Genesis: is it to be taken literally?

quote:

---

You have two places you can look. You have the Bible that is certainly the product of men, or the Universe that certainly is NOT the product of men.

---

Jar!!Have a heart! It's so much easier to read the Bible, especially now that it's available in translations.But a serious point I want to make. The example of Buddha and Ramana Maharshi offers a third alternative and that is to look deeply into the source of our own being and awareness. Their point that I'm taking is that the crux of the mystery is in our aware existence, the "I amness" that we usually just assume in all this religion and science. Who is it that is aware of this?Do we know ourselves? The ego self image is heavily conditioned by words, thoughts but that "ego self" is an object to our awareness. Who is the subject?lfen

Jar,There developed a popular religon of Buddhism for the majority of the lay people. Buddhism is one of the least violent religions because of what I term its top down development. This I contrast with what I see as middle eastern religions bottom up development whereby first came the myths and only much later to my knowledge did more sophisticated contemplative viewpoints develop such as that of Meister Eckert.Thus a buddhist teacher will often be the one to suggest that all the myths, the gods, etc are products of the mind and empowered by the mind and with maturity are to be seen through. This is a teaching of some christian contemplatives, I believe it would fit Meister Eckert but I'm not well read in him. However as we see on the list there is a strong pull among some to return to the literal interpretations of biblical myths as they were the founding documents of the religion.The Buddha specifical denied the two required beliefs of Hinduism: that the Vedas were inerrant divine inspiration and the caste system.There are a plethora of elaborate birth myths and miracles in popular Buddhist religion but most buddhist teachers/teachings I have read regard them as teaching stories, myths that are not taken as literally true, partially because of the semantic sophistication that recognized that ultimate truth can only be falsified by language.lfen

Ah! Another Kent Hovind sighting! And what significants do you make of Doctor Kent Hovind's website?
You do realize that he is not a scienctist? What is his doctorate in and what institution granted it?lfenedit: adding this URL to make my question less of a teaser.
Account SuspendedThis message has been edited by lfen, 11-25-2004 12:51 AMThis message has been edited by lfen, 11-25-2004 12:52 AM

If you find the debates your are refering to you can copy the URL that is in your browser and then paste that URL here so we can click and read the debate you are talking about. It's what I did with the article that discusses his credentials regarding his claim to a Ph.D.lfen

Kent Hovind is skilled in persuasive rhetoric to sway those largely ignorant of the subject. He makes appeals to what they can understand, uses ridicule they can understand. This kind of demogogery has been in use for millenia, but it's not science and is not used to establish or falsify scientific or other rational arguments. That doesn't mean it's not useful in entertaining people or motivating people politically, religiously, or to sell things or work hard, whatever.A good scientist or scholar may be very skilled in making logical arguments without being a good motivational rhetorical demogogue.I know that the plural of ancedote is not data, but I'm going to toss an ancedote in here. I work briefly selling stereos. The best salesmen in the store was incredibly ignorant of electonics but customers loved him and he sold a lot of equipment. I once had to leave the floor to keep from bursting out laughing as he explained in all earnest ignorance to a customer's question about a receiver they had just purchased from him in regards to the post marked "ground". He told them they could hook it up to anything, a piece of wood and it the radio reception would improve. A lot of people found him charming and his enthusism, totally ignorant as it was, seemed to be infectious.I actively censure Hovind though. He uses his slick talk to manipulate people and trample on real work, real facts, and theories. I find his behaviour despicable. To debate him won't establish truth. If he was sincere about his theories he would submit them for written analysis. That is how real science is done. Frauds on the other hand utterly avoid knowledgable scrutiny. Hovind is a fraud, a huckster, a snake oil peddler, profiting by selling people what they want to believe, that the old time religion is easily defended by a few simple to understand jibes at science.Hovind's claims aren't true. Some are meaningless like the ads that claim something is "100% pure". Most are misleading lies or nonsense.
But he is a good salesmen with lots of satisfied customers.lfen

check post #2 in this thread:http://EvC Forum: Neotony in the development of H. sapiens -->EvC Forum: Neotony in the development of H. sapiensI think this is a good example of what scientific argument requires and serves as a contrast to what Hovind does, and why I find Hovind irresponsible.lfen