Does Science Debunk The Bible?

[Data]

No Science does debunk the Bible.

For the purpose of this debate science is defined as the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained; a branch of knowledge; a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject and even knowledge of any kind. Debunk is defined as to expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief) as well as to reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), especially by ridicule.

Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?

[POI]

Are you saying that if Tolkien never produced formal letters expressing intentional fiction, you would then be agnostic to (whether or not) his writings were meant to be literal?

No, I’m saying that is probably the best piece of evidence, but there are other reasons.

Okay, so far, we have his expressed letters of intention. But I doubt we would ever need this, just like we do not need many deemed fictional writers declaring fictional intent for Star Wars, Spiderman, the Hulk, etc....

What else do you got?

It’s not just some vague “it’s common sense” but actual reasons that can be pointed to.

That's not my argument. I mean, sure, we use common sense, but it's more. I've already explained.

What SHOULD it be? I offered 10 references expressing how Genesis is literal.

I think it is about God as the one who brings order to chaos, God as the creator (but not scientifically explaining how), the role humans are meant to have, and stuff like that.

But where is the evidence for this? So far, "I think", does not lead us to truth, unless by happy accident, does it?

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, exactly - if one doesn't reject science. The most probable interpretation is that it isn't true. ''Should be' on that basis is either a 'deeper interpretation' or a more science - based one that debunks it - that it it was a primitive best guess by ancient thinkers going on 'observation', or imperfect human perceptions, and coming to understandable false conclusions and a wrong cosmology and limited geology. There 'should be' no deeper interpretation than that unless one is pushed by a priori Faith to detect something poetically relevant to faith in a god.

That what isn't true? The bit that isn't making a scientific claim about the order of creation isn't a true order of creation? Of course. Therefore, the true interpretation won't be that it isn't meant to be a true account of the order of creation, but speaking to some other truth(s).

Yes, exactly, again.If it isn't literally true, what is it? That it is expressing some deeper truth may mean telling us something about human myth -making or how the Bible up to Ezekiel was likely written in Babylon? I get it - you had in mind some impalpable thing evidencing God's love for us. Sorry, that carries no weight at all.

[The Tanager]

Okay, so far, we have his expressed letters of intention. But I doubt we would ever need this, just like we do not need many deemed fictional writers declaring fictional intent for Star Wars, Spiderman, the Hulk, etc....

What else do you got?

For Tolkien? Are you saying there aren’t any other, and it’s just a vague “we all know it’s fiction” with no actual reasons?

That's not my argument. I mean, sure, we use common sense, but it's more. I've already explained.

You’ve simply said it’s the default with no actual reason given. If you've given reasons, I'll be happy to discuss them.

But where is the evidence for this? So far, "I think", does not lead us to truth, unless by happy accident, does it?

There you go trying to shift the burden again. You claim the science debunks the Bible. Your case relies on a particular interpretation of Genesis that you haven’t supported. And now you are back to saying I’ve got to provide evidence for a different view. If that is all you’ve got, then this conversation is done and our posts can stand for themselves. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[The Tanager]

Yes, exactly, again.If it isn't literally true, what is it? That it is expressing some deeper truth may mean telling us something about human myth -making or how the Bible up to Ezekiel was likely written in Babylon? I get it - you had in mind some impalpable thing evidencing God's love for us. Sorry, that carries no weight at all.

Yeah, you get it, because that is exactly what I was saying/thinking. You apparently don’t need me to have a conversation with me, so have fun. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[POI]

Okay, so far, we have his expressed letters of intention. But I doubt we would ever need this, just like we do not need many deemed fictional writers declaring fictional intent for Star Wars, Spiderman, the Hulk, etc....

What else do you got?

For Tolkien? Are you saying there aren’t any other, and it’s just a vague “we all know it’s fiction” with no actual reasons?

No. I'm asking you follow-up questions, like you have/are asking me follow-up questions about Genesis. You are the one who brought up Tolken. You are not agnostic about Tolken. You know Tolken was not a literary author but have yet to explain/demonstrate why. Yet, you somehow do not feel you need to go into much detail about Tolken, just as I do not feel I need to go into much detail about why the Genesis author's intent was meant to be factual. Now maybe you are starting to get how I feel, via post 197 and beyond.

Aside from Tolken's declaration of fiction in letters, for which it sounds like it would not be necessary any ways, what else is there to know the Hobbit was meant to be a work of fiction?

You’ve simply said it’s the default with no actual reason given. If you've given reasons, I'll be happy to discuss them.

Oh, but I did. All claimed holy books, as mentioned in post 197, are meant to be truth, not fiction. The Book of Mormon really thinks that the native Indians were the lost Jews in the Americas. Further, if you wish to claim that some of it is fiction, you are no longer claiming agnosticism to the entirety of Genesis, which means it is your burden to demonstrate why the parts you believe are allegorical/metaphorical or literal, ARE allegorical/metaphorical or literal.

