The Bible...trust in Faith or trust in Fact?

by jgnat 163 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  jgnat

  I read the most extraordinary claim the other day. "The bible is factual." I wondered, how could the speaker possibly back up such a claim? Perhaps, if that person has a completely different understanding of "facts" than I do. To me, a fact 1 is something that at least two people can independently verify by observation. Here I lay out my reasons, by definition, the bible cannot be considered "factual". If anyone wants to refute this, we will first have to agree on a different definition for "fact".

  Does anything exist outside of observable nature?

  Does anything exist outside of the bible accounts?

  E=MC2 is not in the Bible

  Is it a fact that Energy equals Mass times the speed of light, squared? We could say that this hypothesis has been independently verified many times over. Otherwise "Little Boy" would not have exploded over Hiroshima. Did God include the formula for energy in the Bible? For that matter, the bible is also silent on electricity, atomic structure, internal combustion engines, gunpowder, and aeroplanes.

  So I think it is safe to say that the bible is not a comprehensive document on the nature of matter, electricity, or our universe. The bible writers did not concieve of our modern world. We could say, however, the bible does speak to general principles on how we are to treat our neighbours, for instance. So the bible remains relevant when it concerns philosophy or morality.

  Einstein's discovery

  Is it a fact that Energy equals Mass times the speed of light, squared? E=MC2 was first discovered mathematically, and then independently verified by other mathematicians. The entire hypothesis remained untested however, until scientists convinced an atom or two to give up it's mass. The resultant measured energy was what was expected, mathematically, from an atomic explosion. Einstein's hypothesis was successfully tested.

  Independent verification

  Here's another example of an experiment used to observe very small things, and the further hypothesis developed to explain the results.

  Can bible claims be similarly tested? Can one or more people independently test and observe bible claims such as the origins of the universe? The existence of a garden of Eden? Most of the bible cannot, because the bible consists mainly of historical accounts. We haven't invented a time machine yet that can take us back to verify the claims. Therefore, the "bible" in it's entirety, cannot be "factual".

  Empirical, observable, testable. Is it for Christians?

  Job did it. Solomon did it. So did the Boereans. Every once in a while give the old foundation a good shake. Does it stand up? If it doesn't, don't blame the storm! If it's not the storm, it must be the foundation. What is wrong with the foundation? Who cares if the contractors (learned scholars) certified it safe. If the foundation crumbled in the storm, you have a faulty foundation.

  Tim Severin tests out Legends

  Here's an interesting example of how historical accounts might be tested today. Tim Severin builds craft and recreates recorded journeys. Some of these journeys have been debunked as impossible with the equipment available at the time. Tim asks, "was it really impossible"? I find his approach fascinating. It makes me wonder if there might be more truth in the Homeric legends and other extraordinary events that have filtered through our history than modern historians can even conceive.

  "Studying the eighth-century Latin text Navigatio Sancti Brendani Abbatis, which describes a precise if phantasmagoric voyage to the New World by Saint Brendan, a sixth-century Irish monk and missionary, Severin began to believe that such a journey may have actually taken place.
  
  The only way to prove it was to do it, so he did. He spent two years building a replica of the early Irish skin boat, then, using the Navigatio as a travel guide, sailed the craft 4,500 miles from Ireland to Newfoundland via the Hebrides, the Faroe Islands, and Iceland. Though he nearly died trying, Severin proved that seafaring Irish monks could have discovered North America in the sixth century, well ahead of the Vikings and almost a millennium before Columbus."

  Nothing wrong with faith. Don't confuse faith with facts.

  I have faith that people will usually do good. I have faith that our civic government will manage the daily affairs of our city in an orderly fashion. I have faith in my utility company and in oxygen. I also have faith that God spoke to me in my hour of need, that the experience was not just a figment of my distressed mind. I have faith that Jesus was a genuine historical figure and that his teachings have reached us fairly intact. Having faith in these things not only structures my beliefs, they allow me to function. A lot of things can be ripped from us in life. I could lose my health, my financial security, or God forbid, my children. My faith helps me carry on.

