Timelines.... A Possible Dichotomy to Ponder

[cvanwey]

Below presents an either/or situation. One in which I am curious as to what individuals here might think.... It's an A) or B) proposition:

A) If any/all Biblical claims did not represent or manifest until after the age of enlightenment, after recent scientific discovery, and/or after the human's ability to 'better validate/verify' such anecdotal claims with various pieces of technology, would the Bible even exist at all, or remain 'true' when/if initially claimed and told today?

B) Or, does the Bible primarily exist because such stories and claims were told and claimed in the collective time period in which they were - (absent or devoid from all such stated attributes listed in option A)?

My 'hunch' lies with option B).

One has free reign to run with this topic where ever it organically wants to head. I've noticed most topics go in many differing directions anyways, so I'm just stating from the jump (i.e.) Maybe we can discuss the claimed 'evidence' for a resurrection....? etc...

But regardless, I am curious. Does the Bible exist as 'truth' because of the time period in which it was claimed?

 

[Silmarien]

I don't really know what you're asking. If a whole bunch of miracles happened in the modern era and people documented them, I would expect them to be taken seriously by at least a segment of the population. Even if someone just fabricated the whole thing out of thin air, wrote out a holy book, and tried to sell it as a new religion, they'd probably have a fair amount of success. Look at something like Scientology.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't really know what you're asking. If a whole bunch of miracles happened in the modern era and people documented them, I would expect them to be taken seriously by at least a segment of the population. Even if someone just fabricated the whole thing out of thin air, wrote out a holy book, and tried to sell it as a new religion, they'd probably have a fair amount of success. Look at something like Scientology.

I'm asking if the Bible is considered true because it was written in a time where many easily believed such claims - (due to ignorance to later discovery), as it was continually passed down as tradition for centuries/millenia, and it is now virtually impossible to falsify today (just like other ancient religions)?

As opposed to being true, or not true, based upon the validation of it's claimed merits?

***************

Are there actually modern documented miracles? We have many claims of such. And yes, many also believe in haunted houses, Big Foot, mass UFO sightings, answered prayer, etc...

And in regards to Scientology, why do YOU not believe it's claims? Because they appear preposterous? You haven't experienced first hand the said claims? Other?

 

[Silmarien]

I'm asking if the Bible is considered true because it was written in a time where many easily believed such claims - (due to ignorance to later discovery), as it was continually passed down as tradition for centuries/millenia, and it is now virtually impossible to falsify today (just like other ancient religions)?

As opposed to being true, or not true, based upon the validation of it's claimed merits?

The Book of Mormon was published in the 19th century and plenty of people believe in it, so I don't know why you think that time period matters.

Are there actually modern documented miracles? We have many claims of such. And yes, many also believe in haunted houses, Big Foot, mass UFO sightings, answered prayer, etc...

There was the Miracle of Fátima in 1917, so yes, there is documentation of alleged miracles even in the modern era. These aren't claims that are only believed because they're thousands of years old.

And in regards to Scientology, why do YOU not believe it's claims? Because they appear preposterous? You haven't experienced first hand the said claims? Other?

Its creator was a science fiction author. Rumor has it that Scientology was one of a handful of results of a dare between a group of authors to write the best religion-based story.

 

[cvanwey]

The Book of Mormon was published in the 19th century and plenty of people believe in it, so I don't know why you think that time period matters.

Actually, it kind of does. The proportion of believers in Christ are far greater than the believers in Joseph Smith. I reckon to argue that if Joseph Smith would have been around 2K years ago, making his such claims, and Jesus was around in the 19th century, it's plausible we could have a direct flip-flop in beliefs (proportionately). It's also safe to say that the demand for evidence increases as time marches on. Please also remember that Mormons have more real time claimed witnesses within their book, as the Bible only has the writings of Saul himself, (where Jesus specifically is concerned). And yet, the Book of Mormon is still less relevant to would-be believers as we learn to scrutinize more as time passes; as we now know more about our surroundings and how unlikely such claims may be. So basically, it's possible the older one is 'grand-fathered' in due to legend and tradition.

