• QUAINT, REDNECKY ORANGE. Recently, I visited downtown Orange and took a few pictures of my old house, a former brothel. (Chunk's travelogue.) Today, the LA Times posted a nice little video/slide show of the downtown Orange area: Orange, Orange Plaza. Check it out. It’s kinda nice, despite the rednecks—and flags, made in China, waved by ignoramuses, who would vote for Bush again if given the chance.
• ATTACK-DOGS TO DROOL AND SNARL AT G.O.P. CONFERENCE. Martin Wisckol of the OC Register’s “Total Buzz” (Obama ‘enemies’ to powwow in Newport Beach) reports that “Floyd Brown and Jim Lacy, two of the six people listed on Barack Obama’s enemies list, will be key players when the Western Conservative Political Action Conference convenes in October at the Fairmont Hotel in Newport Beach. ¶ Brown is most famous for his Willie Horton TV ad ... and he’s now turning his attack-dog skills against Obama….”
OK, there you go. In some circles, when you’re an “attack-dog”—a ruthless, vicious bastard like Lee Atwater or Karl Rove—you’re famous and admired. People come to hear you speak.
We're obviously going to hell in a handbasket.
• STEM CELLS WIN VALUABLE CASH PRIZES. The OC Register’s “Science Dude” reports that “UC Irvine has shattered its previous record for private donations, raising $130 million during the past year….” ( UCI smashes fundraising record.)
Naturally, the biggest donor was the Irvine Company’s Donald Bren (see pic above), who put in $20 million for the new law school, the progress of which we have been following. A recent anonymous $12 million gift supports stem cell research. It turns out that UCI “has emerged as one of the larger centers for this field of study on the West Coast.”
Our county’s crew of pious/ruthless knuckle draggers must have their loincloths in a twist about that. Lord, I hope so.
• THE OC LOSES A GOOD SCRIBBLER. Our pal (well, the Reb’s pal) Gustavo Arellano over at the OC Weekly posted an interesting piece today about reporter William Lobdell (WILLIAM LOBDELL—GONE :-(), who has quit the LA Times. According to Gustavo, “Lobdell was no ordinary reporter—the man was a multiple-award-winning titan, one of the best religion reporters ever to grace American newspapers, and definitely the best in covering the Gospel Swamp that is Orange County. He left the religion beat last year, sickened by the county's many Pharisees.”
Gustavo doesn't identify these Pharisees, but he does list some of our county's most (in)famous religious icons: "Schuller, Warren, Crouch, Calvary Chapel, Goat Boy, Robert Fuller...."
The SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT — "[The] blog he developed was something that made the district better." - Tim Jemal, SOCCCD BoT President, 7/24/23
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The Bible as "literally true"
This morning's Inside Higher Ed reports that
My own view is that anyone who reads this troubled collection of writings as (always) intending to describe the "literal" truth has an implausible and outlandish theory. I mean, how plausible is it to suppose that everything that appears in the Bible is tacitly prefaced (by it's author[s]) with: "OK, I know this sounds unbelievable, but here's exactly what happened. No bullshit. You shoulda been there!"?
So they are obliged to justify their startling theory. Good luck. And I mean that.
It is possible, of course, that all of the Bible's statements not only are intended as the literal truth—they are the literal truth. —Well, not quite, since, notoriously, the "statements" and implied assumptions of the B appear to contradict each other, and, as you know, Logic is really down on contradictions. If there's one thing that philosophers and logicians agree on, it's that S can't be both T and F. That's because philosophers and logicians are not STUPID PEOPLE.
But leaving aside the Bible's apparent contradictory ideas (good luck defending that move), the alleged "statements of fact" of the Bible could be true. But they could be true only if some of our most central and warranted beliefs about the world (based on careful observation, etc.) are false. (Think of the reasons that we believe that the Earth is billions of years old.) So, if "the Bible is literally true" were a theory, it would be one that fails to be "conservative," as some scientists might put it. That is, the theory fails to have the important theoretical virtue of comporting with what is well-established in our experience.
That's the big problem with the theory behind homeopathic medicine, too. According to H theory, when you dilute an active homeopathic medicinal substance (say, cat urine), it becomes more effective. (Indeed, homeopaths routinely dilute to the point that not one molecule of the original urine is left—and they acknowledge this.)
As I often tell my students, the problem with that is that everything in our experience tells us the opposite. Take consuming alcohol from, say, a huge stein. The more the alcohol in your stein, the more effect it will have on you when you empty it into your body, from incipient buzzage all the way to death. (Students always laugh when I say ""from buzzage to death." Not sure why.) So when homeopaths come along and tell us that their Cat Urine medicine (OK, I just made up that example) is very powerful because it was diluted—well, what are we supposed to make of all of our experiences—with beer, and aspirin, and everything else—to the contrary?