  Let's look at these faith-items and see if they are based on fact, or independently verifiable observation:

  People will usually do good. - NOPE

  Civic Government orderly - YES. We have not had to test this out in a crisis, thank goodness, but every morning the street lights come on and every Monday we get garbage pickup. I have abundant proofs that my faith is founded.

  Utility Company - YES. Aside from a few blackouts a year, they are 24/7 reliable.

  Oxygen - YES. There are many proofs that oxygen exists and will remain.

  God spoke to me - NO. I know it, but nobody else was there to hear it. Not independently verifiable.

  Jesus a Historical Figure - NO. The facts are buried in the mists of time.

  Teachings Fairly Intact - NO. The facts are buried in the mists of time.

  Do I wait until I have proof? Why? Must I defend to a skeptic my faith in others? Why? What if it were proved to me that over 50% of the population is selfish, self-centred, and if deprived of bread, would not hesitate to devour me? What would it matter? I prefer to live with hope than without it. My faith is not dependent on empirical evidence. What I won't do, however, is confuse faith with fact. Victor Frankl is a man who was stripped to the bare essentials. By himself, stripped, he found meaning.

  "We must never forget that we may also find meaning in life even when confronted with a hopeless situation, when facing a fate that cannot be changed. For what then matters is to bear witness to the uniquely human potential at its best, which is to transform a personal tragedy into a triumph, to turn one's predicament into a human achievement."

  http://www.empirezine.com/spotlight/frankl/frankl1.htm

  And another, I just can't help myself:

  "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."

  http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/viktor_frankl/

  Does anything exist outside of observable nature?

  There may very well be many things we have yet to discover. I think we can safely scratch the notion of Ether. And Saskquatch. And the Loch Ness Monster. Do undiscovered things exist? Yes. Can they be empirically proven to exist, facts? No.

  Does anything exist outside of the bible accounts?

  Yes, plenty. Electricity, atomic structure, internal combustion engines, gunpowder, and aeroplanes. If the bible is silent on these things, are we to ignore them? If so, Pluto would never have been discovered. Or the atomic bomb. There is a place for empirical, scientific discovery, to write down accurately what we see and look for the best theory to explain their existence.

  Footnotes

  1 FACTUAL: When philosophers speak eg of a factual proposition or claim, they usually mean that it is true or false, especially that it is an EMPIRICAL or at least non-ANALYTIC truth or falsehood. Hence ‘Glasgow is the capital of Scotland’ is factual. (Apologies to my Scottish friends, this is a direct quote, as written. Of course Glasgow is not the capital of Scotland)
  http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml

  Based on this definition, what is "factual" about the bible? These are all factual statements:
  
  - There is a bible.

  - The bible is a compilation of many written works, composed over thousands of years.

  - There are various translations of the bible available.

  - There are also disputes as to which works should be included in the bible, and which excluded, though there are a core set of works that all have in common.
  
  The following is not a "factual" statement, because there is no empirical way to back it up:
  
  - Every event described in the bible happened as written.
• 

  stillajwexelder

  but the circular reasoning given will be -- the bible itslef says "Without faith it is impossible to please him"
• 

  Narkissos

  Theologian Eberhard Jüngel once came up with an interesting definition of "faith" as "suspension of security" (tentative translation).

  A number of things can be backed up and secured to a certain extent within the social and technical arrangement which we call "world". But basically my relationship as a speaking subject ("I") to everything (starting with my own "body") rests on some sort of "faith". Every minute we all take millions of parameters, on which we have absolutely no control, for granted.

  We are all walking on the sea (and poking fun at "faith").
• 

  Eyebrow2

  Excellent post!

  I am reading "the Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. He makes some excellent points about the bible, very interesting.

  It is a worthy read for those that are Christians and who are not. (He wasn't an atheist by the way, but a Theist, so those that have issues with atheist writings don't have to worry about that.)

  I do still find value in the bible, as I regard it a great piece of work that touches upon human nature. But there are just too many holes for me to believe it is the word of God.
• 

  kilroy2

  When some little brain uses this line of reasoning I.E. the bible says that this city or person lived or was a real place then it was found to be true, so hence jesus walked on water. I use this to refute this silly line of reasoning.