But as it stands, even though one can successfully argue that the Book of Mormon was after the age of enlightenment, it was still claimed prior to more modern times of technology and available discovery.

There was the Miracle of Fátima in 1917, so yes, there is documentation of alleged miracles even in the modern era. These aren't claims that are only believed because they're thousands of years old.

Okay, we have one from a hundred years ago. Why is this claim valid? Please present the evidence - (rhetorical).

Also, anything a little more recent, which is actually verifiable in any substantial way? Remember, there exists claimed Christian miracles daily even today. What about any of those?

Its creator was a science fiction author. Rumor has it that Scientology was one of a handful of results of a dare between a group of authors to write the best religion-based story.

Almost half the NT was written by a tax collector, whom claimed revelation while alone in the desert. 'Rumor' even has it that many of these ancient people did mushrooms. What's your point?

 

[Silmarien]

Actually, it kind of does. The proportion of believers in Christ are far greater than the believers in Joseph Smith. I reckon to argue that if Joseph Smith would have been around 2K years ago, making his such claims, and Jesus was around in the 19th century, it's plausible we could have a direct flip-flop in beliefs (proportionately). It's also safe to say that the demand for evidence increases as time marches on. Please also remember that Mormons have more real time claimed witnesses within their book, as the Bible only has the writings of Saul himself, (where Jesus specifically is concerned). And yet, the Book of Mormon is still less relevant to would-be believers as we learn to scrutinize more as time passes; as we now know more about our surroundings and how unlikely such claims may be. So basically, it's possible the older one is 'grand-fathered' in due to legend and tradition.

You're making an entirely separate argument now. I thought your initial point was that if the alleged biblical miracles had occurred after the Enlightenment, the Bible would not exist because nobody would believe any of it? That is clearly false, given the existence of post-Enlightenment religions like Mormonism and Scientology.

Obviously a religion with a 2000 year history is going to have more followers than a religion that has only been around for 200 years. If Joseph Smith had lived 2000 years ago, then yes, it is possible that Mormonism could be a global phenomenon. It is also possible that it would have died out long ago.

I'm not sure what knowledge of surroundings has to do with anything. We know enough about Joseph Smith as a person to have doubts concerning his claims to revelation. But you could make similar arguments against figures like Mohammed, so it isn't as if older traditions are immune to these types of questions.

But as it stands, even though one can successfully argue that the Book of Mormon was after the age of enlightenment, it was still claimed prior to more modern times of technology and available discovery.

Not really. The 19th century was probably more rationalistic than the 21st century is. Keep in mind that postmodernism happened.

Okay, we have one from a hundred years ago. Why is this claim valid? Please present the evidence - (rhetorical).

Also, anything a little more recent, which is actually verifiable in any substantial way? Remember, there exists claimed Christian miracles daily even today. What about any of those?

I don't believe in the Miracle of Fátima myself--I'm just pointing out that we have documentation of alleged modern miracles. Many people do believe in these things, and sometimes cults do form around them. So the idea that the Bible wouldn't exist if its miracle claims had occurred in the present rather than the past is clearly false.

If you want to pick a fight over whether or not miracles are real, please go pick it with someone else. I'm just replying to your claim that we don't believe this stuff anymore in the modern time period. Obviously we do.

Almost half the NT was written by a tax collector, whom claimed revelation while alone in the desert. 'Rumor' even has it that many of these ancient people did mushrooms. What's your point?

My point was that I see no reason to accept Scientology. I have no idea how St. Paul is at all relevant to a comment about L. Ron Hubbart. If you think that the Pauline Epistles read like the imaginings of a professional author, then there's not much I can say to you.

