Re: Science, God, and Free Will

On 22 Nov, 21:18, part...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
<snip>

(BTW Sennacherib's version is incredible, as it's clear that his
siege wasn't for the profit, and so point all his other conquests.
Also, he mentions nothing as to where has his army disappeared).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sennacherib

So on one hand we have a claim that the siege ended by completely
human methods, and on the other hand we have a claim of supernatural
intervention. Seriously what do you think it's more plausible?

(The point was brought to demonstrate the impossibility to rely on
'historical' sources, as they are never objective, and are written to
present one specific viewpoint. The increditibility of the Assyrian
version was just a sidenote).

True, if that was the only reason to believe in a supernatural
entity. As there are more serious reasons, the Bible's version adds no
new assumptions.

But you can't say that a claim of supernatural intervention in the
Bible is evidence that superatural events happened in the past as
described by the Bible.
That would be circular reasoning.

Maybe the Jews really paid a tribute to end the siege, maybe the siege
failed because the Assyrians run out of resources or the army and the
king were needed somewhere else (a king can't stay too long away from
his trone before somebody tries to grab it). These are common events
in history and don't need any supernatural explanation.

So both are liers?

Maybe.

highly unlikely.

Why?

Also note, that the Bible has no
problem of telling us of bribes paid by Jewish kings, or sieges
abandoned for other, natural, reasons.

I'm not a Bible scholar, but I think that in most descriptions of
warfare there is a supernatural element in the Bible.

They should have had a very
serious reason to invent the angel story.

Like supporting the belif that their God helped them?

And, really, Sennacherib has
some explanations to make for the disappearance of his army, and the
end of his conquests.

How do you know that his army disappeared?

Something must apparently have happened to his
army - what would have prevented the Bible from telling the truth? I
don't think that such angel's intervention appears in any other place
in Kings.

Angel and God interventions in military disputes appear in lots of
other places in the Bible, though.
The Bible is not parsimonious about divine interventions, in fact,
they happen continously in it.

Divine intervention in a war instead, has never been observed.

Same for Esther. Clearly, the Jews didn't need any further record. A
Bible-included story is more than enough. The Jew's enemies couldn't
fake it as a victory of theirs, so they just didn't keep a record. And
the Bible is clear that there were no neutral people here... Also,
look in Ezra 6:1-2 - it's amazing. The Persian king has issued an
order, 50 years earlier, and this whole order has just disappeared.
They had to check in the archives, and even then, they found only one
copy. Why? becasue in the meantime, a Jew-hater (Hamman...) was in
rule, and he just destroyed every copy of this pro-Jewish order.
That's the way things were done then. And in many other places and
times.

Ok, anyway you can't cite Bible stories as historical facts. Some
Bible stories might be true, but if there is no independent evidence
we have no way of knowing.

No 'historical' way of knowing (meaning the usual method
archeologists etc. use). But still, tradition proves them, along with
the rest of the Bible.

Tradition 'proves' lots of contraddictory claims which are not
consistent with evidence.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but as far as I know, with the
exclusion of the Nazi, those persecutions against Jews were never
aimed at destroying Jews althogether. They were attempts by the local
dominant political-religious-ethnical bodies to remove Jews from their
jurisdictions, like they did with other Chrisian sects and other
ethincities, basically to acheive religious-ethnical uniformity.

Indeed, the main aims were at eliminating the Jewish culture.

No. The main aims were at not having to deal with Jews on a daily
basis.
Local rulers didn't care of what Jews were doing outside their
jurisdictions or whether they could have returned in the future.

We consider not only the rulers' intentions, but also the
population's. Anyway the chances of surviving such a series of such
events is negligible.

It isn't.
In the Middle-Ages the Jews were present on a very large area
consisting of the whole Europe, part of Asia and part of Africa.
That large area had no political unity, it was divided in hundreds of
countries often at war with each other.
Many of that countries at some points of their history killed or
expelled their Jews.
Obviously when some countries were persecuting Jews, Jews were
surviving somewhere else, and then were re-inhabitating the region
perhaps centuries later, when the government was completely different
(medieval countries usually didn't last politically for more than a
few centuries).

