Hi, I recently joined the blog and am exploring some of the ongoing threads. This one, “Why was the Bible written?” caught my eye. If we’re talking about the OT it seems clear that it is the Jewish code of conduct, history and basis for courage and conviction in light of persecution. The NT seems based on the need for a messiah, newly claimed by Jesus at a critical point of ongoing Jewish frustration to overthrow their pagan oppressors. The new Jewish sect, Christianity, put them together and immediately started fighting about it.
The additional question introducing this thread is “Is any of it useful at all?” My take is that the function of the addition of the NT was to continue the attempt of the Jews to rally against Rome in spite of the death of their latest hope – Jesus – whose message of hope and conquest was in danger of dying along with him. Decades after his death and seeing nothing he preached coming to pass, the message evolved dramatically (as oral traditions are bound to do) into something rather different. Now instead of a military messiah to battle Rome into submission, we have a divine leader promising salvation from beyond and after death. It looks to me that this message further evolved into what we have today as detailed in Dr. Ehrman’s theories ranging from corrupted texts to political agendas pivoting on Constantine’s conversion.
Acknowledging recent studies involving memory, archaeology and historical scholarship, we as a credulous race have run with these disingenuous texts and taken them to our present condition, the “worst” of which is the literal interpretations that have led to exclusivity, self righteousness and justification for war and inquisitions.
As for the “usefulness” of the Bible today, I personally see nothing there that isn’t already within the code of conduct among primates since the evolution of our species. Altruism, charity, personal sacrifice, etc. had their origins outside of biblical teachings, in fact likely giving rise to biblical teachings in the first place. I’m a proponent of tossing aside anything that can be interpreted to promote violence and exclusion and just go with the pre-biblical Golden Rule. The usefulness of the Bible seems more geared to a human need for fellowship and tribalism, which have their place as long as the risks are understood.
blclaassen said
Decades after his death and seeing nothing he preached coming to pass, the message evolved dramatically (as oral traditions are bound to do) into something rather different.
So along with the selfish gene you have the selfish idea. And while some people believe in atheistic evolution, the majority of people who accept evolution believe in a guided evolution, where the environment and randomness are not the sole factors leading to success. Could it be the same way with Christianity? It has changed and evolved, and earlier versions might look as badly designed as a sabre-tooth tiger, but people don’t seem to want to limit the shaping forces to chance.
Matt2239 said
blclaassen said
Decades after his death and seeing nothing he preached coming to pass, the message evolved dramatically (as oral traditions are bound to do) into something rather different.So along with the selfish gene you have the selfish idea. And while some people believe in atheistic evolution, the majority of people who accept evolution believe in a guided evolution, where the environment and randomness are not the sole factors leading to success. Could it be the same way with Christianity? It has changed and evolved, and earlier versions might look as badly designed as a sabre-tooth tiger, but people don’t seem to want to limit the shaping forces to chance.
Unfortunately for so-called “theistic evolution” the whole point of evolution by natural section is that it is a mechanism that doesn’t require interference. And natural section is anything but random. The problem is a conceptual one. Many people can’t wrap their heads around ideas that are so counter-intuitive. A spontaneous, unguided creative process like evolution is one such.
It’s the same with the development of Christianity. If there ever was a mass generational group improvisation it is Christianity. It became a world religion so people look back trying to detect some kind of developing plan. But there were hundreds if not thousands of religions that appeared and then faded. Christianity was one that survived. There was nothing inevitable about it any more than there is something inevitable about winning the Lotto. Homo Sap won the evolutionary lotto and Christianity won the religion lotto.
Stephen said
Unfortunately for so-called “theistic evolution” the whole point of evolution by natural section is that it is a mechanism that doesn’t require interference. And natural section is anything but random. The problem is a conceptual one. Many people can’t wrap their heads around ideas that are so counter-intuitive. A spontaneous, unguided creative process like evolution is one such.
It’s the same with the development of Christianity. If there ever was a mass generational group improvisation it is Christianity. It became a world religion so people look back trying to detect some kind of developing plan. But there were hundreds if not thousands of religions that appeared and then faded. Christianity was one that survived. There was nothing inevitable about it any more than there is something inevitable about winning the Lotto. Homo Sap won the evolutionary lotto and Christianity won the religion lotto.
Muddled thinking. Mutations are random, and usually faulty. Natural selection doesn’t “require” interference, but neither can it exclude the possibility of non-randomness in mutations.
You say homo sapiens won the evolutionary lotto and Christianity won the religion lotto. I don’t dispute either assertion. I simply add that we all know lotteries can and have been be rigged.
Well somebody’s thinking is muddled.
Technically, most mutations are neutral because most of our DNA (98%) does not code for proteins. But even in the 2% that does code it doesn’t require that all or even most mutations be positive. Natural selection can act on any positive mutation. So the fact that in the coding portion of our DNA most of the mutations are negative is irrelevant.