Bible literalists and homeopaths are bold theorists. "That's OK," they say. "Contrary to appearances, beer has its greatest impact when its alcohol is diluted down to nothing."
Oh. Thanks for clearing that up.
Well, OK, maybe they don't say that. But then what will they say? Maybe: "OK, I admit it, this doesn't add up. But that's OK. When a set of beliefs don't hang together, what you need to do is just go with it. Well, no, that would be irrational, so we don't recommend that for most things. We just recommend it for this case. In fact, we insist on it; we demand that you suspend your rational standards exactly and only here."
Wow. That's some pitch. Tell me how that isn't the pitch. If it is the pitch, then it's crap, and we need to walk away. If it isn't, then enlighten me. How is this supposed to go exactly?
I'm waiting.
(Listen, like Fox Mulder, I want to believe. But you've got to give me a reason. You've got to make sense. Please start making sense.)
Penn and Teller's (typically irreverent and sometimes sloppy but way fun) approach to "contradictions in the Bible":
My quickie critique:
• Well, the video is entertaining.
• I'm not sure if P & T described this video as being specifically about "contradictions" in the Bible. (See "The Bible: Fact Or Fiction?") If so, they're a bit confused, since they only discuss one contradiction, namely, the distinctly different versions of the Adam & Eve story in Genesis. P & T are really discussing other kinds of problems with the Bible than "contradiction." Contradiction is when you say S and then you say or imply "not-S."
• Some of the rest of the video zeroes in on things the Bible says that seem to be false or absurd. If something is false or absurd, it is not ipso facto "contradictory." Get it right. (The belief that "I am tormented by a green pumpkin" is absurd, but it is not contradictory. "I am tormented by a married bachelor" is both absurd and contradictory.)
• As P & T point out, there's no evidence for many of the events described in the Bible (the 40 years in the wilderness, the Resurrection, etc.). But, of course, that doesn't demonstrate the falsity of these stories. It only demonstrates that, as things stand, there's no reason to believe these stories. P & T should be more careful. On the other hand, if there's no reason to believe a story, why believe it? Belief-wise, doncha wanna do better than Shirley MacLaine? I sure hope so.
• Naturally, there is evidence for the falsity of some Biblical stories, e.g., the world-wide flood. If it occurred, then there should be evidence of its occurrence; there isn't any. So, probably, it didn't happen. (Same for Bigfoot. How come no bones? How come no scat? How come no nothin'? Thus, probably, no Bigfoot.)
• Respected skeptic Michael Shermer is interviewed, noting that "messiah" stories were pretty common at the time of the rise of Christianity. I suppose the point is that there's no reason to take the Christian messiah story any more seriously than any of the other messiah stories. Nobody, including the Christian Believer, has a reason to take all of them seriously. So he has no reason to take the Christian yarn seriously. (Again, we are given a reason to suppose that a story ought not to be believed, not a reason suppose that the story is false. Of course, an embrace of simple physics & biology is enough to give us the latter sort of reason with regard to some aspects of these stories—e.g., someone's coming to life after have been dead for some time.)
• P & T make a good point: some defenders of the Bible explain away stories by reinterpreting them as non-miracles. A believer might consistently take that tack in responding to critics/skeptics, but, if he does, hasn't he abandoned the supernatural in favor of a naturalistic story of how things went? Yawn.
• Less colorful approaches to "contradictions" and absurdities in the Bible are available. I've been meaning to read Baggini's Atheism: a Very Short Introduction. Is that good? The American Humanist Association offers this, a list of alleged contradictions and inconsistencies.
* * * * *
• Some Believers make a big point of "demonstrating" that the events described in the Bible — the opening of the sea, the Egyptian plagues, etc. — could have occurred. If by this they mean that the events are consistent with science, then they run the risk mentioned above (reinterpreting religious belief as naturalistic—and thus as non-supernatural—belief). But there's another problem: that something could have occurred is not an argument that it did occur. As I often tell my students, it is just barely possible that I am the Weasel King of the universe. (It is conceivable.) But only a lunatic would infer that I am in fact the Weasel King of the universe. Possibility does not imply actuality. Yes, on some interpretations of this word, there could be a God. It is conceivable. (I guess I'd have to say, too, that I hope it's true.) But it would be absurd to infer from this that such a being exists. And if one were to draw this inference, to be consistent, they'd have to acknowledge the existence of other "possible" Gods, including my Weasel King. BTW: I, the Weasel King, command you to send me all of your worldly possessions.
