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]

No, dammit there it is again, basic faithbased skewing of the discussion. Sure, any work of legend, fiction or even philosophy can talk about the problem of human morals as Our own problem, but your bias and basic flawed logical approach is shown by jumping not only to a divine intervention solution, and Only solution, but a particular god and religion. Don't you see even as an argument (whether or not you can accept it) how your argument assumes the existence of an intervening god (never mind which one) as Given, without which (and there is no really good evidence for it) your whole argument fails?

You see, our dear Tanager, If you put your hands up and said "Ok, the evidence isn't as good as it should be, and half only gets us to which god? And I am really arguing from Faith but I respect your reasons for disbelief as empirical and logical", we could do business; but all the time you are insisting that your faithbased argument is evidence - based and logical when it is really based on denying evidence and logic in favour of a Particular religious faith, then we can't get to a logical end and, like our pal 1213, you have to rely on social and political faith - support or you and your religion will lose.

Mindset and worldview dealt with let's see what else you produce.

I didn’t say it was an argument for anything. You see, our dear Transponder, if you would stop having discussions with straw tanagers, we could do business.

And your slam dunk debunk denial is yet more of the same illogical fallacy. A mindset of Believe - or not. Never mind weight of evidence, because all the time you can think up any excuse - even the feeble one of 'metaphorically true' which we saw was just an excuse to appeal to a particular God - is considered a refuter of the debunk. But even Theists recognise probability and weight of evidence - but only when it suits them (e.g the miserable 'heap of bad evidence makes a bit of good evidence' argument intended to improve theist probability). Can you not comprehend (if not believe or accept) how you are doing evidence and logic the wrong way and all you are doing is excuses to keep a less probable faithbased belief afloat? I'm not asking you to give up the Faith but see clearly that your arguments are faithbased, not based on good evidence or sound logic.

Another straw conclusion you’ve run with. I’ve never said a failure to debunk the Bible means its claims are true. The real impetus behind joining this thread was that I think 100% certainty (beyond pure math and definitions) is a fool’s errand is too prevelant in the discussions I often have on here. If we can get past exaggerated claims of 'debunking', then we can have more fruitful discussions.

I might be misunderstanding your discussion, but our dear Tanager, I suspect you are wriggling with this 'Straw Tanager' excuse. You pretend your arguments was something else.

Fine, happy to play with your pieces, as I used to say in the old days. I'll assume you were arguing something else. So what is it? We both agree that the proverbial "100% certainly" (a theist fallacy or misuse of reasoning) is irrelevant; it is always the best model of reality that fits what is known. And what science tells us is historically more reliable than Imperfect Human Perceptions - which includes human delusions so 'Revelation is thankfully disposed of as an argument.

So unless you are tossing out the Bible as a guide to anything you must be proposing it as the default unless science can debunk it. Despite what you say, if that is not what you argue, I fail to see that you have anything to argue here at all. Of course if you want to walk it back and argue for Bible credibility, I won't hold you to previous claims.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #251]

This kind of post is why I’ve been seriously considering leaving online forums like this, but actually haven’t yet. It comes from mistrust but I keep holding out hope that you’ll see your mistrust for what it is, something you’ve brought to our discussion (probably for good reason from some of the theists you’ve encountered) and not what I’ve actually been giving you. And this isn’t just about you, but the majority of those here to interact with. I’m “wriggling” and making “excuses”. And the 100% certainty is a theist fallacy, as though non-theists never try to use that tactic. Both groups have people who use it, and both are wrong when they do it. Too many people turn to empty rhetoric and psychologizing instead of sticking with the actual arguments and evidence. It’s a no win situation because even if I’m not doing those things one won’t trust that I’m not because they know better.

As far as when the Bible comes in as a reliable guide, that is much further down the line of agreed upon (and hopefully for good reasons) beliefs. I’ve never assumed the Bible’s authority in any argument I’ve made in my years on this forum and don’t expect anyone differing from my worldview to accept it as an authority.