 

[cvanwey]

You're making an entirely separate argument now. I thought your initial point was that if the alleged biblical miracles had occurred after the Enlightenment, the Bible would not exist because nobody would believe any of it? That is clearly false, given the existence of post-Enlightenment religions like Mormonism and Scientology.

Obviously a religion with a 2000 year history is going to have more followers than a religion that has only been around for 200 years. If Joseph Smith had lived 2000 years ago, then yes, it is possible that Mormonism could be a global phenomenon. It is also possible that it would have died out long ago.

I'm not sure what knowledge of surroundings has to do with anything. We know enough about Joseph Smith as a person to have doubts concerning his claims to revelation. But you could make similar arguments against figures like Mohammed, so it isn't as if older traditions are immune to these types of questions.

I'm answering or responding to your responses As stated in the OP, this may quickly shift gears (not intentionally, but for organic reasons). In my OP, I stated I have a 'hunch', meaning I'm actually open to suggestion But my point was to observe that the Christian doctrine appears to be a combination of being considered all literally true way-back-when (prior to discovery), and is now still considered true for differing reasons, (i.e.) indoctrination, tradition, legend, special pleading, other? I've spoken to many whom use it's age as one of the reasons it appears so credible. 'That no belief would stand the test of time, if false.' I know this is fallacious, just saying.

And yes, we have all kinds of newer religions, cults, or other... Belief is a funny thing really.

I don't believe in the Miracle of Fátima myself--I'm just pointing out that we have documentation of alleged modern miracles. Many people do believe in these things, and sometimes cults do form around them. So the idea that the Bible wouldn't exist if its miracle claims had occurred in the present rather than the past is clearly false.

My original position still stands:

'B) Or, does the Bible primarily exist because such stories and claims were told and claimed in the collective time period in which they were.'

If Biblical claims started today, I highly doubt it would ever gain the same traction in the future, to become what it currently is now. Yes, people will still believe. That is no doubt. But Scientology poses no true threat to take over, even if it wasn't originated by this person or that person

My point was that I see no reason to accept Scientology. I have no idea how St. Paul is at all relevant to a comment about L. Ron Hubbart. If you think that the Pauline Epistles read like the imaginings of a professional author, then there's not much I can say to you.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if God exists, and provides 'revelation' to whomever He chooses, (a brain surgeon, a thief, a transient, other). My point was also to point out the rumor exists with all such stories alike.

 

[devolved]

If any/all Biblical claims did not represent or manifest until after the age of enlightenment, after recent scientific discovery, and/or after the human's ability to 'better validate/verify' such anecdotal claims with various pieces of technology, would the Bible even exist at all, or remain 'true' when/if initially claimed and told today?

Easy there. It may result in a space-time paradox that will unravel the fabric of reality.

But seriously, you have to really consider history as a chain of successive events before you anachronistically remove one of the more important events to a more recent time slot.

First, you have to consider the implications of historic alternatives. Let's say you pluck Christianity out of historic context and instead plop it into 21st century. Rome was the religious and cultural center with a wide array of various religions that were gaining momentum and were overtaking some of the pre-existing Greko-Roman pantheon.

For example, you can consider something like Cybil worship, which was imported in early 3rd century. Prior to Christianity's advent it was popularized in Rome. So, just to give you the comparative tradition, the priesthood of Cybil would throw a sponsored festival in March, with one of the days dedicated to whipping oneself till bloody, and in some throws of pain and delirium the new priesthood inductees would perform a public castration.

So, if Christianity didn't arrive on the scene at the 4th century, that's the type of stuff you are looking at as some of the more popular alternatives. Rome really tried to crack down on the castration business, so it was actually a good political move to adopt Christian religious framework as a de-facto state religion at the time.

So, what you have going on from there is successive unification of Europe under Christian religion concepts, that gained momentum and eventually became a de-facto religious mentality in that region. If Christianity didn't take over Rome in 3-4th century, you'd be living in a vastly different world today.

