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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Appeal to valid authority is valid when the authority is valid. That is ,appeal to an authority in fields other than their expertise is the fallacy. Appeal to the authority of a physicist in physics in valid, but not if they are appealed to in their opinion about the Exodus.

Your argument is done wrong Of course anyone can be challenged, and a book once thought to be fiction (e.g Jack the Maybrick's diary) could turn out to be non -fiction. Changing expert opinion is a thing, and you cave to consider that.

At the moment, Genesis is considered by Authority - valid authority - to be debunked by palaeontology and biology and cosmology. They put Genesis on the diction shelf and so do you; there ore it is 'Not True'. Not even metaphorically. Exodus belonged on the history (non fiction) shelf, supposing they were separate books, up to recently, but is approaching re -classification as Myth (Fiction) with emerging scrutiny.

This is the right approach, not your comparisons with baseball, which you didn't explain and which I don't get. Tanager, our good pal, you have to revert back to the drawing board on that, your argument.

P.s. I have never come across a Tolkien Authority who considers Lor or the Hobbit non -fiction.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #230]

My positive claims in regards to this thread have been:

(1) that many Biblical claims are not scientific at all, but philosophical and, therefore, could not be debunked

(2) that those that are scientific (as you seem to include ‘historical’ and ‘archaeological’ in that) have a pretty hard task ahead of them to say they can debunk the Biblical record, but I’m willing to listen and analyze those claims.

If you want to disagree with what I’m claiming as it relates to this thread, then you need to disagree with one of those two claims. Yes, I have stated that I believe some parts of Genesis are meant metaphorically, but this thread isn’t about what parts of the Bible are literal and which bits are metaphorical, except for how they impact claims we are making in regard to this thread. The specific bits I think are metaphorical do not affect my two claims above. I am here to listen to and share my thoughts on people’s cases for science debunking the Bible or to talk about meta-questions like the two I named above.

If you believe I have refuted your justification for the flood being literal and you remain agnostic, fine. If you want to hear someone’s case for it being metaphorical, start a thread and maybe you can have that discussion with someone. I came here for this discussion, not to follow you on ones you want to have. That doesn’t mean those aren’t good ones for you to pursue, but I’m not beholden to talk about everything you want to talk about.

I honestly want to know if science debunks any Biblical claims, to challenge my worldview. I don’t want to currently discuss which stories are literal and which ones are metaphorical. That’s perfectly fine for me to do. If you don’t want to have this discussion, that’s perfectly fine. But your responses are shifting the question being talked about to one I didn’t come to this thread for. I don’t hold a burden to support beliefs I hold that are about different questions than the one I’m wanting to engage in.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #231]

Yes, the authority one appeals to must be valid. They are valid because of the reasons they have, knowing the field expertly, and arguing logically. We need to get to the reasons. The valid authorities on Genesis disagree. You can’t just say “this valid authority says it’s meant literally,” as support because other valid authorities disagree. At that point it comes down to the reasons. That’s what needs to be shown to support science debunking parts of the Bible (as well as that the science actually debunks whatever that proper interpretation is). Your P.s. about Tolkien is the point, because that makes POI’s argument by analogy for Genesis being literal an extremely weak analogy.

Now the bit about baseball. There was a defensive strategy in baseball to shift the infielders all to one side of the diamond because they were unafraid of the hitter being able to put the ball in play to the opposite side of the field, where gaping holes were left. MLB outlawed that recently.

I think POI continues to shift the question being talked about from (1) having to defend that science debunks the Bible to (2) which bits of the Bible are literal and which ones are metaphorical. If POI (or anyone) wants to say science debunks the Bible, it is they who need to show their interpretation of the Biblical passage is correct, not shifting that burden to prove them wrong. If one is agnostic on the issue, then that means the Bible has not been debunked in their mind.

[POI]

3rd attempt: You are the librarian, and your task is to place the Bible in one of only two sections available. Do you place the Bible in the fiction or the non-fiction section? Since you may still not answer, I'll speed this along. You would likely place the Bible in the non-fictional section. This answer speaks volumes. See below....