I’m not proposing the Bible is true as the default. Agnosticism on whether science debunks the Bible or not is the default. My claims in this thread have been that much of the Bible logically couldn’t be debunked by science because it’s claims are not of that nature and that, of those that theoretically could be debunked, the nature of a field like archaeology makes it very difficult. That’s it. Nothing about what follows from that until my last post, where I made clear that I don’t think that is a big deal for people who think the Bible’s teachings are still false.

But if you know better and I’m just wriggling and walking things back and blah, blah, blah, then you can continue to have both sides of the discussion you seem to think we are having and I’ll stop wasting my time.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #251]

This kind of post is why I’ve been seriously considering leaving online forums like this, but actually haven’t yet. It comes from mistrust but I keep holding out hope that you’ll see your mistrust for what it is, something you’ve brought to our discussion (probably for good reason from some of the theists you’ve encountered) and not what I’ve actually been giving you. And this isn’t just about you, but the majority of those here to interact with. I’m “wriggling” and making “excuses”. And the 100% certainty is a theist fallacy, as though non-theists never try to use that tactic. Both groups have people who use it, and both are wrong when they do it. Too many people turn to empty rhetoric and psychologizing instead of sticking with the actual arguments and evidence. It’s a no win situation because even if I’m not doing those things one won’t trust that I’m not because they know better.

As far as when the Bible comes in as a reliable guide, that is much further down the line of agreed upon (and hopefully for good reasons) beliefs. I’ve never assumed the Bible’s authority in any argument I’ve made in my years on this forum and don’t expect anyone differing from my worldview to accept it as an authority.

I’m not proposing the Bible is true as the default. Agnosticism on whether science debunks the Bible or not is the default. My claims in this thread have been that much of the Bible logically couldn’t be debunked by science because it’s claims are not of that nature and that, of those that theoretically could be debunked, the nature of a field like archaeology makes it very difficult. That’s it. Nothing about what follows from that until my last post, where I made clear that I don’t think that is a big deal for people who think the Bible’s teachings are still false.

But if you know better and I’m just wriggling and walking things back and blah, blah, blah, then you can continue to have both sides of the discussion you seem to think we are having and I’ll stop wasting my time.

Well that wasn't very good and up to you whether you run away or argue honestly. You were the one that twitted me with misrepresenting you and I have been very accepting of being corrected if I misunderstand and offering suggestions (Guesses - I'm not a mind reader) which you could contest.

Mistrust? Maybe this escaped you but I have seen this many times before. It is stock theist apologetics. I'd be fooled Thrice if I was Not mistrustful. "I've never claimed this or that" may even look fair and honest to you but it actually evades what you DO claim.

Look, the original debate was about Bible credibility and I at least argued that the chat about metaphor was irrelevant. If it wasn't supposed to be true, it didn't matter anyway. That said, the Bible has to be debated as though it was factual. After that I sorta forget but it looked like trying to score points like 'That wasn't what i meant' 'So ok, what did you mean?'
Frankly, you last reads not like a despairing 'Why can't you atheists understand?' but like a an attempt to evade being pinned down. If not literal, you have nothing to say.

If Literal, science has a debunk case.

If appealing to true even if not factual, we'll do that, but it does it not lead to 'which God?' and humanist morals?

Again, rather than puke on me or threaten to quit, I invite explanation and correction. And don't dare pull rank or that really will demolish your credibility, which is on the line just now, I'd say. The true believers are waiting for a good case, not lawyer tricks.

Believe me, I'd prefer a thoughtful discussion to 'Your honour - I object to this line of questioning. Shut the prosecution up or I'll walk out'. "If you do,you lose the case" (Gavel).

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #253]

Well, looks like we've had our say. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and reading mine. Have a good one.

[POI]

You gave an example of another dead writer, Tolken. I see this example as a false comparison. Why? We know who wrote TLoR and The Hobbit, Tolken. Aside from the 'obvious' of his works being intended to be fiction, we also have him, on record, expressing he is a fictional writer. We also have documented occurrence(s) of others helping him with his fictional work(s). Genesis is another animal completely. We do not know whom/who wrote genesis. Hence, the 'evidence' you did provide, for Tolken, cannot begin to apply for the author of Genesis.

