Flash?

Thanks, would love to be able to listen to it.

Other Comments by Prosthetic Head

69. Comment #178582 by MaxD on May 11, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Arty,
You are simply not up the latest and greatest in psychology and neuropathology. Our moral intuitions seem rooted in our brains and their activity. Indeed much that we know supports Hauser's hypothesis of universal grammar of morality. Though you rightly say picture isn't yet fleshed out.

However, even if we were no where near a physical understanding of morality it would not justify the unsubstantiated theistic claims to explanation.
Would it?

Other Comments by MaxD

70. Comment #178585 by nameuser on May 11, 2008 at 4:20 pm

"if it were left to the forces of Darwinism alone..."

"... rebelling against the otherwise universally selfish Darwinian impulse".

Altruism and concern for the future of the planet are products of Darwinism alone and we're not rebelling against the selfish Darwinian impulse. Dr. Dawkins cites the use of condoms as another example of Homo Sapiens rising above Darwinian self interest. I don't think so. Care for the future of the planet and deliberately acting in a way that will limit the spread of our DNA are not contrary to the "aims" of evolution.

Our brains are set up to feel sexual urges. Even if we don't want kids we still like sex. We act on the sexual urges not just on the desire to have kids.

Dr. Dawkins' YouTube video "Nice Guys Finish First" is an interesting look at the subject of altruism. Playing nice with others is a good stable survival strategy if others are doing the same, so it feels good. Playing nice with future "others" feels good too, even if it doesn't benefit us in any other way.

Sex with no offspring feels good. Being nice with no chance of reciprocation feels good too. We haven't broken contract with Darwinism, we've just found loopholes.

Other Comments by nameuser

71. Comment #178588 by Mitchell Gilks on May 11, 2008 at 4:35 pm

I think what Artful means when s/he says that there are no explanations for the things s/he mentions is that their is no explanations that s/he would find satisfactory, or favourable (i.e. God did it.).

When talking about consciousness, it depends on what you mean. Many people take a position that it is something that is more than meaning the conscious facualties of (i.e. awake mind, unconscious mind, subconscious mind, and super-conscious mind) the brain but something different and special to human beings. In which case I think they are asking to explain something that doesn't exist, and get upset when it can't be explained. When it comes to the actual conscious facualties, they seem to be explained quite well with appeals to complexity, and brain developement. Almost all animals are conscious, and what levels of conscious thought they are capable of appears to be directly correlated with what their brains possess. As I explained before, big brains, and high levels of consciousness are likely the bi-product of becoming good at something that increases your survivability. We may be smart simply because it was the by-product of becoming good at throwing a spear or a rock accurately. As cuddle-fish have exceptually large brains as a result of being able to make quick calculations to camoflage. As they got better and faster at it, their brains got bigger, and they likely developed other functions as by-products. Human brains have an exceptual amount of plastisity. We can become good at what we practice a lot.

When it comes to moral outlooks, as demonstrated in other animals it is a mixture of emotion and reason. We have empathy, and are able to put ourselves in other's shoes, as it were. This is not only beneficial to social animals, for building a emotional ties with other members, but it can be beneficial to any animal, to avoid things that it has wittnessed cause other animals harm.

There is much plastisity here as well, as all the differing moral outlooks attest to. Expecting a specific moral outlook to be explained by natural selection misunderstands natural selection. It merely enabled people to be capable of them, it doesn't explain them specifically.

Clearly my moral and ethical outlook is build on completely different ideas and rationales than yours would be Artful, and because of this what I consider moral and ethic may greatly differ from what you do. We have the same foundations, of emotion and reason though. This is easily demonstrated by people like sociopaths that lack these facualties of the brain to demonstrate that they are directly a result of the brain, and you only need wittness how poorly sociopathes operate in society to establish the benefical nature of said facualties.

When it gets into why people do specific things, or why certain specific moral outlooks are formed, that is a job for evolutionary psychologists, and anthropologists, not biologists.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

72. Comment #178599 by DingoDave on May 11, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Kind of illustrates the lie that Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was trying to inflict upon the audience during his IdeaCity speech doesn't it?