I see nothing unlikely or supernatural about that.

Anyway this point has long deprted from my initial intention. If we
want to talk of proving the Bible, the easily-refutable tests seem a
better proof (you saw that post, didn't you? it was my last response
to Robert. Sorry, but I still didn't find how to link to posts...).

That
they didn't succeed is amazing - Jewish cultured returned to every
such place.

Today you can find people of any ethnicity in almost every place of
the world, but the Jews didn't return to many places they were
expelled since recently.
And I don't see anything special or supernatural about that. What
supernatural power would be required for the Jews to return to those
places?

Again, the point is that they were not extinct (culturally).

Also note that the Jewish culture changed significatively during this
time, so you can't claim that modern Jews share culture of medieval
Jews.

OUCH. Now that's a statement.... well, let's first note that the
prophecy refers to the Bible itself, that it won't be forgotten from
the Jews. But now, why do you way that? what has changed? since the
medieval jewish culture was based on the Bible and Talmus (which is
itself Bible-based), and so is the modern (at least Orthodox) Jewish
culture, what can have changed? the Talmus covers all of life's areas
(well, cloths fashion may have changed, but it was never Jewish anyway
- it was more or less copied from the neighbours (or forced by them,
in some cases)). I understand that the guidings of medieval Rabbis are
still accepted nowadays.

What probability would you give that? I think that the one
who prophecied it, was either extremely stupid to declare that it'll
happen this way, or alternatively - he just knew what he speak on. A
pre-declared negligible probability event is a proof, don't you think?

I don't see anything improbable about it, since there was only a
single attempt at the complete destruction of their culture (the Nazi
one).
Many uncoordinated local expulsions or killings werent' unlikely to
completely destroy them.

Yet every other culture of this time (and many later ones) was
indeed destroyed.

Many cultures are indeed older than the 1st century.
Some are also older than the Jews.
Indians, for instance.

Moreover, consider the notion of self-fullfilling prophecy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fullfilling_prophecy
The mere existence of the prophecy might have contributed to the
Jewish sense of unity and migh have helped them to keep the their
identity.

When stuck into a church, having two options (Christian baptism or
death), or given these options by crusaders, I can hardly see how
knowledge of the prophecy might have helped. How can it help them
escape a Pogrom? It can theoretically lead them to spread their
culture in any possible place, but I know of no actual event in which
Jews did it in this intention. Do you? And, sense of unity comes from
a common culture, even without such a prophecy. It doesn't add to it.

The prophecy might have added motivation not to lose the Jewish
identity.

And it didn't help any other culture....

There are cultures older than the Jewish one, I don't know if they
have a similar prophecy.

Let's say I can produce a book which claims to be written by an
eyewitness of the event that confirms my claim. Would you belive me
(and the book)?

If this book says that my father saw it, and my father denies it,
I'll disbelieve it. If it says my father did see it, and my father
confirms, I will. If it says that millions of people did, and in every
generation since then, millions of people heard from their fathers
that this tradition is correct, and passed it on to their childs, I
will.

This is called Appeal to Tradition and more specifically Kuzari
Principle and it's a fallacy:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_traditionhttp://en.wikipedia.o...

Bingo! I did mean the Kuzari principle. I had no idea it has a name,
and appears on wikipedia.... nice to see it there. Anyway the apply to
tradition doesn't seem very connected (I don't argue something is good
- I argue it's true).

If you read the article you might notice that it's highly criticized.
http://www.talkreason.com/articles/kuzari.cfm Is a rather long article
that dissects it, for instance.

And it's very childish in my opinion: it's effectively claiming that
you belive because your parents told you so.

Yeah. That's the reason you believe your name is what it is, and
that your grandparents immigrated to America from Spain (or whatever),
etc. etc. But it's even stronger. See below.

