A note: in the previous post I adopted the point of view of the writers of the bible.
According to them one of the worst “sins”, probably the worst, was to allow the cult of other deities.
Actually the “evil” ** you do not have permission to see this link ** was more tolerant while Josiah was an exclusivist Yahwist who destroyed local sanctuaries (bamot) and killed rival priests.
But this is a modern and secular interpretation; the devout Jews of 1st century perceived Josiah as a righteous king, with “** you do not have permission to see this link **” features and the ones who accepted the version of his death described in Kings viewed him as an innocent who died for the bad deeds of his grandfather Manasseh.
Thanks for the clarification mb1980.
I will note that according to the Tanakh, the Lord visits the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation, in some cases. Exodus 34:6-7; Deuteronomy 5:8-10; and Number 14:18. A child can escape this judgment by confessing not only his own sins, but those of the father as well. Leviticus 26:40-42.
On the other hand, Deuteronomy 24:16 states that fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. This passage is referenced in 2 Kings 14-16 and Ezekiel 18:20.
Switching gears back to the topic, some say that Isaiah’s “suffering servant” is a model of substitutionary atonement, which is why both Matthew and Luke portray Jesus as that figure.
Switching gears back to the OT, the reign of Manasseh is an interesting topic in itself. By most accounts it was a relatively peaceful and prosperous period for Judea. He did allow the re-establishment of the high places, but these were not necessarily altars to pagan gods. They were also places where everyday people could sacrifice to Yahweh. Josiah’s reforms can be seen as the enforcement of Temple focused worship, which would have had the full support of the Temple priests and Jerusalem elites in general. I personally prefer to view Josiah’s death as the result of choosing the losing side in a war he should have stayed out of.
It’s interesting how often modern sensibilities match those of the “evil” side of these ancient squabbles. Our scriptures extoll the virtues of intolerance and hard bitten religious fanaticism. But we don’t get off scot-free. The idea that you should change your mind when confronted with new facts or updated evidence is still considered wildly radical in many quarters. Consider the usual response when scientists announce a revision of opinion based on such. (Those scientists! Always changing their minds!)
mb1980 said
The author of Chronicles tried to blame Josiah accusing him of disobedience but is not considered reliable by many scholars.
I refer to the version in Kings.
It’s not exactly a vicarious atonement, more a vicarious punishment but it’s still about a righteous man suffering and dying without being guilty.
According to the author of Kings Josiah died for the sins of his grandfather Manasseh.
He initiated an age of great repentance and adherence to the Torah, but the accumulation of sin was too great to overcome and someone had to be punished to satisfy the “justice” of YHWH. Holding someone liable for the acts of another. A horrible concept.
edit:
An ** you do not have permission to see this link ** on TheTorah states that the author of Chronicles changed the story because he found disturbing the idea that children could be punished for the sins of their parents. He could not fathom YHWH acting in such an arbitrary manner. Punishment and reward had to be carried out during the relevant individual’s lifetime and accountability was personal.
From a historian’s point of view, wouldn’t that make it *more* likely to be historically reliable since it passes the criterion of dissimilarity? The fact that it’s “disturbing” to later readers is not evidence that it isn’t authentic since there many things in the Bible that are “disturbing”.
Stephen said
It’s interesting how often modern sensibilities match those of the “evil” side of these ancient squabbles. Our scriptures extoll the virtues of intolerance and hard bitten religious fanaticism. But we don’t get off scot-free. The idea that you should change your mind when confronted with new facts or updated evidence is still considered wildly radical in many quarters. Consider the usual response when scientists announce a revision of opinion based on such. (Those scientists! Always changing their minds!)
From my perspective, the value of science is changing your theories to account for actual evidence. I gave up the idea of Truth a long time ago, in favor of the concept of provisional truths, which is simply our best understanding of how things work given our current state of knowledge. For example, while we can mathematically model the effects of gravity, we have no idea what it is or how exactly it works. Maybe one day we’ll know, and maybe we never will. And that’s fine with me.
It might be a virtue of science that it changes in the face of new evidence, but it is also an inherent problem for those seeking stability and certainty. And if science can be questioned, because we can never be sure where on the path to truth we happen to be at any moment, critics will seize on that as a weakness. But the greater problem with science is that it can really only apply in a fairly narrow area of experience. Science can contribute to archeology in various ways, but we cannot really apply the same rigor to history in general.
My favorite quote along these lines is from theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder.
Science doesn’t tell you not to pee on high voltage lines. It says: ‘Urine is an excellent conductor.’
Frau Doktor Hossenfelder has an excellent ** you do not have permission to see this link **. (This may be the only time you ever hear me say that.) Like Prof Ehrman she sees one of her tasks as an academician to explain complex stuff to normal folks. (She also alternates with Emilia Clarke and Tilda Swinton as Queen of Heaven but I am loathe to impose my prior faith position on others.)
These responses baffle me to some degree. In considering epistemology, determining what we know and how we know it, what possible difference does the desire for stability and certainty make? While I agree that humans have such desires, it doesn’t determine what we can know, or more precisely what we think we can know, to 100% certainty. Also, it disregards the fact that some provisional truths have a very, very high probability of being correct and do not merit any significant skepticism. If any decides they want to be skeptical of gravity, whatever it may actually be, I invite them to step off the ledge of a very tall building and take their chances.
I also agree with the quote from Dr. Hossenfelder, whose YouTube channel I also enjoy and recommend. That is what science tells us. So we take that information and refrain from peeing on the power line – unless we are willing to take the risk of electrocution. There’s not much of a leap there.
All I’m really saying is that I don’t think you should be 100% sure of anything – even death. There are over 7 billion people living on this planet right now, none of whom are dead (yet). Thus, 7 billion opportunities for a person not to ever die. Is such a thing likely? I don’t think so in the slightest, but it is theoretically possible.
In considering epistemology, determining what we know and how we know it, what possible difference does the desire for stability and certainty make?
Many people would rather have their skin peeled off with a butter knife than live in a permanent state of unknowing. And that is the real insight of the scientific approach. We can never be absolutely sure about anything. Certainty is no longer a valid category. To talk about “Truth” is to be a romantic. We make our models and peel back the layers of the onion but there is no expectation of finality. In fact we may eventually reach a point beyond which we cannot proceed. This idea freaks some people out. Someday all the cool toys science provides may not be enough.
And I am baffled by the question about what difference a desire for stability and certainty could make. Perhaps it is the presence or absence of such a need that marks one for a given preference, if one sees a battle between science and faith. There are, of course, many scientists who are religious, to varying degrees. I know people who tend to decree that “science is the answer” in much the same way that fundamentalists say “Jesus is the answer,” and with similar intent, application, and ultimately irrelevance. Yes, our understanding about the conductivity of what is essentially a stream of water leading directly to our bodies should discourage us from relieving ourselves on a power line, which I suspect is a situation that only rarely presents itself in any case. But does science really have an active role to play in the majority of our day? Even to the degree that it might apply, do people really go through their lives with that much conscious thought about every endeavor or activity? Does science really dictate who we might love or marry, or how to raise children or how they will turn out? Does science dictate where I should live, or what profession I should follow? Does science tell me whether or not I enjoyed a book I just read, or a movie I just watched, or a musical performance I just heard?
And I am baffled by the question about what difference a desire for stability and certainty could make. Perhaps it is the presence or absence of such a need that marks one for a given preference, if one sees a battle between science and faith.
One’s preferences and worldviews may determine (using that word loosely) their desire for certainty and which side they take on the science v. faith debate, but that doesn’t negate the nature of underlying reality, whatever that might actually be, and which we will most likely never know to an absolute certainty. I see “science v. faith” as a false dichotomy, an example of either/or and binary thinking, which does not lead to satisfactory resolutions, at least in my opinion.
There are, of course, many scientists who are religious, to varying degrees. I know people who tend to decree that “science is the answer” in much the same way that fundamentalists say “Jesus is the answer,” and with similar intent, application, and ultimately irrelevance.
Of course scientists can be wrong, particularly with regard to theoretical models which have not been empirically tested (and may not be capable of empirical testing), but that is why I prefer to think of provisional truths instead of absolute Truth. I can change my mind with a lot less cognitive dissonance.
Yes, our understanding about the conductivity of what is essentially a stream of water leading directly to our bodies should discourage us from relieving ourselves on a power line, which I suspect is a situation that only rarely presents itself in any case. But does science really have an active role to play in the majority of our day? Even to the degree that it might apply, do people really go through their lives with that much conscious thought about every endeavor or activity?
You’re right. People tend to live their lives without putting a lot of conscious thought into many areas. But there is underlying science to most things people just tend to take for granted. Applied science accounts for our electrical grid, the appliances in our homes, our computing devices, and our various methods of transportation, and that is not close to an exhaustive list. Do we have to fully understand the science underlying these practical applications? Of course not.
