Naturalized Metaphysics - Are Any Of You Into This?

[Willamena]

naturalized metaphysics blends science and meta-science by throwing away ideas that science can discount. it could lead to blending science and religion, so that if god cannot be proven, you drop the scripture about Him until you can prove it.

The problem with this is that the set of "science" is much smaller than the set of "metaphysics," and since metaphysics is a picture of "what is," artificially limiting it will ultimately lead to cognitive dissonance.

 

[Willamena]

if you drop scripture about "Him" you get a streamlined him. for example, if lets say the garden of eden, the great flood of noah and sodom and gomorrah were scientifically impossible, then you might just have a loving god who created the world in 6 days.

Which is impossible.

 

[chevron1]

The problem with this is that the set of "science" is much smaller than the set of "metaphysics,".....

true, and what is not in science but in metaphysics yet plausible to science can be kept until it must be thrown out.

Which is impossible.

but what was the old length of a day? maybe a day was equivalent to a million years today. it's all relative.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Just wishful thinking..
A reality where lying was actually detrimental to health/life...
Just... pondering that for a bit..

But then we would all have died long ago....the world would be destitute of human beings...

 

[Willamena]

true, and what is not in science but in metaphysics yet plausible to science can be kept until it must be thrown out.

Like what?

but what was the old length of a day? maybe a day was equivalent to a million years today. it's all relative.

Being relative doesn't suddenly make it illogical.

 

[gnostic]

but what was the old length of a day? maybe a day was equivalent to a million years today. it's all relative.

It's being absurd, that's what I would call it.

If you are going to quote 2 Peter 3:8 to us as being an example that a day can be a thousand years or even a million years, I would say that you are talking Peter's verse too literally. To say a day is only one million years, just show that you are delusional...I don't mean that as an insult, but that you being out of touch with reality.

You are trying to use a metaphor, or more precisely - a simile - and trying to illogically turn what Peter had stated into a literal 1000 years in a single day.

That verse is not reality, but a literary simile.

All this verse is saying is that poetically there is a long length of time, not a literal measurement of 1000 years in a day.

You do understand what a simile is, don't you?

To give you an example. If I wrote in a story that describe biblical Samson like "Samson is as strong as bear", what would that mean to you?

Would you think I mean that

a) that Samson is a very strong man, or
b) Samson is actually a bear?​

If you said it is the later, then I would seriously doubt your comprehension in literature.

Another example would be like if I wrote poem that describe the goddess Athena: "And her eyes flash like fire". Do you think I literally saying that her eyes were indeed "fire"? Of course not.

Using words as "like" and "as" is quite common in narratives and even in religious literature to compare 2 different objects that we can use the same adjective, but that doesn't mean that they are actually the same. That's what is called a simile.

If we reexamine Peter's verse closely, we can see that he is using simile too, by using the word - "like" - therefore we shouldn't be taking what Peter wrote literally:

8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.

This verse is not actually giving you actual measurement of time, but like I said it is using simile with word "like", therefore it shouldn't taken as measurement of time.

But that's just one translation from NRSV, which used the LIKE-simile. In the same verse, but different translation, like the KJV, for instance, used the AS-simile. I think no matter what English translations you read, the verse is clearly a simile and not actual measurement of a day.

If Peter's passage were really measurement of a day or a thousand years, then he should have written this verse without the word "like" or "as".

Personally, I think all people who take what Peter say literally as delusional, or worse, liars.

So your claim that one day could equal a million years is utter nonsense, if you are not using a simile. Time may be relative, but saying a day equals a million years is seriously "reaching".

 

[Willamena]

true, and what is not in science but in metaphysics yet plausible to science can be kept until it must be thrown out.

I don't understand how there could possibly be anything in science that is not metaphysical, since science is necessarily, and incidentally the most shiny, epistemological/metaphysical.

But maybe that's just me.

but what was the old length of a day? maybe a day was equivalent to a million years today. it's all relative.

The old length of a day is as long as the word "day."

 

[Ben Dhyan]

but what was the old length of a day? maybe a day was equivalent to a million years today. it's all relative.

True.....the Hebrew word Yom used in Genesis can mean age or epoch...which makes more sense.....Yom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yom (in Hebrew יום) is a Biblical Hebrew word which occurs in the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament). The Arabic equivalent is "yawm" written as يوم.

