Too late to edit so I'll just add: There is a somewhat mystifying up shot to this. In a sense, the conclusion is like saying: "Well, it's a good thing they were so easily impressible back then and so naive in their phrasing. If we were to witness the same event they described as Jesus walking on water, there's a good chance that we'd rationalize it in some way even if Jesus was indeed walking on water. But then we'd never know that Jesus walked on water..."

If the extents of the archeological findings acurately reflect the extent of the skirmish then "slaughtering the hordes" is a intentional exaggeration and therefore a lie.

The boy did not lie because he recounted what he perceived as reality. There was no intentional deception. It has other implications though. No matter if it is a 5 year old or an adult. We have to take everything else that was and will be said with a huge grain of salt.
I think that is what Mightyboosh wants to get across. If they got this one thing so incredibly wrong what else did they get wrong? Can we trust and take at face value anything else from that same source?

1st bolded: When are we satisified that it does? Can we ever be?*** What if we find a 2nd stele with a similar claim, yet no arrow heads and no archaeological evidence? 2nd bolded: How you know?

Re your rest: Part of my point was to question the immediate intuitivity of the notion of "getting it wrong".


***I know that sounds like a rhetorical question but the fact of the matter is that for relatively few historical events of antiquity do we have substantial written and material evidence either way. We're spinning a web that draws on many semi-reliable sources. Potsherds and arrow heads don't lie, but don't tell a story either. Stories, on the other hand, always lie, but are at least stories. The historians task is to strike some balance between both.

If we can't know that then we can't say if the claim "great victory" was accurate. Maybe it is. We know very well that there has never been a global flood. This is like finding a stele that claims "here our great warrior king singlehandedly slaughtered 200 billion enemies blindfolded with his bare hands". We don't need to be agnostic about this claim.

I don't dispute that.

That's still not a helpful definition. What would it mean for *ANY* belief to not have been "invented" by humans? This does go back to the line of think of the poster I referred to previously. All beliefs can be understood to be held as mental content inside the human brain. So in what sense can a belief *NOT* be invented by humans?

Let's say I'm sitting in my room and God speaks to me. He says "Pizza is evil." I "hear" God like the voice of someone in my room. Is there any measurable distinction between me coming up with the idea that "pizza is evil" on my own compared with it coming directly from God?

The same criticism applies to "doctrines." If God told me "Thou shalt not have sex with your sister" is there going to be some way to distinguish the fact that God told me so relative to me having such a thought on my own accord?

See above.

This plausibility argument falls apart because it's causing you to question your assumption. The argument starting with "Let's assume that the flood happened" ends with "The whole thing could have been invented." Furthermore, this shows that the argument heuristic is grounded in nothing in particular because your conclusion is strong enough to negate your assumption.

Let's go back and assume that a massive flood of some sort happened and that the Biblical character of Noah is not historical. State specifically what you would like to claim as a result of these two assumptions.

(Also, +1 to Fret's think to-think-about list. My criticism of "man-made construct" is similar to your "invented by humans" comment. You seem to want to inject a certain understanding of reality which may inherently negate any possibility of "true" religion. This is a lot like people who claim they will believe something is supernatural if it can be tested and verified scientifically -- meaning that it has a repeatability. But if you find a phenomenon that is repeatable, there is no way such an phenomenon will be classified as supernatural, as it follows a natural pattern of behavior. Therefore, someone with that viewpoint is logically restrained from accepting an event as supernatural.)

Since you used that phrase first I should probably have asked you what you meant by it rather than assuming I knew. I took it as 'explained away' or 'not really that important in the grand scheme of things'.

Again, I think the difference is in the magnitude of consequence. It doesn't matter that your 5yr old didn't interpret/record/narrate events accurately nor are we assuming any possibility of the 5yr old deliberately manipulating his story to achieve a desired result, the bible is a different matter.

Ask me your questions, I want to build a case one way or the other.

