Kinsa jud imo gituohan kung diin jud tah gikan, ang Bible or Science?

[masterjanuarius]

---

Let me just put your St. Paul's command to be magnanimous to slaves out of its misery first...just to prove I can juxtapose a contradiction from the Bible just as easily:
Exodus 21:20-21


pwede ra diay mo-torture ug slaves basta lang dili sila mamatay...for the next two days pa gyud!

Okay, moral standards evolve just as culture develops and progresses. I agree. But I'm criticizing the universality of the moral codes in a bronze-age text to the modern world. Remember, this is claimed to be the word of God, so the stakes are high; the standards we should be measuring it with must be high. If you say those biblical injunctions (for slavery, burning of witches and heretics, etc) were perfectly fine back then but not now---like you said, because our moral standards evolved---then that defeats its universality feature, doesn't it?

We must have better self-respect than calling our minds "fickle" and blaming our cultural environment for our moral climate. We must give ourselves some credit. Just take stock of how far we've come as a species and as a civilization...in spite of religious opposition at every turn.

Sorry to plug in Mark Twain once again. Here, he describes how we rose up against slavery and fought it to its bitter end:


Yes, priests and parsons always joined the procession at the tail-end, after resisting and thwarting the anti-slavery movement at every opportunity. Mankind often had to struggle to right a rooted wrong against the religious and their stubborn adherence to the sacred texts (which of course was their ordained duty).

And here's how Twain ended his essay:


Indeed, the text remains...which is a good thing, actually, so that we have proofs of the doctrines that were followed passionately in the past with tragic consequences. I perfectly understand that the religious impulse to submit to God's will requires one's abdication of reason and sense of morals in favor of a set of "revealed" dogmas which give an excuse for self-appointed "God's transmitters" to order people around. But that's where I beg to differ.

Let's not wander into political correctness. I'm talking about slavery, burning people at the stake, subjection of women, etc...things Christianity used to do in earnest. How can you say that the regulation of slavery and the injunction to burn heretics and witches are universal moral codes (because it's written in the Bible) while at the same time point out that our moral standards have evolved to see them as utterly misguided? If we take your argument on relative moral standards to its logical conclusion, we might just as well say there is no right and wrong...because in the future, we can always look back and see that such actions were perfectly alright under the circumstances and moral standards of this age. What would the future know about the moral standards of today? Or to borrow your objection, what right do they have to judge the past moral standards?

You might say "Ah...but those barbaric stuffs are Old Testament, my friend. That's why Jesus had to come to earth to make the point clear." Many Christians believed that Jesus did away with all these Old Testament barbarisms in the clearest terms imaginable, and delivered a doctrine of pure love and toleration.

He didn't. In fact, at several points in the New Testament, Jesus can be read to endorse the entirety of Old Testament Law.

Matthew 5:18-20


Either the Bible is a perfect moral guide or it is not. You have to make that choice. I submit to you that it is not...and we can fill a thread full of Biblical contradictions. But I would probably agree with you that, in some respects, it was a useful moral guide in those days, in the same way Confucius' Analects were useful to the Chinese or the Egyptian Book of the Dead to ancient Egyptians. And likewise I don't dispute the fact there are common doctrines from these ancient texts that still serve us well today, like the "Do unto others" commandment, which is Confucian in origin (i.e. dating way before the Bible was written). But all this is saying that it is still up to us to discern which parts of the old rules still apply and which don't. Like Twain said, the practice changes but the text remains. If you say that every dot and tiddle in Bible must be followed, then you have a very indefensible position.

I'll just leave you with a very relevant Youtube video clip from a "West Wing" episode and a quote from the Nobel prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg:

PLEASE WATCH and let us know what you guys think: The West Wing- Bible Lesson



Guess what were the last words from the 9/11 hijackers: GOD IS GREAT! Weinberg was spot on with that statement!

Your last statement caught me by surprise. I would rather say that there is a great divide between a good believer and a fanatic. Sir, it seems to me that you have confusion with both. Not all believers are fanatics and fundamentalists. And reading through the posts here, I can see that there are no fanatics here, who will shout, Allahu Akbar, before killing people. Now my question: If one believes the Bible, sir, will it make him/her a fanatic? Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems that from your posts (specially the quoted one), there is no difference between the two.
I believe the Bible, and the Gospel, for me, is a rule of life; but, you will never see me killing people in the name of my being a christian .. I think, I will be a pacifier between two factions, not the instigator... But then again, even Science has a share of its fanatics. (When we cannot tolerate people who do not think like us, believe like us and even force our reasoning upon them, that makes a good ground for fanaticism). Science and Religion are two sides of a coin we call Life. We should learn to live side by side.
This thread is interesting but really there is a confusion of topics with in this topic. Many posts speak (to contrast with Science) about the Bible, God and then religion. And they are not ONE and the SAME. And yet the question on the dock here is about Science and Bible! In the right perspective, it should have been: Science and Religion or Reason and Faith!

