A Familiar Journey
Lesson One
As Winter Holidays Yield to Spring Holydays...
are a few observations in order?
(to copy Bob Thiel's less than bold prophetic style:)
are a few observations in order?
(to copy Bob Thiel's less than bold prophetic style:)
If there was an Historical Exodus, then why...?
Dare to be Curious...
"Overall, there was greater brain activation that persisted for longer during states of disbelief. Greater brain activation requires more cognitive resources, of which there is a limited supply. What these findings show is that the mental process of believing is simply less work for the brain, and therefore often favored. The default state of the human brain is to accept what we are told, because doubt takes effort. Belief, on the other hand, comes easily."
Why it's easier to just believe than do the work of disbelief
"Overall, there was greater brain activation that persisted for longer during states of disbelief. Greater brain activation requires more cognitive resources, of which there is a limited supply. What these findings show is that the mental process of believing is simply less work for the brain, and therefore often favored. The default state of the human brain is to accept what we are told, because doubt takes effort. Belief, on the other hand, comes easily."
Why it's easier to just believe than do the work of disbelief
37 comments:
I love the first video, people should be able to question everything. the 2nd had some good points, but the dates of Egypt conquering Cannan could be after Solomon during kings.
Figures, he asks for contributions and money at the end of his videos. Another money making enterprise , this time using the "religion" of atheism for its money source.
When I was a kid in school, we learned about a period of history called "the Dark Ages" This is an appellation (yes, I spelled that right) which has since fallen into disfavor. That there were dark ages was always a Eurocentric view, based on the paucity of historic documents in Western Europe from that period. The post-Roman Empire decline into ignorance was not a global phenomenon. During this period, Persian and Arabic mathematicians were further developing and refining algebra. The Chinese also continued to advance both scientifically and culturally.
In recent years, the Roman Catholic Church has been on the defensive regarding the Dark Ages, now referred to as the Middle Ages, because they had been seen as having caused a dark age by allowing corruption, immorality, and hypocrisy in their leadership. However, there were some very noteworthy Catholic scholars from that period.
In our current era, it is very easy to associate faith with ignorance because of the examples we see amongst Evangelical Christians, who lobby for suppression of knowledge in textbooks used in the public schools, and who by supporting a corrupt and racist president are basically doing what the Catholics are alleged to have done during the Dark Ages. Unfortunately, Evangelicals as a group often make for a very effective strawman.
Clearly, some types of faith can lead to the suppression of intelligence. However, that this could be an axiomatic cause and effect relationship is just another sweeping generality promoted by some in the atheist/agnostic community. There have been brilliant Catholic, and other religious scholars. In a sense, we (XCOG) as a group can tend to be somewhat prejudiced against all religious scholars because in doing our post-mortems, we have become aware of the fraudulent pseudo scholarship which was used to support Armstrongism.
BB
A personal comment: I notice that a number postings and comments seem to generate conflict rather than unity. This more obvious in today's culture than it was earlier in my life. In fact most of my life I was able discuss religion with Christians who had different beliefs without the critical condemnation that generates conflict.. I would like know what this posting expects to contribute a better life for the readers. ASB
by some crazy coincidence Zoroastrianism was the main religion of the great Persian empire at the time they freed the Jews and allowed them to return from Babylon to Israel.
Zoroastrianism is not that popular today, but many of their beliefs became part of other religions including Judaism.
This ties in with the theories that the OT books were not written until about 500BC.
For those of us who had an AC education, our teachings did not cover that Judaism was still a developing religion at the time of Christ.
Our education at AC was basically reinforcement of what WCG believed.
Without the Internet, we did not have access to the true historical record of HWA and his appallingly bad failed prophecies.
BS Tonto. Takes funding he explained to do the excellent job he does. Stuff costs.
Too bad you didn't notice the presentation Tonto
Zorro was from Mexico, and he was not an astronomer!
Money is always going to be part of the equation in getting a message out. The way I see it is that we must carefully examine the message for worthiness, also doing a cost/benefit analysis. What would this type of message have meant to all of us or our parents if we had heard it in time to prevent our being scammed by the Armstrong message? Wouldn't it be nice if the holykoolaid site popped up every time someone googled Flurry, Pack, Weston, Kubik, or any of the minor ACOGs? I wonder if there is a way to make that happen!
BB
The guy's presentation breaks out into basically two parts: 1) a look at the archaeological evidence and 2) a look at the issue of the Biblical records.
Part 1: Archaeology is an odd science. It is a "you don't know what you don't know" kind of science. If you haven't found it that does not mean it is not there. As more is uncovered, the more the picture morphs - like rolling the barrel of a kaleidoscope. Anything short of everything can only be regarded as cross-sectional. I live in a place where there are huge pueblo ruins that were occupied for about half a millennium. Yet, archaeologists don't know where the Anasazi population is buried. They have found a few isolated burials but nothing like what should be present. Should we conclude that nobody lived there? The adobes just sprang up by themselves? Some of the burial grounds of workers who helped to build the pyramids were only discovered in about 2010. That's pretty recent for a major and essential discovery.