• The above point reminds me of a limitation of common responses to the "problem of evil" (these are usually called "theodicies"). Many theists struggle to show that the existence of the evils of this world could be consistent with the existence of a perfect and perfectly good God. Maybe they can succeed in this.
.....But the crucial question is: what is the most reasonable belief—that God exists or that God does not exist? The former sort of theodicy never seems to prevent the answer: "Well, sure, God could exist. But, given the existence of Dick Cheney (etc.), it's as unlikely as hell. It is more reasonable to deny the existence of God than to affirm the existence of God."
.....But seriously, folks, we can maybe understand how God might allow Cain to suffer some misfortune as a consequence of Abel's free will; but how are we to understand a good Creator's allowing thousands or tens of thousands to perish or suffer just so Mean Murray can be free?
.....This picture strains for coherence. On the other hand, the picture of a world with Mean Murrays and no God doesn't strain at all. It offers no puzzles, no incoherences. So you've got to go with picture #2.
.....And I guess that's why God made atheists.
Southwestern Community College, in Iowa, has reached a settlement with Steve Bitterman [I'm sure he's a man; do you suppose he's bitter, too?], an adjunct who lost his job after he offended some students by stating that the Bible is not literally true. The Des Moines Register reported that Bitterman is no longer teaching at the college and that details of the settlement have not been released.I guess this means that, according to Southwestern Community College, the Bible IS literally true.
My own view is that anyone who reads this troubled collection of writings as (always) intending to describe the "literal" truth has an implausible and outlandish theory. I mean, how plausible is it to suppose that everything that appears in the Bible is tacitly prefaced (by it's author[s]) with: "OK, I know this sounds unbelievable, but here's exactly what happened. No bullshit. You shoulda been there!"?
So they are obliged to justify their startling theory. Good luck. And I mean that.
It is possible, of course, that all of the Bible's statements not only are intended as the literal truth—they are the literal truth. —Well, not quite, since, notoriously, the "statements" and implied assumptions of the B appear to contradict each other, and, as you know, Logic is really down on contradictions. If there's one thing that philosophers and logicians agree on, it's that S can't be both T and F. That's because philosophers and logicians are not STUPID PEOPLE.
But leaving aside the Bible's apparent contradictory ideas (good luck defending that move), the alleged "statements of fact" of the Bible could be true. But they could be true only if some of our most central and warranted beliefs about the world (based on careful observation, etc.) are false. (Think of the reasons that we believe that the Earth is billions of years old.) So, if "the Bible is literally true" were a theory, it would be one that fails to be "conservative," as some scientists might put it. That is, the theory fails to have the important theoretical virtue of comporting with what is well-established in our experience.
That's the big problem with the theory behind homeopathic medicine, too. According to H theory, when you dilute an active homeopathic medicinal substance (say, cat urine), it becomes more effective. (Indeed, homeopaths routinely dilute to the point that not one molecule of the original urine is left—and they acknowledge this.)
As I often tell my students, the problem with that is that everything in our experience tells us the opposite. Take consuming alcohol from, say, a huge stein. The more the alcohol in your stein, the more effect it will have on you when you empty it into your body, from incipient buzzage all the way to death. (Students always laugh when I say ""from buzzage to death." Not sure why.) So when homeopaths come along and tell us that their Cat Urine medicine (OK, I just made up that example) is very powerful because it was diluted—well, what are we supposed to make of all of our experiences—with beer, and aspirin, and everything else—to the contrary?
Bible literalists and homeopaths are bold theorists. "That's OK," they say. "Contrary to appearances, beer has its greatest impact when its alcohol is diluted down to nothing."
Oh. Thanks for clearing that up.
Well, OK, maybe they don't say that. But then what will they say? Maybe: "OK, I admit it, this doesn't add up. But that's OK. When a set of beliefs don't hang together, what you need to do is just go with it. Well, no, that would be irrational, so we don't recommend that for most things. We just recommend it for this case. In fact, we insist on it; we demand that you suspend your rational standards exactly and only here."
Wow. That's some pitch. Tell me how that isn't the pitch. If it is the pitch, then it's crap, and we need to walk away. If it isn't, then enlighten me. How is this supposed to go exactly?
I'm waiting.
(Listen, like Fox Mulder, I want to believe. But you've got to give me a reason. You've got to make sense. Please start making sense.)
Penn and Teller's (typically irreverent and sometimes sloppy but way fun) approach to "contradictions in the Bible":
My quickie critique:
• Well, the video is entertaining.