My name is what it is because my parents have decided it, there is no
way they could have lied about it.

And for what concerns my ancestry, I rather belive my parents since
they give me a plausible story. If they told be that they came from
Mars, I wouldn't belive them, at lest not without evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If I say that I own a white cat you will probably belive me, If I say
that I own a white unicorn you wouldn't belive me, at least not until
I presented some good evidence.

What if your parents lied you, or were forced to accept a belif (what
does the Bible says about the appropriate treatment for those who
reject the religious authority?), or were simply ignorant of their
history and trusted what the priest said?

Parents don't lie on such things

How do you know?

- again (as was mentioned in that
reply to Robert), the tradition obligates one to live very
uncomfortable life, and even agree to get killed if someone tires to
force one to abandon it.

But the tradition could be a lie itself, in the sense that a group of
people somehow decided to set their tradition to some belif at some
point.

No reason the parents will give their
children such an heritage, without a VERY good reason. Lying isn't an
option.

The good reason was that their priests told them so, or they were
forced to do so, or they were just liers.
It's childish to assume that one's parents are infallible.

when forced to accept a belief, one abandons it as soon as one can,
and never makes one's children (or oneself) die for it... See all the
Jews that were forced to accept Christianity (e.g. Spain 1492) - they
were never loyal Christians, and returned to Judaim as fast as
possible. That's why the Inquisition was so busy. Such an obligating
heritage can't be forced. And never on masses.

So how did Christianity and Islam (and probably many other) religions
spread?
You can't deny that forceful conversions ever happened or were
successful.

About historical ignorance, well, that's exactly what's the Kuzari
Principle is about. If I knew nothing on my history, isn't still not a
reason to believe the priest. Especially if he tries to make my life
so uncomfortable and dangerous. If he says that my ancestors witnessed
something that forces me to accept his instructions, the first thing
I'll do is verify it with my ancestors.

So let's say that the priests put forward a claim about something
which supposely happened 100 generations ago.
Old people which have no living ancestors can't ask anyone, younger
people can ask old people.
Some of these old people are priests, so they confirm the story as
expected, the other are generally uneducated people which don't know
anything about their history.
Anyway everybody trusts their priestly class because priests are more
educated, perform a function of social control an cohesion, and have
the power to enforce their belifs with violence.

My ignorance of this tradition
is the best arguemnt I'll have against him... people just don't
believe such tales. Especially when they're so obligating.

This is not realistic.
Most people know very little about their history and rely on
authoritative figures for it.
Where did you get most of your historical knowledge (both about
religion and other matters) from?
From your parents or from history teachers and history books?

In the early Jewish society virtually all teachers were priests.

Will you belive your father if he confirmed my story if I had the
power to stone him to death in case he didn't?

Then he'll do the best to clarify the truth to me. And usually,
parents are willing to die to ensure their children better lives. It's
hard to believe that the father, preferring his own life, will doom
his children's. And anyway, it'll be very clear to the children that
he doesn't speak out of real faith, but only because he's forced. Of
course, in this scenario, the children will pass the tradition on
(assuming again that they will unnaturally prefer their own lives),
because they have to, but a true faith will never emerge. That will
ensure that this tradition will disappear at once, when the enforcing
force is gone (and it is, long ago).



I don't KNOW that the LoR is incorrect. As far as I know, our
physics theories might be wrong, and the story might be possible. Many
physical theories were refuted during history, and 'impossible' things
were proven to be correct. However, I don't have a reason to assume
that on the LoR. So until I have a proof, I reject it, not with
certainty, but only because I don't have a reason to believe it. If
the reason is later supplied, I'll believe it. The fact I don't
believe it now, won't bother me then.

Then you should apply the same logic to your Bible.

I do. The reason to 'start believing' it is this unfakeable
tradition. Or the refutable tests.

What tests?

I think it's not very intellectually honest to accept science as a
method to answer questions about the world when it's useful to create
new technology or solve crime cases and not accept it when it produces
answer contrary to belifs hold by faith.

