If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat it?

[jimmo42]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

Sure a person can just believe. That's not really the issue though, it's when they go out to espouse those beliefs that the question of lying arises. There may be some grey area around difficult subjects but on the issue of a historical exodus of slaves from Egypt or the rapid conquest and destruction of Canaan there's not really any question. Even a cursory examination of the historical record would reveal all kinds of problems. The Christian may not abandon their belief at that point but if they continue to try and argue for inerrancy I would say that's bullshit.

No argument there. In fact, one thing I posted in another thread was something from Finkelstein and Silverman's "The Bible Unearthed". They estimated that there were 1.5 to 2 million jews who would have fled Egypt (based on the numbers mentioned in the OT). After wandering around for 40 years, they must have left some trace somewhere, yet nothing has been found, even when specifically investigating the areas described in the bible. Seems pretty certain that it is bullshit. Then, as you pointed out, someone who insists the Exodus happened they way the bible describes is bullshitting.

Maybe the same evidence can be interpreted in slightly different ways but it's not like there's that much room to maneuver. I think the real issue is how much evidence different people require before they are comfortable with a conclusion. Person A may think they are justified by what person B considers weak evidence, clearly there is room for reasonable disagreement and even mistakes as we reach the limits of current human knowledge.

No argument there. The only thing I would add is that the bible is a classic example. Some people (including some here) insist that the bible is 100% bullshit and thus not useful as an historical document at all. The experts (historians, new testament scholars) say differently. As I mentioned, even though I consider myself a knowledgeable layman in this area, I need the information from the experts if I am going to make any kind of informed decision. Simply saying the bible is not true because you don't want it to be true is no different than a fundie who claims the bible must be true because it is the bible. Further, since historians talk about probability and not "facts" or "truth", it is IMO easier to accept weak evidence since all you are doing is saying what probably happened and not "this is the way it really happened".

One of my biggest problems is with people who simply claim the experts are wrong simply because the expert's evidence contradicts their pet (unsupported) beliefs. This applies to both fundies and atheists.

Advanced theoretical physics is pretty far removed from the original questions where the truth was more certain. The only thing I know about M-theory is that it builds of string theory which I'm not to keen on due to its lack of results. I've no idea how much evidence supports M-theory so I can't really comment on that part, so I'll just take your word for it. If M-theory does provide a naturalistic explanation (for what, the universe?) then it is correct to say that it provides an explanation, I have no issue with that statement. If someone was going further and saying this definitely is the answer without providing sufficient evidence then I would say they are bullshitting.

I agree for the most part, but the key word there is "theoretical". There is no real, hard evidence to support the position that other universes are even possible, let a lone exist. So, it would seem that from the position of a fundie, that is not evidence at all, not even weak.

To be honest with you, theoretical physics is not my area of expertise, even by a long shot. As long as we avoid the math, I can understand the concepts and I enjoy reading things like Victor Stenger "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning". However, it stops real fast after that. The point I was trying to make is that many people (including myself) have the bias that there "must" be a naturalistic explanation, therefore they (including myself) discount the explanation "God dun it". In my mind, anything like M-theory is not real evidence, as it has not been proven. However, it is a possibility and fits the "background" evidence (i.e the math).

I am curious as to what you think is "sufficient" in "sufficient evidence". Sufficient for whom? Who is presenting the evidence. If a physicist at CERN says something in an article, I am generally going to believe it. If Daniel Wallace (a fundie NT scholar) says something in article about biblical exegesis, I am probably going to believe that, as well. On the other hand, when William Lane Craig makes a comment about cosmology, my immediate reaction is that it is bullshit.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

Then perhaps I misunderstood your comment "only useful in the context of confirming information." It can easily be interpreted in different ways. Are you saying that the bible and other ancient documents are only useful to confirm information from other sources? As I have demonstrated, that is incorrect.

Are you saying that the bible and other ancient documents are only useful when there is other, confirming information? That, too, is incorrect.

Again, the question: If ancient documents are "only useful in the context of confirming information", just where exactly do historians get the information that needs confirming if not from ancient documents? Please be so kind as to answer that question.

You're not arguing honestly, if you're claiming that a single statement from a single source is how historians determine the truth or falsehood of a historical claim.

On what do you based that comment? The fact that I have read several books and done audio/video courses on historiography/philosophy of history and the history of the bible? Books and courses done by both christians and non-christians. The fact that I have researched other sources for the historical claims made in the bible? I have looked at both sides and drawn a conclusion. What is not "fair" about that?

Just so we are clear on it, what experience do you have in this area? Are you making claims based on what you want to be true about the bible or do you have actual knowledge? Seems to me that making claims without real knowledge is one of the things that started the discussion.

I've repeatedly made my claim based on how historians deal with any and every book, not just the Bible. You keep dishonestly claiming that I'm unfairly singling out the Bible.

Sorry, I don't mean to insult you, but you argue like a fundie.