[hitch22]

Not all believers are fanatics and fundamentalists. I agree. But don't you think Weinberg's quote has some truth in it? Most of those 9/11 hijackers never had a crime record. Some were good family men and had never harmed anyone...until that fateful day. What drove them to commit mass murder? Didn't these people keep repeating verses from the Koran the day before? 72 virgins? Kill all infidels wherever you may find them? Where were these things read from?

On your second point on fanaticism in science. I have to say that there's a big difference between religious fanaticism and---if ever there's such a thing---science fanaticism. First, science doesn't deal with revealed or absolute truths. Everything can be challenged, as long as the scientific method is strictly followed. There are no Popes or imams or rabid, red-faced, Bible-thumping war-mongers telling people what to believe. Instead, science welcomes debates---sometimes very heated debates. Nobody says you can't question the giants of the past like Einstein or Darwin. The only controversy for science which people usually bring up is when it's used by government in war efforts (like in biological weapons program, etc) or rogue states like North Korea and perhaps Iran. But do you blame science for those?

Lastly, you're right about the discussion veering off the point of the thread. But I feel sticking to the narrow scope of the thread topic will only make discussions very boring. You're just asked to choose and give reasons. Don't you think the digressions have been quite interesting and stimulating to participate in?

Seriously, I thank you (and everyone else) for taking the time and care to read not just my posts but everyone else's on this thread. I think most people would rather be disagreed with than ignored.

Peace!

[masterjanuarius]

Not all believers are fanatics and fundamentalists. I agree. But don't you think Weinberg's quote has some truth in it? Most of those 9/11 hijackers never had a crime record. Some were good family men and had never harmed anyone...until that fateful day. What drove them to commit mass murder? Didn't these people keep repeating verses from the Koran the day before? 72 virgins? Kill all infidels wherever you may find them? Where were these things read from?

On your second point on fanaticism in science. I have to say that there's a big difference between religious fanaticism and---if ever there's such a thing---science fanaticism. First, science doesn't deal with revealed or absolute truths. Everything can be challenged, as long as the scientific method is strictly followed. There are no Popes or imams or rabid, red-faced, Bible-thumping war-mongers telling people what to believe. Instead, science welcomes debates---sometimes very heated debates. Nobody says you can't question the giants of the past like Einstein or Darwin. The only controversy for science which people usually bring up is when it's used by government in war efforts (like in biological weapons program, etc) or rogue states like North Korea and perhaps Iran. But do you blame science for those?

Lastly, you're right about the discussion veering off the point of the thread. But I feel sticking to the narrow scope of the thread topic will only make discussions very boring. You're just asked to choose and give reasons. Don't you think the digressions have been quite interesting and stimulating to participate in?

Seriously, I thank you (and everyone else) for taking the time and care to read not just my posts but everyone else's on this thread. I think most people would rather be disagreed with than ignored.

Peace!

Peace to you, too! Now here is another confusion of the Thread. This should be dealing with the Bible (for Christians) ... yet, your first paragraph speaks about Islamic Fanatics (their Book is Qur'an). They don't believe in the Bible and their blind adherence to their religion makes them believe that killing infidels (anti-Islam or anyone connected to the enemies of Islam) will bring them to heaven. I think the christian religion has its share of fanaticism: the IRA, the Lord's Army of Uganda, the Ilaga's of Mindanao circa '70's, etc ..)
The growth of Science, I think came from the Free thinkers and free masons, maybe. The French Revolution was the prime mover of such freedom. But how many were killed then, just because they were not of the same boat, or of the same thinking? Of course, not in the name of Science, but, just the same, those are killed because they were not of their ranks. And you're right, Science favors research, debates in order to bring out the truth; but, sometimes it can also be used as a tool in order to stifle debates and hide the truth; really, all depends upon who wields the power!
And, oh, it is right, the veering here and there of the posts make this interesting, but, somehow, it is also accompanied by confusion and even chaotic answers to queries, where it is difficult to know which is which.