It’s not a false comparison. I brought in Tolkien because Transponder said all they needed to do was to paste the text to support a literal interpretation. You’ve also said that that’s just how the text clearly reads, as literal. So does Tolkien’s work. But you don’t come to the same conclusion with that work. That proves that you don’t really think one just needs to paste the text and read it straightforwardly. Except for the Bible.

It's a false comparison because:

a) We do not know whom/who is the author(s) of Genesis? Do we? But we know the author of TLoR and The Hobbit.
b) The author of Genesis was writing a work of truth, as opposed to Tolken, who was not.
c) The default for Genesis is truth/literal/factual (as opposed to) false/fantasy/non-factual

In the Bible, the default is truth. Just like if I were to watch a movie which claims it was based upon actual events. Which is why you now wish to impose that truth does not always imply literalism. But we do not know which events were meant to be literal versus not, because we do not even know who was the author(s)?

Can we ever know if the first 11 chapters of Genesis were meant to be literal? If so, why hasn't the answer been established, even after all this time? Sure, we can always have debates, even about a 'flat earth'. But debating the shape of the earth is not a real debate, is it.... (Rhetorical)

Those kinds of things are why I interpret Genesis the way I do. It’s not to protect the Bible from being falsified. It isn’t trying to make Genesis concord with science. It’s literary analysis. Argue for genres, stop trying to make this about something as though you know my "real" motives.

I really can't help but to wonder if your views would be the same had it not been about the book in which you were introduced to as a youngster? As it stands, here is why I continue to state science cannot debunk the Bible, for you:

a) Genesis is speaking metaphorically/philosophically, but it still points to truth; just not a literal account of events which could be measured against physical science. Except maybe some local flood somewhere, who-knows-when...
b) The Exodus, lacking physical evidence, means we will never really know... Even though such an event would leave behind all sorts of stuff.
c) The NT cannot be falsified, because you cannot disprove a virgin birth, rising corpses, etc.

Conclusion:

The Bible makes many many many claims. The ones which do not appear to comport with the physical sciences are, of course, philosophical/other. The ones which could be measured against the physical sciences have no evidence to compare. But, lets still keep our options open anyways because the Bible claims it happened. And all the expressed miracles cannot be falsified scientifically because they were all one-time claimed events, thousands of years ago.

I'm sorry, but all I've read in your replies, is a demonstration of cognitive dissonance and special pleading. We all apply them. I happily admit I apply a cognitive dissonance every time I eat meat.

[The Tanager]

It's a false comparison because:

a) We do not know whom/who is the author(s) of Genesis? Do we? But we know the author of TLoR and The Hobbit.
b) The author of Genesis was writing a work of truth, as opposed to Tolken, who was not.
c) The default for Genesis is truth/literal/factual (as opposed to) false/fantasy/non-factual

a) But there still is an author and authors write within cultural contexts and fit into genres. While it helps, you don’t need to know the author to know the genre.

b) You don’t think Tolkien weaved any of his beliefs about truth into his work?

c) That’s the question we are discussing; this begs that question. Plus, truth is not a synonym to literal, as non-literal works can still contain truth (as you’ve said).

Can we ever know if the first 11 chapters of Genesis were meant to be literal? If so, why hasn't the answer been established, even after all this time? Sure, we can always have debates, even about a 'flat earth'. But debating the shape of the earth is not a real debate, is it.... (Rhetorical)

We have debates in every field. The realism vs. anti-realism scientific debate will never go away. Neither will interpretation debates, especially of a book read by hundreds/thousands of different cultures and worldviews all thinking it is something worth taking note of. There are even debates about what Tolkien meant by this character or this feature of his writing, etc. That's the nature of writing a book.

I really can't help but to wonder if your views would be the same had it not been about the book in which you were introduced to as a youngster? As it stands, here is why I continue to state science cannot debunk the Bible, for you:

a) Genesis is speaking metaphorically/philosophically, but it still points to truth; just not a literal account of events which could be measured against physical science. Except maybe some local flood somewhere, who-knows-when...
b) The Exodus, lacking physical evidence, means we will never really know... Even though such an event would leave behind all sorts of stuff.
c) The NT cannot be falsified, because you cannot disprove a virgin birth, rising corpses, etc.

Your wondering travels down the genetic fallacy, once again. Arguments cannot be rationally defeated by appealing to when/how one came to believe the conclusions in the first place; arguments must have their premises defeated, wherever they come from.

a) Yes, if a book isn’t making a scientific claim, then it can’t be scientifically debunked. That’s logic.

b) No, I do think the Exodus is debunkable, albeit very difficult because of the nature of archaeology. I also think the reverse, using archaeological evidence to try to prove the Bible, has a very difficult before it for the same reasons. But even the archaeological scholars are still hotly debating where the evidence should be, where it is, and what that evidence does or does not show. To paint it as "there is no evidence" misunderstands the scholarly debate.

c) No, I do think it can be falsified. I think it can’t be 100% disproven, but so what, hardly anything that isn’t definitional can’t be. I do think you can, theoretically, show such things are not the rational positions to take, although I think those cases fail for rational reasons.

The Bible makes many many many claims. The ones which do not appear to comport with the physical sciences are, of course, philosophical/other. The ones which could be measured against the physical sciences have no evidence to compare. But, lets still keep our options open anyways because the Bible claims it happened.

No, one should use literary analysis that takes into account culture context and all of that to understand what a book was trying to claim. Reading science back onto it is taking it out of context. So, yes, don’t discount the Bible because of an out of context eisegesis thousands of years after the fact from within a different culture from when the book was written. But don’t accept the Bible as true because of that.

And all the expressed miracles cannot be falsified scientifically because they were all one-time claimed events, thousands of years ago.

Miracles, by definition, couldn’t be falsified scientifically because they are proposed as coming not from a natural source (which is the field of science) but from a supposed supernatural source. That doesn’t mean they can’t be falsified, though. Science isn’t the only avenue of truth. Miracles can be falsified through history and philosophy.

[POI]

a) But there still is an author and authors write within cultural contexts and fit into genres. While it helps, you don’t need to know the author to know the genre.

If you do not know the author, you cannot <verify> the author's intent, like you displayed with Tolken. This is exactly why I brought up the (2) points you made about Tolken and his writings. Those (2) points make it logically impossible to dispute that Tolken was intending to write works of non-fiction. We don't have those (2) points for the author of Genesis. Heck, we do not even know who wrote Genesis? Hence, we cannot ever really verify the intent of the writing style, can we? If we do not, one can just as easily argue/justify Genesis being written by a deranged or self-deluded individual. Or, merely copied from other pre-existing stories floating around.

b) You don’t think Tolkien weaved any of his beliefs about truth into his work?

Sure, but we also <know> Tolken's intent was to be fictional. We also know Tolken's intent was not to be literal. We have no such starting point with Genesis.

c) That’s the question we are discussing; this begs that question. Plus, truth is not a synonym to literal, as non-literal works can still contain truth (as you’ve said).

Since we cannot verify the author, then I guess we cannot verify if the author's intent was to be literal or not. Since "science" most likely debunks, or causes the believers quite a bit of stress, I guess it's easier to just assume this anonymous author's intent was philosophical/metaphorical alone. This is exactly how one might protect their beloved book.

We have debates in every field. The realism vs. anti-realism scientific debate will never go away. Neither will interpretation debates, especially of a book read by hundreds/thousands of different cultures and worldviews all thinking it is something worth taking note of. There are even debates about what Tolkien meant by this character or this feature of his writing, etc. That's the nature of writing a book.

