John Platko wrote:Accepting the science of evolution is not news for Catholics. We don't read Genesis literally.

Yeah. You guys got burned pretty bad - well not literally, it was other people who were literally burning - on that whole "heliocentrism vs. geocentrism" thing back in the day and learned your lesson. It's Protestant sects who do the biblical literalism thing as a rule.

I get that the "Garden of Eden" story can be read as a parable demonstrating the consequences of a species attaining the ability to make moral judgements. Or a parable demonstrating any number of other things for that matter.

What I don't get is the basis by which you decide whether or not a given biblical passage is "meant" to be read literally or allegorically. I was wondering if you could explain that to us please.

If it fits reality, it's literal. When it doesn't, it's allegory.

That's just my perception based on 18 years of indoctrination in the Catholic Church. I'm interested to hear John's explanation.

Nicko wrote:What I don't get is the basis by which you decide whether or not a given biblical passage is "meant" to be read literally or allegorically. I was wondering if you could explain that to us please.

Seconded.

I too would love to know how that works. My normally perfectly adequate reading comprehension, which seems to work consistently when applied to any other book I've encountered, always seems to let me down when it comes to the bible. Not one believer has been able to explain how it works when I've asked before but they can all apparently do it.

Griz_ wrote:I think John has a different definition of an iterative process. If I've convinced myself that Russell's teapot exists, is that achieved through an iterative process? I think most would call that rationalization.

Perhaps if you start considering its size, dimensions, material, handle-shape, and heat-retention you might arrive at what John thinks is representative of scientific methodology.

Or perhaps we could just return to the more frequent analogy of the Emperor's Clothes, and consider that a scientific methodology as per John's definition.

John Platko wrote:
Surely you'll acknowledge that imagination plays an important role in science - right?

Surely you'll acknowledge that science is explicitly based on empirical evidence, right? Validation of induction doesn't exist within a scientist's head, induction arises first from observation, and is confirmed with hypothesis formation and predictive falsification.

In other words, it's nothing remotely like your process.

That's why people are doing this

John Platko wrote:My religious process is that I imagine (or contemplate what others have imagined) and then I check to see if what I imagine fits in with what I or others observe. Sometimes I need to do an experiment to sus things out.

Don't be silly.

Griz_ wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Surely you'll acknowledge that imagination plays an important role in science - right?

My religious process is that I imagine (or contemplate what others have imagined) and then I check to see if what I imagine fits in with what I or others observe. Sometimes I need to do an experiment to sus things out.

Yes, imagination is crucial in science but only when forming a hypothesis. It is irrelevant in arriving at a conclusion. You're doing it backwards.

I don't see how. I imagine and form a hypothesis. Then I check my hypothesis against generally accepted observations of reality. Sometimes I do an experiment or two as necessary. This then lends validity to my hypothesis or not. Where do you think I'm going wrong?

Nicko wrote:

John Platko wrote:Accepting the science of evolution is not news for Catholics. We don't read Genesis literally.

Yeah. You guys got burned pretty bad - well not literally, it was other people who were literally burning - on that whole "heliocentrism vs. geocentrism" thing back in the day and learned your lesson. It's Protestant sects who do the biblical literalism thing as a rule.

I get that the "Garden of Eden" story can be read as a parable demonstrating the consequences of a species attaining the ability to make moral judgements. Or a parable demonstrating any number of other things for that matter.

What I don't get is the basis by which you decide whether or not a given biblical passage is "meant" to be read literally or allegorically. I was wondering if you could explain that to us please.

Why certainly! It's really rather simple. You just read the passage and sus out if it was "meant" to be read literally or not. For example, if you read a story that involves a talking snake then that's a clue that the story wasn't meant to be taken literally because snakes don't talk. And that's how I do it. Any questions?

Griz_ wrote:If it fits reality, it's literal. When it doesn't, it's allegory.

That's just my perception based on 18 years of indoctrination in the Catholic Church. I'm interested to hear John's explanation.

That's it. Of course, I've noticed that all catholics don't have the same perception of what "fits reality". In fact some catholics seem to have some rather bizarre ideas about reality.

John Platko wrote:

Griz_ wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Surely you'll acknowledge that imagination plays an important role in science - right?

My religious process is that I imagine (or contemplate what others have imagined) and then I check to see if what I imagine fits in with what I or others observe. Sometimes I need to do an experiment to sus things out.

Yes, imagination is crucial in science but only when forming a hypothesis. It is irrelevant in arriving at a conclusion. You're doing it backwards.

I don't see how. I imagine and form a hypothesis. Then I check my hypothesis against generally accepted observations of reality. Sometimes I do an experiment or two as necessary. This then lends validity to my hypothesis or not. Where do you think I'm going wrong?

I think you are starting with the premise that a god exists and then looking for confirmation of that assumption while ignoring contradictory evidence. Confirmation bias.

The scientific method would dictate and open unbiased consideration of the possible existence of a god. I'm not sure that a believer is truly capable of that. I don't know you, it's just my opinion based on personal experience. Not very scientific I'll admit, but this is why I say it's an opinion and not a fact.