You're a fucking liar, of course you mean to insult. You're also a coward for insulting behind weasel words.

You jump from one extreme to the other: Either the bible is unrealiable or it is 100% accurate.

Another lie from you.

History is not black and white. Just because historians (or I) believe some parts of the bible are true does not imply belief that everything is true. If you want, I can give you naturalistic explanations for all of the miracles in the NT. So, no, I do not believe Jesus actually walked on water. What exactly is your point?

[/quote]No shit Sherlock, but HOW do you choose which parts are real and which parts aren't? Flip a coin? You'd probably cheat at that. How do you differentiate false claims from true claims? I'm not going any further down your bullshit until you answer that question... because the only correct answer is the one I gave and that you're too goddamned stubborn to accept is the same answer you give.

You even do what I say that historians do IN THIS VERY FUCKING THREAD, YOU GREAT BIG ****!!

Watch:

No argument there. In fact, one thing I posted in another thread was something from Finkelstein and Silverman's "The Bible Unearthed". They estimated that there were 1.5 to 2 million jews who would have fled Egypt (based on the numbers mentioned in the OT). After wandering around for 40 years, they must have left some trace somewhere, yet nothing has been found, even when specifically investigating the areas described in the bible. Seems pretty certain that it is bullshit. Then, as you pointed out, someone who insists the Exodus happened they way the bible describes is bullshitting.

See what happened there? People didn't just take the Bible's word for it, they looked for corroborating evidence to establish the truth of the claim. They came up empty, you call it bullshit. That's EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING PEOPLE HAVE TO DO!!! If the Bible claims there was a Wall of Jericho, and archeologists find a big honking wall, then that claim from the Bible is in some sense confirmed. If the Bible claims a big boat that carried two and/or seven of each animal for a year must have existed, but no sign can be found and the physics doesn't work out, then we call it bullshit.

See how that works? Or do you disagree with your own point when I express it, as you've been doing this whole thread?

 

[jimmo42]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

You're not arguing honestly, if you're claiming that a single statement from a single source is how historians determine the truth or falsehood of a historical claim.

If all historians have is that single statement or single record, that's all they have and have to judge the truth of the statement on its own merits. What else is left? Obviously a statement about human sacrifice in 1st century Judea is not going to be believed because that is inconsistent with the culture of the period, although there is nothing that comes right out and says it didn't happen. If memory serves me right, in Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" he discusses the critieria for determing the reliability of statements even if you only have that one single source. And, yes, professional historians sometimes do make judgements based on single sources.

It seems that you saying that if there is only one source, we simply ingore the claim. Is that what you are saying? If so, what do you think historians do if all they have is a single statement and there is nothing to verify it?

Sorry, I don't mean to insult you, but you argue like a fundie.

You're a fucking liar, of course you mean to insult. You're also a coward for insulting behind weasel words.

I meant to pull your chain, not insult you. If you took it as in insult, then I sincerely apologize. I will try to be more careful with how I phrase things in the future.

You jump from one extreme to the other: Either the bible is unrealiable or it is 100% accurate

Another lie from you.

Sorry that you see that as me trying to intentionally deceive you. (read: lie) That is my interpretation of what you are saying. It seems to me you are one time saying it is unreliable then claiming it is accurate (e.g the culture aspects). I should have said "you seem to jump....". My apologies.

No shit Sherlock, but HOW do you choose which parts are real and which parts aren't? Flip a coin? You'd probably cheat at that. How do you differentiate false claims from true claims? I'm not going any further down your bullshit until you answer that question... because the only correct answer is the one I gave and that you're too goddamned stubborn to accept is the same answer you give.

How do I personally decide what is probably true about history? Compare records, judge the reliability of the sources including their bias, judge the likelihood the statement is true and quite often my own personal bias. That is something I freely admit. That is something that historians do as well, and which is something that you will find in any of the sources I mentioned. I think a couple of the best sources are C.B. McCullagh's "Justifying Historical Descriptions" and "The Truth of History". The description of the "historical method" is pretty much the same in both, but I think "The Truth of History" is clearer. What I try not to do it simply ingore a source or consider it completely unrealiable just because of the source itself. In all of the books I have read on the philisophy of history, I have never seen anyone who says that it is an acceptable practice to simply ignore something because of the source. If you anything that contradicts it, please point me to it.

You'd probably cheat at that.

That comment is unfair and completely uncalled for.

You even do what I say that historians do IN THIS VERY FUCKING THREAD, YOU GREAT BIG ****!!

If you feel that way, then I apparently misinterpreted what you were saying. I am basing my comments primarily on your statement

The Bible isn't much use for history by itself (probably true for most books in antiquity to some degree)

and I repeat the assertion that this statement (on the face of it) is incorrect. I have yet to see a professional historian (other than perhaps Richard Carrier) who does not see the bible as a very valuable historical source. However, Carrier's bias is pretty obvious, so I look at his comments cautiously, just like I do those from people like Willaim Craig or Gary Habermas.