You may have missed my point. Yes, almost everything is debatable. Many things in which both you and I agree upon as established fact, like the earth being spherical, many may still debate. There still exists a group of 'flat-earthers BECAUSE of their translation of the Bible. They too are protecting their beloved book. So I still ask anew... Have the hermeneutic scholars solved this question? Is Genesis meant to be a literal account of events, or not? They have had a long time to investigate.

a) Yes, if a book isn’t making a scientific claim, then it can’t be scientifically debunked. That’s logic.

But the question remains unanswered. Was the intent of the Genesis author meant to be taken literally, or not? Let's start here, with some facts where we both agree....

1) The Bible is non-fiction while Tolken's works are fiction.
2) The authors of the Bible write about literal events while Tolken does not write about any literal events.
3) The Bible is based upon actual events, while Tolken's work are not based upon any actual events.

Of course, it's logical to conclude science cannot debunk Genesis if it is philosophical/metaphorical. But we already know Tolken's works could not be scientifically challenged because we already know the intent of his stories were not meant to be literal anywhere.

b) No, I do think the Exodus is debunkable, albeit very difficult because of the nature of archaeology. I also think the reverse, using archaeological evidence to try to prove the Bible, has a very difficult before it for the same reasons. But even the archaeological scholars are still hotly debating where the evidence should be, where it is, and what that evidence does or does not show. To paint it as "there is no evidence" misunderstands the scholarly debate.

This goes back to the video in the Exodus thread. Your only argument is that we are looking in the wrong time period. But the video covers this too. You have demonstrated a differing reason to protect the Bible. With Genesis, it must be philosophical/metaphorical. With the Exodus, it's still hotly debated. Well, it's not, if you watch the video. As stated prior, flat-earthers still 'debate' their position. It does not then still make it a real debate.

c) No, I do think it can be falsified. I think it can’t be 100% disproven, but so what, hardly anything that isn’t definitional can’t be. I do think you can, theoretically, show such things are not the rational positions to take, although I think those cases fail for rational reasons.

If a virgin birth did not happen 2K years ago, but a book says it happened, how might one disprove that claim? I don't think 'history' or 'philosophy' can disprove it either. It's not falsifiable. Just like "Muhammad flying to Heaven on a wingrf horse" is not falsifiable. Thus, you have a built-in mechanism to protect your beloved Bible here too. Just like the ones who believe in the Holy Quran.

No, one should use literary analysis that takes into account culture context and all of that to understand what a book was trying to claim. Reading science back onto it is taking it out of context. So, yes, don’t discount the Bible because of an out of context eisegesis thousands of years after the fact from within a different culture from when the book was written. But don’t accept the Bible as true because of that.

Since we do NOT know who the author is, we cannot rule out some dude who looked around, interpreted what he thought, and also thought it came from a higher power. Is it still logically possible to conclude Genesis was meant to be a literal account of events? I don't think you can answer 'no' without knowing WHO the author even was?

For the life of me, why not instead, (at most), be completely agnostic to the Bible, rather than being a believer? It's a large collection a claims, which apparently has not met its burden of proof.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #256]

Yes, that's all fine. And much of it subject for discussion in seminars on why we tell stories and the nature of epistemology.
The fallacy of Believe or not, the 100% proof argument and the sliding scale of evidence -based probability is all known. Though it doesn't hurt to do it again But the basics of logic and evidence -based discussion should be known by now.

And preferably not misrepresented. Non factual stories rather do not merit disproof rather than cannot be disproven. They should not form part of the discussion at all.

Miracles now are a somewhat different matter. What can be falsified and what cannot is irrelevant because, as you say, it is beyond natural explanations. History and philosophy translates into English as 'The Bible claim to eyewitness miracles and Rhetoric designed to get around the materialist default'.

Obvious case here is the resurrection. Bible apologetics and Christianity rests entirely on the Gospels as reliable record. I hardly need repeat my argument that such contradictory accounts do not deserve credibility. Not even the women at the tomb is beyond doubt, never mind the angel's message, not found in John, only a Mary who thinks someone took the body away.

