Passer wrote:Calilasseia wrote:Passer, there are two things you can do, that will prove useful here.
First,
read this post on the nature of mythology, and why it's singularly unreliable as a source of substantive knowledge (except, of course, substantive knowledge about how people fabricate mythologies).
Second, learn this definition of atheism that I proposed here some time ago in the interests of rigour, viz:
Atheism is
the refusal to treat uncritically as fact, unsupported supernaturalist assertions.
While it's tempting to say "that is
it" with regard to the above definition, in order to kill at source the usual duplicitous apologetics about atheism all too frequently seen arising from supernaturalists, that definition immediately invites a range of important corollaries, and in addition arises from a fundamental rule of proper discourse. That rule being, quite simply, that any assertion presented
possesses the status "truth value unknown" when first presented, and retains that status until subject to test. Recognition of that rule, and the proper application thereof to supernaturalist assertions, is what leads inexorably to the definition of atheism I provided above. The corollaries arising therefrom, include the implied need to exert diligent effort determining if an assertion is testable even in principle, and if so, what test(s) can be devised to apply thereto.
Which immediately points to a major problem with mythological assertions, namely, that many of them are either untestable in principle, via accident or design. As a corollary of this state of affairs, those assertions will forever possess the status "truth value unknown", until some genius devises an actual test and applies it. Consequently, those assertions may freely be discarded, on the basis that assertions with an unknown truth-value cannot of themselves contribute meaningfully to substantive knowledge. The only purpose they serve, whilst possessing that status, is to provide a motivation to remedy the knowledge deficit with respect to their actual truth value, and those seeking to do so should be mindful of the issues that have arisen along the way, with respect to many assertions that
were successfully assigned a truth-value. In short, the business of testing assertions to determine their truth-value, is a hugely non-trivial enterprise when conducted properly.
Another problem with some mythological assertions, is that they have already been demonstrated to be false. The various bizarre cosmologies asserted to have taken place in our past mythologies, have all been demonstrated to be spectacularly wrong. Instead, the universe has been found, via diligent scientific investigation, to be far older, far grander in scale, and replete with far more exotic entities and phenomena, than any of our mythologies asserted. Indeed, this is one of the reasons I treat mythology as incompetent with respect to the matter of imparting proper knowledge - the authors thereof were apparently incapable of even
fantasising about vast classes of entities and phenomena that have since been alighted upon by science, and placed within precise, usefully predictive quantitative frameworks of genuine knowledge by the scientific endeavour. In the case of the Bible, the authors did not even know of the existence of the continental land mass now inhabited by so many of that mythology's followers, a disturbing fraction of whom cling to that mythology's assertions in a manner that ranges from the infantile to the clinically psychotic.
In short, mythologies were our attempt, as a species, to provide an explanation for our surroundings, in an era when we didn't know any better. We do know better now, and it's time to relegate mythologies to their proper place.
Thank you for providing this information, I have read both and I think I understand you are saying the problem with mytholgoy is that for a number of reasons, it is not testable?
No, only
some of the assertions contained therein are untestable. Other assertions, as I've already stated,
are testable,
have already been subject to test, and found to be false. The entire Genesis cosmology, for example, which not only involves getting the age of the universe wrong by about six orders of magnitude, but also includes such absurdities as plants appearing before there existed a source of light for them to utilise for photosynthesis. It also contains assertions about the order of appearance of major clades of organisms, assertions which are again known to be completely wrong.
Passer wrote:I understand where you are coming from, but I am unsure as to how to continue on these forums. I would like to say "Hey, look at his verse here >
any given verse>. I have been told that this means >X<. I would like to hear if you have an opinion on this verse".
This is simplicity itself, if you use the framework I've provided above. Namely, "I have seen an assertion that verse X is purportedly a commentary on subject Y, does there exist external corroboration of this assertion?"