Please don't censor things on my account. If you think I am a "great big shit/ass/whatever", you should be free to say so. Please just don't make things up.

Watch:

No argument there. In fact, one thing I posted in another thread was something from Finkelstein and Silverman's "The Bible Unearthed". They estimated that there were 1.5 to 2 million jews who would have fled Egypt (based on the numbers mentioned in the OT). After wandering around for 40 years, they must have left some trace somewhere, yet nothing has been found, even when specifically investigating the areas described in the bible. Seems pretty certain that it is bullshit. Then, as you pointed out, someone who insists the Exodus happened they way the bible describes is bullshitting.

See what happened there? People didn't just take the Bible's word for it, they looked for corroborating evidence to establish the truth of the claim. They came up empty, you call it bullshit. That's EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING PEOPLE HAVE TO DO!!! If the Bible claims there was a Wall of Jericho, and archeologists find a big honking wall, then that claim from the Bible is in some sense confirmed. If the Bible claims a big boat that carried two and/or seven of each animal for a year must have existed, but no sign can be found and the physics doesn't work out, then we call it bullshit.

See how that works? Or do you disagree with your own point when I express it, as you've been doing this whole thread?

I have never claimed historians or anyone else should or even do take the bible at face value. (except perhaps the fundies) The whole time I have been arguing against your claim

The Bible isn't much use for history by itself (probably true for most books in antiquity to some degree)

As of this point, I feel you have yet to provide anything to support that claim. IMO, I have repeatedly provided evidence that your claim is incorrect.

There is little we can do, for example, to prove who the wife of a certain Hebrew king was as mentioned in the bible. However, since there is usually little reason to doubt the accuracy of such a statement, historians are going to accept it even though it comes from a single source and that single source has an obvious religious bias. Granted there may be historians who approach things differently. However, none of the books I have read say they do things like that. Do you have any references?

 

[Aught3]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

I am curious as to what you think is "sufficient" in "sufficient evidence". Sufficient for whom? Who is presenting the evidence. If a physicist at CERN says something in an article, I am generally going to believe it. If Daniel Wallace (a fundie NT scholar) says something in article about biblical exegesis, I am probably going to believe that, as well. On the other hand, when William Lane Craig makes a comment about cosmology, my immediate reaction is that it is bullshit.

It depends on the intended audience really. If it's just a popular level book then claims probably don't need as much justification and argument as claims contained in a peer-reviewed article.

 

[jimmo42]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

intended audience really. If it's just a popular level book then claims probably don't need as much justification and argument as claims contained in a peer-reviewed article.

It's an interesting coincidence that you phrase it like that. Last night I found my notes to Lee Strobel's "The Case for the Real Jesus" and one of the things I glanced at was a comment from someone where I wrote "Ask the f***ing question!!!". Strobel's schtick is that he is an "investigative reporter" and asks "tough questions", but the book was full of places where questions were screaming to be asked and Strobel blindly accepted what the other person was saying. In fact, I think the book has more places where such questions are not asked. That is definitely a "popular level" book, but Strobel's goal is to persuade/convince people of his "case". So, in that context, I would add that it also depends on the the goal of the book. If you simply trying to inform, there is less obligation to provide "proof". If your goal is to persuade, then I think the burden of proof is much higher.

BTW, the quote from the O.C. Bible didn't click at first. I must have read Dune a dozens times in English and twice in German. I even have a copy of it in Czech. (although my Czech was never good enough to actually read it cover-to-cover) It's hard to believe that the first 20(?) publishers turned it down.

 

[Aught3]

Re: If you *believe something is correct, is a lie to repeat

It's an interesting coincidence that you phrase it like that. Last night I found my notes to Lee Strobel's "The Case for the Real Jesus" and one of the things I glanced at was a comment from someone where I wrote "Ask the f***ing question!!!". Strobel's schtick is that he is an "investigative reporter" and asks "tough questions", but the book was full of places where questions were screaming to be asked and Strobel blindly accepted what the other person was saying. In fact, I think the book has more places where such questions are not asked. That is definitely a "popular level" book, but Strobel's goal is to persuade/convince people of his "case". So, in that context, I would add that it also depends on the the goal of the book. If you simply trying to inform, there is less obligation to provide "proof". If your goal is to persuade, then I think the burden of proof is much higher.

I agree but I was thinking more about what you could expect your audience to understand. In Strobel's case we can definitely expect most of his audience to understand a little more than the pablum he feeds them. Whether they want to understand it is another question.

BTW, the quote from the O.C. Bible didn't click at first. I must have read Dune a dozens times in English and twice in German. I even have a copy of it in Czech. (although my Czech was never good enough to actually read it cover-to-cover) It's hard to believe that the first 20(?) publishers turned it down.

Well given the books that came next maybe the publishers who turned it down were the smart ones. I just like the irony of quoting a meta-fictional Bible in my signature and if it irritates the trans-humanists that's just a happy bonus. Plus Dune is awesome.