 

[devolved]

If Biblical claims started today, I highly doubt it would ever gain the same traction in the future, to become what it currently is now. Yes, people will still believe. That is no doubt. But Scientology poses no true threat to take over, even if it wasn't originated by this person or that person

Again, you are making these claims in a rather anachronistic manner, completely ignoring the chain of religious history on this planet.

If you pluck Christianity out of history, then you have no viable systematic school of thought that results in enlightenment. Scientific systems never historically rose in vacuum. These were derivative of some progression of religious thought.

So, take away Christianity, and you have a giant hole in European history, in which:

a) European unification and progression towards "civilized now" wouldn't happen, because there would be quibble wars over religious primacy that would constantly reset the progress clock to zero.

or

b) You would have some cult taking over, like Cybil cult, and you have a vastly different civilization today, perhaps in which Eastern civilizations would be more dominant and West takes a back seat.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm answering or responding to your responses As stated in the OP, this may quickly shift gears (not intentionally, but for organic reasons). In my OP, I stated I have a 'hunch', meaning I'm actually open to suggestion But my point was to observe that the Christian doctrine appears to be a combination of being considered all literally true way-back-when (prior to discovery), and is now still considered true for differing reasons, (i.e.) indoctrination, tradition, legend, special pleading, other? I've spoken to many whom use it's age as one of the reasons it appears so credible. 'That no belief would stand the test of time, if false.' I know this is fallacious, just saying.

I would think it obvious that there's a difference between historical and current events. Our beliefs about the character of Donald Trump are going to be different about our beliefs about the character of Nero or Caligula. I am not sure why this would be at all surprising.

Your claim that doctrine was considered "all literally true way-back-when" is also not founded in history. Are you familiar with Philo of Alexandria? He was a 1st century Jewish philosopher who argued for allegorical interpretation and had a significant influence on early Christian thought in Alexandria. It's not like there was a magical moment during the Enlightenment where people realized for the first time that rigid literalism led to logical issues. You can find the Church Fathers discussing aspects of that problem, though obviously not from a modern naturalistic perspective.

If Biblical claims started today, I highly doubt it would ever gain the same traction in the future, to become what it currently is now. Yes, people will still believe. That is no doubt. But Scientology poses no true threat to take over, even if it wasn't originated by this person or that person

Scientology, certainly not. Mormonism, on the other hand, is a pretty fast-growing religion. It's impossible to say where any religion will be in 2000 years, though, and I'm not sure what the point in trying is. We could very easily nuke ourselves back into the Bronze Age and then all bets will be off.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if God exists, and provides 'revelation' to whomever He chooses, (a brain surgeon, a thief, a transient, other). My point was also to point out the rumor exists with all such stories alike.

So what? If a science fiction author writes a science fiction story and declares it a religious revelation, that is going to raise some serious red flags. Obviously there is no reason an author cannot receive divine revelation, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Below presents an either/or situation. One in which I am curious as to what individuals here might think.... It's an A) or B) proposition:

A) If any/all Biblical claims did not represent or manifest until after the age of enlightenment, after recent scientific discovery, and/or after the human's ability to 'better validate/verify' such anecdotal claims with various pieces of technology, would the Bible even exist at all, or remain 'true' when/if initially claimed and told today?

B) Or, does the Bible primarily exist because such stories and claims were told and claimed in the collective time period in which they were - (absent or devoid from all such stated attributes listed in option A)?

My 'hunch' lies with option B).

One has free reign to run with this topic where ever it organically wants to head. I've noticed most topics go in many differing directions anyways, so I'm just stating from the jump (i.e.) Maybe we can discuss the claimed 'evidence' for a resurrection....? etc...

But regardless, I am curious. Does the Bible exist as 'truth' because of the time period in which it was claimed?

Vastly more religions have died off than have survived to today. Conversely, the world is vastly more populated today than it was in antiquity. So how is it that there were far *more* religions in a time when there were far *less* people?

