Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why are literalists literalists?
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 151 of 167 (349572)
09-16-2006 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
09-15-2006 1:20 AM


So sorry, I didn't mean ALL the Bible is presented as history, but the parts that are presented as history are history.
That would exclude genesis, exodus and leviticus since those are clearly presented as myths

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 1:20 AM Faith has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 152 of 167 (349578)
09-16-2006 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by ringo
09-15-2006 1:13 PM


Re: Majority Opinion
Ringo writes:
Fallible or fickle or green or fat, the "majority opinion" is just another opinion.
Thats your opinion!
Edited by AdminPhat, : wrong dude

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ringo, posted 09-15-2006 1:13 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by ringo, posted 09-16-2006 12:25 PM Phat has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 153 of 167 (349588)
09-16-2006 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Phat
09-16-2006 11:06 AM


Re: Majority Opinion
Phat writes:
Thats your opinion!
Exactly my point.
My opinion is worth just as much as the "majority opinion" that Faith worships.
(Everybody's got one.)

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Phat, posted 09-16-2006 11:06 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Phat, posted 09-16-2006 12:30 PM ringo has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 154 of 167 (349589)
09-16-2006 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
09-15-2006 11:21 AM


What majority?
My point was that you are outnumbered. Your opinion is outnumbered.
Hmmmmmm...... really?
I'm afraid you're going to have to define what you mean by "majority opinion." Because you must not be including in your "majority" the 2/3 of the people in the world who aren't christians. You must also not be counting the single largest denomination of christianity, catholicism, which comprises more than 1/2 of all christians world wide. Certainly none of these people read every passage in the bible as being literally true.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 11:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 09-16-2006 12:30 PM subbie has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 155 of 167 (349590)
09-16-2006 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by subbie
09-16-2006 12:27 PM


Re: What majority?
It's really remarkable how people can take things out of context in order to misconstrue them. I said DOWN THROUGH THE CENTURIES. I'm also obviously not talking about people who are NOT Christians or had nothing to do with Christianity. I'm talking about those who embraced it and interpreted it. There were always differing interpretations but the majority views outnumber the extremely bizarre modernist interpretations expressed at EvC, most of which are completely novel and never before heard of in the history of the world.l

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by subbie, posted 09-16-2006 12:27 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by ReverendDG, posted 09-16-2006 5:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 156 of 167 (349591)
09-16-2006 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by ringo
09-16-2006 12:25 PM


Re: Majority Opinion
Good points. It all depends on where the majority is.
  • If I walked into a church, I may be pressured by the majority to get saved and/or baptized.
  • If I walked into a nudist colony, I may feel some pressure to shed my clothing!
  • If I walked into a Dodgers game, I better either root for the Dodgers or shut up!
    However.....say we had a room of 500 people, and at least 400 of them swore they saw a ghost. We are in the room. If I didnt see the ghost, should I hold to my individual opinion or should I give in and say that I saw the ghost as well?
    Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 153 by ringo, posted 09-16-2006 12:25 PM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 159 by ringo, posted 09-16-2006 1:08 PM Phat has not replied

      
    DrJones*
    Member
    Posts: 2284
    From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Joined: 08-19-2004
    Member Rating: 6.8


    Message 157 of 167 (349592)
    09-16-2006 12:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
    09-15-2006 11:21 AM


    My point was that you are outnumbered. Your opinion is outnumbered.
    So I guess you'll soon be giving up this creationism nonsense and come over to evolution's side which is held by the majority of scientists.

    Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
    If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
    *not an actual doctor

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 134 by Faith, posted 09-15-2006 11:21 AM Faith has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 158 by Faith, posted 09-16-2006 12:34 PM DrJones* has not replied

      
    Faith 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
    Posts: 35298
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001


    Message 158 of 167 (349593)
    09-16-2006 12:34 PM
    Reply to: Message 157 by DrJones*
    09-16-2006 12:32 PM


    I see, so the ToE isn't about evidence after all, it's about interpretation, just as I knew all along. Thanks for the confirmation.
    OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
    AdminPD
    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
    Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 157 by DrJones*, posted 09-16-2006 12:32 PM DrJones* has not replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 412 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    Message 159 of 167 (349601)
    09-16-2006 1:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 156 by Phat
    09-16-2006 12:30 PM