• I'm not sure if P & T described this video as being specifically about "contradictions" in the Bible. (See "The Bible: Fact Or Fiction?") If so, they're a bit confused, since they only discuss one contradiction, namely, the distinctly different versions of the Adam & Eve story in Genesis. P & T are really discussing other kinds of problems with the Bible than "contradiction." Contradiction is when you say S and then you say or imply "not-S."
• Some of the rest of the video zeroes in on things the Bible says that seem to be false or absurd. If something is false or absurd, it is not ipso facto "contradictory." Get it right. (The belief that "I am tormented by a green pumpkin" is absurd, but it is not contradictory. "I am tormented by a married bachelor" is both absurd and contradictory.)
• As P & T point out, there's no evidence for many of the events described in the Bible (the 40 years in the wilderness, the Resurrection, etc.). But, of course, that doesn't demonstrate the falsity of these stories. It only demonstrates that, as things stand, there's no reason to believe these stories. P & T should be more careful. On the other hand, if there's no reason to believe a story, why believe it? Belief-wise, doncha wanna do better than Shirley MacLaine? I sure hope so.
• Naturally, there is evidence for the falsity of some Biblical stories, e.g., the world-wide flood. If it occurred, then there should be evidence of its occurrence; there isn't any. So, probably, it didn't happen. (Same for Bigfoot. How come no bones? How come no scat? How come no nothin'? Thus, probably, no Bigfoot.)
• Respected skeptic Michael Shermer is interviewed, noting that "messiah" stories were pretty common at the time of the rise of Christianity. I suppose the point is that there's no reason to take the Christian messiah story any more seriously than any of the other messiah stories. Nobody, including the Christian Believer, has a reason to take all of them seriously. So he has no reason to take the Christian yarn seriously. (Again, we are given a reason to suppose that a story ought not to be believed, not a reason suppose that the story is false. Of course, an embrace of simple physics & biology is enough to give us the latter sort of reason with regard to some aspects of these stories—e.g., someone's coming to life after have been dead for some time.)
• P & T make a good point: some defenders of the Bible explain away stories by reinterpreting them as non-miracles. A believer might consistently take that tack in responding to critics/skeptics, but, if he does, hasn't he abandoned the supernatural in favor of a naturalistic story of how things went? Yawn.
• Less colorful approaches to "contradictions" and absurdities in the Bible are available. I've been meaning to read Baggini's Atheism: a Very Short Introduction. Is that good? The American Humanist Association offers this, a list of alleged contradictions and inconsistencies.
* * * * *
• Some Believers make a big point of "demonstrating" that the events described in the Bible — the opening of the sea, the Egyptian plagues, etc. — could have occurred. If by this they mean that the events are consistent with science, then they run the risk mentioned above (reinterpreting religious belief as naturalistic—and thus as non-supernatural—belief). But there's another problem: that something could have occurred is not an argument that it did occur. As I often tell my students, it is just barely possible that I am the Weasel King of the universe. (It is conceivable.) But only a lunatic would infer that I am in fact the Weasel King of the universe. Possibility does not imply actuality. Yes, on some interpretations of this word, there could be a God. It is conceivable. (I guess I'd have to say, too, that I hope it's true.) But it would be absurd to infer from this that such a being exists. And if one were to draw this inference, to be consistent, they'd have to acknowledge the existence of other "possible" Gods, including my Weasel King. BTW: I, the Weasel King, command you to send me all of your worldly possessions.
• The above point reminds me of a limitation of common responses to the "problem of evil" (these are usually called "theodicies"). Many theists struggle to show that the existence of the evils of this world could be consistent with the existence of a perfect and perfectly good God. Maybe they can succeed in this.
.....But the crucial question is: what is the most reasonable belief—that God exists or that God does not exist? The former sort of theodicy never seems to prevent the answer: "Well, sure, God could exist. But, given the existence of Dick Cheney (etc.), it's as unlikely as hell. It is more reasonable to deny the existence of God than to affirm the existence of God."
.....But seriously, folks, we can maybe understand how God might allow Cain to suffer some misfortune as a consequence of Abel's free will; but how are we to understand a good Creator's allowing thousands or tens of thousands to perish or suffer just so Mean Murray can be free?
.....This picture strains for coherence. On the other hand, the picture of a world with Mean Murrays and no God doesn't strain at all. It offers no puzzles, no incoherences. So you've got to go with picture #2.
.....And I guess that's why God made atheists.
