Why Do We Trust Ancient Texts as Accurate?

[shunyadragon]

Really? And yet Aristotle's commentaries on the nature and structure of language hold today, and are still a rich source of investigation. Some of the comments of the Greek philosophers continue to be studied, plays written thousands of years ago provide telling insights into the human condition, the Greek myths are a fantastic compendium of psychological insights. There is music and there is art and there is poetry that is still sublime. A Greek philosopher worked out the world was round and its diameter by sticking two sticks in the ground and measuring their shadows ... I stand in awe of that, I couldn't do it, let alone conceive it ... so I have no problem in believing the fact that the ancient world did not possess our tech nor our accumulated empirical knowledge, but that does not render them incapable of offering an insightful commentary on human nature, or the nature of God if God exists.

So what!?!?!? This does not remotely address the problems I presented concerning the problems of basing doctrines and dogmas of a religion on ancient myths. I fully acknowledge the ancient world did possess wisdom and empirical knowledge, and again that is not the issue you are side stepping and ignoring.

Dare I say it, but had the settlers in America had paid a bit more attention to Native American insight and wisdom, the world would perhaps not be in the mess it is today ... they had none of our science, but they had a world view that is superior and more fitted to the world than ours. We took a wrong turn at the Enlightenment, and we've been incapable of correcting that scientific error ever since, even though the problem is staring us in the face!

The Baha'i Faith acknowledges that the wisdom and spiritual beliefs are founded in Revelation as the wisdom and spiritual knowledge of the Native Americans, but again I would not base doctrines and dogmas of religion today on ancient myths of the Aztecs that practiced human sacrifice based on these myths and ancient beliefs. Unfortunately Judaism, Christianity and Islam do not acknowledge the wisdom and spiritual teachings of all cultures and religions of the world a Revelation as the Baha'i Faith does.

But perhaps none of that, I'm sure, is a problem for you? It's the facts that matter, and science tells us what is and what isn't a fact, and if science says no, it's not a fact ...

Clear exaggerated what ever!?!? . . . as this does not reflect anything I ever posted concerning science. Science has never told anyone what is factual beyond the observed objective facts of our physical existence that the theories and hypothesis are based on, anyone may observe these 'facts' if they wish to.

Not quite the case, I think, but I can see what you mean. Modern theology, for example, takes into account the latest scientific developments. I could cite the world-famous theologians of the last century, but I don't think that answers your question.

The problem is modern advances in science has divided Christianity on serious theological grounds and assumptions. The foundation doctrines and dogmas are based on an the assumption that the events of Genesis are literally true, and it is perfectly logical for the fundamentalists to believe the authors of the NT and the church fathers that what they believed is indeed true.

As evidenced by the posts on this forum, whilst the debate is acknowledged as not one of science v religion, it is the a priori acceptance of what constitutes a 'fact' or how we judge the veracity of an 'event' is according to scientific principle. Even if the event is declared to be a miracle and will therefore lie outside the scope of scientific explanation. Do realise the authors of Scripture knew what a miracle was, even if they did not know the biological details of procreation, for example. The Virgin Birth was as problematic for them then as for us now.

Beliefs like Virgin Birth, the Fall, Original Sin, and the world flood may be considered problematic, but I consider it extremely severely problematic that these beliefs are indeed considered based on some degree of literal events as 'facts' by many if not most Christians.

 

[Ahanu]

Unfortunately Judaism, Christianity and Islam do not acknowledge the wisdom and spiritual teachings of all cultures and religions of the world a Revelation as the Baha'i Faith does.

Indeed.

The foundation doctrines and dogmas are based on an the assumption that the events of Genesis are literally true

Which foundation doctrines and dogmas? What about those Church Fathers that read the events of Genesis allegorically? Are you suggesting these Church Fathers were going against their own foundation doctrines and dogmas? I don't follow you here. Please elaborate . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Which foundation doctrines and dogmas? What about those Church Fathers that read the events of Genesis allegorically? Are you suggesting these Church Fathers were going against their own foundation doctrines and dogmas? I don't follow you here. Please elaborate . . .

the Fall and Original Sin. By far most of the church fathers believed in some sort of literal Genesis.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I do have a problem is when religious people are so roundly criticized as being ignorant, stupid, and irrational

Not to all religious people. Just the ones who are ignorant, stupid and irrational!

 

[Stevegp]

Not to all religious people. Just the ones who are ignorant, stupid and irrational!

Right. But lately there has been an onslaught of prominent people painting with a broad brush against religion, per se. This is way too simplistic, both theologically and practically. There are billions of religious adherents who find great meaning and solace in their religious beliefs. I don't think this criticism should stand without exposing that the arguments offered are neither well founded nor scientific and in many cases lead to such a grim alternative which may not be apparent even to those who propose them.

 

[shunyadragon]

Right. But lately there has been an onslaught of prominent people painting with a broad brush against religion, per se. This is way too simplistic, both theologically and practically. There are billions of religious adherents who find great meaning and solace in their religious beliefs. I don't think this criticism should stand without exposing that the arguments offered are neither well founded nor scientific and in many cases lead to such a grim alternative which may not be apparent even to those who propose them.

Again, to a certain extent I agree, but I also object to generalization here highlighted. You are also arguing from the perspective of the fallacy of 'arguing for popularity. The fact that there are billions of religious adherents who find great meaning and solace in their religious beliefs, does not conclude that they are true, or of much value other feeling good about what one believes.

Arguments can be good, bad, indifferent from prominent and not so prominent, but unfortunately most or maybe all the arguments fall far short of any sort of convincing proof.

 

[Thomas]

So what!?!?!? This does not remotely address the problems I presented concerning the problems of basing doctrines and dogmas of a religion on ancient myths.

As I have pointed out, they're your subjective issues, they're not problems as such. You're not the first to raise the point, it's nothing new, it's been dealt with, and your statemtns owe more to polemics than problematics.

As for myths, some are mere superstitions, some are sublime. They have to be taken in context. The Greek myths are a marvellous collection of lessons in human psychology and are as relevant today as they were then. I think the problem today is that modernity is too wedded to its own dogmas. The wise read myths as 'meta-real', saying more about ourselves than our mundane and material realities.

I fully acknowledge the ancient world did possess wisdom and empirical knowledge, and again that is not the issue you are side stepping and ignoring.

I'm saying "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (Hamlet 1.5).

but again I would not base doctrines and dogmas of religion today on ancient myths of the Aztecs that practiced human sacrifice based on these myths and ancient beliefs.

Nor does anyone else here. Specious argument. I support political systems, but that does not mean I support Trump.

The problem is modern advances in science has divided Christianity on serious theological grounds and assumptions.

Oh, good grief ... not the science v religion argument again!

Beliefs like Virgin Birth, the Fall, Original Sin, and the world flood may be considered problematic, but I consider it extremely severely problematic that these beliefs are indeed considered based on some degree of literal events as 'facts' by many if not most Christians.

I can understand you being vexed by things you don't understand, "but I consider it extremely severely problematic" that people choose to not to believe as you believe suggests a degree of religious intolerance to me ...

 

[Devils' Advocate]

people choose to not to believe as you believe suggests a degree of religious intolerance to me

Okay now that is a strange thing to say. Taken to its logical conclusion anyone who does not believe in something would suggest a degree of intolerance in that thing according to your suggestion.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

lately there has been an onslaught of prominent people painting with a broad brush against religion

Seriously? Cause from where I sit it is quite the opposite. For the past couple of decades there has been an avalanche of people insisting that religion must be followed. Along with far too many in political power passing laws that favor their religious beliefs at the expense of others.

 

[shunyadragon]

As I have pointed out, they're your subjective issues, they're not problems as such. You're not the first to raise the point, it's nothing new, it's been dealt with, and your statements owe more to polemics than problematics.

Passing the Buck, and dealing directly with the problems of ancient religions with rigid unchanging doctrines and dogmas wedded to the past.

As for myths, some are mere superstitions, some are sublime. They have to be taken in context. The Greek myths are a marvelous collection of lessons in human psychology and are as relevant today as they were then. I think the problem today is that modernity is too wedded to its own dogmas. The wise read myths as 'meta-real', saying more about ourselves than our mundane and material realities.

Yes Greek myths as well as the myths of ancient cultures like those in the Bible are a marvelous collection of lessons in human psychology and are as relevant today as they were then, but that is not the issue at hand. It is Jewish tradition and beliefs that view Genesis in this context, and not the basis of doctrines and dogma.

Greek myths are not interpreted as being literal basis for doctrines and dogma. You need to be clearer on your reference to 'modernity' being wedded to its own dogmas, because this too vague and 'high fog index' to be relevant.

I'm saying "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." (Hamlet 1.5).


Nor does anyone else here. Specious argument. I support political systems, but that does not mean I support Trump.

Duck, Bob and Weave, as the above has literally no relationship to the subject at hand. Your doing great with fallacies redirecting to off topic subjects. A real live Red Herring.

Oh, good grief ... not the science v religion argument again!

Oh, good grief YES! Since many if not most Christians in someway reject science based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

I can understand you being vexed by things you don't understand, "but I consider it extremely severely problematic" that people choose to not to believe as you believe suggests a degree of religious intolerance to me ...

It is apparent you really do not understand or your sarcasm peaked. The substance of anything of meaningfulness deteriorated, when you resorted to the unfortunate fallacy of ad hominem, which an accusation of intolerance is not even related to any disagreements we have concerning theology.

This clearly indicates your inability to respond intelligently and rationally to the discussion to resort to meaningless fallacies.