Even if the resurrection account could be given as much credibility as (say) the crucifixion, a mundane of natural explanation takes precedence over a miracle because 'miracles don't happen' as they say. We are not talking falsification, 100% debunk or reversal of burden of proof or any of the 'Philosophical' fiddles that Bible apologists use, but what is more probable - that a dead body came miraculously alive or there was some natural explanation. We only have to go back to the time that people insisted on being buried with alarm bells attached to the coffin because fear of being buried and then reviving (if that isn't a scopes fallacy ). Or in the OT, the miracle of the sun standing still. It is not a matter of trusting the record or falsification or 100% disproof, it is what is most likely, that everything we know about how the world (and solar system) works is magically suspended or it's a tall story?

Respond or not, I present this rebuttal of the argument made in your post for general consideration.

[The Tanager]

If you do not know the author, you cannot <verify> the author's intent, like you displayed with Tolken. This is exactly why I brought up the (2) points you made about Tolken and his writings. Those (2) points make it logically impossible to dispute that Tolken was intending to write works of non-fiction. We don't have those (2) points for the author of Genesis. Heck, we do not even know who wrote Genesis? Hence, we cannot ever really verify the intent of the writing style, can we? If we do not, one can just as easily argue/justify Genesis being written by a deranged or self-deluded individual. Or, merely copied from other pre-existing stories floating around.

Why do we have to know the author and/or have his explicit writings on what kind of literature he is writing to get at what the genre/intentions of that writing are? Yes, it helps. Yes, it can give us as near 100% as we can get (technically they could still be lying, for instance). But why can’t we reasonably form a belief the genre/intentions if we don’t know the exact author?

Sure, but we also <know> Tolken's intent was to be fictional. We also know Tolken's intent was not to be literal. We have no such starting point with Genesis.

That’s not the starting point with Tolkien either. We can’t know his intent was to be fictional until we see the evidence that shows his intent was to be fictional.

You may have missed my point. Yes, almost everything is debatable. Many things in which both you and I agree upon as established fact, like the earth being spherical, many may still debate. There still exists a group of 'flat-earthers BECAUSE of their translation of the Bible. They too are protecting their beloved book. So I still ask anew... Have the hermeneutic scholars solved this question? Is Genesis meant to be a literal account of events, or not? They have had a long time to investigate.

Flat earthers are not a part of the scholarly community. Both realists and anti-realists are part of the scholarly community. Both Bible literalists and non-literalists are part of the scholarly community. Your question has no force behind it for this discussion because of that very key difference.

But the question remains unanswered. Was the intent of the Genesis author meant to be taken literally, or not? Let's start here, with some facts where we both agree....

1) The Bible is non-fiction while Tolken's works are fiction.
2) The authors of the Bible write about literal events while Tolken does not write about any literal events.
3) The Bible is based upon actual events, while Tolken's work are not based upon any actual events.

I don’t agree that the Bible is non-fiction. It is a mix of fiction and non-fiction, literal events and non-literal events (both those possibly based on actual events as well as those not based on actual events).

If a virgin birth did not happen 2K years ago, but a book says it happened, how might one disprove that claim? I don't think 'history' or 'philosophy' can disprove it either. It's not falsifiable. Just like "Muhammad flying to Heaven on a wingrf horse" is not falsifiable. Thus, you have a built-in mechanism to protect your beloved Bible here too. Just like the ones who believe in the Holy Quran.

Is the standard 100% or just what is reasonable? If the former, then it can’t be disproven, but that standard is silly. If the latter, then the burden is on the one claiming the miracle to show that it is the most reasonable position to take. All the other side needs to do is defeat those arguments.

[The Tanager]

Obvious case here is the resurrection. Bible apologetics and Christianity rests entirely on the Gospels as reliable record.

Why does the case for the historicity of the resurrection rest on the Gospels being entirely reliable?

Even if the resurrection account could be given as much credibility as (say) the crucifixion, a mundane of natural explanation takes precedence over a miracle because 'miracles don't happen' as they say.

It is the burden of the believer to show that a miracle happened because of our normal experience of reality, yes. Void of any other evidence, one should believe Jesus didn’t resurrect. But there is other evidence and that argument can, theoretically, be defeated.