Some Important Facts for the Religious (and Everybody Else)

[sun rise]

There is no "scientific proof" of reincarnation. There are only anecdotal claims.

Stevenson seemed far to eager to accept people's accounts as the best possible explanation.

You clearly have not read the research papers that department of the University of Virginia has produced including the physical evidence related to birthmarks that have been verified.

So: proof? No because other possibilities have not been eliminated. "Only anecdotal claims": No because of the careful investigation of those claims as documented in published papers.

 

[Yazata]

Some Important Facts...

1. The observable cosmos is 13.6 billion years old and has evolved into its present form
2. The earth is 4.6 billion years old and along with the rest of the solar system formed under gravity from a cloud of dust and gas in space.

Those are scientific beliefs, working hypotheses based on the best available astrophysical evidence. They aren't absolute truths or divinely-revealed authority. They needn't be (and shouldn't be) believed uncritically. They are human and fallible, our best current approximations to whatever the real facts are, which we can't be 100% certain about. Maybe in 100 years science will accept different numbers, for reasons that aren't known yet. When discussing science, it's always best to remain a fallibilist.

3. There is no evidence that any consciousness can function without a living, physical brain.

Before we can say that, we have to be clearer about what we mean by 'consciousness'. I'm inclined to think of consciousness functionally as a peculiar kind of self-reflexive data processing activity, and not as an ontological substance. Conceived that way, it would seem to need some kind of substrate that can perform the necessary activity. In our hugely limited experience (a tiny slice of time on one planet), it appears that nervous systems can perform these actions, and (perhaps arguably) computers of a suitable sort. Who knows what other possibilities exist out there in the wider universe? (In the philosophy of mind, that idea is called multirealizability).

4. Humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, and we split off from that ancestor six million years ago in Africa.

Again, that's what current science believes. But science just hypothesizes (makes educated guesses) and looks for evidence consistent with those speculations. So it mustn't be treated as if it was some kind of replacement divine revelation.

I'm inclined to think that all life on Earth has a common ancester. Or ancestral type at least, called LUCA for 'last universal common ancestor'. So all existing life on Earth is (on this view) literally family, if we go back far enough in our family trees. That thought helps me love all life, since when I look out my window and see a tree, I can reasonably think that the tree is a very distant relative of mine, flesh (or cells at least) of my flesh, so to speak.

5. Prehistoric religion goes back at least thirty thousand years.

Probably a lot farther than that. But eventually religion becomes indistinguishable from magic and all of it is just part of how these very early people thought of the reality around them. It was only comparatively recently that "religion" split off and became a separate category of human life. Before that, what we think of as 'religion' was part of human life, mixed up inextricably in how they conceived of things.

6. Historic religion started about five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia and Egypt.

Maybe

7. The oldest religion practiced today is Hinduism.

Hindus believe that, but I'm inclined to disagree. I'm inclined to see Hinduism as a gradual synthesis of multiple inputs, ranging from indigenous pre-Vedic beliefs, the Vedas, the Sramana movements, and all kinds of proto-philosophical speculations, that didn't really come together in the forms we see today until the Gupta period and even later. It's still evolving right now.

8. The creation stories in Genesis 1-2 are taken from Babylonian mythology.

The creation stories were clearly influenced by preexisting ideas. I think that the creation stories were kind of "common knowledge" at the time, widely shared across a broad area by peoples who worshipped different gods. The early Hebrews simply adopted this common heritage and retold it as the actions of their god.

9. No religious or spiritual healer has ever been proved to have genuine healing powers although many of them have been exposed as frauds.

That depends on what kind of healing we are talking about. Physical healing, perhaps not so much. But religious and spiritual healing has great value when problems are psychological. While I would leave the major psychoses to the psychiatrists, since I'm inclined to see those problems as neurophysiological in origin, if I had a less severe psychological complaint (existential angst or all sorts of subjective suffering) I would probably consult the Buddhist monks before I'd go to a clinical psychologist or other mental health professional.

 

[shunyadragon]

What was the OP claiming to be true on the grounds that it hasn't been disproved, or vice versa?

Huh??? Please respond coherently to my posts in context of the thread.

The burden of proof in logic is dependent on the one making the claim, and in Scientific Methodology knowledge is based on the predictability of falsifying hypothesis based on objective verifiable evidence (not proof). If something cannot be predicted based on independent research it cannot be verified nor falsified based on science.

I qualified the claims of the initial post in the previous thread. All of science is dependent on Methodological Naturalism, and is true (not absolutely true, because scientific knowledge is subject to change based on new information) to the extent that the knowledge of our universe is based on objective verifiable evidence and confirmation of the predictions of hypothesis and theories, Religious claims cannot come to such conclusions base don the evidence.