Although it is commonly rendered as day in English translations, the word yom has several literal definitions: [1]

• Period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness),
• Period of twenty-four hours
• General term for time
• Point of time
• Sunrise to sunset
• Sunset to next sunset
• A year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)
• Time period of unspecified length.
• A long, but finite span of time - age - epoch - season.

 

[gnostic]

A

True.....the Hebrew word Yom used in Genesis can mean age or epoch...which makes more sense.....Yom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yom (in Hebrew יום) is a Biblical Hebrew word which occurs in the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament). The Arabic equivalent is "yawm" written as يوم.

Although it is commonly rendered as day in English translations, the word yom has several literal definitions: [1]

• Period of light (as contrasted with the period of darkness),
• Period of twenty-four hours
• General term for time
• Point of time
• Sunrise to sunset
• Sunset to next sunset
• A year (in the plural; I Sam 27:7; Ex 13:10, etc.)
• Time period of unspecified length.
• A long, but finite span of time - age - epoch - season.

Although Yom may have any number of definitions, but clearly in Genesis 1, before saying a nth day, each passage always state -

And there was evening and there was morning...

This cycle of evening-and-morning narrowed down Yom (יום) specifically to a DAY, hence from sunset to sunset.

If Yom didn't have this "And there was evening and there was morning...", then it could mean any specific period or length of time, like an epoch or age, but it doesn't.

But Genesis 1 does state both "evening" and "morning" for each of those 6 verses, so Yom have a specific context that equals to a "day".

Can "there was evening and and there was morning" be anything other than a "day"?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A

Although Yom may have any number of definitions, but clearly in Genesis 1, before saying a nth day, each passage always state -


This cycle of evening-and-morning narrowed down Yom (יום) specifically to a DAY, hence from sunset to sunset.

If Yom didn't have this "And there was evening and there was morning...", then it could mean any specific period or length of time, like an epoch or age, but it doesn't.

But Genesis 1 does state both "evening" and "morning" for each of those 6 verses, so Yom have a specific context that equals to a "day".

Can "there was evening and and there was morning" be anything other than a "day"?

Yeah, I hear you....but imho, the use of morning and evening in Genesis are figurative....like the expression...the dawn of a new age....or twilight period of an age....

For example.Genesis begins....
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Surely it is only reasonable that this has to be seen as the cosmic age leading up to the ignition of the sun....this is not about the earth rotating in 24 hours for it is not yet in existence....let there be light...the darkness existing prior to Sun is called night....once the Sun is radiating light energy, the night gives way to morning and thus ends the first phase or age or figuratively speaking..day!

I thought only fundamentalists who do not see the figure of speech, metaphor, allegory parable, symbolism, numerology, etc., in the bible, and take it all literally, believe the use of the term 'day' in genesis were 24 hours days as in the planet rotating on its axis.....

 

[Thief]

naturalized metaphysics blends science and meta-science by throwing away ideas that science can discount. it could lead to blending science and religion, so that if god cannot be proven, you drop the scripture about Him until you can prove it.

God created the reality we see all around us.
That reality has rules.
It needs rules to be cohesive.

so I believe.

 

[gnostic]

Yeah, I hear you....but imho, the use of morning and evening in Genesis are figurative....like the expression...the dawn of a new age....or twilight period of an age....

For example.Genesis begins....
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Surely it is only reasonable that this has to be seen as the cosmic age leading up to the ignition of the sun....this is not about the earth rotating in 24 hours for it is not yet in existence....let there be light...the darkness existing prior to Sun is called night....once the Sun is radiating light energy, the night gives way to morning and thus ends the first phase or age or figuratively speaking..day!

I thought only fundamentalists who do not see the figure of speech, metaphor, allegory parable, symbolism, numerology, etc., in the bible, and take it all literally, believe the use of the term 'day' in genesis were 24 hours days as in the planet rotating on its axis.....

I do see Genesis creation to be allegory or a myth, ben.

But in order to understand the myth (not just the biblical creation), you have to be able to understand the context of what and how they are written. And that include when to apply literal or symbolic interpretations. I am very well aware of this.