Other Comments by DingoDave

73. Comment #178601 by Mitchell Gilks on May 11, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Also, the example of lions killing other animals is clearly a false analogy. Humans kill other animals for food too, and most humans don't have any more of a moral objection to this than lions do. I happen to, but I am unfortunately in a gross minority, so your analogy is clearly fallacious.

Take a social group of any animal, and find one that doesn't play by the rules and is not repremanded, or does not feel the pressure of the consequences of it's actions by members of it's society. That is an accurate analogy, and it is quite clearly demonstrated that their moral and ethic considerations are perscribed by it's members are well. Chimps perscribe how chimps ought to behave toward each other, dogs perscribe how dogs should act, just as humans decide how humans should act.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

74. Comment #178604 by riki on May 11, 2008 at 5:24 pm

On the subject of nature, I enjoyed the TED talk by Michael Pollan
The omnivore's next dilemma

Other Comments by riki

75. Comment #178612 by jphilosophys on May 11, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Could someone who knows something of the matter respond to the third clip in this series of 15? (access by hitting menu while video is playing) The claim is from the creationist and is over 20 years old in which scientific evidence that the genesis account of a speedy creation of earth is offered. Surely what they say is false or inconclusive. As if god would send this obscure glimmer of evidence anyway! Yet I'm curious, thanks.

Other Comments by jphilosophys

76. Comment #178618 by will young on May 11, 2008 at 6:47 pm

jphilosophys

"Surely what they say is false or inconclusive."

No doubt...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

The Evolution's Tiny Violences: The Po-Halo Mystery link was the one I liked.

Other Comments by will young

77. Comment #178619 by dragonfirematrix on May 11, 2008 at 6:51 pm

As par for the course, the religious again attack evolution. That one caller needed some valium to calm himself down.

"Poof, there it is..."

...the way those simple-minded religious see the the existance of everything, in six days mind you. They offer no data, no documented facts, no proven scientific methods, no verifiable discoveries to support their claims. All the religious offer is their GDBS.

Never mind that science gathers data, learns and documented facts, uses scientific methods which continue to get better and better, discovery after discovery in support of evolution, and on...

NOOOOOO, the religious continue to believe (and want forced on all children) their GDBS of "poof, there it is."

The religious should be jailed on charges of fraud.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

78. Comment #178626 by vesihiisi on May 11, 2008 at 7:06 pm

Oh, you are just trying to make a simple thing too complicated.

Should societies be run by Newtonian morals? Should light people be above heavy people in society, because newtonian laws keeps society from floating into space?

Darwinian mechanics gave us our instincts, reasoning, and morals. We can research these mechanics and take them in account when we make policies and use our evolved morals and reasoning to decide, what kind of societies we should build.

Of course we can fight the evolutionary mechanics the same way we can fight Newton's laws when sending people to the Moon.

Other Comments by vesihiisi

79. Comment #178643 by Kristopher on May 11, 2008 at 8:13 pm

Deny thyself?

Other Comments by Kristopher

80. Comment #178645 by croatcat on May 11, 2008 at 8:17 pm

Now I can understand Bushs comment about the Kyoto Accord. He wouldn't agree to it if it had any negative impacts on the american economy. So he falls into the short-sighted greedy group. Makes sense...but not really.

Economy is not much good if no one is left to partake of it.

Other Comments by croatcat

81. Comment #178652 by MaxD on May 11, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Croatcat,
He (W)is looking out for his. That makes evolutionary sense. It is the tragedy of the commons writ large.

Other Comments by MaxD

82. Comment #178655 by MaxD on May 11, 2008 at 8:46 pm

This is a brilliant little piece on nature and the philosophy that all that is natural is necessarily good.

Other Comments by MaxD

83. Comment #178663 by Mbee on May 11, 2008 at 9:11 pm

When was this recorded? I would like to know the context.
Surely Richard can let us know where and when this was recorded.

