I am a recently "outed" atheist. Whenever I discuss atheism with a believer, I find myself using other people's arguments. They are perfectly valid and reasonable arguments, however I would like to be able to quote the Bible as readily as any believer (or any informed atheist (I seem to find that atheists have read the Bible more than most believers)). With that in mind, how should I go about studying the Good Book? I think it has been the antiquated language that has kept me from reading it, even when I was a Catholic.
I like the quote, but in a way it's flawed. With lack of proof, they're equally wrong. But, with proof, of course we know that thinking the earth is flat is wronger.
So, who's to say that the words in a history book are more accurate than the words in a Bible? Aren't we just taking a person's view and/or perspective of what they believe to be and/or want us to believe to be reality? Accepting it solely because it's worded astutely and accompanied by a few pictures?
I mean come on, I'm from the USA. A few video clips alongside a presidential speech and we knew EXACTLY who took down our towers. lol² Winning.
I'm not well versed on historical research, but the concept makes perfect sense to me in scientific terms and I have no problems applying it to historical research.
Would you say that Newtonian mechanics is wrong because Einstein's Theory of Relativity came along to usurp it? Is the former as wrong as any hair brained attempt at explaining the universe? Well, since we can still use Newtonian physics to send rovers to Mars, I'd say not. There are degrees of wrong. It pays to be as least wrong as you can and more often than not, that is the best you can hope for.
There's always a degree of wrong, living in a universe of imperfection. But then again, if it wasn't in perfect equilibrium, would we be here having this discussion? Does it pay to be least wrong, or does it pay to be most convincing?
Perfection or imperfection is irrelevant. We live in the universe and it is what it is. Yes, it does pay to be least wrong. While you can be convincing that X is better, when others show that Y trumps it, then you lose.
Y trumps in truth. But, X, stands atop the mountain. Just as Galileo, 'Y', was subdued by the church 'X', for proving Copernicus' heliocentric universe true. But as time passed Galileo was given credit. So, I guess truth does prevail. But it only prevails because the proof is right there in front of us. We can test it. History can't be tested, but physical laws can.
I don't think we are on the same plane. The truth need not be accepted by apes the moment one of them discovers it in order to be true. And the apes that are slower to adapt a truth will suffer for it more often than not.
What I was trying to impress on you is that there are methods for finding truth, or something closer to it. Granted, much can be lost to history that we will never find. But that doesn't mean that there are not methods that don't exist that are better than others. The Bible versus scholarly research? Come on.
By the way, one day other galaxies will not be scientifically verifiable once they travel beyond our observable horizon. If our history says they existed and it is well documented, but it can not be verified, then what do you do with that information? Discard it?
Sarah.. I've found a website which has most if not all of the translations currently of the Bible. It compares the same passage in several different versions. It allows you to see the emphasis one version puts on a phrase in relation to another. You also get to see just the message one version is trying to get across as opposed to the others.. It's great for reference if nothing else..