[hitch22]

Peace to you, too! Now here is another confusion of the Thread. This should be dealing with the Bible (for Christians) ... yet, your first paragraph speaks about Islamic Fanatics (their Book is Qur'an). They don't believe in the Bible and their blind adherence to their religion makes them believe that killing infidels (anti-Islam or anyone connected to the enemies of Islam) will bring them to heaven. I think the christian religion has its share of fanaticism: the IRA, the Lord's Army of Uganda, the Ilaga's of Mindanao circa '70's, etc ..)

Well, I owe you an admission. I'm an equal opportunity, organized religion-basher. If we have Jews on this forum, they'll hear it from me too.

But how many were killed then, just because they were not of the same boat, or of the same thinking? Of course, not in the name of Science, but, just the same, those are killed because they were not of their ranks.

And how is that to be blamed on science? People who seek evidence don't necessarily kill people who don't. We may mock those who don't value evidence and the scientific method, but we don't hate them. Again, it goes back to Weinberg:

With or without religion, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.

Science is NEUTRAL. You have to prove that there's something about the scientific method that orders the killing of people. You'd be caught silly to do so.

But the sanction to kill, hate, enslave...it's written in the sacred texts of either Islam or the Judaeo-Christian books. You only have to read it to believe it. I've given you some examples already and I can give more.

And you're right, Science favors research, debates in order to bring out the truth; but, sometimes it can also be used as a tool in order to stifle debates and hide the truth; really, all depends upon who wields the power!

Science? A tool to stifle debates and hide the truth? As gently as I can respond to this, I'd say you got these parts wrong.

Stifling debates and hiding the truth...I tell you, just to put a twist to George Carlin's stand-up monologue:

When it comes to stifling, big-time, major league stifling, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of burning libraries and books and executing people who wrote or spoke heretical ideas, religion! No contest!

In other words, if you base it from history, I think stifling debates and hiding the truth belong more to the domain of religion.

All depends upon who wields the power? I'm tempted to agree...but who wields more power? Tell me, which institution doesn't pay taxes, influences a lot of votes in democratic countries, owns the largest aggregate land mass in the Philippines, runs the majority of our educational institution and influences public opinion through media? Talk about power. The most dangerous thing for science is having religious nuts handle science to produce apocalyptic weaponry...doesn't every religious nut yearn for this vale of tears to be lifted by the rapture? These guys can't wait for the FINAL END to come soon...and all will be revealed, right?

Again, science is neutral. Again, Weinberg.

Religion, on the other hand, raises the stakes of human conflict much higher than tribalism, racism or politics ever can. One of the enduring pathologies of human culture is the tendency to raise children to fear and demonize other human beings on the basis of religious faith. This is the very thing we see in Anti-semitism and Anti-Tutsi propaganda in the Rwandan genocide (both with clear incitements from the pulpits).

And, oh, it is right, the veering here and there of the posts make this interesting, but, somehow, it is also accompanied by confusion and even chaotic answers to queries, where it is difficult to know which is which.

You can always complain to have this thread closed, right? This reminds me of Orwell...THOUGHT POLICE. Another religious impulse (think Middle Ages)

[masterjanuarius]

You can always complain to have this thread closed, right? This reminds me of Orwell...THOUGHT POLICE. Another religious impulse (think Middle Ages)

Never entered my mind sir. And I read to learn, not to search for flaws. But as it is in good debates, there should be a limitation and a scope for it. Otherwise, it would go here and there, into a never ending merry-go-round thing. You may agree that most of the posts here, do not even speaks about the question on the dock? Science and Bible? And yet, they speak about other religions, which for me, is not covered by the question. Hence, it is easy for the proponents of Science to dwell, quote and even bask on the fanaticism of any religion, except those who believe the Bible. Why? are the violent and terrorist tendencies of Islamic Fanatics under the scope of the Question? That would be unfair to all those who believe the Bible. Just as I would be unfair to the proponents of Science, to blame them all for the Gas chambers of Dachau or any other, the Gas attack in Japan and London, the use of Napalm or gas bombs in Iraq and Vietnam ... Science has a greater scope while Bible is only limited to believers of it. Thus, for me, this Thread started with a wrong foot. It should have been a question on the Primacy between Science or Religion/ Reason or Faith.
I rest my case.