Possibly, I think it's moreme lacking a deeper appreciation of concepts that help people to understand and debate these issues but I'm also mindful of the principle of parsimony (Which I'm interpreting as meaning that sometimes simple explanations are in fact the best choice).

In the sense that god put those beliefs there, isn't that how the bible came to be written? If it could be shown that in fact those stories were pure human invention, exaggerated and adapted over hundreds of years of oral history before being written down in a self serving manner to influence the followers of a religious cult (it was a cult at the time?), surely that would harm the credibility of the religion that cult became?

Not that I'm aware of and that touches on the conversation I'm having with Gangstaman about the psychological state of the religious. In any case isn't this a False Dichotomy in that you imagining it and god saying it are not the only possibilities? It could be a form of Apophenia/Pareidolia or someone playing a prank on you for example.

If you mean that it would make no difference to you because you believe it to be the voice of god, it might make a difference if you then went on to change the lives of billions of people with that message only for it to turn out you imagined it or were tricked or simply invented it.

See above.

Poor phrasing. The biblical flood story wasn't invented from scratch, I didn't mean to imply that. See below:

My conclusion is that the biblical flood story was knowingly rewritten/adapted to suit christian requirements, e.g. that the christian god caused it rather than a different god, that it happened to characters that suited Christianity more than the ones in the Gilgamesh account etc etc. That it was untruthful in those aspects.

I can't negate any possibility of 'true' religion, as soon as it was suggested it became possible even if the degree of likelihood can't be agreed on (I'm thinking Kant: existence is not a predicate), but surely it's possible to cast doubt on the veracity of, and claim to moral righteousness that religions make using their holy books?

"Explained away" would be a tendentious phrasing of it.

Here was your initial reply:

Putting that in perspective would mean:

- "invented" would require a conscious effort of creating something new. I don't think that's true. If some priest in antiquity is writing a myth about the creation of the world, he may dream up complete bogus, but I would always grant him the benefit of the doubt regarding his own belief about the truthfulness of his efforts. Thus, not "invented". And usually, he'll be drawing upon a whole host of familar mythological notions and concepts. So his account will never be really inventing something new either. I think Aristotle once said "Myths never happened but are always true." I can't find the exact quote, unfortunately, but that's more than just juggeling words.

- In reply to my 5yr-old example you make the point that the question of god is of magintudes different than some car crash. Factually, and to us, that is probably true. However, it's an open question whether it would appear that way to an ancient writer. Ancient societies were saturated with religious beliefs. Gods, cults etc. were everywhere. It's probably overstating it somewhat but just think of our conception post-Kant that time and space are the primary apperceptions without which we have no means of relating to reality. Obv. time and space were there long before Kant, but they're so pervasive and fundamental that they don't seem like a big deal. For all intents and purposes, think of religion in a antique society in a similar way. So penning down a creation myth or some great deed of God was not at all a big metaphysical statement as what it appears to us today. For them, it's simply stating the obvious. So applying modern notions of differences of "metaphysical dignity" to another time is problematic.

- we would need to differentiate the notions of "word of god" and "invention by humans". I don't think that's easy to do. Or to put this the other way around: Is there a way to conceive of "word of God" that is not always also (at least to the non-believers eye) possible to characterize as "invention by humans"?

- In addition, we could argue to what extend the flood isn't true. As you said to Aaron above, we can probably agree that some kind of localized flood at one point gave rise to a myth that was then then basis for the account in the Gilgamesh Epos, and then later used in the bible. So we agre that there was no earth-spanning flood of 40 days. But, given that the biblical writers at the point of creation of the flood narrative in Genesis were already entertaining notions of monotheism, why would they be "lying" if they believed the Gilgamesh epos' account to be true, but simply mistaken in the surrounding cosmology?