 

[firedragon]

I know nothing about "Abraham" except some legends. So I revised your question to be about the difference between history and legend. There is no scientific evidence that I'm aware of "Abraham". The evidence for "Gilgamesh" apparently ties back to an epic poem which may or may not be historically accurate.

But please enlighten me with the knowledge you have.

You are absolutely right. There is no scientific evidence for Abraham. Neither is there any for Jesus. None.

The concept is this. The Bible manuscripts we have are from the 9th century. I mean the OT. The Tanakh. So its like 4000 years after Gilgamesh. So the stories being that far apart, anyone can speculate one copied from the other and of course, the latter manuscript evidence is the usual suspect.

So as a few scholars make the case that Abraham never existed because there are no archeological evidence found, we can make the same case for most, if not all biblical characters. Especially the prophets. And that includes Jesus. No one found a bone.

Nevertheless, in hermeneutics, the actors can be plastered to ancient times. Unlike Gilgamesh which is in the genre of mythology. The Bible is in the genre of sacred history. Naturalistically speaking, a skeptic could easily dismiss everything saying "the bible copied from the epic of Gilgamesh", but that's just an assertion based on similarity. If we apply this standard, one could apply it to everything, almost. It would depend on your intention. Do you wish to call it plagiarism? Or do you wish to keep your mind open?

Thus, IF Abraham was a true character, he came from the same region as Gilgamesh. We dont know when they would have lived if they ever did. Thus, it could have been Abraham who's story someone copied and turned it into the epic of Gilgamesh. There is always a chance.

If scientific evidence is what matters, Gilgamesh is a bogus story, and the Tanakh manuscript is from the 9th century.

So the whole thing is foot-sock.

But as a pragmatist, or even a rationalist, you could give the chance that prior to Gilgamesh, prior to the Bible, there was another writing or a legendary story that both books copied from. This is always a possibility. That is why, one cannot make such a claim purely because of "lack of scientific evidence".

 

[KWED]

Huh??? Please respond coherently to my posts in context of the thread.

You said that the entire OP was an "argument from ignorance".
An argument from ignorance is where you claim something is true because it hasn't been disproved, or it is false because it hasn't been proved.

Sorry, I assumed you knew what an "argument from ignorance" was.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Is there peer reviewed scientific evidence to support this cure? Also how are you going from correlation here, to causation? This might be nothing than a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, it certainly is just an unevidenced anecdotal claim, the way you present it here. No offence intended, but what you believe happened, and what you can support by demonstrating sufficient objective evidence, are not the same thing at all.

Bear in mind that not being able to explain something, is not objective evidence there is no natural explanation, this is how miracles are defined unfortunately, and this is another fallacy in informal logic called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

They didn't cure me to prove to the world that Christ was miraculous. They cured me so I could set a good example in Christ.

The scientists won't follow the appropriate protocols in scripture to deserve a miracle, so what do you expect?

 

[George-ananda]

Seeing is believing. How might I acquire one these miraculous cures you speak of? I do hope I can fare better than I did with Christian faith healers. I wonder why if these miraculous cures happen, then why is medical science ignorant of them.

As I said there are some well documented cases. It's called spontaneous healing by some in medicine.

Sorry, with your apparent attitude I don't think you're a likely candidate though.

 

[KWED]

You clearly have not read the research papers that department of the University of Virginia has produced including the physical evidence related to birthmarks that have been verified.

So: proof? No because other possibilities have not been eliminated. "Only anecdotal claims": No because of the careful investigation of those claims as documented in published papers.

A person having a birthmark is not scientific evidence for anything other than irregularities in skin pigmentation or blood vessels.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't believe your bare unevidenced claim sorry. Harry Potter is well documented, that doesn't make it true.

Modern Miracles

There are few ideas more repugnant than this myth. The idea that people who are suffering have somehow brought it on themselves in any way is appalling to me. Luckily it's completely unevidenced hokum.

That might be because you don't understand the concept of karma. We from our physical perspective can't see the cause of suffering and to say they brought it on themselves would, we both agree, be repugnant. All spiritual traditions with a belief in karma preach compassion and service to others.

In fact, I have come to believe that older souls will actually choose a more difficult lifetime. So, our straightforward view that the physical state is what's important is probably even wrong from a spiritual perspective.

 

[Jagella]

Because there is no money to earn in healing by abilities...

I'm no so sure about that. Many religious healers make good money whether they have the "abilities" or not.

...the medical science only want to make money...