Yes mutations are random. Natural selection as a process is not because it is selecting for advantageous characteristics.
I’m glad you appreciate that natural selection doesn’t require interference. If you believe there has been some interference then it is your responsibility to demonstrate that episode of interference. The god hypothesis is not disproven by evolution, it merely becomes unnecessary. In science an unnecessary hypothesis is discarded.
I would just add that mutations are random in the sense that they do not aim toward a goal. There are other senses in which they are nonrandom – e.g., certain parts of the genome are more vulnerable to mutations than others, mutations do not happen without a cause, etc. But the important thing is that they are not goal-directed.
Stephen said
Well somebody’s thinking is muddled.If you believe there has been some interference then it is your responsibility to demonstrate that episode of interference. The god hypothesis is not disproven by evolution, it merely becomes unnecessary. In science an unnecessary hypothesis is discarded.
From where did you invent my responsibilities?
You can’t exclude any type of non-random or super natural shaping forces from the evolution of species or the way any religion changes through time. My central point remains.
Although species and religions have changed through time, many people (now under half) who accept natural selection and evolution believe in a guided form of evolution — certainly for the evolution of species. It’s a reasonable assumption that they would also accept a guided evolution theory to explain changes in the interpretation of their faith through time.
AstaKask said
I would just add that mutations are random in the sense that they do not aim toward a goal. There are other senses in which they are nonrandom – e.g., certain parts of the genome are more vulnerable to mutations than others, mutations do not happen without a cause, etc. But the important thing is that they are not goal-directed.
Yes thank you for the clarification. But of course our friend Matt thinks that evolution is goal directed.
Matt2239 wrote
From where did you invent my responsibilities?
It is not I that invented your responsibility but the nature of argument itself. It is not enough merely to make an assertion. If you’re trying to convince someone of a point of view you must back up that assertion with evidence.
You can’t exclude any type of non-random or super natural shaping forces from the evolution of species or the way any religion changes through time.
You can if you demonstrate that these “shaping forces” are unnecessary as an explanation for the phenomena you wish to explain.
Although species and religions have changed through time, many people (now under half) who accept natural selection and evolution believe in a guided form of evolution — certainly for the evolution of species. It’s a reasonable assumption that they would also accept a guided evolution theory to explain changes in the interpretation of their faith through time.
It’s charming that you think that biology operates on democratic principles.
Stephen said
Yes thank you for the clarification. But of course our friend Matt thinks that evolution is goal directed.
Matt2239 wrote
From where did you invent my responsibilities?
It is not I that invented your responsibility but the nature of argument itself. It is not enough merely to make an assertion. If you’re trying to convince someone of a point of view you must back up that assertion with evidence.
You can’t exclude any type of non-random or super natural shaping forces from the evolution of species or the way any religion changes through time.
You can if you demonstrate that these “shaping forces” are unnecessary as an explanation for the phenomena you wish to explain.
Although species and religions have changed through time, many people (now under half) who accept natural selection and evolution believe in a guided form of evolution — certainly for the evolution of species. It’s a reasonable assumption that they would also accept a guided evolution theory to explain changes in the interpretation of their faith through time.
It’s charming that you think that biology operates on democratic principles.
It was never my intention to charm you.
I have no responsibility to provide anything. If you don’t take my word for it, then you don’t take my word for it. Your belief in “the nature of argument itself” reveals a flaw in your thinking.
But you can see at Pew Research that of those who accept evolution, a sizable percentage (although no longer a majority) believe in a guided evolution. That’s for the evolution of species. You can easily see how the same thing might also apply to the evolution of religious thinking.
“A quarter of U.S. adults (25%) say evolution was guided by a supreme being. The same survey found that 34% of Americans reject evolution entirely,”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Matt2239 said
From where did you invent my responsibilities?
You can’t exclude any type of non-random or super natural shaping forces from the evolution of species or the way any religion changes through time. My central point remains.
Although species and religions have changed through time, many people (now under half) who accept natural selection and evolution believe in a guided form of evolution — certainly for the evolution of species. It’s a reasonable assumption that they would also accept a guided evolution theory to explain changes in the interpretation of their faith through time.
No, but the time to believe something is when there’s evidence for it, not just because it can’t be disproven. You made a statement, you have the burden of proof.
AstaKask said
No, but the time to believe something is when there’s evidence for it, not just because it can’t be disproven. You made a statement, you have the burden of proof.
There are six billion Bibles on earth and 2 billion people saying Jesus rose from the dead. Their story hasn’t changed in nearly 2000 years. Isn’t that proof enough?
If not, go to a cholera camp in Africa. Talk to the person who is spoon-feeding the dying for free. They’ll say their love of their living god is motivating them to help others.
And for clarification, I don’t talk about my beliefs or even if I have any. Let’s keep the focus on the evidence.