Other Comments by Mbee

84. Comment #178666 by croatcat on May 11, 2008 at 9:15 pm

MaxD

This is a brilliant little piece on nature and the philosophy that all that is natural is necessarily good.

Where as I am at the point "All that is natural is". No good or bad. I am still assimilating information and have a lot of catching up to do.

Other Comments by croatcat

85. Comment #178669 by DalaiDrivel on May 11, 2008 at 9:49 pm

Barry Pearson,

I'm not attacking IDiots' strategy. I'm attacking their ideology.

To say that the biological roots of our existence prescribe the manner in which we construct society is a logical fallacy, given the ability of humans to counteract their evolutionary impulses.

For other animals, their actions and their consequences necessarily are directed by Darwinian evolution. They have no other choice. They do not have the technology, nor the intelligence, to do otherwise.

There is no "materialistic worldview" to evolution. Quite plainly, it describes how humans came to exist in our present form. How we proceed, now that we have grasped evolution and live lives far beyond the means of our wild cousins, is up to us. Evolution is a fact, just, as RD described with Lawrence Krauss, a table being a table is a fact, and IDiots' attempt to disprove it because they deem that if it were true, it would have a variety of insane social consequences, is in itself insane. We are conscious, and by that definition we are aware of our darwinian impulses. We are the dominant species on Earth, and we are not subject to evolution by natural selection any longer. We no longer adapt ourselves to environments, and compete for survival, and we have not entertained the "materialistic worldview" for some time. That we would do so upon acknowledging evolutin IS a logical fallacy, and it is this illogicity demonstrated by IDiots to which I was previously referring.

But do keep in mind I am not educated in this subject, and it is best to seek a definitive explanation of biological evolution and its assumed social ramifications elsewhere!

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

86. Comment #178674 by Greyman on May 11, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Comment #178604 by riki on May 11, 2008 at 5:24 pm

On the subject of nature, I enjoyed the TED talk by Michael Pollan
The omnivore's next dilemma

It's an interesting perspective, isn't it? And I for one welcome our new corn overlords.

Seriously, permaculture rocks.

Other Comments by Greyman

87. Comment #178676 by riandouglas on May 11, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Cartomancer: Last time I checked we had fairly good evidence that nature exists...

Comedy gold. Thank you Cartomancer :-)

Other Comments by riandouglas

88. Comment #178684 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 11:19 pm

If you're talking about why we are aware of our instinctive moral urges, and have the ability to override them if we decide to,

"instinctive moral urges" is, I believe, a contradiction in terms. When someone decides NOT to take unfair advantage of another person, or decides to STOP exploiting the weak and vulnerable in the face of the opportunity to do so or to continue doing so to his or her own obvious survival/supremacy advantage, are they succumbing to an "urge" or consciously resisting an urge? Is it a "moral instinct" that takes over when we decide to be cruel rather than to be kind? Does it take over because it is the stonger instinct? In the event of a struggle between the two "instincts" and a choice in favour of "morality", what is invoked to make such a choice? The "referee" can't also be one of the players! Or is the apparent choice not a choice at all? Are we just giving in to the instinct that happens to be the stronger of the two? In which case our behaviour is determined by instinctual prevalence. In this event it is a bit pointless of Dawkins to rant and rave about people (like Bush in Iraq or parents who wantonly subject their children to IDeological abuse) who behave "immorally".

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

89. Comment #178685 by Brian English on May 11, 2008 at 11:26 pm

"instinctive moral urges" is, I believe, a contradiction in terms.

You believe wrongly then. :)

Other Comments by Brian English

90. Comment #178686 by epeeist on May 11, 2008 at 11:29 pm

Comment #178521 by Artful_Dodger

I have answered the literal v metaphor question.

No you didn't. You gave one particular instance.

What you didn't provide was the general decision procedure. Nor did you tell us who gives you the authority to determine that something which is supposedly the direct or indirect word of your god is a metaphor.

Other Comments by epeeist

91. Comment #178688 by riandouglas on May 11, 2008 at 11:37 pm

Brian English: You believe wrongly then. :)

I believe that would not be a first for Artful.

epeeist: No you didn't. You gave one particular instance.