  In homers Iliad and odyssey he talks about cities such as troy that was once thought to be fantasy but have proven to be real. and the existence of Agamemnon, does this then prove that medusa turned people to stone, and Achilles was dipped into the river Styx to make him invulnerable? I think not. if that reasoning fails in the latter, it fails in the former
• 

  jgnat

  Great contributions, all. My mind is in estacy of deep thought.

  Stillajwexelder , I’m not complaining about faith. We need it. I merely protest the admixture of “reasoning” with bible truths. As Kilroy says so eloquently, proving the existence of Troy does not mean we can walk on water. And Narkissos, that deep quote that will have me pondering for months, shows that our daily walk is on water. I wonder if our brains, in the absence of instinct, are necessarily wired for faith? If, eyebrow, if our fundy friends would defend the bible as “great piece of work that touches upon human nature” a great deal of circular reasoning could be avoided.
• 

  OldSoul

  By God, I like you, jgnat!!!

  You have beautifully expressed my feelings on the matter. Where the Scientific Method makes sense, it should be used and its results heeded. When it makes claims about matters outside its scope of effectiveness it states the unsubstantiable.

  For instance, on many threads our senses have been described as only perceiving physical reality. However, this is proven by use of the Scientific Method which is self-limited to exploration of the physical reality. The glaring logical fallacy of this is something proponents of the Scientific Method as a panacea to the world's ignorance are loathe to admit.

  I also choose hope.

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  Big Dog

  jgnat, wonderful post/thread. I agree with all of the above, people should not try to pass their faith off as fact, nor should they try to use science on matters of faith. Each has its own domain and should stay there.
• 

  Check_Your_Premises

  Great post JGnat!

  I think I may confuse some athiest/agnostics here having gone the opposite direction they have.

  I also am annoyed as they are by some fundamentalist antics, particularly those that make mention of fact or fiction that could only be at best described as likely or unlikely.

  Such reluctance to name as "truth" in absence of evidence can come across to the fundamentalist as lack of faith. For instance I have always thought the story of the garden of eden to be allegory rather than actual events. And for me it is difficult to respect a fundamentalist who maintains that such events took place exactly as described without any supporting evidence (or in the presence of evidence to the contrary). It disturbs me!

  I do however think the key teachings of the Bible is intact, and far simpler then many would have it. I also think whatever "facts" you require, will be given to if you do exercise the due diligence to seek out a Creator who manifests himself in a subtle but barely perceptible ways that are only found by repeatedly asking "why".

  For myself my breakthrough in faith came when I decided to imagine that His existence could be a possibility. It was a painful detachment of my rational mind as Terry would put it. I realized that in many ways we can be better off believing in God, that such a decision has practical benefits. I decided, for the sake of argument, to believe that God existed.

  The grass became greener. The sky became bluer. My life became infused with meaning that always eluded my proudly rational mind. I immediately began to have experiences stemming from my new perspective. I kind of liked it. But in particular I began to have very vivid dreams that indirectly fortold a future life shattering event. One in particular had details that simply could never have been anticipated by my subconsious. I guess it would just be to damn relevant and coincidental for me to think it was just chance. I can say that I never felt so prepared for something in my life. I felt the hand of God. What started as a little project on the meaning of existence became a life altering event.

  I don't expect anyone to take my experience as proof of God or the Bible. I am just saying that whatever proof you require, will likely be given to you if you ask for it. I am not saying that every word of the Bible is fact as written, for I could never prove such a thing. I will say that I percieve facts and realities about the universe and the Bible provides for me a likely and believable explanation. I hope everyone can find those benefits and avoid the many, many, many, many pitfalls such as door knocking, kool-aid drinking, or beheading of non-believers.

  Of course, anyone reading this does not agree, I will crash a plane into your house! Die infidel die!

  Great post JGnat!!!
• 

  kid-A

  The grass became greener. The sky became bluer. My life became infused with meaning that always eluded my proudly rational mind. I immediately began to have experiences stemming from my new perspective.

  Ditto, except these were my feelings immediately upon my realization that there was no god.