Reconciling Genesis with Science : The Sticking Plaster Argument

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

No, it's because you won't allow yourself anymore to need emotionally.  I thinketh you call the kettle black...

 

Read these words, Ed.

 

I have faith that my wife loves me.  This faith is not based upon anything unseen.  On the contrary, it's only based upon what I have seen and observed.  The two years when we courting and our twenty two years of marriage are the evidence base that I use to have faith that she loves me.  She exists.  She is real.  I did not read about her in ancient book.  I see her every day.  We interact.

 

See that?

 

I do have emotional needs.  So, your accusation that I don't allow myself to have emotional needs is false.  The difference between us is that my emotional needs are fully satisfied by my interacting with real and physical people and not with fictional or imaginary ones.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Read these words, Ed.

 

In case you hadn't noticed, you inhabit a reality defined by science.  Your home, your workplace, the mall, the freeway, the food you eat, the books you read, the tv you watch, all the materials your home is made from, all of your clothes, every journey you've ever made by car, plane, train, etc., every country you've ever visited and everything you do is provided for you and defined by science.  You are celebrating what science has done for you by reading these words on a computer.

 

See that?

 

Not a word about love or faith or religion.  I listed only things that science can adequately describe. 

 

So you would be mistaken if you read this to mean that I insist EVERYTHING must be scientifically defined.

 

If it's not in science's remit, then science can say little or nothing about it.

 

Matters of faith, love and religion are largely or wholly outside of science's remit.

 

 

Walter.  

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

Read these words, Ed.

 

In case you hadn't noticed, you inhabit a reality defined by science.  Your home, your workplace, the mall, the freeway, the food you eat, the books you read, the tv you watch, all the materials your home is made from, all of your clothes, every journey you've ever made by car, plane, train, etc., every country you've ever visited and everything you do is provided for you and defined by science.  You are celebrating what science has done for you by reading these words on a computer.

 

See that?

 

Not a word about love or faith or religion.  I listed only things that science can adequately describe. 

 

So you would be mistaken if you read this to mean that I insist EVERYTHING must be scientifically defined.

 

If it's not in science's remit, then science can say little or nothing about it.

 

Matters of faith, love and religion are largely or wholly outside of science's remit.

 

 

Walter.  

Well, we are far along enough in logging the space time continuum that our observation of culture is well defined with data.  Is this real evidence within the remit of science?  I'm expecting you to say that hard science is only valid with all the extrapolations and shit.... 

[Edgarcito]

Btw, you just admitted a physiology you can't define is real.....  But when I describe it for a time in history that wasn't as well documented, bam, it's incoherent babble outside the remit.  

 

Where's my lawyer buddy to pat me on the back....lol.  You see this pending guilty verdict Sdelsolray?

 

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Well, we are far along enough in logging the space time continuum that our observation of culture is well defined with data.  Is this real evidence within the remit of science?  I'm expecting you to say that hard science is only valid with all the extrapolations and shit.... 

 

The remit of science is to describe and explain how the natural, physical universe works, Ed.

So, anything within human culture that can be described and explained in this way is within the remit of science.

But there's also a great deal within human culture that is way, way outside of science's remit.

 

 

Just off the top of my head, here are half a dozen examples.

 

Which is better - a Ford or a Ferrari?  Science can't answer that.  It's a matter of personal taste.

What is the meaning of life?  Science can't answer that.  Try philosophy or religion.

How much do I love my wife?  Science can't answer that.  There are no SI units to measure love with.

Is it ethical to eat meat?  Science can't answer that.  That's a matter of conscience and cultural norms.

Should Roe vs Wade be overturned?  Science can't answer that.  Try law, politics and religion.

What does it mean to be me?  Science can't answer that.  Nobody can answer that except you.

 

 

All of these things are real and valid and some are hugely important to human culture, but science can't get any traction on any of them and can't provide any meaningful answers.  For such answers you have to look elsewhere.  