    Re: Majority Opinion
    Phat writes:
    If I didnt see the ghost, should I hold to my individual opinion or should I give in and say that I saw the ghost as well?
    Well, I would hold to my individual opinion even if the other 6 billion people on earth all shared the other opinion. (I bet you're not surprized. )
    And some people would "pretend" to see what they really didn't see, so they could ride the bandwagon without being conspicuously out of tune.
    But it's funny that you left out a third option: Everybody else saw it, so maybe there's something to it. Maybe.
    I think that's the position that Faith takes: "Majority opinion" says X, so X is probably true, even if Faith can't make much of a case for it here at EvC. The weakness of Faith's presentation doesn't necessarily reflect a weakness in X.
    That's why I pointed out a couple of examples of weaknesses in X - slavery and geocentrism - to show that it is X that is weak, not just Faith's presentation of X.

    Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
    Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 156 by Phat, posted 09-16-2006 12:30 PM Phat has not replied

      
    ReverendDG
    Member (Idle past 4111 days)
    Posts: 1119
    From: Topeka,kansas
    Joined: 06-06-2005


    Message 160 of 167 (349636)
    09-16-2006 5:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
    09-16-2006 12:30 PM


    Re: What majority?
    It's really remarkable how people can take things out of context in order to misconstrue them. I said DOWN THROUGH THE CENTURIES. I'm also obviously not talking about people who are NOT Christians or had nothing to do with Christianity. I'm talking about those who embraced it and interpreted it. There were always differing interpretations but the majority views outnumber the extremely bizarre modernist interpretations expressed at EvC, most of which are completely novel and never before heard of in the history of the world.l
    any evidence for this at all? in all the readings about church fathers and sects and groups, there were more arguments than agreements
    i mean if they agreed throughout time why did protestants and catholics have so many problems?
    maybe the early church before luther agreed enough, but no they didn't really, orthodox was very different than catholicism
    face it Faith, the idea of a unified church on major issues much less minor ones never happened, human nature and thought and interpretion, makes it impossible
    OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
    AdminPD
    Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 155 by Faith, posted 09-16-2006 12:30 PM Faith has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 161 by ringo, posted 09-16-2006 5:19 PM ReverendDG has not replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 412 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    Message 161 of 167 (349637)
    09-16-2006 5:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 160 by ReverendDG
    09-16-2006 5:04 PM


    Re: What majority?
    ReverendDG writes:
    the idea of a unified church on major issues much less minor ones never happened
    When there was only one Christian, there was unanimity.
    When there were two, there were two opinions.
    When there were dozens, there were different camps.
    When there were hundreds, there were different sects.
    When there were thousands, there was a schism.
    When there are millions, there is fragmentation.
    OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
    AdminPD
    Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

    Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
    Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 160 by ReverendDG, posted 09-16-2006 5:04 PM ReverendDG has not replied

      
    AdminPD
    Inactive Administrator


    Message 162 of 167 (349681)
    09-16-2006 7:45 PM


    Warning - Off Topic
    The topic is Why Literalists are Literalists, not whether the position is correct or not.
    Please get back to the topic and refrain from highlighting off topic comments.
    Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
    Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.
    Thank you Purple

      
    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 163 of 167 (349871)
    09-17-2006 9:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 149 by MangyTiger
    09-15-2006 7:58 PM


    Re: Majority Opinion
    I don't know what this other sense is - could you explain or give a link please?
    It's the idea that my region is more civilised than others. And the further you go from my region, the more uncivilized you are. Some ancient Greeks had this idea.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 149 by MangyTiger, posted 09-15-2006 7:58 PM MangyTiger has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 164 by MangyTiger, posted 09-18-2006 8:14 PM robinrohan has not replied

      
    MangyTiger
    Member (Idle past 6354 days)
    Posts: 989
    From: Leicester, UK
    Joined: 07-30-2004


    Message 164 of 167 (350102)
    09-18-2006 8:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 163 by robinrohan
    09-17-2006 9:28 PM


    Re: Majority Opinion
    Thanks.
    I was aware of the concept but I've never heard it called geocentrism before (or anything else come to that).

