[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.07.08.1035 CDT)]
Kenny,
I THOUGHT you weren't gonna do this. Very well.
The only evidence about the Bible is that someone must have sat down and wrote
it. We do not have any solid evidence of authorship, inspiration, actual
events, other than the string of words in the manuscripts, the resulting words,
and the editorial process (yes, we do have much of that evidence, even down to
the point of translation and interpretation mistakes in some bits of it that
have led to world-wide murder, pain, death, and sorrow). We also have evidence
in some archeaological remains (but not many) that some of the events depicted
were wrong as written. When we do have humane and civilization-building actions
inspired by the Bible, we find them to be few and far between, and usually
criticized by Biblical fanatics, thumpers, and social dominators (witness the
case of Jimmy Carter and Habitat for Humanity, etc., etc.). Other than that,
Biblically-inspired actions have been to marginalize, murder, and such like.
God told Bush to act so that this would happen??? Such utter rot.
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html
(Watch out, this is very, VERY graphic.)
The Bible is only accurate as to its current text content. We can only trust
that it was once first written among many other documents at the same time, that
it was redacted numerous times, translated many times as well, and then selected
against other stories and accounts and then preserved when other accounts were
burnt, buried or forgotten. All of this points to human minds and hands, no
more. Find a divine fingerprint, then get back to me.
The study of the Bible as a cultural document does not require a belief one way
or the other about divine existence. It doesn't even require that any of the
events and characters depicted had to be true and trustworthy, except how and
why people (important and incidental) control those perceptions for themselves
and how they try to control the behaviors of others with those same perceptions
in mind.
We provide the rules of science, Kenny. We developed them over thousands of
years, and in spite of thousands of assassinations, murders, and tortures. The
rules (the procedures) of science were solely developed by proto-scientist,
philosophers, researchers, observers and of course by true scientists, who are
defined by the scientific method itself. These rules of science use common
words, more or less, including hypothesis, theory, fact, data, evidence,
research, assertion, refutation, and acceptance. These terms MUST be used with
their established meanings, not in a popular, dessicated, misuse by
Creationists, snake-oil salesmen, and masters of alternative non-science. There
is only one science, and that is the scientific method. Intelligent Design, and
all that pablum is not doing Science. Don't misuse the term theory to allow a
perversion such as Creationism to be called Creation Science or an alternate
theory of creation. It doesn't wash in a scientific setting. If you want to talk
about belief, fine, but don't pollute this forum with biblical science.
Darn it, you said you wouldn't talk about this, and then you did, regardless
whether your treatise here is a preview of the conference backroom chats or not.
So I feel perfectly justified in pushing back against this attempt to
misrepresent Science.
Sorry, but that is what I feel you are doing. (And I know you will twist that
bit of politeness in my rather direct refutation of what you wrote, but that is
typical.) But since I am a minor player here in CSGnet, unlike Rick who always
bears the brunt of your attempts to merge PCT with the Bible, or whatever it is
you believe, I feel I can kvetch a bit, and I won't feel too damage with your
reply.
Everyone else, please refer to an earlier post, where I charge you with being
the protectors of science. If you are one day shown the instruments of torture
in a little room with an overhead light, as they say "You are Obsolete," don't
blame me.
Sincerely,
--Bryan
[From Kenny Kitzke (2007.07.08)]
<Bill Powers (2007.07.06.0750 MDT)>
<To some extent the rules of evidence of a courtroom would help, for example
the rules against "hearsay" evidence (one person reporting a memory of what
he heard another person say about something, a notoriously unreliable kind of
second-hand evidence about the something).>
If you want to claim that what Moses wrote down in the Five Books (Torah) is
hearsay and therefore is not evidence, I am not sure I have anything valid
to present to you. Rick succinctly asked me to present evidence I use to
support that the Bible is true. My hypothesis is that it is true, in fact
infallible, in its original autographs. Do you accept this post, this
autograph
written by my own fingers, as my truthful testimony about my reactions to your
post on this day? Barring any evidence that I am purposely misrepresenting
my thoughts, I would hope you would accept it as accurate and trustworthy? I
see the Bible in the same way. If it is wrong, what evidence do we have?
Saying I am not sure or they might just be stories would not persuade me from
holding my hypothesis.
<Is "beyond a reasonable doubt" a way of deciding between alternate
theories? This is why I asked whether we would apply the same rules to all
alternative propositions. What is "reasonable"? At one time, it would have been
considered unreasonable to doubt that the Earth was flat or that the heavens
revolved around the Earth, or any number of other "facts" which have proven to
be
false. It's perfectly possible for people, large numbers of people and even the
majority, to believe something "beyond reasonable doubt" when it is false.
Of course that would also apply to a scientific theory which had no better
support than that. So if we used that same "reasonable doubt" criterion for all
competing theories, and we wanted to know the truth to a high probability,
all we could really conclude would be that we can't reach a conclusion yet.>
The concept is as it is because it is impossible to define what is factual
precisely in advance. I can't conceive that whether the belief is "there is a
God," "there is no God," "Kenny is Joseph's son," Bill weighs 211," etc.,
pounds the standard would be different? I don't claim that I am right that
the Bible is true, I claim that right now I believe it is true and the
evidence is very satisfactory to me.
<actually, I would expect you to prove God's existence beyond reasonable
doubt for anyone who can offer a clear definition of "reasonable." The whole
point of science is to define "reasonable" in an open public way and to insist
that we discard facts that are not true within some probability limits. If you
include only people who are eager and willing to accept even the sketchiest
evidence supporting the existence of God as "reasonable," and who consider
any evidence to the contrary unreasonable no matter how well demonstrated it
is, you have trivialized the whole process of reason.>
I intend to be as reasonable as you are. If you believe God does not exist,
I will assess your reasons for an alternate view.
<But putting that aside, if you say we can all play by the same rules, then
all I have to do to prove the scientific alternative is to find people who
passionately believe in science and consider anything else unreasonable, and
ask them what they think is true beyond reasonable doubt. Then we are back
where we started. "Reasonable doubt" as used in the law is too elastic a
concept
to serve as a way of determining truth. And lawyers know that. They don't
speak of guilty and innocent. They speak of convicted and acquitted, which are
not the same thing.>
I don't know what legal system you are referring to but guilt or innocence
to a charge is precisely what a jury is to determine beyond a reasonable
doubt. I know a man who rejects and mocks the Bible in deference to science.
When I asked him if he ever read the Bible. He said, "no." Is that credible.
Are those who reject PCT or HPCT, based on a sentence or two written by a
critic, credible for assessing whether you are guilty or innocent of speaking
falsely about human behavior?
<In my way of thinking, we determine truth by tightening up our definitions
of what is a reasonable doubt until one and only one answer passes the test.
Then we adopt that answer as our current working truth.>
Sure, in theory. Do you expect a few hours of discussion at the Conference
will allow us to tighten up definitions well enough on the subject of the
truthfulness of the Bible or the existence of God as current working truth
(whatever that means)? These questions have been asked for thousands of years
by
men far smarter than me (an perhaps even you). I am not hopeful to reach one
shared answer. About all I would hope for is a better understanding of each
another's perceptions of belief and an "reasonable" assessment of our
evidence in a conscious, hierarchal human sense.
My guess is that the rules would be very unfair for someone trying to prove
a negative such as "Kenny cannot fly like a bird."
<I don't think so -- not if the rules are those of science. The rules of
science say that if Kenny is provided everything he needs according to his
claim, and we observe him flying like a bird, we would have to accept that he
can
fly like a bird. If he can't do it, then he can't fly like a bird -- yet --
no matter how many excuses he makes.>
Now we have switched to the rules of science rather than the rules of
evidence. Who has provided the rules of science and enforces them? How did
they
fail the scientists who thought the earth was flat or that the sun revolved
around the earth? How do they support Darwinian evolution or the "Big Bang"
theory of creation? Or, are they just theories of scientists?
Another question concerns the structure of the hierarchy regarding such a
high-level reference as the existence of a living being called "God."
<That's a perception, not a reference. If it's a reference, then it's
something you intend to perceive, and you will do whatever you have to do to
create
the necessary perception. That includes imagining data, selecting facts that
support the right perception and rejecting facts that don't, and so on
through the whole list of scientific sins. But of course it can be done; that
sort
of thing is done all the time, even by juries trying to be fair and
objective.>
I am not sure I understand your distinction. Of course, I compare my sensed
perceptions to my desired reference perceptions. I have a reference for the
existence of the God of the Bible. I have done whatever I can do to compare
my sensed perceptions to that reference. If my sensed perceptions were
perpetually and hopelessly contrary to my reference, would not I "reorganize"
and
alter my reference to minimize my error?
I would imagine that God is a systems level reference perception?
<That's an ambiguous way of putting it. If it's a perception, then it's a
report on something derived by 11th-level input functions from lower-level
perceptions, mainly principles (if you believe me). If it's a reference, it's
a
target set by a higher system, or by reorganization, or by the genes, or by
God, that commands you to create a perception to match it by whatever means
you can find that works. When I use a term like "reference perception" (which I
shouldn't do without explanation, but I do) I'm using it as a shorthand
expression for "the state of perception which would match the reference level
currently set for this control system.">
I don't think there is a difference in understanding here, just incomplete
or careless words. We do have differences about how the highest level
references get set. Both are just theories not well tested.
Below that are a variety of beliefs about this systems level concept. The
being is believed to be "eternal-without beginning or end," the "Creator of
all things," etc. In one sense these various beliefs build up to the systems
level conception of "God." Yet, if any of these beliefs are, well, not
believable due to a lack of sufficient evidence, would that make mean that this
being did not exist? I think not.
<all right, the rule there seems to be that if you make a proposition about
something, a lack of evidence for it doesn't mean that the proposition is
false. I accept that.>
Wonderful. It does come down to accepting propositions as true or false is
sometimes just possible by being beyond a reasonable doubt.
<The example I've used before is this proposition: In the center of the
crater Tsiolkovsky [sp?] on the other side of the Moon there is a one-inch cube
of cheddar cheese. There is no evidence that this statement is true, but on the
other hand, that doesn't prove that the statement is false, so the statement
might still be true. Of course the question then becomes, is that sufficient
grounds for believing the statement?>
<Do we have to believe every statement that someone can make that we can't
demonstrate is false? This is the other side of Popper's "falsifiability"
coin. Scientific statements are supposed to be falsifiable, so in the event
they
happen to be wrong we have a way to find that out. But is that all that's
required? Don't we also have to have some reason to think they are true?>
Sure, and that is what Rick asked of me, "Why do I think the Bible is true?"
<Without the requirement for positive support of propositions, the universe
would very quickly overflow with all the possible statements that could be
made and which we haven't yet proven are false. Do we have to land on the far
side of the moon to determine that there is no such one-inch cube of cheese
(a one-inch cube is too small to see from orbit)? Or can we simply ignore that
statement because so far it totally lacks any supporting evidence?>
I would ignore it because it does not matter to me. The existence of God,
or whether He has spoken to His creation matters to me. If it does not matter
to you, then ignore it.
<a lot of people get into trouble because they don't realize that not every
idea that occurs to them, or that someone gives to them, is true just because
they can't prove it's false (or don't even try to). "My boyfriend hates me"
is a thought that might occur to someone, but what does one do after that?
One way of handling the thought is to start interpreting as much of the
boyfriend's behavior as possible as evidence to support the idea. "He's not
looking
at me -- he hates the way I look, so he does hate me." But another way to
handle it is simply to realize that there's no positive evidence of that that
shows up, as it were, without effort, so there's no reason to believe it. It
was just an idea.
The same goes for thoughts about God. You can't prove that God doesn't
exist, because non-existence doesn't create any sort of observable evidence. On
the other hand, what positive evidence is there that God does exist, that
couldn't be explained in a different, and possibly more credible, way?>
I don't know why all this fuss about rules and evidence as a precondition to
a discussion? I will share my perceptions about the credibility of the
Bible and the God it describes as a real being. You may find my reasons
unreasonable and life will go on. I was asked. I am responding. Big deal?
Probably not.
So, when you say "one level above that-Kenny's beliefs in the Bible" it
seems more HPCTish to be talking about evidence one level below the system
called
God as expressed in claims or beliefs made in the Bible about this "God."
Is this making any sense at all? Will that allow us to get closer to evidence
and rules?
<Kenny, you always make sense even when I disagree with you. The problem
isn't your ability to make sense.
I think there's an issue behind this argument that hasn't been brought out
yet. Are perceptions the same thing as reality?>
The issue has been addressed extensively in the archieves. Has it been
resolved to beyond everyone's reasonable doubt? I sense that there is a
reality.
I sense that my perception of that reality is subjective...merely in my
head. If there is more to it than that, I surely am not able to explain it.
<In one sense, yes, because they're the only reality we can know, and no one
can doubt that a perception did occur, even if the thing it supposedly
represents is not seen by anyone else. When you see a beautiful face, the beauty
seems to be right there in the face, yet the person next to you might be
unmoved. Beauty is a perception, not something outside of you (that has been
said
more poetically).
There are many examples of perceptions that we know are inside us, not
outside. So why do we apparently balk at saying this is true of ALL
perceptions?
Partly, I think, because that's a scarey thought. If perceptions are not
exactly the same thing as the Real Reality that exists outside of us, what
could
be lurking there within arm's reach, or claw's reach, that I don't know about?
And anyway, we have to get on with life, so we just have to assume that
what we see is what we've got and act as if that's true.>
I pretty much have reached the same conclusion as long as things unseen can
be just as real to us (like beauty or God) as anything we can see with our
eyes.
<On the other hand, when it comes to the existence of God, I think it's
important to realize that this IS a perception, and there is no way to tell
whether there's anything in the external world corresponding to it. The
arguments
are not about whether one can learn to see the world as if there is a God in
it. We all know that is not only possible, but highly likely in this culture
and several others, at least if you believe what people tell interviewers (I
used to write "Protestant" in the blank for Religion, since I had to write
something, and "None" just invited funny looks in the Navy and in personnel
offices).
The real argument is about what this perception corresponds to in Real
Reality, if anything. The "if anything" part is what bothers religious people.
Yet
if they stopped to think, they could probably name a hundred things in ten
minutes in the "if anything" category. Do we accept the reality of perceptions
just because we would like them to be real, or because we're afraid of what
would happen if they weren't?>
I have studied the evidence and have not found a better answer than what the
Bible contains. And, neither did Sir Isaac Newton, an acclaimed scientist
and a disciple of Christ. To each his own reality.
<Do such considerations have anything to do with truth? If you don't want
your check to bounce, do you just tell yourself you believe there is enough in
the checking account to cover it, or do you find out what your balance is
first? I'm sure we've all done both, but we know which is the right way to do
it. We know that a perception of "enough money in the account" can be
manufactured by hopeful thinking just as well as by sight of the up-to-date
check
register. We treat it as real either way. But only one way correctly predicts
the
consequences of writing the check.
Over to you.>
The Bible makes a lot of claims of the only one way and the only God. I
can't prove them but I can believe them based upon all the evidence I have
beyond a reasonable doubt.
That's just me. See you in Minneapolis, my friend; God willing, of course.
<Best,
Bill P.>