Does science really dictate who we might love or marry, or how to raise children or how they will turn out? Does science dictate where I should live, or what profession I should follow? Does science tell me whether or not I enjoyed a book I just read, or a movie I just watched, or a musical performance I just heard?
Probably more than you might think. These questions lie outside of what we generally consider to be STEM fields, and are addressed by the social sciences. Our degree of confidence in the findings made in these fields is considerably less than we have with STEM fields. in fact, I can’t think of single study that purports to find a one to one relationship in any of the areas you questioned – and if there are such claims I would rate them as extremely dubious. That does not mean social science cannot make certain generalizations about the kind of mate, career, book or music you would likely prefer IF, and it’s a huge IF, we had sufficient information about your personality (which seems to be predominately determined by your genes) and your experiences (which seems to be predominately determined by your peers). Even with such information, generalizations are probably as far as social sciences can take us.
Your questions seem to indicate that i am arguing for a superdeterminism, a position I have not taken and, in fact, do not accept.
TTHorne56 said
Probably more than you might think. These questions lie outside of what we generally consider to be STEM fields, and are addressed by the social sciences. Our degree of confidence in the findings made in these fields is considerably less than we have with STEM fields. in fact, I can’t think of single study that purports to find a one to one relationship in any of the areas you questioned – and if there are such claims I would rate them as extremely dubious. That does not mean social science cannot make certain generalizations about the kind of mate, career, book or music you would likely prefer IF, and it’s a huge IF, we had sufficient information about your personality (which seems to be predominately determined by your genes) and your experiences (which seems to be predominately determined by your peers). Even with such information, generalizations are probably as far as social sciences can take us.
Science can, of course, study relationships, but so far I have seen no persuasive evidence that it really understands them in ways that might be relevant to most situations. It is precisely that “huge IF” that is part of the problem. We also cannot really run tests or simulations to aid in the evaluation. There is, of course, also a large element of chance, as to who you might encounter, and what events might affect your life, the life of a potential partner, and your children. It is precisely these additional complications, and a thousand details that we would probably have difficulty even in listing, that make it hard to apply science to such matters.
TTHorne56 said
Your questions seem to indicate that i am arguing for a superdeterminism, a position I have not taken and, in fact, do not accept.
My questions make no such assumption. I am really not sure what position you are taking, although the usual assertion of science as some sort of broad answer commonly tends in that direction.
JAS said
TTHorne56 said
Your questions seem to indicate that i am arguing for a superdeterminism, a position I have not taken and, in fact, do not accept.
My questions make no such assumption. I am really not sure what position you are taking, although the usual assertion of science as some sort of broad answer commonly tends in that direction.
You specifically asked “Does science dictate” in your questions. It is the “dictate” part that implies an assertion of determinism. I don’t think of science as an answer, but as a methodology. Particular scientists may use the method poorly, as the recent replication crisis in social psychology highlights, but that does mean the method itself is unsound. But, if you prefer a different methodology, please share it with us.
Yes, a methodology, but one with very limited application in any formal sense, particularly where we cannot set up and run tests with controlled parameters and repetitions that narrow the meaning of results. Some of the broad principles can be applied, but then science is itself the result of human actions, and not the originator of any of these ideas. And, really, is there even such a single thing as “scientific methodology”? There would seem to be a lot of assumptions built into such a category. When I am researching subjects and writing papers on a literary subject, I use observation to form assumptions, and then more targeted observations to test the validity of such assumptions. (Specifically, I also need to look for observations that would endorse other assumptions, or invalidate the ones I am currently making.) Eventually, with enough refining of this sort, one might come to conclusions. I do not consider any of this to be “scientific method” even if it might be shared in any field.
Sounds to me like you are applying the same criteria to research and writing that a good scientist would use in his/her field. Are you suggesting that your papers on literary topics have a broader application than the science that led to the electric grid, the appliances in our homes, computers, modern transportation, et al.?
I would suggest that what is traditionally thought of as critical thinking has broader application than scientific method, since the latter usually at least suggests the ability to run controlled tests. Of course, lot of people can and do claim that they are using such things and manage to do so for very bad ends. (Almost all of the nearly infinite ghost hunting shows now bandy around claims that they are using scientific methods, when at best they are using, or abusing, some scientific equipment.)
I am not denouncing science in any way. (I would denounce the claims of ghost hunters of being scientific, which are made purely to establish credibility that they do not deserve.) I am merely pointing out that science is not an automatic answer to everything. And, one might note with some justification that in exchange for many advances, science has also brought us many troubles.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
4 Guest(s)