    Oops! Wrong Planet

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 163 by robinrohan, posted 09-17-2006 9:28 PM robinrohan has not replied

      
    Archer Opteryx
    Member (Idle past 3598 days)
    Posts: 1811
    From: East Asia
    Joined: 08-16-2006


    Message 165 of 167 (350155)
    09-19-2006 12:56 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
    03-03-2006 12:40 PM


    Literalism = Science Envy
    I'd like someone to explain to me why it is so necessary to their faith that every word of the bible be literally correct. Please don't try to convince me, I'm an avowed heathen and quite happily so. But I must admit to confusion about why literalists are literalists. If someone could explain that to me, I'd appreciate it.
    It is partly because of science's success--not just in curing diseases and developing new technology, but in overturning the theocratic medieval paradigm. Biblical literalists since the eighteenth century have felt threatened by this, but they have also been mightily impressed.
    They want the same results for religion. They have Science Envy.
    Jung suggested that the human psyche has four functions for apprehending knowledge. This model has proven useful in diagnostic tools such as the Meyers-Briggs test. The functions, listed from the most conscious to the least conscious, are:
    1. reason
    2. sensation
    3. emotion
    4. intuition
    The scientific method deals with acknowledged facts. The method thus accepts only the top two functions, reason and sensation (observation is a sensory function), as valid scientific knowledge. It's no secret that individual scientists make use of the other two functions on a personal level, to get projects going. But their projects cannot end with these, because these functions do not prove anything in science. Reason and sensation are more fully conscious ways of knowing. They are more easily controlled and monitored and explained. They more readily lead to conclusions that connect with the observed world in ways that can be replicated and accepted by others.
    The scientific method is psychologically skewed. It does not fire on all four cylinders, as it were. It trades balance for specialization. But that's okay. This approach has yielded innumerable practical benefits that satisfy on every level. A cure for cancer will be developed through reason and sensation, as the scientific method demands. But no one would deny the immense emotional satisfaction to be found in the result. When human beings use the scientific method, we voluntarily concentrate our ways of thinking into two functions for the purposes of the task at hand. But we remain human.
    The other functions still get their due. Science is not the only thing humans do. We have art, we have relationships, we have exercise, we have philosophy. A well-rounded life, like a well-rounded education, runs on all four cylinders.
    The kind of knowlege we get from the other functions, emotion and intuition, is more personal. Science can show me I'm 96% chimpanzee. It can demonstrate this in a way no reasonable person can refute. My emotional function tells me how I feel about that fact. As it happnes, my kinship with other creatures on the planet strikes me as a cool idea to reflect on. I have valid emotional knowledge. But the result is personal; it defies easy replication. Others may feel horrified by the idea. In their revulsion they also gain valid emotional knowledge. We are all experts in the matter of our own feelings. In the realm of emotion and intuition, then, more than one valid answer can exist.
    Literalists are literalists partly because, as the products of a scientific age, they admire the scientific method and accept the psychological skew of its method (often without understanding its provisional nature). They value reason and sensation over the other functions because these promise results that can be replicated.
    And replication is crucial to anyone whose goal is to evangelize the world. Evangelists want to place their religious propositions in a realm that yields uniform consensus and resists questioning. They believe that achieving this in modern times requires selling their ideas as a kind of 'science.' Appealing to the functions of reason and sensation seems to promise better chances of replication. It helps invalidate competing beliefs by implying that these have somehow been falsified. The precepts of the religion cannot be based in the main on 'personal' functions such as emotion and intuition. These functions allow multiple meanings and yield more than one valid answer. If more than one valid answer exists, why evangelize at all?
    The result is that literalists set their sights lower than truth. Their own faith interests them only to the extent that they can believe it to be fact. This way it can appeal to the same functions used by science and gain (they hope) something of the credibility science has earned.
    Their religion ends up as a sad parody of science. In the process it loses its balance, and much of its humanity.
    .
    Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.
    Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.
    Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typos, clarity.

    Archer
    All species are transitional.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by subbie, posted 03-03-2006 12:40 PM subbie has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 166 by Ender, posted 09-21-2006 9:39 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024