 

[Stevegp]

You are also arguing from the perspective of the fallacy of 'arguing for popularity. The fact that there are billions of religious adherents who find great meaning and solace in their religious beliefs, does not conclude that they are true, or of much value other feeling good about what one believes.

No, I'm not arguing from popularity that there is veracity to religious thinking. In fact, I think a lot of it is not reasonable. However, if there is an agenda to dissuade people from something that provides them with meaning and solace then I think it is fair to examine what worldview would be implicit in the ideas of those promoting that agenda. People may not be aware that a "chance and necessity alone" paradigm represents an autonomic worldview where the important concepts of morality, meaning, and personal freedom are essentially vacuous.

 

[Stevegp]

Seriously? Cause from where I sit it is quite the opposite. For the past couple of decades there has been an avalanche of people insisting that religion must be followed. Along with far too many in political power passing laws that favor their religious beliefs at the expense of others.

Right, there is some of that and it needs to be opposed as well. However, in my experience the vast majority of religious people are just ordinary people with all their foibles who find some some meaning in their religious views and have no desire to impose their beliefs on others or push an ideological agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, I'm not arguing from popularity that there is veracity to religious thinking. In fact, I think a lot of it is not reasonable. However, if there is an agenda to dissuade people from something that provides them with meaning and solace then I think it is fair to examine what worldview would be implicit in the ideas of those promoting that agenda. People may not be aware that a "chance and necessity alone" paradigm represents an autonomic worldview where the important concepts of morality, meaning, and personal freedom are essentially vacuous.

Highlighted above is problematic. The fact that beliefs provide meaning and solace is the last reason I would consider meaningful in believing any religion. This is a form of dependency or maybe co-dependency that would be problematic in all religions regardless. I will challenge all religious beliefs and non-beliefs that are problematic for more meaningful reasons, and my beliefs are likewise fair game as well.

Yes, I believe you indeed presented an argument from popularity.

 

[Stevegp]

The fact that beliefs provide meaning and solace is the last reason I would consider meaningful in believing any religion.

Just because something is meaningful may not be a good reason to cling to it, but it can give one pause if the alternative offers no real meaning at all. It can prompt a more thorough examination of the arguments and lead to a more considered decision. I think all the implications of a position should be known.

 

[Thomas]

Okay now that is a strange thing to say. Taken to its logical conclusion anyone who does not believe in something would suggest a degree of intolerance in that thing according to your suggestion.

In retrospect that might well be my over-reaction. I was just reading 'extremely severely' as over-egging the 'problematic'.

 

[Thomas]

Double post

 

[Thomas]

Passing the Buck ...

Simply not accepting it. It's your buck.

Oh, good grief YES! Since many if not most Christians in someway reject science based on a literal interpretation of scripture.

Not really. Many if not most Christians don't set up an opposition between science and religion as you do.

The doctrines and dogmas are explained without the need to reject science, so the argument doesn't stand.

This clearly indicates your inability to respond intelligently and rationally to the discussion to resort to meaningless fallacies.

OK. Little point in continuing then.

 

[shunyadragon]

Just because something is meaningful may not be a good reason to cling to it, but it can give one pause if the alternative offers no real meaning at all. It can prompt a more thorough examination of the arguments and lead to a more considered decision. I think all the implications of a position should be known.

Actually agree in part, but this is not your argument in your previous post. Also, it is highly egocentric to claim other alternative offer no meaning at all, or even lesser meaning. This would be negative highly subjective conclusions of how other people find meaning and solace in their belief system, and of course believing yours as superior, and of course lacks unbiased objectivity.

I very much agree that ALL the implications of a position should be considered.

 

[Ahanu]

Not really. Many if not most Christians don't set up an opposition between science and religion as you do.

Thomas, I think this just reflects where you live. Have you ever lived in the Southern United States? Or viewed the huge following AnswersInGenesis.org has on Facebook? Over 400,000! As their illustration depicts below (which has over 8,000 likes), they see conflict between evolution and Christianity, between public education and Christianity:

Shunyadragon lives in the Southern United States.

It seems both of you disagree about what most Christians believe because of your locations.

 

[Stevegp]

Actually agree in part, but this is not your argument in your previous post. Also, it is highly egocentric to claim other alternative offer no meaning at all, or even lesser meaning. This would be negative highly subjective conclusions of how other people find meaning and solace in their belief system, and of course believing yours as superior, and of course lacks unbiased objectivity.

No, I have not changed my argument. I have never argued that because something is popular or meaningful, that is an argument for its truth.

Also, it is highly egocentric to claim other alternative offer no meaning at all, or even lesser meaning. This would be negative highly subjective conclusions of how other people find meaning and solace in their belief system, and of course believing yours as superior, and of course lacks unbiased objectivity.

Sure, it's my subjective opinion. If all the implications of a position are brought to light, others can make their own evaluation.