[hitch22]

Never entered my mind sir. And I read to learn, not to search for flaws. But as it is in good debates, there should be a limitation and a scope for it. Otherwise, it would go here and there, into a never ending merry-go-round thing. You may agree that most of the posts here, do not even speaks about the question on the dock? Science and Bible? And yet, they speak about other religions, which for me, is not covered by the question.

I'm guilty for taking a whack at other religions. So, do I get a ticket for this violation?

But that's because you brought up Pascal's Wager repeatedly. And I blame you for that.

Hence, it is easy for the proponents of Science to dwell, quote and even bask on the fanaticism of any religion, except those who believe the Bible. Why? are the violent and terrorist tendencies of Islamic Fanatics under the scope of the Question? That would be unfair to all those who believe the Bible. Just as I would be unfair to the proponents of Science, to blame them all for the Gas chambers of Dachau or any other, the Gas attack in Japan and London, the use of Napalm or gas bombs in Iraq and Vietnam ... Science has a greater scope while Bible is only limited to believers of it.

You seem to be forgetting the context upon which I gave the example of 9/11: the Weinberg quote. That's the only time I plugged that in. And that, by the way, was part of the rebuttal to Pascal's Wager, which you've posted and which is also outside the scope of the "question on the dock". So don't act like a blameless, holier-than-Thou judge. You started the whole thing with your Pascal's wager. I ignored it once and only thought to put it out of its misery after you've posted it a second time.

I could...and perhaps should've...given the example of the Crusades and the Inquisition, just to limit the scope to Bible-believers. Atrocious acts were committed, according to the decrees and injunctions of the Pope(s), the "infallible" expounder of God's word, who hang Indulgences as carrots for the Crusades and the lucrative expropriation of entire properties of the executed heretics during the Inquisition. We can safely say that a good chunk of those followers were good people. What made them carry out what perhaps comes down to be two of Roman Catholicism's biggest crimes? Again, think about the Weinberg quote.

Lastly, I can assign accountability to religion for acts carried out in its name, because the justifications can be found in the sacred texts. You can't assign accountability to science for madmen who use it to carry out their wicked designs...simply because science doesn't justify, doesn't enjoin, and its books are only meant to explain how certain phenomenon in nature works. What madmen do isn't what science teaches. But what religious nuts do can be justified in the texts. I hope that difference is clear.

Thus, for me, this Thread started with a wrong foot. It should have been a question on the Primacy between Science or Religion/ Reason or Faith.
I rest my case.

I rest my case too.

[masterjanuarius]

I'm guilty for taking a whack at other religions. So, do I get a ticket for this violation?

But that's because you brought up Pascal's Wager repeatedly. And I blame you for that.



You seem to be forgetting the context upon which I gave the example of 9/11: the Weinberg quote. That's the only time I plugged that in. And that, by the way, was part of the rebuttal to Pascal's Wager, which you've posted and which is also outside the scope of the "question on the dock". So don't act like a blameless, holier-than-Thou judge. You started the whole thing with your Pascal's wager. I ignored it once and only thought to put it out of its misery after you've posted it a second time.


I rest my case too.

Before bidding goodbye to the Thread, I think blaming others for this or for that thing would not help a lot for this debate. I took responsibility on my posts, all my post. I don't have to blame anybody, nor, someone who does not think, the way I think.
I use the Wager of Pascal because he is a christian, maybe an agnostic, so what, he questions the faith .. and even influenced by the Anabaptist spirituality of his time. And since the Thread speaks about Bible believers, Christians, then Pascal's though, even if judged as passe', can also be cited here, I think.
Lastly, I too am a man of science, I study the works of psychoanalysts, read the current trends of psychology and the like, sleep with books of Freud, Jung, Fromm and the Modern proponents of psychology. I have a personal library of most of these authors in my bedroom. But, my scientific research and learning never get into my head as confusing my belief in God. I still see myself as a finite being whose self-realization is trusted on the hands of the Infinite ONE. Sir, I may be stupid, for you, because of my Faith. But my faith illumines my scientific endeavor. And there is no confusion with both. I was impressed by the tenacity you have shown in posting your thoughts, and finely researched as well. I can never do that myself. God bless you .. or should it be, May the Force be with you!

[hitch22]

Before bidding goodbye to the Thread, I think blaming others for this or for that thing would not help a lot for this debate. I took responsibility on my posts, all my post. I don't have to blame anybody, nor, someone who does not think, the way I think.

I thought that jester emoticon gave away the hint that I'm just dishing a good ol' ribbing and expected nothing serious of it. But you took the opportunity to claim the moral high ground. How dare you?

Okay, you know you made a fuss about people posting out-of-topic, right? I saw the irony of the situation and took you to task by pointing out that you had a hand in it too. And now, you're saying, "Let's not be blaming one another and take responsibility for our own posts." Come on now. You know what that's called: You can't have your cake and eat it.

Anyway, bygones...a moment of weakness for me in starting this petty stuff. My apologies.

I use the Wager of Pascal because he is a christian, maybe an agnostic, so what, he questions the faith .. and even influenced by the Anabaptist spirituality of his time. And since the Thread speaks about Bible believers, Christians, then Pascal's though, even if judged as passe', can also be cited here, I think.

not so sure about the Anabaptist thing. I think you mean Jansenism.

Don't worry about posting Pascal's Wager on this thread. I'm not one who polices others. If it's relevant for you, it's fine by me.

Lastly, I too am a man of science, I study the works of psychoanalysts, read the current trends of psychology and the like, sleep with books of Freud, Jung, Fromm and the Modern proponents of psychology. I have a personal library of most of these authors in my bedroom. But, my scientific research and learning never get into my head as confusing my belief in God. I still see myself as a finite being whose self-realization is trusted on the hands of the Infinite ONE. Sir, I may be stupid, for you, because of my Faith.

Interesting. You should be aware then what Freud was referring to when he wrote "The Future of an Illusion". Come to think of it, in most (if not all) of his books, he somehow never fails to take a swipe at religion:

Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires. (New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis)

In the long run, nothing can withstand reason and experience, and the contradiction religion offers to both is palpable.(The Future of an Illusion)

At bottom God is nothing more than an exalted father. (Totem and Taboo)

Erich Fromm wrote "You Shall Be As Gods" and shows the evolution of the concept of God, from a tribal, authoritarian God, to a covenant-making God, to a God without attributes of essence like in Maimonides' conception of a God...and to the next step, "atheism," eliminating the concept of God or reducing it to a poetical symbol "x" (meaning, the projection of the mystical ego-transcendence of man).

Jung is perhaps most sympathetic to religion, although he had a falling out with the Christian faith when he "felt nothing" after his confirmation. In his later years, he considered the question of the existence of God to be unanswerable and adopted a kind of agnosticism. The funniest and unforgettable imagery (which I think set him off to a different path from his father's religion) was his dream of God defecating on the Basel Cathedral:

I saw before me the cathedral, the blue sky. God sits on His golden throne, high above the world - and from under the throne an enormous turd falls upon the sparkling new roof, shatters it, and breaks the walls of the cathedral asunder.

Jung's insight on this dream, as a young boy, was that God refuses to abide by traditions, no matter how sacred and calls upon man to partake of His freedom...which is a radical departure from the doctrines of organized religions we see today. You remember that he resisted in allowing the dream to complete, for fear that he might commit the sin against the Holy Ghost and risk eternal damnation. His struggle to find a reason--on why he can't get rid of a thought that he didn't want to think--led him to this insight, to which he felt both relief and bliss.

So, you see, all three authors' views on religion (assuming you didn't just sleep on their books) hardly conform to Judaeo-Christian tradition.

No, I never once called you stupid or even think of you as such. I don't assume moral or intellectual superiority for non-believers over believers. In fact, I'm more impressed by the depth of your posts despite its terseness. I don't underestimate anyone. I think anyone who's come this far in the billiions of years of the natural selection process of evolution must be smart.

But my faith illumines my scientific endeavor. And there is no confusion with both. I was impressed by the tenacity you have shown in posting your thoughts, and finely researched as well. I can never do that myself. God bless you .. or should it be, May the Force be with you!

Like I said, somewhere buried in this thread, you can be a believer of both science and religion. Francis Collins, one of the leading figures in the Human Genome Project, is both a believer and a scientist. So are many others.

Thanks for the compliment. It's not that hard to post the way I'm doing it...as if it's such a great post in the first place. I just imagine myself replying to an intellectual who doesn't suffer fools gladly.

Thanks for the blessing...although I have to admit I never had the gift called Faith which you guys have...and perhaps don't wish to have it either. I am one of those referred to by Blaise Pascal as "those who are so made that they cannot be made to believe."

And Yoda would say to you "With you, the Force may be!"

* Hey, stick around, man. Bible study's coming up next (the non-believer's version). Will you be joining?

[remz399]

before anything else.


im to OP nah... haahaha.

but the bible it self defines were science came from,. . .

[anjerika]

Bible. period. hehe