John Platko wrote:

Griz_ wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Surely you'll acknowledge that imagination plays an important role in science - right?

My religious process is that I imagine (or contemplate what others have imagined) and then I check to see if what I imagine fits in with what I or others observe. Sometimes I need to do an experiment to sus things out.

Yes, imagination is crucial in science but only when forming a hypothesis. It is irrelevant in arriving at a conclusion. You're doing it backwards.

I don't see how. I imagine and form a hypothesis. Then I check my hypothesis against generally accepted observations of reality. Sometimes I do an experiment or two as necessary. This then lends validity to my hypothesis or not. Where do you think I'm going wrong?

Blagging.

Pure blagging.

John Platko wrote:
Why certainly! It's really rather simple. You just read the passage and sus out if it was "meant" to be read literally or not. For example, if you read a story that involves a talking snake then that's a clue that the story wasn't meant to be taken literally because snakes don't talk. And that's how I do it. Any questions?

Sure - sus out for me how you can tell that Adam and Eve and therefore original sin is allegorical.



Incidentally, gods don't exist, but you didn't get the cue not to take it literally from a magical man in sky watching over people.

So why should your allegory-divination be trusted?

monkeyboy wrote:

Nicko wrote:What I don't get is the basis by which you decide whether or not a given biblical passage is "meant" to be read literally or allegorically. I was wondering if you could explain that to us please.

Seconded.

I too would love to know how that works. My normally perfectly adequate reading comprehension, which seems to work consistently when applied to any other book I've encountered, always seems to let me down when it comes to the bible. Not one believer has been able to explain how it works when I've asked before but they can all apparently do it.

Well I'll try not to disappoint you. Reading the Bible can be tricky, what with all the errors and all. And sometimes, try as I might, I am simply unable to come up with any good interpretations of a story. Take this Adam, Eve, and a snake story, I know of no good interpretation of it. I'm convinced that whoever wrote it imagined a bad idea and then wrote a crappy story about it. And then there's this story about a guy who almost killed his son - but that one I got figured out, the moral of that story is don't even think about doing something like that.

John Platko wrote:
Well I'll try not to disappoint you. Reading the Bible can be tricky, what with all the errors and all. And sometimes, try as I might, I am simply unable to come up with any good interpretations of a story. Take this Adam, Eve, and a snake story, I know of no good interpretation of it. I'm convinced that whoever wrote it imagined a bad idea and then wrote a crappy story about it. And then there's this story about a guy who almost killed his son - but that one I got figured out, the moral of that story is don't even think about doing something like that.

So effectively the only way in which you're a Christian is that you believe that God possesses the characteristics ascribed to it by Christianity.

That the Bible's no true guide or of divine origin, but a collection of scratchings by various people over centuries, some of which happen to touch on eternal truths about the human condition.

As you've already shown how malleable your concept of God is, I would be surprised that someone would still consider themselves Christian, but then it's you, so it's understandable.

Griz_ wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Griz_ wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Surely you'll acknowledge that imagination plays an important role in science - right?

My religious process is that I imagine (or contemplate what others have imagined) and then I check to see if what I imagine fits in with what I or others observe. Sometimes I need to do an experiment to sus things out.

Yes, imagination is crucial in science but only when forming a hypothesis. It is irrelevant in arriving at a conclusion. You're doing it backwards.

I don't see how. I imagine and form a hypothesis. Then I check my hypothesis against generally accepted observations of reality. Sometimes I do an experiment or two as necessary. This then lends validity to my hypothesis or not. Where do you think I'm going wrong?

I think you are starting with the premise that a god exists and then looking for confirmation of that assumption while ignoring contradictory evidence. Confirmation bias.

I didn't at least consciously start there. I started out trying to understand why the people around me seemed a bit It was while working on that problem that God ( or the need for a "what is ideal" hypothesis) crept in to my model.

However, confirmation bias is tricky stuff and even though I would have said I didn't believe in "God" at that time, many years of a Catholic education my have fubared my mind.

The scientific method would dictate and open unbiased consideration of the possible existence of a god. I'm not sure that a believer is truly capable of that. I don't know you, it's just my opinion based on personal experience. Not very scientific I'll admit, but this is why I say it's an opinion and not a fact.

Yes, it is a possibility we are all fubared.

Spearthrower wrote:

John Platko wrote:
Why certainly! It's really rather simple. You just read the passage and sus out if it was "meant" to be read literally or not. For example, if you read a story that involves a talking snake then that's a clue that the story wasn't meant to be taken literally because snakes don't talk. And that's how I do it. Any questions?

Sure - sus out for me how you can tell that Adam and Eve and therefore original sin is allegorical.



Incidentally, gods don't exist, but you didn't get the cue not to take it literally from a magical man in sky watching over people.

So why should your allegory-divination be trusted?

Well since Adam and Eve are characters in the story with the talking snake I feel on solid ground not taking anything about them literally. But you should only trust what I say if it makes sense to you. Perhaps you have a reason to take the Adam and Eve story literally.