Knowledge is the best disinfectant for religion. But knowledge was so scarce thousands of years ago. Even the elite wealthy who got the best education that money could buy still believed in a ton of false things and knew less true things than a fifth grader of today. It's easy to believe in gods when no one has a clue what lightning is. Science and knowledge, on the other hand, make it very hard for new religions to come about. Scientology and Mormonism are the exception, not the rule.

Fast forward to today, a time in which knowledge is available instantly and for free. A time in which a college degree has been devalued because so many people have one. This is not an environment in which religion can survive. Religion survives in ignorance, not in knowledge. We know what lightning is now, and Thor is dead. We live in the information age and religion is at a record low. Maybe that's why knowledge is labeled as evil right in the beginning of Genesis.

The thing is, though, you can never un-know something. When you see a proof for the Pythagorean theorem, and you understand it, is disbelief a choice? Nope. But belief in God? You can drop that quite easily. Knowledge is absolutely supreme to religion. Absolutely. And it's going to kill it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Again, you are making these claims in a rather anachronistic manner, completely ignoring the chain of religious history on this planet.

If you pluck Christianity out of history, then you have no viable systematic school of thought that results in enlightenment. Scientific systems never historically rose in vacuum. These were derivative of some progression of religious thought.

So, take away Christianity, and you have a giant hole in European history, in which:

a) European unification and progression towards "civilized now" wouldn't happen, because there would be quibble wars over religious primacy that would constantly reset the progress clock to zero.

or

b) You would have some cult taking over, like Cybil cult, and you have a vastly different civilization today, perhaps in which Eastern civilizations would be more dominant and West takes a back seat.

"If you pluck Christianity out of history, then you have no viable systematic school of thought that results in enlightenment."

What a bizarre thing to say. Jesus died for the sins of the world and came back to life. This directly resulted in what scientific discovery, exactly?

Jesus died for the sins of the world and came back to life, therefore I know how to invent a lightbulb!

Jesus died for the sins of the world and came back to life, therefore I understand Calculus!

Uh, what? No, it was the church who was torturing people for owning a bible in English. Because knowledge is evil. It was the church suppressing heliocentricity because... reasons? The church has always suppressed the truth in self-righteousness.

Oh wait. I got it. Jesus died for the sins of the world and came back to life, therefore I have the blueprints to the printing press? Is that your smoking gun Lol.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Vastly more religions have died off than have survived to today. Conversely, the world is vastly more populated today than it was in antiquity. So how is it that there were far *more* religions in a time when there were far *less* people?

Knowledge is the best disinfectant for religion. But knowledge was so scarce thousands of years ago. Even the elite wealthy who got the best education that money could buy still believed in a ton of false things and knew less true things than a fifth grader of today. It's easy to believe in gods when no one has a clue what lightning is. Science and knowledge, on the other hand, make it very hard for new religions to come about. Scientology and Mormonism are the exception, not the rule.

Fast forward to today, a time in which knowledge is available instantly and for free. A time in which a college degree has been devalued because so many people have one. This is not an environment in which religion can survive. Religion survives in ignorance, not in knowledge. We know what lightning is now, and Thor is dead. We live in the information age and religion is at a record low. Maybe that's why knowledge is labeled as evil right in the beginning of Genesis.

The thing is, though, you can never un-know something. When you see a proof for the Pythagorean theorem, and you understand it, is disbelief a choice? Nope. But belief in God? You can drop that quite easily. Knowledge is absolutely supreme to religion. Absolutely. And it's going to kill it.

Thanks for the lesson on epistemology, NV. What a wonderful Christmas gift!

 

[DogmaHunter]

Below presents an either/or situation. One in which I am curious as to what individuals here might think.... It's an A) or B) proposition:

A) If any/all Biblical claims did not represent or manifest until after the age of enlightenment, after recent scientific discovery, and/or after the human's ability to 'better validate/verify' such anecdotal claims with various pieces of technology, would the Bible even exist at all, or remain 'true' when/if initially claimed and told today?