Please pick a specific chapter/verse(s) in Genesis, where you are not completely agnostic. But instead, believe it is allegorical/metaphorical, which is a position you need to defend. I guess we can start from there and see where it goes.

But where is the evidence for this? So far, "I think", does not lead us to truth, unless by happy accident, does it?

1) There you go trying to shift the burden again. 2) You claim the science debunks the Bible. Your case relies on a particular interpretation of Genesis that you haven’t supported. And now you are back to saying I’ve got to provide evidence for a different view. 3) If that is all you’ve got, then this conversation is done and our posts can stand for themselves. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

1) Nope. I'm telling you that "I think" is weaker than the responses you are accusing me of giving you. Further, If you were to claim agnosticism for the whole of Genesis, then you may have some cause to accuse of unnecessary push-back. But you instead state some is literal, and some is allegorical, and some is other. These are positive claims, void of complete agnosticism to the Genesis account.

2) I have clearly stated in post 197, that for you, I do not think "science" could debunk the Bible. Why? When science does not align, it is either metaphorical/allegorical, or the absence of evidence to a claim (which should leave behind tons of evidence/stuff), leaves you agnostic?

3) Further, you have stated Genesis is a mix. And I would agree, to an extent. Even Spiderman is a mix. It takes place in a non-fictional location.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, exactly, again.If it isn't literally true, what is it? That it is expressing some deeper truth may mean telling us something about human myth -making or how the Bible up to Ezekiel was likely written in Babylon? I get it - you had in mind some impalpable thing evidencing God's love for us. Sorry, that carries no weight at all.

Yeah, you get it, because that is exactly what I was saying/thinking. You apparently don’t need me to have a conversation with me, so have fun. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

You are welcome, and I'll not hesitate to share my thoughts on any occasion that someone who doesn't believe that Genesis is true still tries to argue that it has some value beyond a an ancient historical curiosity.

[The Tanager]

No. I'm asking you follow-up questions, like you have/are asking me follow-up questions about Genesis. You are the one who brought up Tolken. You are not agnostic about Tolken. You know Tolken was not a literary author but have yet to explain/demonstrate why. Yet, you somehow do not feel you need to go into much detail about Tolken, just as I do not feel I need to go into much detail about why the Genesis author's intent was meant to be factual. Now maybe you are starting to get how I feel, via post 197 and beyond.

Aside from Tolken's declaration of fiction in letters, for which it sounds like it would not be necessary any ways, what else is there to know the Hobbit was meant to be a work of fiction?

But you agree it is fiction. That’s why I wasn’t going into details. Maybe you do really just have this vague feeling it is fiction and nothing more. Other reasons involve the complete lack of anyone ever claiming it was meant historically, marketing campaigns, publishing companies’ claims about it, everything that has ever been written about it in analysis, the Inklings records of helping Tolkien along his writing, etc.

But we don’t agree about Genesis, which gives you more reason to back up your claim on how to interpret it. And you give no firm support.

Oh, but I did. All claimed holy books, as mentioned in post 197, are meant to be truth, not fiction.

Truth, yes, but there are different fields of truth (scientific, historical, philosophical) and many genres within which to try to tell those truths, fictional and non-fictional genres.

Further, if you wish to claim that some of it is fiction, you are no longer claiming agnosticism to the entirety of Genesis, which means it is your burden to demonstrate why the parts you believe are allegorical/metaphorical or literal, ARE allegorical/metaphorical or literal.

You made the claim that science debunks the creation story. Your case rests on Genesis being literal. I questioned that premise, asking for support. Do you not have the burden by your above logic? Because you keep trying to act like I’m the one that initially made the claim we are analyzing, but I didn’t. You did. Stop shifting the burden if you want to support your claim and move this discussion forward.

2) I have clearly stated in post 197, that for you, I do not think "science" could debunk the Bible. Why? When science does not align, it is either metaphorical/allegorical, or the absence of evidence to a claim (which should leave behind tons of evidence/stuff), leaves you agnostic?

No, my interpretations of any book in the Bible have nothing to do with what science says, but what literary analysis says.

[POI]

To simplify, let's assume a library exists which only has two categories (fiction and non-fiction). Your task is to place these (2) books into one or the other. You have the Bible and The Hobbit. Which one goes where?

But you agree it is fiction. That’s why I wasn’t going into details.

Noted.

Maybe you do really just have this vague feeling it is fiction and nothing more.

I can grab this book from the "fictional" section. I can also read a story line which does not comport with our reality. How many people really go much further? Would they need to? My point is that it does not take much to assess that his works are meant to be fiction, even IF we did not have anything you are suggesting about his attestation and documented help.

But we don’t agree about Genesis, which gives you more reason to back up your claim on how to interpret it. And you give no firm support.

I provided 10 references about how Genesis is literal, I stated you would find it in the "non-fictional section", I also stated all holy books are not meant to be works of fiction. What else do I need? We can't ask the authors, they are dead. Heck, we likely do not even know who the author(s) were? So maybe we could NEVER really be "firm" in our conclusion, right?