 

No extrapolations needed.  You just use science to do what it's meant to do.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Btw, you just admitted a physiology you can't define is real.....  But when I describe it for a time in history that wasn't as well documented, bam, it's incoherent babble outside the remit.  

 

Where's my lawyer buddy to pat me on the back....lol.  You see this pending guilty verdict Sdelsolray?

 

 

I just listed six things that I can't give scientific definitions for, Ed.

 

Six very human things that are very real, but which lie outside of science's remit.

 

You're still labouring under the misapprehension that I think that science can describe and explain EVERYTHING.

 

Clearly that is not the case and therefore you are mistaken about what I think.

 

 

The 'bam' comes when you try to use science to do what religion or philosophy or ethics are meant to do.

 

It's not designed to do that.  

 

Use the paintbrush to paint with, not to rake leaves.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, @Edgarcito, I have made the statement that I never had any choice concerning religion; but I have also made the statement that I stayed in religion well into adulthood.  Are you not going to call me out on the seemingly glaring contradiction here?  Come on, man, I want to talk about conditioned responses.  Seriously, Pavlov's Dogs would dovetail nicely with our discussion about fleas.

[walterpthefirst]

But what about the elephant in the room?

 

I started this thread because I was challenged by someone who knows that the bible cannot be reconciled with science if it is read literally.  They asserted that it should be read poetically, to make the mismatch between science and scripture go away.  But the elephant won't be ignored.  So, let's look him straight in the eye and ask the obvious question.

 

Did the ancient Israelites accept a six day creation, a magical tree and a talking snake as literally true?

 

The answer is Yes, they did. 

 

That's because they lived in a world where everyone believed in such supernatural things.  They also believed that the natural world around them wasn't explained in natural materialist ways, but by the presence and activities of spirits and gods bringing rain, thunder, sunshine, harvests and famines.  

 

But today we now know that all of these natural occurrences have a natural and not a supernatural explanation.  Science has revealed the true workings of the natural world and banished the gods, spirits and demons.  That is why the natural, material aspects of the reality we inhabit can be explained by science.

 

But this leaves the modern day theist in a bind when it comes to scripture.

 

How can they reconcile the magical and supernatural content of the bible with what modern science tells us about the age of the universe, the origin of life and the evolution of humans?  The answer is simple.  Deny that it should be read literally and insist that it should be read poetically, metaphorically or symbolically.  Doing this immediately dissolves the mismatch between science and scripture.

 

But there is a sting in the tail of this manoeuvre.

 

If modern day theists don't read scripture literally, then they are reading it differently from the way it's original, intended audience would have read it.  They are adding their own agenda and their own meanings and interpretations to it.  This is biblical eisegesis.

 

https://www.compellingtruth.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html#:~:text=Eisegesis refers to interpretation of a passage of,justice and seeks true understanding of God's Word.

 

Eisegesis is often associated with postmodern culture and literary study. While every person brings some level of personal bias to his or her understanding of the Bible, eisegesis focuses on using this bias as the basis for interpretation. Instead of asking, "What does this biblical passage mean?" eisegesis asks, "What does this verse mean to me?" or "How does this passage make me feel?"

This subjective approach to Scripture is concerning in many ways. First, a subjective focused approach to Scripture reads into the Bible what the reader wants to hear rather than what the Bible wants a person to hear. Second, eisegesis takes meanings from the biblical text that were never intended. These could include false teachings or harmful applications.

 

The text of of Genesis was never intended to be interpreted in the context of Big Bang cosmology by it's original audience.  It was intended to understood literally by them.  That was how their minds functioned.  That was how they explained and understood the world around them - as being created, sustained and inhabited by gods and spirits.

 

So, the elephant has been very clear about this.