The point about external corroboration is an important one here, because only under very special circumstances, can the
source of an assertion be in addition the source of evidence supporting that assertion. Scientific papers provide the canonical example of how this is achieved, but other texts can achieve the same results,
if they cite the requisite external data. But of course, those citations have to possess a certain minimum level of precision, and also have to present the material in question in as unambiguous and explicit a manner as possible, so that there is no doubt which entities and phenomena are being referred to. It also helps if there exists the ability to replicate the phenomenon in question, or observe the occurrence thereof in the present, as we have much more confidence of the provenance of the earlier text in this case.
Take volcanoes, for example. We have enough television footage of erupting volcanoes in the present, to know what a volcano is, and what processes take place when a volcano erupts. We also know that various pre-scientific civilisations had already alighted upon sulphur, even if they didn't know it was a chemical element, had already pressed it into service for fumigation, and as a consequence, were aware of the characteristic smell that arises when sulphur undergoes combustion, a smell that is also present around numerous erupting volcanoes. Consequently, any ancient text that mentions fire emanating from a mountain top, and the smell of sulphur associated therewith, is likely to be describing a volcanic eruption. If the text mentions a particular location, and subsequent geological examination of that location finds an active volcano, then bingo, we know that the text is in accord with observational reality. Given the pretty devastating effects volcanoes have had upon human settlements in the past, ranging from the famous immolation of Pompeii in 79 CE, through to Mount Pelée in 1902, and more recently, the televised eruptions of Mount St Helens in 1980, and Soufrière Hills in 1995, humans have strong motivation to study these objects. In addition, anyone in Hawai'i is well aware of Kilauea, which has been producing lava continuously since 1983. Consequently, it doesn't require convoluted apologetic contortions to work out when a text written in the past, contains a reference to a volcanic event.
On the other hand, the sort of apologetics that routinely emanate from the usual suspects, about their favourite mythology supposedly talking about Sauropod dinosaurs being alive alongside human beings of relatively recent (in geological terms) vintage, can be dismissed with ease, by reference to a wealth of data pointing to these organisms becoming extinct around 65 million years ago. Apart from the fact that no fossils of these organisms have been found younger than 65 Mya, the only way that Sauropods could have appeared alongside humans, if any had survived the KT extinction event, is for there to have been a
population of these organisms, and one furthermore spread over a pretty wide geographical area. Which means that there would have been ample mention of these organisms in the texts of numerous relevant civilisations. Since Greek civilisation provided us with Aristotle, who engaged in considerable empirical work involving the dissection of animals, and much subsequent written discussion thereof, we can be pretty sure that if any Sauropods were around at the time, Aristotle would have sought to have one made available for dissection, and this would have found its way into his works on the subject of biology, most of which survive to the present. As a consequence, this piece of creationist fantasising can be safely tossed into the bin where it belongs.
Passer wrote:I'm not trying to do anything other than learn. I will have my own opinons on things, like for example, I was pretty sure at one point (or at least wasn't fully connvinced the other way) that the verse in Job described (or at least could describe) a Sauropod. I realise that it is vague enough to describe a hippp or crocodile to name but two. But now, I couldn't really say with any gusto that I belive it is describing a Sauropod. My opinion has been changed by the folk on here.
An important lesson to learn: knowing
how to ask a question, is frequently as important as asking the question itself. In short, ensure that one's ideas are properly and rigorously constituted as much as possible, before proceeding.
Passer wrote:My point? I'm not here to preach, and if I do not fully accept a version offered here, I might argue my case, but it isn't from a position of "I am right because I am Christian you are wrong because you are Atheist and don't know the Bible." That's honeslty not my agenda here
Well, since one of the more hilarious observations I've alighted upon here, centres upon the fact that in numerous instances, atheists are better informed about the textual content of the Bible than many self-declared practising Christians, and frequently exhibit a better command of the apologetics erected thereabout in addition, you would have much difficulty pursuing such an agenda if it was a part of your
modus operandi.