Over the years, I have read all sorts of ancient myths, from Egypt, Near East (Ugaritic-Canaanite, Sumerian-Babylonian, Hurrian/Hittite), Greece and Rome, so I do have some experience in reading myths, even if I don't believe in any of them to be historical. I have enough experiences, to know if it was written figuratively or metaphorically or literally.

I don't know religion you follow, but I think you are making the same mistakes that some Christians (I must stress "some") make, when reading (and interpreting) the Old Testament. Even when it was written with literal purpose, they will change passages into metaphorical or symbolic context, and sometimes, apply literal meanings to those are written as symbolic or metaphorical.

Genesis 1 may well be mythological, and therefore allegorical, it was written in almost "historical" fashion.

Don't get me wrong, Ben, I am not saying Genesis 1 is historical or scientific, but it is written in a way that's historical-like. Do you understand what I mean?

Let's put it this way, the series of books of Harry Potter is written as a fictional narrative, that were written as if they did happen and all. The whole of Genesis was written in the same way, but as mythological narrative that start with Adam and ended with death of Joseph.

Genesis (not just chapter 1) may have a few metaphors or similes or symbols (like the visions of Joseph, or him interpreting other people's dreams), but these are not as predominant as those in other books that have prophecies or visions, such as Isaac, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and other minor prophecies. God's answers to use a lot of similes and or symbolic descriptions. Whether one's should take these prophecies as literal or symbolic, is dependent on each prophecy.

But you are wrong on your interpretation of "evening" and "morning" in 6 verses of Genesis 1. The "evening" and "morning" are quite specific for Yom, telling us what sort of Yom it is, being a period of one day, not months, years or a millennium (as 2 Peter 3:8).

Speaking of Peter's infamous and often misunderstood verse. This passage was never meant to be taken literally, and yet some Christians interpret it as such. Depending on translations, it used one of these 2 words - "like" or "as" - between a day and a thousand years.

When you reading something that contain "like" or "as", especially describing when describing or comparing 2 different thing, this is often used in similes, then the passage like Peter's, shouldn't be taken as literal.

8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.

That translation above (NRSV) used "like" instead of "as" in KJV. Either way, using similes, people shouldn't taken them literally, and yet some Christians do.


None of the 6 verses were written used similes like the way Peter do, and yet you want to take evening and morning "figurative"?

You are like those Christians, who switch literal and figurative around, seriously lead me to your lack of comprehension in your reading abilities.

 

[Thief]

Which is impossible.

A day in the life of the Lord is like unto a thousand years....
so it is written...

even then...'like unto'.... is not an equation sign.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I do see Genesis creation to be allegory or a myth, ben.

But in order to understand the myth (not just the biblical creation), you have to be able to understand the context of what and how they are written. And that include when to apply literal or symbolic interpretations. I am very well aware of this.

Over the years, I have read all sorts of ancient myths, from Egypt, Near East (Ugaritic-Canaanite, Sumerian-Babylonian, Hurrian/Hittite), Greece and Rome, so I do have some experience in reading myths, even if I don't believe in any of them to be historical. I have enough experiences, to know if it was written figuratively or metaphorically or literally.

I don't know religion you follow, but I think you are making the same mistakes that some Christians (I must stress "some") make, when reading (and interpreting) the Old Testament. Even when it was written with literal purpose, they will change passages into metaphorical or symbolic context, and sometimes, apply literal meanings to those are written as symbolic or metaphorical.

Genesis 1 may well be mythological, and therefore allegorical, it was written in almost "historical" fashion.

Don't get me wrong, Ben, I am not saying Genesis 1 is historical or scientific, but it is written in a way that's historical-like. Do you understand what I mean?

Let's put it this way, the series of books of Harry Potter is written as a fictional narrative, that were written as if they did happen and all. The whole of Genesis was written in the same way, but as mythological narrative that start with Adam and ended with death of Joseph.

Genesis (not just chapter 1) may have a few metaphors or similes or symbols (like the visions of Joseph, or him interpreting other people's dreams), but these are not as predominant as those in other books that have prophecies or visions, such as Isaac, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and other minor prophecies. God's answers to use a lot of similes and or symbolic descriptions. Whether one's should take these prophecies as literal or symbolic, is dependent on each prophecy.