- Overall we would need to talk about how a credible alternative would look. Meaning: Let's assume there is a god and he wants his presence to be known to mankind. So he reveals himself to prophets, priests and the like and they start writing things down. What would we actually expect that/those piece/s of writing to look like? Keeping in mind that the prophets and scribes are still children of their time, have free will, can therefore get stuff wrong, that their writings are subject to public perception etc.

I realize this is less a crystal clear exposition but more like semi-structured ramblings, but mostly that's because it's a discussion that touches on many interrelated questions.

It depends on how you interpret what you've said. I can see "yes," "no," "maybe," "not really," and "sort of" all fitting that question. The use of language is key here.

Do you actually intend to prove all of the following conditions:
* "Pure human invention"
* "Exaggerated and adapted over hundreds of years of oral history"
* "Written down in a self-serving manner to influence the followers of a religious cult"
If not, then you probably shouldn't go for adding all of these conditions because it sets up a standard which you know you're not even going to try to meet. It's not a logical fallacy to do that (beacuse if you could prove all of those conditions, you could potentially make your argument), but it's a rhetorical tact that you should avoid because it makes you sound closed-minded and set on a conclusion rather than a reasoning process.

I also find it fascinating that you think adding tons of adjectives which demonstrate bias will somehow free you from being perceived as being biased.

I have shown you an example of how to give clear standards of historicity on which to base judgments about various forms of literature and their potential influence on other beliefs. You have given me an extended narrative with basically no verifiable claims? Why not deal in things other than your speculations?

My point has nothing to do with whether such an event actually happens. It's about how you intend to show something. You just gave a semi-rant above about how you think religions come about. My challenge to you is for you to present a standard by which you can actually demonstrate something about what you think happened.

If there's no measurable distinction, then on what basis can you even enter into a claim regarding "man made constructs"?

You've used the word "truthful" here and it's almost as if you don't even know what it means. Let's say you have two tribes that worship two different gods. Let's say that tribe A worships a true god and tribe B worships a false god. Now let's say that tribe B is struck by a disease by the (true) god of tribe A.

Tribe B claims that their (false) god is punishing them for failing to offer sacrifices. As word of the disease spreads to tribe A, tribe A interprets the event as their (true) god punishing them for a previous injustice that tribe B enacted upon tribe A.

Is tribe A being "untruthful" by reframing the disease in terms of the actions of their god?

The problem is that you're treating "truth" in a particular manner, and because you've conceived that concept in this particular manner, you're not actually engaging the discussion in front of you. You appear to have a number of poorly formed concepts that you're using that are not giving you any actual insight to the topic. So the challenge is really for you to think more carefully about what you're talking about.

(Also, there's a highly anachonistic element to your comment, which is that Christianity as a religion could not have played ANY role in ANY enculturation process of the flood story.)

You should really learn to not add things into the conversation that aren't there. The shift from "veracity" (understood as fidelity to facts) and "claim to moral righteousness" (which you have yet to define or describe) doesn't add anything to anything you're saying.

Probably that the mystical experience of a union with something greater, or the knowledge of divine reality, was the fountainhead of all the major religions—whose less well equipped followers then proceeded to argue, fight and kill each other over minor technical differences in their founding prophet’s attempts to convey his experience or knowledge.

Well, perhaps they were two different dudes who lived in two different places/cultures at two different times in history... yet... they were inspired by the same God and shared similar experiences... thus, some of the stories written about these two "should" be very similar...

That would be just as important. I don't think you can call yourself this or that without looking into these things first. What if the way the world works is you mold it with your beliefs, so that any religion you turn to works as the correct one.

I was answering your question about why it's meaningful. I can't prove any of those assertions no, but if they were proven then it would not be meaningless.

How do they demonstrate bias? I was just setting some conditions.

Because that's all they are, speculations.

I don't think I touched on 'how religions came about', I've been discussing the veracity of the bible specifically.

I'm really not sure what point you're making here. If you imagined that you'd heard god speak when in fact that's not what happened, then it would be your own construct. If you based a religion on your construct and convinced others that it wasn't your construct, that in fact a god spoke to you, then it would harmful to that religion for it to be demonstrated that in fact you imagined, or made up, the whole thing, would it not?