Part 2: The scribes in exile in Babylon assembled the Old Testament. Likely, they edited together pre-existing textual fragments or oral tradition. There seems to be two accounts of early Genesis. Maybe some of the fragments and traditions that they edited ultimately came from Moses. We cannot disprove this idea. One of the influences was that the scribes wanted Israel to look like a great and powerful nation. Their captivity in Babylon was a low point for the nation so they needed some encouragement. So maybe there was some poetic license, some magnification. But without loss of moral principle. Hence, the intended message was not invalidated.
What the Biblical account does tell us is that the message is not about the logistics of getting people from Egypt to Sinai or what it is like to live in the Sinai Peninsula or what the extent of the Egyptian empire was and how they treated vassal states or how ancient Egypt managed its records. Those are picayune.
So then NEO, we can agree the Bible accounts are the Aesop's Fables of the Israelites. They have meaning but don't take them too historically accurate or literally true. š
A worthwhile counterpoint to the video that DD embedded in his article is the following by Peter Enns (Ph.D., Harvard, Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations). The issue of historicity is in the first 14 or so minutes.
https://peteenns.com/pete-ruins-exodus-part-1/
Note: The way Enns introduces the podcast is tongue-in-cheek.
TLA,
If you are referring to the view of evil god, only the Kabbalist and Hasidic share similar beliefs with Christians.
The scribes wanted to emphasize the importance of circumcision - so suddenly, out of context - God wants to kill Moses because his sons are not circumcised.
Moses had spent 40 years in Midian married to Zipporah, so the 2 sons were probably well into their 30s and mommy circumcises them!!!!!!!??????
Dennis:
You are talking about mythicized history versus historicized myth. Aesop's fables are, at their heart, fiction. Aesop used historicized myth. I believe the Bible is at its heart based on true events but they have been written up by flawed humans. At some places, the Bible is mythicized history. Both can transmit accurately moral principles.
I think you are probably in the historicized myth camp so we are not really in agreement.
TLA,
Is it really out of context? Notice in previous verse (v23) it is talking about pharaoh's son. Then in v24 we read that YHVH sought to kill 'him'. 'Him' can either be Moses or his son. Suddenly Zipporah came into the picture and circumcised their son.
It is easy for us to dismiss something as out of context when we do not know the historical and cultural context of the passage. I do not claim to know the significance of v24-v26 but I wouldn't call it out of context.
Ex 4:22-23 "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says YHVH: “Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me. But if you refuse to let him go, indeed I will kill your son, your firstborn.” ’ ”
Ex 4:24-26 And it came to pass on the way, at the encampment, that YHVH met him and sought to kill him. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it at Moses’ feet, and said, “Surely you are a husband of blood to me!” So He let him go. Then she said, “You are a husband of blood!”—because of the circumcision.
NEO said: " You are talking about mythicized history versus historicized myth. Aesop's fables are, at their heart, fiction. Aesop used historicized myth. I believe the Bible is at its heart based on true events but they have been written up by flawed humans. At some places, the Bible is mythicized history. Both can transmit accurately moral principles.
I think you are probably in the historicized myth camp so we are not really in agreement."
Hi NEO
I am, at this point, a mythicist when it comes to much of the Bible. I have run through the typical cycle from literally true, as taught growing up, to this point. My summer in Israel digging at Megiddo under Israel Finkelstein, author of The Bible Unearthed, was a turning point for me as well.
Of course there is some basis for some of the Biblical stories but it does not seem so for the classic big ones such as all of Genesis 1-11, etc. I don't think we can know if an Abraham existed much less what he said on various occasions to whom. Much doubt among scholars as to David and Solomon exists as well. Of these things I am, of course, no expert but sometimes things just seem to be so and the burden of proof lies with those who make bold claims that simply cannot be proven one way or the other. That is why faith is the foundation of Christianity. The substance of things hoped for. The evidence of things of unseen.
To me now, a Jesus probably did exist but there were, according to Josephus many Joshuas (Jesus) running around the country in the day. Perhaps an amalgam of them all. I could also go with Jesus never actually existed based on the fact that the only record we have is that of Mark and a one year ministry. Mark is the first gospel written with Matthew copying 94% of it and Luke 54% of it. No Gospel writer is an eyewitness to any of the events they report. No place does it say, "And then Jesus said to me" or "Jesus and I went to …." Some think it is based on the format of a Passion Play common to the times.