1) Even if we accept science so, still, extrapolating the science
laws to the past is an un-scientifical assumption (not experimentally
refutable). Actually, application os scientific method to investigate
the past are usually un-sicentific, for this reason.

Then you disagree with using forensic science to investigate crimes
don't you?
How could we know that the laws of nature we observe now were the same
when the crime has been committed?

Only because of the razor. Yet, if I have a reason to belive they
WERE different, I'll remember that this reason has only to overcome
the razor, not any harder. In most crimes, there's no such reason. In
the Bible's case, there is.

Which reason, except "the Bible says so?"

If you truely believe that the laws of physics are the same behind
your back, well, that's a fallacy. We can assume that only of behalf
of the razor - nothing more. We can't even know that a brick has an
interior - it's only a model. Indeed it's the simplest we know of, but
there's no certain knowledge. I think Feynmann brings this example in
one of his popular books.

Likewise you must be questioning the validity of any historical claim
if you were honestly applying your logic.

2) I don't accept science for explaining the world (and you
shouldn't, too). That would mean confusing science with philosophy. A
physical theory is science, but its interpretation is philosophy. We
can accept a a theory (e.g. Newtonean mechanics) to describe the
world, use it for predictions and building machines, but not accept
its philosophical interpretation (unless you believe in Newtonean
space-time). That's perfectly valid.

Whatever.

Not so big, as long as you have a reliable tradition, millions of
people (each generation) agreeing on the same (written!) version of
events. That's stronger than the evidence you have for Caesar and
Hannibal.

Which was written much later than the events the events it supposely
describes.
And tradition is known to be very irreliable. Or do you belive in any
claim of any religion just because there is a tradition which supports
them?

Now THAT'S an assumption... you're explicitely assuming that the
Bible (which states that it was written shortly after the events it
describes) is false. You can't prove the Bible's fasity based on such
assumptions.

Ok, you're right in the case of the Exodus that the Bible claim is
that it was recorded shortly afterwards.
I was confusing with other claims, such the ones in the Genesis.

Why do you say the tradition is unreliable? my whole point is based
on the reliability of this tradition! So let's talk straight. Have any
evidence? or other reason to doubt the reliability?

See above.

And basically yes. Any tradition-supported claim (religious or not)
should be accepted, provided its tradition is strong enough. I think
the wikipedia's Kuzari page states it as a clear consequence of the
principle.

So you must accept any claim by any religion in existence.
Different religions make conflictual claims. They can't be all true
but they can be all wrong.

Who was Jesus for instance?
The Jewish tradition says he was a false prophet.
The Christian tradition says he was (and is) God.
The Muslim tradition says he was a true prophet.

Obviously they can't be all correct.

And what about the Creation stories of the various religions? They
differ greatly.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science, God, and Free Will
    ... if that was the only reason to believe in a supernatural ... in history and don't need any supernatural explanation. ... those persecutions against Jews were never ... that this tradition is correct, and passed it on to their childs, I ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Unveiled Stupidity
    ... When did it become tradition for Muslims? ... When did it become tradition for Jews to check ... and I don't think it was for the reason of pleasing Islamists. ... The majority of US Jews don't wear them, ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Character arc noodle?
    ... Impossible for the culture as a whole to be entirely comfortable. ... reason in their cultures or individual backgrounds. ... Traditional expectations have always seemed like a pretty shaky reason ... tradition, that's different. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Moral delimma
    ... The Problem of Evil ... but that there are other contradictory passages as well? ... and Jews viewing it as justice. ... So, strictly speaking, the tradition of rabbinic commentary that arose ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • YOUR POST IS A EXAMPLE... Re: What Exactly Is Anti-Semitism?
    ... anti-semitism is simply an irrational hatred of Jews based solely on ... NO MORE WILD THAN CATHOLIC PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS WITH END UP TO ... This concept flies in the face of all reason and logic. ... would Gentiles have for hating Jewish people only because they are ...
    (soc.culture.israel)