 

Modern day reinterpretations of scripture that replace literalism with poetry, metaphors and symbols are simply  manifestations of the wishes of theists to hold on to their faith - instead of letting science sweep it all away.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

On 5/9/2022 at 11:14 AM, walterpthefirst said:

The text of of Genesis was never intended to be interpreted in the context of Big Bang cosmology by it's original audience.  It was intended to understood literally by them.  That was how their minds functioned.  That was how they explained and understood the world around them - as being created, sustained and inhabited by gods and spirits.

 

So, the elephant has been very clear about this.

 

Modern day reinterpretations of scripture that replace literalism with poetry, metaphors and symbols are simply  manifestations of the wishes of theists to hold on to their faith - instead of letting science sweep it all away.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

It's mostly historical revisionism. Start asking them what it symbolizes and they can't seem to explain it. It can't be symbolizing a theory that wouldn't exist for another 3,000 years or so.

 

And if they say it did, then one might ask why a theory of science 3,000 years into the future was symbolized at the very beginning of the bible and yet no one seemed to understand that along with the science of 2,000 CE 1) slavery would be abolished, 2) Women would be given equal rights under the law, 3) Polygamy would be considered immoral, 4) and gays would no longer be singled out and stoned to death! 

 

Where is that futuristic knowledge symbolized in Genesis or Exodus???

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

It's mostly historical revisionism. Start asking them what it symbolizes and they can't seem to explain it. It can't be symbolizing a theory that wouldn't exist for another 3,000 years or so.

 

And if they say it did, then one might ask why a theory of science 3,000 years into the future was symbolized at the very beginning of the bible and yet no one seemed to understand that along with the science of 2,000 CE 1) slavery would be abolished, 2) Women would be given equal rights under the law, 3) Polygamy would be considered immoral, 4) and gays would no longer be singled out and stoned to death! 

 

Where is that futuristic knowledge symbolized in Genesis or Exodus???

 

 

 

A very good point, Josh.

 

Thank you for that.

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Ok Edgarcito,

 

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, let's provisionally treat your idea of spiritual osmosis as viable.

 

So, could you cite and explain some examples of it in action in the gospels please?

 

(With quotes or with chapter and verse.)

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

On 5/6/2022 at 5:19 PM, walterpthefirst said:

 

I just listed six things that I can't give scientific definitions for, Ed.

 

Six very human things that are very real, but which lie outside of science's remit.

 

 

 

 

Science HAS to do that Walter, by its own onis. EVERYTHING is in some level of a relationship according to science.   We don't exist outside of objectivity, per science.  

 

The only "scientific" stance to choose is leaving yourself open to the reality science cannot yet define.  

 

You are obligated to wait regarding a conclusion because there are "real" things accepted by rational men, you, that are undefined in a somewhat defined reality.

 

In other words, a real God may exist just as the six things you say are real....

[Edgarcito]

On 5/10/2022 at 9:19 PM, Joshpantera said:

 

It's mostly historical revisionism. Start asking them what it symbolizes and they can't seem to explain it. It can't be symbolizing a theory that wouldn't exist for another 3,000 years or so.

 

And if they say it did, then one might ask why a theory of science 3,000 years into the future was symbolized at the very beginning of the bible and yet no one seemed to understand that along with the science of 2,000 CE 1) slavery would be abolished, 2) Women would be given equal rights under the law, 3) Polygamy would be considered immoral, 4) and gays would no longer be singled out and stoned to death! 

 

Where is that futuristic knowledge symbolized in Genesis or Exodus???

 

 

That's not a good point.  Even the osmosis/reverse osmosis diagram pretty much sums that up.  On one side of the membrane (Cross) we have pure, and on the other we have less pure.  Even the Bible says the less pure was a function of man post creation.  Which goes back to the original discussion of why did God created man as he did...

[pantheory]

On 5/3/2022 at 3:46 PM, Edgarcito said:

How do you really call yourself a scientist when you are unable to submit to faith ultimately…

 

Hi Edgarcito. Always nice talking with you. I don't know who above you were referring to but as for myself, you may recall that I have been a confirmed atheist for many decades now. And I am also a scientist involved in extensive scientific research in a number of science-based subjects.  As for myself, I only have faith in things that I believe are worthy of my faith. I have faith in the good of some people, for  instance, but not in religion, science, or other subjects. I simply follow what I believe to be the evidence in that subject-- and faith is generally meaningless, or of little consequence to me.

 

best regards, Forrest

[Joshpantera]

On 5/14/2022 at 4:00 PM, Edgarcito said:

That's not a good point.  Even the osmosis/reverse osmosis diagram pretty much sums that up.  On one side of the membrane (Cross) we have pure, and on the other we have less pure.  Even the Bible says the less pure was a function of man post creation.  Which goes back to the original discussion of why did God created man as he did...

 

1) The cross has nothing to do with Genesis 1 - that's proof of historical revisionism, which, is trying to back read something into the texts at later date which wasn't part of the original texts. Nothing from the NT went into the thinking of the OT writers. Because the NT wasn't yet conceived of and hadn't evolved yet. 

 

2) Osmosis / reverse osmosis is a modern term completely absent from Genesis 1, mostly because it didn't exist yet, and therefore couldn't have been part of the thinking of the original writer. 

 

3) There's no evidence whatsoever that a god, whatever that means, created a man at any point in the past. 

[walterpthefirst]

17 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Science HAS to do that Walter, by its own onis. EVERYTHING is in some level of a relationship according to science.   We don't exist outside of objectivity, per science.  

 

The only "scientific" stance to choose is leaving yourself open to the reality science cannot yet define.  

 

You are obligated to wait regarding a conclusion because there are "real" things accepted by rational men, you, that are undefined in a somewhat defined reality.

 

In other words, a real God may exist just as the six things you say are real....

 

Very well then Edgarcito.  Let's look at the six questions.

 

Which is better - a Ford or a Ferrari?  

What is the meaning of life?  

How much do I love my wife?  

Is it ethical to eat meat?  

Should Roe vs Wade be overturned? 

What does it mean to be me?  

 

I don't dispute that there is some relationship between science and all of them.  But that is not the point.  The point you haven't addressed yet is that science cannot answer the questions... as they are written.

 

The questions are not about the science data of the cars or medical data about childbirth.  The questions are ethical, philosophical, religious, cultural, political and legal and so fall outside the remit of science.  Agreed, science can provide data to help answer the questions, but it cannot answer the question BY ITSELF.

 

If you don't agree, then please answer the questions in purely scientific terms.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

On 5/12/2022 at 1:48 PM, walterpthefirst said:

Ok Edgarcito,

 

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, let's provisionally treat your idea of spiritual osmosis as viable.

 

So, could you cite and explain some examples of it in action in the gospels please?

 

(With quotes or with chapter and verse.)

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Would you like to try and do this please, Ed?

 

I have some thoughts, but since spiritual osmosis is your idea, please go first.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Osmosis / reverse osmosis is a modern term completely absent from Genesis 1, mostly because it didn't exist yet, and therefore couldn't have been part of the thinker of the original writer. 

Point of clarification, osmosis did exist back then.  It had not yet been discovered and illuminated by science and modern understanding as yet; but osmosis has been around at least since the evolution of eukaryotic cells. 

[Edgarcito]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Very well then Edgarcito.  Let's look at the six questions.

 

Which is better - a Ford or a Ferrari?  

What is the meaning of life?  

How much do I love my wife?  

Is it ethical to eat meat?  

Should Roe vs Wade be overturned? 

What does it mean to be me?  

 

I don't dispute that there is some relationship between science and all of them.  But that is not the point.  The point you haven't addressed yet is that science cannot answer the questions... as they are written.

 

The questions are not about the science data of the cars or medical data about childbirth.  The questions are ethical, philosophical, religious, cultural, political and legal and so fall outside the remit of science.  Agreed, science can provide data to help answer the questions, but it cannot answer the question BY ITSELF.

 

If you don't agree, then please answer the questions in purely scientific terms.