If by 'reframing' you mean create new elements (such as Noah and his family, the gathering of two of every animal, landing on mount Arrarat etc) then I don't consider that reframing, I consider it invention.


Well, I'm simply not versed in philosophical treatment of the word 'truth', not to a point where I could debate your point and I've already admitted that my points are poorly formed so it serves no purpose to revisit that. I'm hoping that they will become better formed through debates such as this one.

To my simple understanding, a story is true, or untrue (even if it Constantia some truthful elements or is based on 'true events'). The Flood story is likely to be untrue and I think that's meaningful because of the book in which that story resides.

If that's what I'm doing then I agree, I should learn not to do that. I used the phrase "claim to moral righteousness" because I was trying to establish why the bible is important to the point that debunking it would have a significant impact and be meaningful.

But what about the 'extras' that they added such as Noah and his family, the gathering of two of every animal, landing on mount Arrarat etc, these can't be explained as the Babylonians having failed to recognise god can they? They're notable differences in detail and as such, given that a global flood can't actually have happened, must be inventions.

Hasn't there recently been a debate which discussed the possibility that the bible is inaccurate and an argument was presented to prove that it couldn't be? I have a terrible memory for these things (You're probably thinking 'that might explain a lot', and you'd be right)

I'm not ignoring the rest of your post btw, these are the only bits to which I had any kind of answer.

Sure, some of them probably are. But, spoken from the priest's perspective, we don't know which is an invention - the inclusion of them or the ommision. Meaning, I think it's very likely that the priests genuinely thought (they would claim: know) that an orderly cosmos needed an ark with two animals each on it (for example) and gilgamesh simply forgot that or wasn't paying attention to it. In cases where they "added a bit of color" - what's wrong with a little color... I don't think this particular point is ultimately going somewhere: Once we agree on some kind of plausible scenario such as a localized flood giving rise to a myth that was then taken up later, "truth" in the sense of "conforms with reality" becomes a very volatile idea.

Around here? Dunno. Such an argument will likely make me go though...

Exactly.

I think it matters for two reasons:

1) Many Christians believe the word of the bible to be literal and accurate in every detail

2) If just one story in the bile could be shown to be falsified/untruthful/invented (I really don't know which word use, how about 'non-accurate') then by implication further biblical stories might also be non-accurate' which might in turn cast doubt on the bible as means by which to understand god and so on and so forth.

I can't understand how it can not be meaningful.

I agree on 1. being "difficult" and leading to problematic consequenzes ("god hates the gheyz!").

"non-accurate" is ok. I'd put a "fact" or "factual" in there somewhere to stress/clarify that you're precisely not talking about the equivalent of the 5yr olds impression of an accident but rather of the police/news report, so to speak.

Re 2 in general - this goes back to the question of "How else could a bible look?" Here's an example: Suppose god exists and he reveals himself to mankind somewhere in antiquity. Suppose further that god is actually a massive biocomputer running at a gazillion yottaflops in a parallel dimension (string theory posits up to 11? Should be place for him somewhere), having the resources and means to influence our world from his dimension. Now suppose he's trying to give an accurate account of his essence and being to people in antiquity. How well, do you think this is gonna go when he is stuck explaining his essence in a language and to a people that lacks the concept of computer, flop, dimension, science, physics etc.?

In short - sure, one "wrong" story casts doubt on all other stories being police reports. But why does it cast doubt on there having been accidents?

The bolded here is highly relevant to the above.

By making statements like this, you are showing yourself to have a particular ambition ("agenda") that is not a truth-based agenda. Your goal is *NOT* to distinguish truth from non-truth, your goal is to "prove-wrong" and you've made this explicit.

This is why in the first place, you're making a clearly rhetorical move, not a logical one. And in the second case, the clear sense of bias comes through. And in the third case, the meaninglessness of your speculations.