To me the whole idea around "original sin" is that the author, consiciously or unconsciously, was trying to communicate how there's a tendency for mistakes made by parents to be passed down to their children, and then their children passes it down to their children, etc., etc. For example, if a parent thinks their race is better than another race then their children have a tendency to get the wrong idea. Or if a parent abuses their children then that trauma is likely passed through their children to others. I think the author was trying their best to explain how humanity got so messed up and with a bit of imagination came up with the hypothesis of "original sin".

John Platko wrote:
Well since Adam and Eve are characters in the story with the talking snake I feel on solid ground not taking anything about them literally. But you should only trust what I say if it makes sense to you.

Right, they're in the story called The Bible. That's somewhat problematic for your divining, unless your divining says 'the entire Bible is allegorical'.

John Platko wrote:Perhaps you have a reason to take the Adam and Eve story literally.

Yes, of course I do John, because that obviously follows from my post, doesn't it?

John Platko wrote:To me the whole idea around "original sin" is that the author, consiciously or unconsciously, was trying to communicate how there's a tendency for mistakes made by parents to be passed down to their children, and then their children passes it down to their children, etc., etc.

Well, that's really not remotely apparent from the text.

John Platko wrote:For example, if a parent thinks their race is better than another race then their children have a tendency to get the wrong idea. Or if a parent abuses their children then that trauma is likely passed through their children to others. I think the author was trying their best to explain how humanity got so messed up and with a bit of imagination came up with the hypothesis of "original sin".

I think that's a willful misinterpretation because there's no way to perceive it to mean that other than by wanting it to be different than it says.

Regardless, if we have no original sin, then there's no need for Jesus's sacrifice, and there's no compulsion whatsoever to believe in god.

While I would consider that a perfectly reasonable position to take, the question would necessarily present itself: then in what possible way could you call yourself a 'Christian'?

The answer appears to be that you couldn't except that you really haven't thought it through to its logical end. You don't believe in the bits which would lend themselves to being called a Christian. So in what way are you a Christian?

Just in case you're going to say 'culturally', I will quickly point out that Christianity isn't a culture, it's a religion. There are no details within Christianity anyway that would lend themselves to being conceivable as a distinct culture.

So would you say you just believe in a god which happens to be capitalized and shares some of the same characteristics, albeit subject to change at the drop of a hat, as the Christian God, except for the nasty bits which obviously he can't have because then you wouldn't conceive of him as being divine?

Exactly what size hole is left to squeeze this god into? You've already arrived at the ultimate reductio ad absurdum - what's stopping you from taking the logical next step? Do you have personal experience of communicating with Yahweh?

monkeyboy wrote:

Nicko wrote:What I don't get is the basis by which you decide whether or not a given biblical passage is "meant" to be read literally or allegorically. I was wondering if you could explain that to us please.

Seconded.

I too would love to know how that works. My normally perfectly adequate reading comprehension, which seems to work consistently when applied to any other book I've encountered, always seems to let me down when it comes to the bible. Not one believer has been able to explain how it works when I've asked before but they can all apparently do it.

I think this is where the mysterious other ways of knowing are supposed to kick in.

John Platko wrote:

Griz_ wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Surely you'll acknowledge that imagination plays an important role in science - right?

My religious process is that I imagine (or contemplate what others have imagined) and then I check to see if what I imagine fits in with what I or others observe. Sometimes I need to do an experiment to sus things out.

Yes, imagination is crucial in science but only when forming a hypothesis. It is irrelevant in arriving at a conclusion. You're doing it backwards.

I don't see how. I imagine and form a hypothesis. Then I check my hypothesis against generally accepted observations of reality. Sometimes I do an experiment or two as necessary. This then lends validity to my hypothesis or not. Where do you think I'm going wrong?

Can you explain to me one of these hypotheses and outline how you would conduct an experiment?

I'll just put this here.....

John Platko wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

John Platko wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

It is interesting that you appear to have shrunk your god to fit the ever-decreasing gap into which you squeeze it. Perhaps you should should skip to the end and relieve it of its existence as well as its powers. The more we know, the less god-shaped the gap looks.

I don't have the power to shrink God. I do have the power to refine how I imagine God by trying to reconcile my image of God with reality. Like science, this is an iterative process- and there's nothing wrong with that.

I agree that your god is a figment of your imagination but as you seem to acknowledge this, why continue to believe in it?

For the efficiency of my mental process, especially involving areas concerning morality and psychology. I seem to recall writing a paper about that some time ago, now where did I put that - hmmm it must be around here somewhere.

I'm not sure that I agree with you that being deliberately wrong aids efficiency of your mental process. Surely aiming for not being wrong at all would be better at achieving that goal?

I don't think that your process bears any similarity to science, it surprises me that you do. There is nothing of science in any of the imagined gods in the world.

Surely you'll acknowledge that imagination plays an important role in science - right?

My religious process is that I imagine (or contemplate what others have imagined) and then I check to see if what I imagine fits in with what I or others observe. Sometimes I need to do an experiment to sus things out.

If what you did was scientific, then you would get the same results as everyone else. What I think you may be doing is fabricating a flimsy, made-in-china crappy knock-off, a bit like how ID sort of pretends to be science but isn't.