But you are wrong on your interpretation of "evening" and "morning" in 6 verses of Genesis 1. The "evening" and "morning" are quite specific for Yom, telling us what sort of Yom it is, being a period of one day, not months, years or a millennium (as 2 Peter 3:8).

Speaking of Peter's infamous and often misunderstood verse. This passage was never meant to be taken literally, and yet some Christians interpret it as such. Depending on translations, it used one of these 2 words - "like" or "as" - between a day and a thousand years.

When you reading something that contain "like" or "as", especially describing when describing or comparing 2 different thing, this is often used in similes, then the passage like Peter's, shouldn't be taken as literal.


That translation above (NRSV) used "like" instead of "as" in KJV. Either way, using similes, people shouldn't taken them literally, and yet some Christians do.


None of the 6 verses were written used similes like the way Peter do, and yet you want to take evening and morning "figurative"?

You are like those Christians, who switch literal and figurative around, seriously lead me to your lack of comprehension in your reading abilities.

Thank you for your comprehensive response explaining your position...most of which we can agree on. However I now understand the difference in our respective understanding of the reading of Genesis....you interpret it as myth, ie..a cultural story taken as historical fact.... and I interpret it as allegory, ie...a traditional story representing abstract ideation....

How do I know it is not meant as historical? ...In Gen 1..the Earth did not exist when the light was first created ....how can there be an Earth historical day when there is no light and no Earth? What is more....the morning was the end of the day! So the start of the first figurative 'day' was the age of darkness...and the end of the first figurative day was the end of arkness caused by the creation of light....and the Earth did not exist at either the beginning or the ending of the first 'day'...

Reiterating....the first day has no historical beginning because there is no mention of how long the darkness existed, iow, there is no historical beginning to the darkness, therefore no historical beginning to the first 'day'....thus the naming of the transitional cosmic 'day' from the age of darkness to that of there being light (without the Earth existing), can not logically be considered a historical Earth day... This means the story is allegorical and not historical....

 

[gnostic]

This means the story is allegorical and not historical....

I think you have misunderstood my last reply.

I am not saying that any part of Genesis (not just chapter 1) was historical.

It is totally mythological, but it is all written to "look like" history. There are no historical facts in Genesis.

Myth is not history .

However I now understand the difference in our respective understanding of the reading of Genesis....you interpret it as myth, ie..a cultural story taken as historical fact.... and I interpret it as allegory, ie...a traditional story representing abstract ideation....

No, genesis 1 is more mythological than allegorical.

Perhaps that my fault that I didn't explain what, why and how Genesis 1 is mythological than allegorical.

Both of them are traditional stories, and yes allegory is an "abstract ideation". In fact all the different flavours of storytelling - myth, legend, folklore, fable, parable - are "ideation" to some extents or others.

Let me put it in another way, so that perhaps you will see that Genesis 1 is myth, not an allegory.

An allegory is often a short story told that are more or less independent of all other stories. Allegory make much more use of metaphors than myths, but there are exceptions to this rule. The story (allegory) is far more figurative than a myth. And from reading, I see very little metaphors in Genesis 1 than in Genesis 2 & 3.

Myth is far more elaborate and dynamic than allegory, because - and especially in the case of Genesis - is often just one story of a collection of related or interconnected stories.

MEANING, Genesis 1 is connected to other parts of creation stories, that include the story of Adam, the story of Noah and the flood, the story of the Tower of Babel. And all that is connected to the rest of Genesis, which is the genesis of the people of Israel (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).

And Genesis is backdrop of much larger story, that make up the complete Torah, namely the story of Moses and the exodus of his people.

An allegory is not so elaborate as a myth, and Genesis 1 is so much more than a mere allegory.

Although the story of 6-day creation can be read separately, it is only part of the whole creation myth (Genesis 1 to 11).

An allegory would be like reading the allegory of the Vine in Psalm 80, or the allegory of Adulterous Wife (Ezekiel 16), or Ezekiel 17 with the allegory of Two Eagles and a Vine. If you read both Ezekiel 16 & 17, you would see they are independent to each other, they are short stories with 2 different plots.

And if you look at the stories told by Jesus, with his parables, these are all allegories - they are short and each one is not dependent on the other parables. In fact, his parables are independent of Jesus' own life.