(1) that many Biblical claims are not scientific at all, but philosophical and, therefore, could not be debunked

Agreed. I already conceded this. This is not what I'm talking about.

(2) that those that are scientific (as you seem to include ‘historical’ and ‘archaeological’ in that) have a pretty hard task ahead of them to say they can debunk the Biblical record, but I’m willing to listen and analyze those claims.

Okay, we shall see below...

1) If you want to disagree with what I’m claiming as it relates to this thread, then you need to disagree with one of those two claims. Yes, I have stated that I believe some parts of Genesis are meant metaphorically, but this thread isn’t about what parts of the Bible are literal and which bits are metaphorical, except for how they impact claims we are making in regard to this thread. The specific bits I think are metaphorical do not affect my two claims above. I am here to listen to and share my thoughts on people’s cases for science debunking the Bible or to talk about meta-questions like the two I named above.

2) I honestly want to know if science debunks any Biblical claims, to challenge my worldview. I don’t want to currently discuss which stories are literal and which ones are metaphorical. That’s perfectly fine for me to do. If you don’t want to have this discussion, that’s perfectly fine. But your responses are shifting the question being talked about to one I didn’t come to this thread for. I don’t hold a burden to support beliefs I hold that are about different questions than the one I’m wanting to engage in.

1) In order to successfully explore the case, as to whether or not science debunks the Bible, we first need to know if the Bibe asserts literal claims, and which ones are literal? We agree science ain't touch'n metaphorical/philosophical/other. IS Genesis 6-8 a literal event? yes or no? If yes, proceed below. If no, why not?

a) Local or global?
b) A few thousand years ago, or longer?

2) I think discussing literal/metaphorical is directly interlaced with discerning IF science debunks it or not. Believers have had centuries to figure out the book they believe in. What IS the answer? Which stories ARE meant to be literal, for science to challenge? (rhetorical). Starting with Gen. 6-8, to see where this might go.

[POI]

I think POI continues to shift the question being talked about from (1) having to defend that science debunks the Bible to (2) which bits of the Bible are literal and which ones are metaphorical. If POI (or anyone) wants to say science debunks the Bible, it is they who need to show their interpretation of the Biblical passage is correct, not shifting that burden to prove them wrong. If one is agnostic on the issue, then that means the Bible has not been debunked in their mind.

Since opinions are a dime a dozen, I think The Tanager needs to first plant his flag. As I've said, in numerous responses, even fictional stories have 'truth' within them. In order to know if science debunks the bible, we first need to locate a claim, in which we know the author meant to be a literal event? But here we are, centuries later, and no truth assignments concluded? So maybe we should instead first await THE answers, before we even ask the question as to whether or not science debunks it. But I will not hold my breath.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #231]

Yes, the authority one appeals to must be valid. They are valid because of the reasons they have, knowing the field expertly, and arguing logically. We need to get to the reasons. The valid authorities on Genesis disagree. You can’t just say “this valid authority says it’s meant literally,” as support because other valid authorities disagree. At that point it comes down to the reasons. That’s what needs to be shown to support science debunking parts of the Bible (as well as that the science actually debunks whatever that proper interpretation is). Your P.s. about Tolkien is the point, because that makes POI’s argument by analogy for Genesis being literal an extremely weak analogy.

Now the bit about baseball. There was a defensive strategy in baseball to shift the infielders all to one side of the diamond because they were unafraid of the hitter being able to put the ball in play to the opposite side of the field, where gaping holes were left. MLB outlawed that recently.

I think POI continues to shift the question being talked about from (1) having to defend that science debunks the Bible to (2) which bits of the Bible are literal and which ones are metaphorical. If POI (or anyone) wants to say science debunks the Bible, it is they who need to show their interpretation of the Biblical passage is correct, not shifting that burden to prove them wrong. If one is agnostic on the issue, then that means the Bible has not been debunked in their mind.