B) Or, does the Bible primarily exist because such stories and claims were told and claimed in the collective time period in which they were - (absent or devoid from all such stated attributes listed in option A)?

My 'hunch' lies with option B).

One has free reign to run with this topic where ever it organically wants to head. I've noticed most topics go in many differing directions anyways, so I'm just stating from the jump (i.e.) Maybe we can discuss the claimed 'evidence' for a resurrection....? etc...

But regardless, I am curious. Does the Bible exist as 'truth' because of the time period in which it was claimed?

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking (I assume you explain later in the thread, but I like to reply as I read ).

But, for some reason, I am reminded of what I call the "Ricky Gervais argument" (not sure if it is original to him or not, but he's the only one I ever heared stating it).

The argument goes like this:

Imagine that later today something happens that makes ALL knowledge/information disappear over night. All science knowledge and all religious knowledge. No more bibles, no more science books and whiped from our collective memory.

Over time, it might take centuries or millenia, all the science knowledge will slowly return and be "rediscovered". Because we'll re-observe all the same facts and relationships between facts. Apples will still be falling at 9.81 meters per second per second in a vacuum, because the reality of gravity will remain the same.

But christianity? Christianity will NEVER be back. Nobody will ever know about Jesus, Abraham, etc. Christianity, and indeed EVERY faith based belief (including homeopathy etc) will be lost forever and nobody will ever know they ever existed.


To me, it's one of the very best arguments for science and against faith-based beliefs that I ever heared in my life.

For some reason, eventhough I'm not exactly clear on the subject of your OP, I feel like this argument ties in neatly with your "timelines" and how scientific discovery tends to inform / drive religious interpretations of ancient texts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So, take away Christianity, and you have a giant hole in European history, in which:

a) European unification and progression towards "civilized now" wouldn't happen, because there would be quibble wars over religious primacy that would constantly reset the progress clock to zero.

This amounts to simply saying that unifying europe under one religion, was just one less reason to wage war upon one another. That is true to an extent I guess, but not a feat that can ONLY be accomplished through christianity. Just about any relatively unifying idea / ideology would accomplish the same.

b) You would have some cult taking over, like Cybil cult, and you have a vastly different civilization today, perhaps in which Eastern civilizations would be more dominant and West takes a back seat.

c) If you pluck islam from history, then you don't have islam's golden age in which they kickstarted the scientific movement, of which the epicenter later moved to western europe. And kickstart they did... algebra, astronomy, .... all developed by muslims while the good christians of europe were busy burning witches and heretics in public London squares.

d) there was a time in europe where christianity ruled very dominantly. It is commonly refered to as the "dark ages".

e) corrolation does not imply causation. Science got developed in a society where christianity was the "official state religion", yes. This official state religion also was dragged into the scientific age kicking and screaming. Plenty of scientific fields were literally sabotaged or even forbidden. Take human anatomy. Universities actually had to steal human corpses during the night on graveyards, because the church wouldn't allow cutting open dead people to see and study what's inside. Books holding scientific knowledge not to their liking were simply forbidden and burned. And last but not least.... scientific progress only really accelerated exponentially during the enlightment age. Here's another correlation in that age: the least influence "the church" had, the more scientific progress happened. The enlightment age is literally the age where the church was slowly but surely stripped of its absolute power and kicked out of public life. From that, secularism was born.

Fun related anecdote: geology. You know how geology was kickstarted a proper scientific field? A couple of christians set out to find and gather evidence of the biblical flood. The investigated and studied rocks, sediments, etc. They learned quite a lot. One of the things they learned, was that no such evidence exists and that such a flood never happened.

So sure, you can say that "geology was born out of christianity", if you wish.
But personally, I wouldn't draw to much attention to it if I were a christian, on the count that it is rather embarassing... Especially if you are a creationist / biblical literalist (and I don't know if you are).