Alternatively, since you state the opposite about Genesis, and are not completely agnostic to Genesis, like you have chosen to be for the Exodus, it is too just as much your burden. So please pick what you believe to be an allegorical story in Genesis, (that if instead were literal, would defy physical science). And please explain why this story line is NOT intended to be literal.

Truth, yes, but there are different fields of truth (scientific, historical, philosophical) and many genres within which to try to tell those truths, fictional and non-fictional genres.

I know. I already mentioned that even Spiderman can have truth within it. Even though it is meant to be fiction. The devil is in the details. Genesis lays down many claims which do not appear to comport with our shared reality of the physical sciences alone.

[The Tanager]

I can grab this book from the "fictional" section. I can also read a story line which does not comport with our reality. How many people really go much further? Would they need to? My point is that it does not take much to assess that his works are meant to be fiction, even IF we did not have anything you are suggesting about his attestation and documented help.

Yes, an appeal to authority. It’s fiction because the library says it is. The question is whether we can trust it is a good authority. It is a good authority if it uses all of those various reasons I mentioned and more (or appeals to a different authority that did all of that kind of reasoning). It still comes down to the reasons like I gave.

So, we must do that with any literary text, including the numerous, separate books that make up what we call the Bible. You gave 10 references of people who think Genesis is hyper-literal. You could have given more. And I could give references to those who disagree. We could both appeal to scholars in the field. That is vastly different from those who know Tolkien’s writings the best.

Alternatively, since you state the opposite about Genesis, and are not completely agnostic to Genesis, like you have chosen to be for the Exodus, it is too just as much your burden. So please pick what you believe to be an allegorical story in Genesis, (that if instead were literal, would defy physical science). And please explain why this story line is NOT intended to be literal.

And so the shift again. It's been outlawed in baseball as well as rational discussion.

[POI]

Second attempt: You are the librarian. Do you place the Bible in the fiction or the non-fiction section?

I can grab this book from the "fictional" section. I can also read a story line which does not comport with our reality. How many people really go much further? Would they need to? My point is that it does not take much to assess that his works are meant to be fiction, even IF we did not have anything you are suggesting about his attestation and documented help.

Yes, an appeal to authority. It’s fiction because the library says it is. The question is whether we can trust it is a good authority. It is a good authority if it uses all of those various reasons I mentioned and more (or appeals to a different authority that did all of that kind of reasoning). It still comes down to the reasons like I gave.

So, we must do that with any literary text, including the numerous, separate books that make up what we call the Bible. You gave 10 references of people who think Genesis is hyper-literal. You could have given more. And I could give references to those who disagree. We could both appeal to scholars in the field. That is vastly different from those who know Tolkien’s writings the best.

Again, aside from the author's direct attestation that (s)he is a fictional writer, and also aside from other people's documented collaboration regarding helping that author write works of fiction, how else might one 'prove' the author's intent to literal/allegorical claims? (Kind of rhetorical, to express my point in my last response to you). The reason I ask, is that we do not know who wrote Genesis. Is there a (way or ways) to determine if the intent of the Genesis writer(s) meant for such claims to be literal? Yes or no? If yes, what are they? If no, why?

Alternatively, since you state the opposite about Genesis, and are not completely agnostic to Genesis, like you have chosen to be for the Exodus, it is too just as much your burden. So please pick what you believe to be an allegorical story in Genesis, (that if instead were literal, would defy physical science). And please explain why this story line is NOT intended to be literal.

And so the shift again. It's been outlawed in baseball as well as rational discussion.

Did you, or did you not, state you believe Genesis is metaphorical? Yes or no? All I see you doing here is again stating "you stated your position first". When I presented my reason(s) for my position, you wave them away with rubberstamps. I'm now asking you why you state your position.

Do not let us forget the gumball machine. The gumball machine is full. The question is asked... Is the number of gumballs odd or even? (rhetorical) Just because I answered first does not absolve you. Neither of us have remained agnostic to the claim of odd or even...

I've asked you twice now, and you have hidden behind a rubberstamp. I would like to know, once and for all, if the author(s) of Genesis meant for their claims to be taken as literal, or not? I have debated hermeneutic scholars on both ends. Maybe I'll have better luck with you? Are you going to demonstrate your gnostic position, that Genesis is metaphorical/allegorical, and nothing in chapters 1-11 are literal, or, are you going to instead now state agnosticism to avoid demonstrating your burden? (Kind of rhetorical again).

I guess I'll start by picking an event in Genesis myself, in the hopes to move this exchange forward....

Genesis 6:13-22. Was God's command to Noah, which included specific instructions, meant to be a literal event? Yes or no? Since you have successfully "refuted" my justification for the event being literal, I now remain agnostic, and ask you for justification to this answer.

As I have stated twice now, many written tails can have truth within them. But we need to get into the weeds. I first need to know what YOUR stance is on the flood account (i.e.) literal event or not? If real, was it a global event or local event, and when, (a few thousand years ago, or other)? If allegorical/other, why do you believe so?

Thank you kindly