Matt2239 said
There are six billion Bibles on earth and 2 billion people saying Jesus rose from the dead. Their story hasn’t changed in nearly 2000 years. Isn’t that proof enough?
If not, go to a cholera camp in Africa. Talk to the person who is spoon-feeding the dying for free. They’ll say their love of their living god is motivating them to help others.
And for clarification, I don’t talk about my beliefs or even if I have any. Let’s keep the focus on the evidence.
1) No. The fact that many people say or believe something, or that the story has been unchanged for 2000 years, is not evidence. In particular, it is not evidence that evolution was guided since the Bible says nothing about that. Ask Ken Ham about theistic evolution and he will say it destroys the message of the Gospels. This is the Argument from Popularity fallacy.
2) That is evidence that they believe that the living god exists and that they love the idea. It is not evidence that their beliefs are true. This is the Argument from Final Consequences fallacy.
3) Good. Then how about you present some evidence that God guided evolution?
Neither fallacy demonstrates that you are necessarily wrong – that would be the Fallacy Fallacy – but it does show that you are not necessarily correct.
AstaKask said
3) Good. Then how about you present some evidence that God guided evolution?
I presented the guided evolution of Christianity as a possibility, not as my personal view or as a fact.
“Could it be the same way with Christianity? It has changed and evolved, and earlier versions might look as badly designed as a sabre-tooth tiger, but people don’t seem to want to limit the shaping forces to chance.”
It’s reasonable to conclude that Christians who accept a guided evolution of species would also accept a guided evolution of interpretation of the Holy Bible. And my link to the Pew Research study showing 25% believing in a guided evolution of the species is evidence that there are people who believe that.
The two fallacies you cite don’t diminish the value of the evidence cited. Evidence includes facts indicating something is true. Evidence for a thing does not have to be conclusive proof of a thing.
AstaKask said
Ok. Let’s try another tack.Why should the fact that the Bible is popular make me think it’s true?
Why should the fact that people find the Bible inspiring for good deeds make me think it’s true?
If I may, let’s revise the question to “why should the fact that Tylenol is popular make you buy it?”
Tylenol is and has been one of the most popular pain killers ever. It’s been on the market for a long time. It comes in many varieties. People recommend it.
Things like popularity, conventional wisdom, and consensus opinion are things were consider when determining effectiveness and value. As topics begin to become controversial, we begin to hear a range of good and bad opinions of a thing. From there, we start to look at how much we trust and esteem the various sources.
I’ve said elsewhere that while some people dislike those who Erhman calls “mythicists,” I find that mythicists quickly lead people to a crucial question — who ya gonna believe? In the final analysis, and in the very early analysis with the mythicists, it’s all about faith.
There are six billion Bibles on earth and 2 billion people saying Jesus rose from the dead. Their story hasn’t changed in nearly 2000 years. Isn’t that proof enough?
This is the dumbest argument for the truth of Christianity I have ever heard. So dumb that taken in tandem with some of your other comments makes me think you’re a troll. In this case it might be better if you are.
Things like popularity, conventional wisdom, and consensus opinion are things were consider when determining effectiveness and value.
Now that’s funny.
…it’s all about faith…
Heh heh heh
There’s a huge difference between the claim “taking this pill will cure your headache” and “two-thousand years ago, a man rose from the dead.” The former is not an extraordinary claim, the latter is. Besides, I wouldn’t accept testimonials for the former claim either – and I don’t think you should. You could end up with homeopathy, reiki, acupuncture or any number of other useless therapies. At best you could argue that this shows that the Biblical story is convincing, but stories can be convincing without being true.
And no, it’s not all about faith. It is (or should be) about evidence.
Stephen said
Yes “anti-Semitism” is a Christian invention.
This is one of the craziest things I’ve ever read on this site.
In order for this to be true, you basically need to define “anti-semitism” as “Christian hatred of Jews.” Christians didn’t even have serious political power until the Third Century. By that time, we have over a millennium of well-documented violence against, and oppression of, Jews.
vergari said
This is one of the craziest things I’ve ever read on this site.
In order for this to be true, you basically need to define “anti-semitism” as “Christian hatred of Jews.” Christians didn’t even have serious political power until the Third Century. By that time, we have over a millennium of well-documented violence against, and oppression of, Jews.
On their website the Anti-Defamation League defines anti-Semitism as “The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish.” The Levant is a natural invasion route and none of the ancient empires who attacked Israel and Judah treated them any differently than any other conquered foe. Even Antiochus Epiphanes, who is generally described as the most prime candidate for anti-Semitism really only entered what was by then an ongoing civil war and in order to consolidate his power preferred the Hellenistic faction over the traditionalists.
The writers of the NT had no political power for sure but they planted seeds that sprang into a rancid growth. They formalized an idea. That was the root of anti-Semitism in the sense that the ADL means it.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert