What if the Bible was true?

Post Reply New Topic

Of course I don't. If I did, I wouldn't call it a theory. I'd call it the truth and smite heathens who dare say otherwise

Do we?

Image a deterministic machine, producing number/states so complex that they appear as random (exist in every modern computer), think further that this machine would react on effects from the outside and would have the means of acting.

If this machine would be so sophisticated that this machine would realize its own existence, wouldn't this machine, monitoring its behaviour and of of other machine of the same type, conclude that it has a "free will"?

Good argument. I'd say the machine does not have free will, but unless it has the ability to see the sequence of events in its analysis and how it chooses an outcome, then it could well conclude it has free will even though it does not. Your example is directly applicable to humans too as I'm sure you intend. Unfortunately humans cannot clearly see their own analysis and the exact reason they choose a particular outcome so it seems like free will.

I know this answer isn't rocket science but I think its the core issue - it either is or it isn't. We can, with our cultural norms today, sit here and debate what we think the greater cosmos should or shouldn't be but at the same time when we do that we're acting as if our decisions are defining reality on the way outward. We can take our best guesses off of our observations, make our hypotheses, but ultimately very intelligent people will often come to very different conclusions. Right now, for me at least, I have been trying to reread the bible - have had a lot of other things I'm juggling so I still have a ways to go, but overall I'm very curious to know how much of it is supposed to be meaning over historical context or vice a versa. If its about understanding human nature and how we 'tick' so to speak in reference to the universe, so far it works pretty well. From my upbringing as Catholic and yes, as I've returned to it after years of looking very seriously at Buddhism, Gnosticism, yes - atheism as well, I definitely believe in God and looking at the world around me I also believe that he is that esoteric in the way he likes to operate. It seems like the way he likes to try and get a lot of us to think is largely like Nick Nolte in Peaceful Warrior, maybe not quite that much along the Kaballah line, but it seems like our adversities in life have a strangely manufactured kind of ring to them and its as if we're put in those situations to learn something about ourselves.

My best guess is that its largely true, though when people read it I think a person needs a version of the bible that does some translating in terms of Judaic laws (particularly with the gospels - when you understand the Judaic laws of the times a lot of the parables mean something completely different than if we take them at face value at the here and now) and one that offers some explanation of the terms and themes based on the people of the times who were speaking or being spoken to. Certain things seem very grounded and common sense, certain things seem very strange. I had a verse a while back where I had to stop reading for a while because it was a bit hard to digest, didn't mean I stopped but I knew it would be a second before I could pick it back up again.

Only to certain point - the "very intelligent people", I assume you refer in this context to scientists, do agree about a lot. They are debating about new issues, but having always in mind that the ultimate test is at the end the observation of nature, which will decide how was wrong or right. But science make a clear distinguish between a proven theory and a hypothesis.



If you interpret a text long enough you construct in any text some "truth". Take the writings of Hesiod, interpret long enough and suddenly the Greek myths of Zeus, Chronos and the whole family of gods will "make sense". The logic consequence would be than to buy an ox and sacrifice it to Zeus.




You could say the same regarding the Law of the Twelve Tables of Rome (ca. 450 BC). Some parts are quite common sense and other parts are very strange for us. The main difference is that the Law of the Twelve Tables does not claim to be divine, but a legal regulation for the Roman society of its time. So the "strange parts" do not reflect back on a supposed divine being, but simple on the society during the early Roman Republic.

---

BTW: The Roman Law of the Twelve Tables had a much bigger influence on modern law than the law of bible. So much about the "judo-christian fundation" of our modern society.

^ Good morales are good morales, regardless of the source. I don't think any particular religion is totally correct on everything, but just about all of them have a handful of really good ideas. It's how a lot of people end of following certain religions. They read a few of those lines and think "Oh, that makes so much sense and is such a great idea!", then they read something more dubious and think "Well, they were right about those other important issues, I'm sure I just don't get this one. I'll take their word for it".

Makes debating with them difficult. If you argue at any point that their religion isn't a good thing, they just need to remember those few good things to have all the solace they need that you're full of it.

No, I'd actually say very intelligent people from all walks. Scientists I don't think hold any special badge on reality, they do great work but to do the great work they do it almost necessitates taking one tree from the forest and dialing in on the complexities of one cell on one piece of bark; that can make for great strides in technology and medicine but it can just as often skew a person's ability to put the big picture together.



Its why I won't tell people what to believe regarding their choice of religion. We do at least know what makes the world a better or worse place for the greater good, to that extent it doesn't take a lot to know when someone does step over the line with their religious views and when they need to sort it out. Other than that - if sacrificing an Ox to Zeus helps someone be a better citizen and gives them what they need to be a great mother/father/husband/wife/coworker/mentor to others then I'm all for it.



Well, again, no debate on most of that. The divine being part though I didn't really draw from the bible, nor strictly the common sense angles of it. I personally chose to look to the bible to articulate the divine being but my choice on whether or not to believe at all was grounded more broadly on my own observations of life. I could say that my choice of the bible came from what I saw in geopolitics and human nature but I wouldn't expect everyone to see the world the way I do on these fronts either. All sides of the religious debate are really products of experience and perspective.

An other issue make the debate nearly impossible: Religion is based on "divine" revelation. We can argue that e.g. our justice system does not do a specific purpose of keeping order in society up. Will will find reasonable arguments in favour and against and may a solution in compromise. But: If my "truth" is based on "God's Will" I can't compromise any more. If a Christian says e.g. that gay sex is a sin and evil than he has - in his opinion - "God's Will" behind his arguments and there is no compromise.

If we analyse our problems without "divine" interference we can find solutions between different ideas, because no one supposes to have the "absolute truth".

Divine revelation or not, there is a lot of room for alternate interpretations and difference of emphasis. You might be surprised how much of a difference a fairly small shift in emphasis can make.

Don't get me wrong, you can't make it say absolutely anything -- you can't be a Christian and say that murder is good without contradicting yourself. You can be a Christian without thinking that gay sex is a sin.


If this were the case, then the left and right wing parties in government would always agree with each other. There may not be an assumption of absolute truth in politics, but you wouldn't know that from watching politicians disagree with each other.

Secondly, religious people usually have a concept of humility to go along with it. We may believe in an absolute truth, but we also know that there's a lot that we don't know.