But with Genesis 1, you have to read the other chapters relating to the creation, to get a big picture.

So no, Ben. Genesis 1 is not a mere allegory, because it is dependent on other related stories.

Do you now understand the difference between allegory and myth?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think you have misunderstood my last reply.

I am not saying that any part of Genesis (not just chapter 1) was historical.

It is totally mythological, but it is all written to "look like" history. There are no historical facts in Genesis.

Myth is not history .



No, genesis 1 is more mythological than allegorical.

Perhaps that my fault that I didn't explain what, why and how Genesis 1 is mythological than allegorical.

Both of them are traditional stories, and yes allegory is an "abstract ideation". In fact all the different flavours of storytelling - myth, legend, folklore, fable, parable - are "ideation" to some extents or others.

Let me put it in another way, so that perhaps you will see that Genesis 1 is myth, not an allegory.

An allegory is often a short story told that are more or less independent of all other stories. Allegory make much more use of metaphors than myths, but there are exceptions to this rule. The story (allegory) is far more figurative than a myth. And from reading, I see very little metaphors in Genesis 1 than in Genesis 2 & 3.

Myth is far more elaborate and dynamic than allegory, because - and especially in the case of Genesis - is often just one story of a collection of related or interconnected stories.

MEANING, Genesis 1 is connected to other parts of creation stories, that include the story of Adam, the story of Noah and the flood, the story of the Tower of Babel. And all that is connected to the rest of Genesis, which is the genesis of the people of Israel (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).

And Genesis is backdrop of much larger story, that make up the complete Torah, namely the story of Moses and the exodus of his people.

An allegory is not so elaborate as a myth, and Genesis 1 is so much more than a mere allegory.

Although the story of 6-day creation can be read separately, it is only part of the whole creation myth (Genesis 1 to 11).

An allegory would be like reading the allegory of the Vine in Psalm 80, or the allegory of Adulterous Wife (Ezekiel 16), or Ezekiel 17 with the allegory of Two Eagles and a Vine. If you read both Ezekiel 16 & 17, you would see they are independent to each other, they are short stories with 2 different plots.

And if you look at the stories told by Jesus, with his parables, these are all allegories - they are short and each one is not dependent on the other parables. In fact, his parables are independent of Jesus' own life.

But with Genesis 1, you have to read the other chapters relating to the creation, to get a big picture.

So no, Ben. Genesis 1 is not a mere allegory, because it is dependent on other related stories.

Do you now understand the difference between allegory and myth?

Yes i know the difference between allegory and myth..and Genesis 1 to my understanding is not myth... It is not just me....there is a long standing tradition in both the Judaic and Christian tradition that much of the bible is allegorical...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1256-allegorical-interpretation

 

[gnostic]

Yes i know the difference between allegory and myth..and Genesis 1 to my understanding is not myth... It is not just me....there is a long standing tradition in both the Judaic and Christian tradition that much of the bible is allegorical...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1256-allegorical-interpretation

Now I have disagree with your narrow understanding of "tradition".

You do realize that much of myths (and not just talking about that of the bible) are based on traditions too?

In fact, a single myth may be based on a number of different traditions.

Sorry, but Genesis 1 to 11 is one long creation myth, just as there are creation myths from other civilisations and other religions.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Now I have disagree with your narrow understanding of "tradition".

You do realize that much of myths (and not just talking about that of the bible) are based on traditions too?

In fact, a single myth may be based on a number of different traditions.

Sorry, but Genesis 1 to 11 is one long creation myth, just as there are creation myths from other civilisations and other religions.

Well we have to agree that we have different understandings then.....I can't see Genesis 1 anything other than allegory....

 

[Milton Platt]

naturalized metaphysics blends science and meta-science by throwing away ideas that science can discount. it could lead to blending science and religion, so that if god cannot be proven, you drop the scripture about Him until you can prove it.

Why don't you explain the concept and the evidence upon which it rests for those of us who are completely ignorant of the concept?

 

[chevron1]

Why don't you explain the concept and the evidence upon which it rests for those of us who are completely ignorant of the concept?

naturalized metaphysics is an attempt to save religion against reality. the evidence is the real world.