I'm not quite that cynical, but money is definitely a motive among medical professionals for whom actual healing and curing is a lower priority.

...many sicknesses and disabilities could be cured in one treatment, but medical science do not see a value in non profit healing.

But how can religious healers be stopped from healing by medical professionals?

 

[George-ananda]

Is there any part of any holy scripture that should be read literally?

That would be a personal decision. For me, there is always the possibility of human error interpreting a divine source.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are absolutely right. There is no scientific evidence for Abraham. Neither is there any for Jesus. None.

The concept is this. The Bible manuscripts we have are from the 9th century. I mean the OT. The Tanakh. So its like 4000 years after Gilgamesh. So the stories being that far apart, anyone can speculate one copied from the other and of course, the latter manuscript evidence is the usual suspect.

So as a few scholars make the case that Abraham never existed because there are no archeological evidence found, we can make the same case for most, if not all biblical characters. Especially the prophets. And that includes Jesus. No one found a bone.

There is nothing absolute here. I do not rely on scientific knowledge as susuh, but historical and archaeological knowledge based on good academic and scientific methods. Based on the evidence it is most likely that Jesus existed, but the Biblical Jesus is problematic historically. and based on belief and faith. This true of all ancient religions to an extent.

Yes, Abraham is more problematic in history. Actually there may be roots that lead to an actual figure in ancient history. There is possibly a common root to the name with Vedic culture as A Brahman or the 'First man of God. There is historical linguistic and trade evidence between Middle Eastern and Vedic cultures.

The Tanakh and the New Testament remain ancient texts without provenance in historical context, and represent edited, redacted and compiled from multiple sources, as historical narratives in the cultural perspective that they were written not historical records...

The history of Muhammad and Islam is more recent and better documented in history and archaeology, but it remains that belief and faith claims are the grounds for Islam and not objective verifiable evidence,


Nevertheless, in hermeneutics, the actors can be plastered to ancient times. Unlike Gilgamesh which is in the genre of mythology. The Bible is in the genre of sacred history. Naturalistically speaking, a skeptic could easily dismiss everything saying "the bible copied from the epic of Gilgamesh", but that's just an assertion based on similarity. If we apply this standard, one could apply it to everything, almost. It would depend on your intention. Do you wish to call it plagiarism? Or do you wish to keep your mind open?

Thus, IF Abraham was a true character, he came from the same region as Gilgamesh. We dont know when they would have lived if they ever did. Thus, it could have been Abraham who's story someone copied and turned it into the epic of Gilgamesh. There is always a chance.

If scientific evidence is what matters, Gilgamesh is a bogus story, and the Tanakh manuscript is from the 9th century. So the whole thing is foot-sock.

Again scientific evidence as such is not the issue here. Gilgamesh is considered the earliest known mythological written Epic based on older verbal stories passed down. Far more valuble in history than calling it bogus or 'the whole thing is foot-sock.' IT is the oldest reference to creation stories that evolved into what we find in the Pentateuch through older known Syrian, and Ugaric texts. Much of the Pentatiuch can likewise by considered historically as evolved mythology,

But as a pragmatist, or even a rationalist, you could give the chance that prior to Gilgamesh, prior to the Bible, there was another writing or a legendary story that both books copied from. This is always a possibility. That is why, one cannot make such a claim purely because of "lack of science"

As before science in and of itself is not applicable well. I go with historical. linguistic and archaeological evidence based on good science. As with other earliest written records in the world there is good evidence they evolved from oral myths and legends.

 

[shunyadragon]

They didn't cure me to prove to the world that Christ was miraculous. They cured me so I could set a good example in Christ.

The scientists won't follow the appropriate protocols in scripture to deserve a miracle, so what do you expect?

'They cured me' is highly subjective and problematic.'

 

[shunyadragon]

You said that the entire OP was an "argument from ignorance".

No I did not.

An argument from ignorance is where you claim something is true because it hasn't been disproved, or it is false because it hasn't been proved.

Again 'poven' misused by definition.

Not really accurate. 'Arguing from ignorance' is to make a claim based on the lack of evidence.

Example: Many Fundamental Creationists claim that evolution cannot be falsified (often falsely called proven), because of gaps in the fossil evidence.

Sorry, I assumed you knew what an "argument from ignorance" was.

I know what 'arguing from ignorance ' means,' and it is questionable you understand it.

 

[DharmaCatLamp]

1. The observable cosmos is 13.6 billion years old and has evolved into its present form
2. The earth is 4.6 billion years old and along with the rest of the solar system formed under gravity from a cloud of dust and gas in space.