As, the dead horse I have beaten, Paul wrote all his letters before any Gospel was ever penned. He knew of no earthly Jesus, never met him, never quotes him and isn't mentioned in the later Gospels though in Jerusalem at the time as "Pharisee of the Pharisees and persecuting the Church" but not Jesus evidently. It is Paul who turns Jesus into a God.
There are also the astro-theological "coincidences" with the story but nuff of that too.
Sometimes it seems like we argue over the Bible as one would over Hansel and Gretel. "How can a Gingerbread house last in summer rains?" "How can children push an old lady into the oven so casually?" (That disturbed me as a child!), "Wouldn't the squirrels eat the bread crumbs before they could find their way out?" I asked many of these "how could..." questions as a kid to my ministers. Obviously the answers weren't satisfactory! :)
It is all very interesting and fascinating to me. I went into the ministry a literalist and came out a mythicist evidently. The absolute love of science, astronomy, paleontology, geology and cosmology was there as a child which is why I will always feel I missed my actual calling.
Dennis:
What we have in the way of documentary evidence from the time of Christ does not come with prolegomena that explain the relationship among the documents and other features of authorship. What you cite in your third paragraph is a theory that has been mapped onto these documents. In short, the assertion is that everything written by the four evangelists is derived from Mark who got his information from something called "the sayings of Jesus" which was not an eyewitness document. The fact is, nobody has ever seen the putative "sayings of Jesus" and nobody knows what its relationship to witnessing really was. And, finally, other theories may be mapped onto this same collection of writings.
Luke claims to have worked from eyewitness sources. The fact that the eyewitnesses may not have been the writers does not mean there were no eyewitnesses. I do not believe there is a requirement that somebody proclaimed somewhere that the writers and the eyewitnesses had to be the same people in order for a valid document to exist. The reliance on eyewitnesses as a source is a feature of journalism not an dubious evocation of faith.
I sympathize with your literalist origins. That is a bad state to be in. This could go on. The bottom line is that I disagree with you mostly.
A possible connection between Ex 4:24-26 with Ex 4:22-23 …
I believe the emphasis of v25 and v26 is the blood, not the circumcision. In both verses, Zipporah said to Moses, "You are a husband of blood (to me)!"
Is this somehow related to the passover lamb whose blood spared the Israelite's firstborns? (Isn't v22-23 related also?) Immediately after Zipporah cast the foreskin at Moses' feet, God let him go and did not kill him (v26a). Granted, the 'him' is not clear whether it is Moses or his son. Neither is mentioned if the son is firstborn.
This is just speculation on my part.
Shalom.
DENNIS WRITES:The absolute love of science, astronomy, paleontology, geology and cosmology was there as a child
MY COMMENT: Dennis, those topics were there for me as a child as my favorites , and yes, now for me even now. Always interesting stuff. My parents bought me a series of books called "Tell Me Why" , which created a great interest in me on a wide variety of topics.
The biggest difference between you and I is that I think you take things to a conclusion point farther and deeper than I am willing to do. Im more willing to just leave things be "mysteries" or "Im not sure" than you are. I have a gradient of confidence in my "best guesses" on everything, but you seem to demand "conclusion to the matters" and a more set "concrete position" than I do.
I work the probabilities of course, and do allow for reasonable men to disagree reasonably, and realize greatly "that I may be wrong". Its always humbling to admit to this, and it is unnerving to realize that much of what we take for granted as reality, are , in the end, guesses and assumptions.
'I went into the ministry a literalist and came out a mythicist evidently.'
People who make such statements hide the fact that God had on many occasions intervened in their lives, affirming His existence, and the bible as His inspired word.
They are not being honest with their audience.
“We scientists perceive it as the Truth that will give us absolute understanding of the universe – which is impossible at the moment for a young species like us. On the other hand, the mystics perceive the Ultimate Truth, to be the attainment of Absolute Divinity, which all the religious giants experienced. But this attainment, is nowhere near the actual Ultimate Truth – it is only a subjective experience of the mind, evoked by specific internal and external stimuli.”
― Abhijit Naskar, Neurons, Oxygen & Nanak
A 952. You're calling me a liar then and incapable of defining my own experience . Nice.
Very well said Tonto!!
Re the circumcision scenario I find it interesting that “feet” is a Bible euphemism for genitals. So Zipporah actually held her son’s foreskin against Moses’ crotch when she exclaimed he was a bridegroom or husband of blood owing to the rite of circumcision. Also, depending on the age of the son there’s a chance it’d have been quite bloody indeed. Of course the Biblical procedure was minor (removing the tip of the foreskin) back then in contrast to the more major procedure it is today (removing the entire foreskin).
Tonto
Your 10.19 AM quote is total BS.
Truth is the world as perceived by the five senses, the bibles 'you shall know them by their fruits.' Before Christ was tempted by Satan, God the Father affirmed Christ's identity by means of a dove landing on Him (the eyes) and a voice (the ears) stating that He was the son of God. The five senses plus reason does enable this 'young species' to acquire sufficient understanding to be successful.