What you didn't provide was the general decision procedure. Nor did you tell us who gives you the authority to determine that something which is supposedly the direct or indirect word of your god is a metaphor.

But he did, honest:
1) The parts that look a bit metaphory are obviously metaphor, even if they appear that way to us simply because we know more, or morality has changed.
2) The parts which we can still get away with calling literal are of course to be taken literally, for all eternity, or at least until they start looking a bit like metaphor, in which case see 1 above.

Other Comments by riandouglas

92. Comment #178690 by mblarson323 on May 11, 2008 at 11:43 pm

To Paula and epeeist et. al

While I applaud your efforts to school the "artful dodger" (artless though he is), your efforts are doomed to failure for the same reason that I point out time and again. Religion teaches - and in fact exalts - illogical, irrational thinking. The more religious one is, the less capacity for rational discourse one has. Each attempt you make to reason with "artful" will result only in yet another irrational "dodge" and will serve only to frustrate you. Rather than trying to convert the convinced, we should focus our efforts on the younger minds that have not yet been polluted with the sickness of religion. We may not live to see the fruits of our efforts, but we will be planting the seeds that will bear that fruit.

Other Comments by mblarson323

93. Comment #178692 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 11:46 pm

You believe wrongly then.

Show me how

What you didn't provide was the general decision procedure. Nor did you tell us who gives you the authority to determine that something which is supposedly the direct or indirect word of your god is a metaphor

There is no "general decision procedure", only a willingness to take seriously the possibility that God could have used the medium of "the word" to make Himself known to us via the operation of reason in engaging with this "word", and also awareness of the rich panoply of literary devices available to the writers whom he inspired so to make himself known. Without this willingness on your part, nothing I could say about individual instances, no "hermeneutic" would cut any ice with you.

I know that you lay into me with questions like "why this sacred text and not any of the others?". Let's first establish the willingness to take seriously the possibility of God speaking through "words". After that there will be plety to say about the respective merits of one text as opposed to another. But that's another issue. If you have already ruled out the possibility of God existing, let alone "speaking", there's hardly much point in talking about which text He has spoken through, and how!

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

94. Comment #178693 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 11:53 pm

Rather than trying to convert the convinced, we should focus our efforts on the younger minds that have not yet been polluted with the sickness of [religion]

Isn't that what the Jesuits used to say? Sounds like a very "rational" project! The premise of course is that atheism is the default "mechanism". Gradgrind would be proud of you. "Let's set up schools where children will be exposed to facts, pure and simple. We will have to careful of the reading material we admit onto the shelves! Encyclopedias and text-books with spadefuls of information. Fiction which depicts kids acceding to glory in sport and setting an example of achievement and supremacy. But at all costs we must keep them from reading the kind of fantasy that might encourage them to feel deep down that there might be more to existence than can be accounted for by the empirical sciences. No Lord of the Rings or anything of that ilk, unless it be heavily anotated by scholars who will be able to explain away any longings that such literature might awaken! We must at all costs protect their little minds (neurological machinery) from being polluted!"

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

95. Comment #178695 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 12:02 am

Artful_Dodger: There is no "general decision procedure", only a willingness to take seriously the possibility that God could have used the medium of "the word" to make Himself known to us via the operation of reason in engaging with this "word", and also awareness of the rich panoply of literary devices available to the writers whom he inspired so to make himself known. Without this willingness on your part, nothing I could say about individual instances, no "hermeneutic" would cut any ice with you.

You're presupposing the existence of the Christian god Yahweh. Why would you do that?

Artful_Dodger: I know that you lay into me with questions like "why this sacred text and not any of the others?". Let's first establish the willingness to take seriously the possibility of God speaking through "words".

Ah, you're simply presupposing a god. It's better than going all the way to Yahweh & Jesus, but it still needs justification.

Artful_Dodger: After that there will be plety to say about the respective merits of one text as opposed to another. But that's another issue. If you have already ruled out the possibility of God existing, let alone "speaking", there's hardly much point in talking about which text He has spoken through, and how!

