Question for Cofty about God and Bible defences

by slimboyfat 19 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  cognisonance

  I read the abstract to the dating the flood pdf. I'll ask one question:

  Why bother trying to date an event that has little (if any) evidence for its existence? If the evidence is the bible, well we have a circular problem (evidence for an event is the source claiming the event happened). For such an extraordinary claim, the existence of flood myth stories is nowhere near being extraordinary evidence (and is also subject to circular reasoning). Due to a faulty (or weak) premise (assuming a global flood was real), attacking C14 dating thus makes little sense without first establishing the claimed event actually happened. A much better approach would be to examine geological evidence to see if there is any that supports a global deluge.
  
  Examining the evidence showing evolution happened and that no global flood existed was the key to me leaving the Jehovah's Witnesses. I read a lot of material on the topic of scientific dating, the flood, and evolution. The latter interested me more and I remember that topic more compared to a global flood, but I do have the general impression that the evidence for a global flood was severely underwhelming, nonexistent even. Of course the two topics are related and the evidence for evolution is so strong that it alone shows the idea of a global flood to be nonsense. For the relationship between the two I'd highly suggest reading the book Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne (page 88-96 regarding biogeography in particular).
  
  The JW's incompetence at research at best, or lies at worst, showed they could not be trusted. They argued about topics like a global flood and against Evolution from a perspective not of intellectual honesty, but one of Motivated Reasoning. Gertoux is doing the same thing.
  
  I would suggest that instead of searching out material that confirms your own beliefs that you critically analyze the evidence for a global flood and evolution yourself. Beware of self-deception (or self-bias depending if you are pedantic academically). I talked about the problem here on this forum.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Gertoux has elsewhere defended the reality of the flood, as Saintbertholdt noted he covers all the bases.

  What interests me is that at the beginning of the "dating the deluge" piece Gertoux quotes extensively from James Barr. It was James Barr's books Escaping from Fundamentalism and Beyond Fundamentalism that convinced me the Bible cannot be read literally. Gertoux has obviously read the same material but it's not had the same impact.
• 

  cognisonance

  slimboyfat,

  I updated my previous post in the last 30 minutes. You might want to (re)read it. Also please at least check out the last link and the one about Motivated Reasoning.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  There sure is something odd about Gertoux's writing. It appears quite technical, well written, beautifully formatted and illustrated - and also completely nuts. I find it somehow disconcerting that such an intelligent mind can produce such well ordered gobbledegook. Ha - but you've provoked me into giving my opinion. I was hoping to hears others' opinions first.

  As for motivated reasoning, I can see the explanatory power of it as a concept. But as participants in a discussion can't we all throw accusations of motivated reasoning around? It's no substitute for looking at the merits of the arguments themselves.
• 

  cognisonance

  I think discussing the merits of an argument and motivated reasoning to some degree turn out to be mutually exclusive concepts. It's very likely that a "motivated reasoner" will not discuss the merits of an opposing argument. On the other hand some arguments are so asinine that one may not be, well, motivated to bother.
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Can't you at least be impressed with the breadth of Gertoux's reading, his weaving of the argument together, and beautiful presentation? I don't actually understand much of it, but it's nice to look at.
• 

  cognisonance

  Impressed isn't the word I'd use. I find his paper dizzying trying to read and follow. Weaving arguments together, no mater how elegant one might appear in doing so, if built on the same fundamental premises (the flood, C14 dating unreliable, in particular) becomes problematic if the premise is false or the arguments fallacious (kind of like how JWs argue about some much from a foundation of just a few incorrect premises). To discuss arguments made in this paper would require focusing on just one of them and not jumping around to all kinds of other arguments. It reminds me of this graphic:
  
  
  

  
  
• 

  cofty

  Just noticed this thread. Out to a football club meeting this evening tonight but will take a look later, might have time to respond tomorrow.

  An elegant defense of bullshit is not something of beauty. It better offer objective evidence or I won't get past a quick skim.
• 

  ttdtt

  Defending the flood is like defending leprechauns.

  There is no proof and no evidence - and the reasons it could not be are to obvious and numerous to list.
• 

  Heaven

  ttdtt said:Defending the flood is like defending leprechauns.

  There is no proof and no evidence - and the reasons it could not be are to obvious and numerous to list.

  This made me chuckle. And to add to this, I would state there is actually quite a bit of evidence that counters the flood myth. A lot of discussion on this board in the past has occurred on the flood topic. It may have been a localized event; it was definitely NOT a global one.