New reality series: Orange County's most lethal politician
• MURDERED PROF. Over at the OC Reg, Marla Jo Fisher’s “College Life” blog offers some “breaking news”: Former UCI professor found murdered:
• IRVINE: LIKE A FINE TURD IN A SHRINKING GLASS OF MILK. Irvine’s in the news. According to the OC Reg (4 of O.C.’s 7 biggest cities lose population), while Huntington Beach, Orange, Fullerton, and Costa Mesa are declining in population, Irvine’s growing. It grew by 4.3% from July ’06 to July ’07.
—Plus, Money magazine ranks Irvine as the 4th best place to live in the country (Irvine called 4th best place to live in U.S).
• CARONA SAYS HE’S “LETHAL.” Here’s the latest on the Mike Carona saga: 'Death spiral' of relationship between ex-O.C. Sheriff Carona and D.A. described on secret tapes:
Naturally, Mike is married to Rackauckas’ public-affairs counsel Susan Kang Schroeder.
Schroeder and Rackauckas are pretty corrupt. In 2002, the OC Weekly’s Scott Moxley wrote that Rackauckas was emerging as “the most corrupt politician in one of the most corrupt counties in the nation.” (See Spot the Gas Leak and Flashes of Lunacy.)
Orange County is just the best. Best cities, best beaches, best corruption, best right-wing lunatics—and the best TV shows, too.
• MANCHURIAN CANDIDATES. In this morning’s Inside Higher Ed:
Former UCI Professor Lindon Barrett, ex-director of UCI’s African American Studies program and an English professor, was found dead in his downtown Long Beach apartment, apparently murdered, according to Long Beach police….At the time of his death, Barrett was a Professor of English at UC Riverside.
• IRVINE: LIKE A FINE TURD IN A SHRINKING GLASS OF MILK. Irvine’s in the news. According to the OC Reg (4 of O.C.’s 7 biggest cities lose population), while Huntington Beach, Orange, Fullerton, and Costa Mesa are declining in population, Irvine’s growing. It grew by 4.3% from July ’06 to July ’07.
—Plus, Money magazine ranks Irvine as the 4th best place to live in the country (Irvine called 4th best place to live in U.S).
• CARONA SAYS HE’S “LETHAL.” Here’s the latest on the Mike Carona saga: 'Death spiral' of relationship between ex-O.C. Sheriff Carona and D.A. described on secret tapes:
Former Orange County Sheriff Michael S. Carona thought Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas was trying to "take me out" and that their relationship had deteriorated into "one of those death spirals" after a special grand jury was impaneled last year to investigate the beating death of a jail inmate, according to court documents filed Monday.Long-time Dissent readers know that DA Rackauckas and former Sheriff Carona share the same chief advisor: OC “Republican Mafia” chief Mike Schroeder, who happens to be one of Trustee Tom Fuentes’ closest associates.
Carona, speaking to former Assistant Sheriff Don Haidl during a conversation secretly recorded by the federal government, said he would emerge unscathed from the investigation because he was the "most lethal" politician in Orange County, the court documents show….
Naturally, Mike is married to Rackauckas’ public-affairs counsel Susan Kang Schroeder.
Schroeder and Rackauckas are pretty corrupt. In 2002, the OC Weekly’s Scott Moxley wrote that Rackauckas was emerging as “the most corrupt politician in one of the most corrupt counties in the nation.” (See Spot the Gas Leak and Flashes of Lunacy.)
Orange County is just the best. Best cities, best beaches, best corruption, best right-wing lunatics—and the best TV shows, too.
• MANCHURIAN CANDIDATES. In this morning’s Inside Higher Ed:
• [SOME DAY, THEY'LL THANK US WITH A CARD.] A new study has found that the institutions whose undergraduates were most likely to earn a Ph.D. from a university in the United States in 2006 were both in China: Tsinghua University and Peking University, Science reported. Those institutions overtook the University of California at Berkeley. Following Berkeley are Seoul National University, Cornell University and the University of Michigan.The headings are my own, not IHE's. But you knew that.
• [YOU MEAN, IT IS LITERALLY TRUE?] Southwestern Community College, in Iowa, has reached a settlement with Steve Bitterman, an adjunct who lost his job after he offended some students by stating that the Bible is not literally true. The Des Moines Register reported that Bitterman is no longer teaching at the college and that details of the settlement have not been released.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"
This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...
-
Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox OCC Trumpsters/GOP A professor called Trump’s election an ‘act of terrorism.’ Then she became the vict...
-
The "prayer" suit: ..... AS WE REPORTED two days ago , on Tuesday, Judge R. Gary Klausner denied Westphal, et alia ’s motion f...
-
Yesterday morning, the Irvine Valley College community received an email from college President, Glenn Roquemore, announcing the coll...