Your quote and similar robs its victims of the confidence to stand up to coercive pressure to the effect of 'what's mine in mine, and what's yours is mine.' Your quote is the quote of a metaphysical killer.
ANON AT 8:42
John 20:29- "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Anon Dec. 30 @ 8:42 says, concerning the opinion about science Tonto quoted: "Your quote and similar robs its victims of the confidence to stand up to coercive pressure to the effect of 'what's mine in mine, and what's yours is mine.' "
No expression of opinion can rob anybody. By your comment, you demonstrate that you can stand up to what you call "coercive pressure." So why do you assume others cannot? If we all think independently and critically about the opinions expressed on this blog, we can gain confidence, not get robbed of it. An we can learn, especially if we remember the motto of a friend of mine: "You can learn more from one bad example than you can from twelve good ones."
Thank you, 8:42, for all the things I have learned from you.
And speaking of thinking critically, where does the quotation you refer to say anything at all about the distribution of property? Looks like you extracted that issue from your own agenda and grafted it into your reading of the passage.
@8:42: Would you please define "metaphysical killer"?
Tonto
Do I believe in the laws of physics and chemistry? Yes, Do I see them? No. Rather I see their effects, and hence deduce their existence. The same with Gods laws. Hence Christian faith means that Gods ways feels 'real' even though we never directly see, hear, smell. touch, taste them. Faith is not belief without proof as apostate Dennis keeps repeating.
11.37 AM
Bullies want both your property and your life. They want everything. One means used to achieve this by crippling other peoples minds. This gives them power and superiority over their victims. ACOG ministers frequently do this by attacking the self esteem, confidence, poise, self worth etc. of members. It's murder, and it's rampant throughout churchianity. This also includes the wrong view of concepts, as in Tonto's quote. The thievery is often dressed up by various ideologies such as egalitarianism. Satan was a murderer from the beginning, and he did it for a reason. So no, my point isn't a grafted agenda, but rather an explanation.
11.22 AM
The proper relationship between mind and matter is maliciously attacked. The label appears in philosophy books.
6:11 - What philosophy books? I'd like to read further.
When asked to define "metaphysical killer," the commenter who used the term comes back with "The proper relationship between mind and matter is maliciously attacked" at 6:11 AM.
Your attempt does not have either the form or the substance of an adequate definition. Let's do form first. You originally applied the term to Abhijit Naskar, the author of the quotation Tonto cited. Therefore your definition should begin with a human noun such as "a writer." Did you mean "A writer or speaker who maliciously attacks the proper relationship between mind and matter?" Let's try that.
Now substance. Naskar says "the attainment of Absolute Divinity . . . is nowhere near the actual Ultimate Truth – it is only a subjective experience of the mind. . . .” This is in fact an attack on certain metaphysical ideas, but where's the malice? And what makes metaphysics the proper place to look for "the proper relationship between mind and matter"? I have waded through many pages of prose about metaphysical propositions. The best synonym for "metaphysics" I can come up with is "bullshit." You call the approach I like "bullshit." Fair enough. We disagree about "the proper relationship between mind and matter. Nobody with a sense of proportion would call you a "pragmatic killer" or me a "metaphysical killer." We're just a couple of guys who enjoy shooting the shit on an Internet forum. I assure you I am not malicious about it. Maybe you are, but I cannot see into your heart, so it would be wrong of me to attribute malice to you. By the same token, it is wrong of you to describe Naskar as malicious.
One other thing: your attempt at documenation that reads "The label appears in philosophy books." Right. Now all I have to do to check up on the accuracy of your claim about the term is go to the Philosophy section of my local library and open a few books. I am sure to run across the phrase "metaphysical killer" all over the place, right? Seriously, let me remind you of the frequent note in Wikipedia articles: (Citation needed.)
I asked the question because when I saw the phrase "metaphysical killer", I said to myself, "Wow! Does that ever sound pseudo!" Still, purely out of fairness, I thought the commenter should be given an opportununity to define and source it. Instead, he retorted in the same dismissive manner that an Armstrong minister might employ. "Oh. It's in lots of philosophy books!"
That dog don't hunt around here, boy! Y'all need to esplain yourself.
Retired Prof
You do not give away your hard earned money, so why should people give you their hard earned intellectual knowledge free of charge? First stand on a street corner giving away your money, then I'II consider answering your questions.
To anon 11:16 AM: I just gave you research and communications instruction worth about a $150 consultancy fee, at no charge. You should show a little gratitude instead of a lot of hostility.
5.44 PM
I did not say LOTS of philosophy books. I just looked it up, and metaphysical killer does appear on the web.
Post a Comment