 

 

The only way I see a possible scientific answer is if AI develops a consciousness and then humanity might be able to understand the synthesis.  Particular loading of knowledge into the system.  Then maybe, loading another computer in a similar manner and comparing the two.  Does supercomputer one possess a different "personality" than supercomputer two.  

 

But then you insert biology into the mix and the level of complexity goes exponential.  So good luck with that, but that's my speculation at this point.

[walterpthefirst]

10 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The only way I see a possible scientific answer is if AI develops a consciousness and then humanity might be able to understand the synthesis.  Particular loading of knowledge into the system.  Then maybe, loading another computer in a similar manner and comparing the two.  Does supercomputer one possess a different "personality" than supercomputer two.  

 

But then you insert biology into the mix and the level of complexity goes exponential.  So good luck with that, but that's my speculation at this point.

 

And there we have our answer, Ed.

 

Until such time that AI does what you describe all you have to go on is speculation.

 

Science remains separate from religion.

 

I rest my case.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

10 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

And there we have our answer, Ed.

 

Until such time that AI does what you describe all you have to go on is speculation.

 

Science remains separate from religion.

 

I rest my case.

 

 

No sir, they are not separate, just undefined....and the need for you to quit spouting shit about the "remit of science" regarding someone's belief silly or invalid.

 

  

[walterpthefirst]

7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No sir, they are not separate, just undefined....and the need for you to quit spouting shit about the "remit of science" regarding someone's belief silly or invalid.

 

  

 

No sir.

 

Science is defined well enough to be reliable and to give us a deep knowledge of the physical universe.

 

It does not need religion to do that.

 

Therefore, science and religion are separate things, providing different answers to different questions.

 

You have come up short on this Ed.

 

Please let it go.

[walterpthefirst]

Ok Edgarcito,

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, let's provisionally treat your idea of spiritual osmosis as viable.

So, could you cite and explain some examples of it in action in the gospels please?

(With quotes or with chapter and verse.)

Thank you.

Walter.

 

--------------------------------------------------------

 

So would you like to explain spiritual osmosis in the context of the gospels please, Ed?

[Edgarcito]

22 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No sir.

 

Science is defined well enough to be reliable and to give us a deep knowledge of the physical universe.

 

It does not need religion to do that.

 

Therefore, science and religion are separate things, providing different answers to different questions.

 

You have come up short on this Ed.

 

Please let it go.

<see Job>

[walterpthefirst]

I am not going to waste my time arguing with you, Ed.

 

Seeing as you've turned down my three invitations to discuss spiritual osmosis in the context of the gospels I will tell you my thoughts on the matter and then ask the RedneckProfessor to lock this thread.

 

 

Your idea of spiritual osmosis has a glaring problem in all of the gospels, in the shape of Judas.

 

He spent years in the close company of Jesus and the other disciples.  He saw Jesus raise three dead people back to life.  He saw Jesus and then Peter walk on water.  He was there at the marriage feast of Cana, when Jesus turned water into wine.  He saw Jesus free people from demonic possession.  He saw Jesus heal cripples and blind people.  He saw Jesus multiply the loaves and the fishes so that 5,000 people could be fed.  He saw Jesus calm the storm on the Sea of Galilee.  He saw Jesus cure lepers.  He saw Jesus cause a fig tree to wither.  He saw Jesus cause a miraculous catch of fish.

 

He would also have heard from Peter, James and John that Jesus had be transfigured on a mountain top and spoke to the resurrected prophets Elijah and Moses.  Judas would heard all of Jesus' teaching and would heard words of heavenly wisdom and truth from the very lips of the Son of God.

 

Yet, despite years of being fully immersed in the most spiritually-rich environment possible, he still betrayed Jesus.

 

So why didn't he absorb the goodness, purity and spirituality around him via osmosis?

 

If the idea of spiritual osmosis works then it should work best in and around Jesus.

 

But it didn't.