Those are scientific beliefs, working hypotheses based on the best available astrophysical evidence. They aren't absolute truths or divinely-revealed authority. They needn't be (and shouldn't be) believed uncritically. They are human and fallible, our best current approximations to whatever the real facts are, which we can't be 100% certain about. Maybe in 100 years science will accept different numbers, for reasons that aren't known yet. When discussing science, it's always best to remain a fallibilist.

3. There is no evidence that any consciousness can function without a living, physical brain.

Before we can say that, we have to be clearer about what we mean by 'consciousness'. I'm inclined to think of consciousness functionally as a peculiar kind of self-reflexive data processing activity, and not as an ontological substance. Conceived that way, it would seem to need some kind of substrate that can perform the necessary activity. In our hugely limited experience (a tiny slice of time on one planet), it appears that nervous systems can perform these actions, and (perhaps arguably) computers of a suitable sort. Who knows what other possibilities exist out there in the wider universe? (In the philosophy of mind, that idea is called multirealizability).

4. Humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, and we split off from that ancestor six million years ago in Africa.

Again, that's what current science believes. But science just hypothesizes (makes educated guesses) and looks for evidence consistent with those speculations. So it mustn't be treated as if it was some kind of replacement divine revelation.

I'm inclined to think that all life on Earth has a common ancester. Or ancestral type at least, called LUCA for 'last universal common ancestor'. So all existing life on Earth is (on this view) literally family, if we go back far enough in our family trees. That thought helps me love all life, since when I look out my window and see a tree, I can reasonably think that the tree is a very distant relative of mine, flesh (or cells at least) of my flesh, so to speak.

5. Prehistoric religion goes back at least thirty thousand years.

Probably a lot farther than that. But eventually religion becomes indistinguishable from magic and all of it is just part of how these very early people thought of the reality around them. It was only comparatively recently that "religion" split off and became a separate category of human life. Before that, what we think of as 'religion' was part of human life, mixed up inextricably in how they conceived of things.

6. Historic religion started about five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia and Egypt.

Maybe

7. The oldest religion practiced today is Hinduism.

Hindus believe that, but I'm inclined to disagree. I'm inclined to see Hinduism as a gradual synthesis of multiple inputs, ranging from indigenous pre-Vedic beliefs, the Vedas, the Sramana movements, and all kinds of proto-philosophical speculations, that didn't really come together in the forms we see today until the Gupta period and even later. It's still evolving right now.

8. The creation stories in Genesis 1-2 are taken from Babylonian mythology.

The creation stories were clearly influenced by preexisting ideas. I think that the creation stories were kind of "common knowledge" at the time, widely shared across a broad area by peoples who worshipped different gods. The early Hebrews simply adopted this common heritage and retold it as the actions of their god.

9. No religious or spiritual healer has ever been proved to have genuine healing powers although many of them have been exposed as frauds.

That depends on what kind of healing we are talking about. Physical healing, perhaps not so much. But religious and spiritual healing has great value when problems are psychological. While I would leave the major psychoses to the psychiatrists, since I'm inclined to see those problems as neurophysiological in origin, if I had a less severe psychological complaint (existential angst or all sorts of subjective suffering) I would probably consult the Buddhist monks before I'd go to a clinical psychologist or other mental health professional.

Despite my love of Hinduism and the various aspects of God I pray to often looking like Hindu deities I am inclined to agree on point 7.

Hinduism evolved drastically over time and as we know much of it's influence is from indo-european and central asian religious movements it seems unlikely to me that what we call Hinduism is the oldest religion still practiced. Now because of my own beliefs on God and religion in general this doesn't bother me as I think God is pretty much cool with any religious path provided you are doing it for the right reasons and without hypocrisy.

As pointed out previously the Sramana movements have more to do with what we call Hinduism today and those don't actually go back that far. Heck even if we want to give the vedas their oldest possible dating for being written down we are talking 1500 bce and that is probably being a bit generous.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

most religious types have already moved past the literalist reading of Genesis

Only those who acknowledge the science that contradicts its accounts. The rest are where every believer would be before the science - accepting the biblical accounts as history and science, literally true, which is what was once believed and how the stories were told. You can safely bet the farm that if somebody had called those stories not literally true then, they would have been stoned for religious heresy.

They demonstrate that religion is simply wrong regarding its claims about the world.

Agree. The Bible writer were guessing and they guessed wrong. Later science revealed that, and many stepped it back, calling it anything but wrong. The name for that is not metaphor or allegory, but error. Metaphor and allegory involve substituting symbols that represent concrete people, objects, processes, and relationships.