How about we settle the issue of the existence of a supernatural entity before we start discussing which words if any might belong to it?
What can you offer to support the existence of this entity?

Other Comments by riandouglas

96. Comment #178698 by DalaiDrivel on May 12, 2008 at 12:04 am

Artful:

"There is no "general decision procedure", only a willingness to take seriously the possibility that God could have used the medium of "the word" to make Himself known to us via the operation of reason in engaging with this "word", and also awareness of the rich panoply of literary devices available to the writers whom he inspired so to make himself known."

You've said absolutely nothing of use here.

I especially love the "Make himself known via the operation of reason in engaging with this 'word'"- as if the word were a living (but of course you'd say it's living...) biological entity with which God interacts, and that reason is something that you operate... like a car, I suppose.

I suppose what you're saying in your very dodgy way, is "God makes himself known by having a bunch of gullible theists rationalise him into existence (that's the "operation of reason" bit consisting of golden oldies like "Well the world is so beautiful, God has to exist!", or, "Well I would be sad if God didn't exist, therefore he does!"), pretending they're reasonable, and writing books and pretending that he wrote them." Aha!

The reason that it is so difficult for atheists to come around to acknowledging the possibility of God speaking through ANY text, is that he's not very likely to exist to begin with.

And there's not much point speculating which holy book he speaks through, and which parts of it he intends to be interpreted literally or metaphorically, if he doesn't even exist. I think we will agree.

I suggest you consult Epeeist and his lemmata on the topic of God's existence.

God speaking through texts is therefore a hard idea to take seriously. The merits of each text and their proper individual interpretation you have thus far failed to demonstrate. I suggest you enlighten us as to why seriousness in considering God actually speaking through texts is necessary to judge the merits of each text. You already do take them seriously. I'm sure that is enough.

This is merely a hypothetical consideration for us atheists. We will imagine God speaking through texts, but will not for a moment take it seriously. Come on!

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

97. Comment #178700 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 12:08 am

Comment #178695 by riandouglas

Artful_Dodger: Let's first establish the willingness to take seriously the possibility of God speaking through "words".

Ah, you're simply presupposing a god. It's better than going all the way to Yahweh & Jesus, but it still needs justification.

No he isn't, he is presupposing his "God" (note the capital G) and at the same time implicitly denying the existence of other gods. How about literal and metaphorical in the Rig Veda?

Other Comments by epeeist

98. Comment #178702 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 12:14 am

Epeeist, read the rest of my post. Of course there is a range of literary devices in any text. Texts which make historical or propositional claims are, to that extent, meant to be taken literally, and may contain a great deal of historical fact. But while you discount the possibility of God existing let alone speaking there is hardly much point in my arguing that he has spoken through one text rather than another. Let me know when you change your mind about the former and we can start discussing the latter.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

99. Comment #178704 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 12:22 am

Artful_Dodger: But while you discount the possibility of God existing let alone speaking there is hardly much point in my arguing that he has spoken through one text rather than another. Let me know when you change your mind about the former and we can start discussing the latter.

Can you present any argument or evidence for the existence of this god of yours? Before I entertain the existence of your god as a probability, you'll have to show that to be the case.
We can get down to arguing about texts after that.

EDIT:

epeeist: No he isn't, he is presupposing his "God" (note the capital G) and at the same time implicitly denying the existence of other gods.

I did note that, but isn't the term "god" a generic term and not a proper name?
Yahweh, Zeus, Thor are all gods, right?

Other Comments by riandouglas

100. Comment #178706 by epeeist on May 12, 2008 at 12:25 am

Comment #178702 by Artful_Dodger

Epeeist, read the rest of my post. Of course there is a range of literary devices in any text.

Fine, I can accept that. However, since you didn't answer my second part then I am free to conclude that the whole of Genesis is actually a metaphor. I have as much authority to declare this as you.

Given that it is, then the whole story of Jesus is an irrelevance since there was no literal fall only a metaphorical one.

Other Comments by epeeist