You still seem to be utterly missing the point. It doesn't matter at all whether Genesis is reckoned to be fact or fiction or even a mix. What is claimed factual is refuted by science; what is fiction is irrelevant not because it isn't refuted by science (it is) but because it isn't reckoned fact in the first place.

And your point about baseball fails. The original point about Tolkien was that authorities (librarians) use their expertise (authority) to decide where Tolkien belongs. Nobody puts it in non -fiction. Tactical shifting of what is or is not fiction is irrelevant anyway as if it is fact, let's examine it. If it is considered fiction, even in part, there is nothing science needs to debunk.

[The Tanager]

Since opinions are a dime a dozen, I think The Tanager needs to first plant his flag. As I've said, in numerous responses, even fictional stories have 'truth' within them. In order to know if science debunks the bible, we first need to locate a claim, in which we know the author meant to be a literal event? But here we are, centuries later, and no truth assignments concluded? So maybe we should instead first await THE answers, before we even ask the question as to whether or not science debunks it. But I will not hold my breath.

Are you just going to go with what my interpretation is and then say whether the science can and, if so, has debunked that or not? Or is this an attempt to shift the burden to where if I can’t satisfy you that said Biblical passage is meant to be non-literal in its details, that we should treat it as literal?

[The Tanager]

You still seem to be utterly missing the point. It doesn't matter at all whether Genesis is reckoned to be fact or fiction or even a mix. What is claimed factual is refuted by science; what is fiction is irrelevant not because it isn't refuted by science (it is) but because it isn't reckoned fact in the first place.

There are facts about reality that aren’t scientific.

And your point about baseball fails. The original point about Tolkien was that authorities (librarians) use their expertise (authority) to decide where Tolkien belongs. Nobody puts it in non -fiction. Tactical shifting of what is or is not fiction is irrelevant anyway as if it is fact, let's examine it. If it is considered fiction, even in part, there is nothing science needs to debunk.

No, you are misunderstanding what the baseball line was pointing to. It had nothing to do with POI’s disanalogy of Tolkien and the Bible or the tactical shifting of library classifications. It was about POI not carrying the burden of proving his/her interpretation of a story that he/she thinks science has debunked but trying to get me to prove my interpretation of those stories instead (shifting the burden). It was simply a play on the word 'shift'.

[POI]

Since opinions are a dime a dozen, I think The Tanager needs to first plant his flag. As I've said, in numerous responses, even fictional stories have 'truth' within them. In order to know if science debunks the bible, we first need to locate a claim, in which we know the author meant to be a literal event? But here we are, centuries later, and no truth assignments concluded? So maybe we should instead first await THE answers, before we even ask the question as to whether or not science debunks it. But I will not hold my breath.

Are you just going to go with what my interpretation is and then say whether the science can and, if so, has debunked that or not? Or is this an attempt to shift the burden to where if I can’t satisfy you that said Biblical passage is meant to be non-literal in its details, that we should treat it as literal?

All I read here is more stalling....

Was Noah's flood a literal event, or not?
If literal, was it local or global?
If literal, was Noah's flood a few thousand years ago, or longer?

In order to determine IF science can debunk the Bible, we first need to establish a literal event in which science could possibly debunk. Starting with Noah's flood....

[The Tanager]

All I read here is more stalling....

Was Noah's flood a literal event, or not?
If literal, was it local or global?
If literal, was Noah's flood a few thousand years ago, or longer?

In order to determine IF science can debunk the Bible, we first need to establish a literal event in which science could possibly debunk. Starting with Noah's flood....

While I think it was probably based on a literal event, I believe the details of it are not literal history, but a metaphorical telling of a shared human narrative making philosophical points about God and humanity in contrast to what other cultures were saying. That shared memory was most likely a more localized flood more than a few thousand years ago. If you ask me to prove why that is how everyone else should look at it, then you are either shifting the question or shifting the burden, and you can play that game, but I won't play along, whatever additional empty rhetoric you want to paint my response with.