When we say that she is the apple of his eye, we know what apple represents. When we present an allegory like Gulliver's Travels, we know which members of parliament and what events of Swift's time he had in mind with the characters and events of the book. Genesis is not that. The writers had no idea what the reality was, and their characters and events weren't symbols representing actual characters and events. They simply guessed wrong, but are unable to admit to it being error the way a skeptic is free to do.

1) Prove it.
2) Prove it.
3) Prove it.
4) Prove it.
5) Prove it.
6) Prove it.
7) Prove it.
8) Prove it.

If you had any interest, you'd already know the science. If you don't, it's either because you are still too young, or because you never saw value there. Bringing information to the latter is pointless. They don't even look at it. Their purpose is to give the impression that reason and evidence are important to them, and if you can't convince them, you have neither. All it means is that their minds are closed and that they are unwilling and unable to evaluate an argument for soundness or to be convinced by a compelling argument. They wouldn't recognize one if they are unable to connect evidence to conclusions via valid reasoning.

I've frequently offered such people (and will to you, too) a chance to prove that they are really one of those other types, young people with genuine curiosity and the ability and willingness to learn. I may encounter one of those one of these days, but not yet. So, I offer everybody the chance to go do some searching of the Internet for answers, bring them back here, and we'll discuss them. As I implied, it hasn't happened yet, and has saved me the indignity and futility of fetching data for a sealioning science denier.

Which of these are you? Will you be the first who was sincere when asking for information? Here's a starting place: how are the age of the universe and earth decided? - Google Search See you soon with your observations and questions, right?

9) Jesus did.
You make suppositions with out providing empirical proof.

Prove it. You made a claim without providing empirical evidence. Unlike the faith-based thinker, the critical thinker evaluates the evidence and requires it before belief.

What better example could we have that the call for proof here is insincere? It's irrelevant to the faith-based thinker. Calling for it is what I call a pseudoprinciple - an idea that one doesn't really apply wherever it is relevant as would be the case with an authentic principle, but wheels out only where it is useful to him, only to wheel it back in when it would work against him. Thus, you imply that you value proof, but then show you don't.

The real healers are not showing off their ability in public

Isn't that always the way with these kind of claims? We are told not to expect evidence, because in this case, the healer is too modest to show off in public. Same with real gods. They aren't going to be showing off flashy miracles, either. It's not because these healers and deities don't exist or can't perform miracles and healings, but like Sagan's invisible dragon in the garage, we just can't detect them.

I chose islam over bible islam teaches noah floods regional. and no passover massacre of infants ever happened

You might find secular humanism even more to your liking, then. It goes further in that direction.

 

[Jagella]

As I said there are some well documented cases. It's called spontaneous healing by some in medicine.

Yes, the body can sometimes restore itself in ways doctors don't expect. Cancer going into remission is perhaps the best-known example of such a restoration. However, such healing is probably natural and has nothing to do with religion and cannot be brought about via religious belief and practice.

Sorry, with your apparent attitude I don't think you're a likely candidate though.

Oh darn--and here I was hoping you knew a healer who could help me. I'm left wondering, though, what the right attitude for receiving spiritual healing might be. Skepticism is obviously counter-productive, and healing becomes more likely the greater the belief of the beneficiary. So believing is seeing, you might say.

By the way, Christian faith healers work the same way. They tell people that belief in the power of Jesus to heal is vital in being healed. If you doubt, then don't expect to be healed! So all those who never get healed are labeled as faithless unbelievers. God does work in mysterious ways because you would think he would heal people first and then they can believe. If he fails to heal doubters, then they're likely to continue to doubt.

 

[sun rise]

A person having a birthmark is not scientific evidence for anything other than irregularities in skin pigmentation or blood vessels.

You refuse to examine the scientific evidence so you are posting from ignorance. You should start here: Steps of the Scientific Method

 

[George-ananda]

Only those who acknowledge the science that contradicts its accounts. The rest are where every believer would be before the science - accepting the biblical accounts as history and science, literally true, which is what was once believed and how the stories were told. You can safely bet the farm that if somebody had called those stories not literally true then, they would have been stoned for religious heresy.

Yes, the religious get smarter with time. Religion is not about scientific facts as that is really a side issue.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I'm no so sure about that. Many religious healers make good money whether they have the "abilities" or not.



I'm not quite that cynical, but money is definitely a motive among medical professionals for whom actual healing and curing is a lower priority.



But how can religious healers be stopped from healing by medical professionals?

Healling in the spiritual sense is not meant for healing sickness, it is only an result of the cultivation done within spiritual practice. Its a bi product when a person become more and more pure.

Most of the people who gain those abilities would use them to show off, but they will lose the ability if they show of or get full of ego.