Sure, I don't see what you achieve by pointing that out, I've been honest from the beginning. The fact that I have an ambition doesn't make me right or wrong. All that matters is that I pursue the debate in a the best manner possible and that's the bit I'm working on.

If you're at a point of saying 'you want to prove the bible wrong and I don't want to talk to you anymore', well, that's your choice but my speculations aren't meaningless. You can dismiss them if you choose but that doesn't make you right either.

I would say that "the best manner possible" would be to pursue the question with intellectual openness and honesty. Given that you have a prove-wrong ambition, and you've openly admitted to a willingness to take virtually any argument (including factually false ones) as support for your position AND trying to brush off criticisms that you've created intellectual blind spots, one is left to wonder what you think "the best manner possible" actually is.

Your speculations are meaningless if you have no desire to back them up with anything. You might as well speculate that aliens gave people religion.

I've demonstrated for you a clear historicity standard. The idea behind giving that to you was to show you how you can do better than speculate. This may not make me "right" but it gives me a clear foundation to stand on when making assertions.

Without that foundation, I sound like you, making speculation upon speculation and making false claims.

This is Ad Hominen (in fact much of your posting style is) and won't achieve anything, especially given that I'm very aware of my failings in this area. It's not possible to be completely unbiased, we all have biases but that doesn't change anything, it's perfectly reasonable of me to have a premise and seek to prove it.

In one sentence you imply that I'm not open and the next you point out my willingness to listen to virtually any argument. Which are the factually incorrect arguments I've used as support (for my position which frankly isn't even clear to me at the moment so I don't see how I could have done that)? I have semi-formed conclusion, a couple of guarded premises and I'm learning on the job. If you want a fully formed, logically perfect argument taking into account all that there is to know about logic and philosophy, you're talking to the wrong person right now but give me time.

As for brushing off criticisms, sure, who doesn't do that if they don't feel that they're deserved. If you read back you'll see how much criticism I've decided was entirely deserved and has changed both my outlook and posting style.

I'm not creating 'blind spots' on purpose, in fact I only have your word that it's happening but I'm prepared to believe you and try to both understand why that's happening and try to avoid it.

I'm not being certain, I'm full of doubt and I'm exploring this issue. That you haven't yet changed my mind doesn't mean that it can't be changed.

I have a desire to back them up but even if I didn't they're still not meaningless and there are plenty of people who do believe aliens gave us religion. I have reasons to think that's not true btw.

I'm not getting that bit and I'm not going to ask you to explain it again but if you could give me the post numbers where you feel that you made that point most explicitly I'd appreciate it.

I think that they're reasonable, likely, proven (*in the case of the Flood story) and far from meaningless. If the bible were shown to be unquestionably non-accurate, it would be hugely impactful.

The last sentence is true. I don't expect you to be completely unbiased. And it's also perfectly reasonable to have a premise and seek to prove it. But that's where things fall apart, because you've stated a number of speculations with the expectation that you will NOT seek to prove them. Do you see the problem?

The rest of the sentence is meaningful.

...

Here's what you said early on:

Of the three, only one meets the historicity standard that I put forth, and I believe the other two are factually incorrect. You can prove me wrong by pointing to primary sources or secondary sources with scholarly credentials.

I won't continue the point-by-point discussion at this time. I believe I've done a sufficient amount of work to make my point clear and provided a sufficient amount of evidence to cause you to a sufficient pause and reflect on your approach. Moving forward, I hope that you are able to change your habits of thought so that you are more intellectually open and honest.

Piffle, I'm starting to believe that you always do this. You debate, then you resort to Ad hominen, then you back off, usually with some kind of offhand insult like the bolded. Accuse me of being illogical, criticise my clarity of thought and my ability to construct a meaningful argument by all means (even better, help me to achieve those things), but don't accuse me of being dishonest or not open to ideas, that just looks bad.