Epistemology and Biblical Evidence

[stahrwe]

As for strong families, are you sure your correlation is also causative? If you look at countries where religion is much less a going thing than it is here, some of them show a higher value placed on the family.

What countries are you referring to?

[Azrael]

Washington was always adamant about the role religion would play in a newly formed republic (United States). As far as circumventing the Constitution I don’t think he was in any way attempting to do that. Washington himself even admits that religion should play a role in the lives of people. In his letter to the Virginia Baptists in 1789 he states such by saying:

“If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed in the convention where I had the honor to preside might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it”

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/va.ba ... ngton.html

I highly doubt that during this period that the educational welfare or religious education of children was put on the front burner of such a young country. Virginia Baptists were concerned mainly at this time with religious oppression and it was Washington in his letter trying to assure them that the Constitution would protect these liberties.

Was Washington ignorant in this respect? No he was not. He saw the need in a letter to George Chapman, written December 15, 1784 Washington states:

“The best means of forming a manly, virtuous, and happy people will be found in the right education of youth. Without this foundation, every other means, in my opinion, must fail.”

No, Washington knew the need for education and saw it in the youth of this country.

[DWill]

As for strong families, are you sure your correlation is also causative? If you look at countries where religion is much less a going thing than it is here, some of them show a higher value placed on the family.

What countries are you referring to?

These stats are from 1991 (except for divorce, which are the "latest"). I haven't felt it necessary to look for more recent ones, as the contention is of course that the U. S. continues its slide anyway, due to the drifting away from God. Yet it still has to be counted as a more religious nation than several on the list who trail it in measures of social problems. There are many other categories given; I've chosen ones that relate most closely to families.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

Families headed by a single parent

United States 8.0%
Germany 6.7
Netherlands 6.7
Canada 5.6
Denmark 5.1
France 5.1
United Kingdom 4.0
Sweden 3.2
Japan 2.5


Sexually active teenage population:

Norway 66%
United States 65
United Kingdom 57
Germany 56
Canada 53
Italy 34
France 34

Percent who have not had intercourse by age 20:

Boys Girls
Belgium 61 63
Netherlands 58 62
Germany 33 28
Norway 33 25
United Kingdom 24 23
France 9 25
United States 12 16


Teen pregnancies per 1,000 teenagers:

United States 98.0
United Kingdom 46.6
Norway 40.2
Canada 38.6
Finland 32.1
Sweden 28.3
Denmark 27.9
Netherlands 12.1
Japan 10.5

Total teen abortions per 1,000 teenagers:

United States 44.4
Norway 21.1
Sweden 19.6
Denmark 18.2
Finland 17.9
United Kingdom 16.9
Canada 16.2
Japan 5.9
Netherlands 5.5
Average hours spent watching TV per day:

Japan 9:12
United States 7:00
Canada 3:24
United Kingdom 3:10
Germany 2:13
Sweden 2:00
Finland 2:00
Denmark 1:54
Netherlands 1:42
Switzerland 1:34

Divorce rates http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_d ... vorce-rate


Showing latest available data.
Rank Countries
Amount

# 1 United States:
4.95 per 1,000 people
# 2 Puerto Rico:
4.47 per 1,000 people
# 3 Russia:
3.36 per 1,000 people
# 4 United Kingdom:
3.08 per 1,000 people
# 5 Denmark:
2.81 per 1,000 people
# 6 New Zealand:
2.63 per 1,000 people
# 7 Australia:
2.52 per 1,000 people
# 8 Canada:
2.46 per 1,000 people
# 9 Finland:
1.85 per 1,000 people
# 10 Barbados:
1.21 per 1,000 people

[stahrwe]

As for strong families, are you sure your correlation is also causative? If you look at countries where religion is much less a going thing than it is here, some of them show a higher value placed on the family.

What countries are you referring to?

These stats are from 1991 (except for divorce, which are the "latest"). I haven't felt it necessary to look for more recent ones, as the contention is of course that the U. S. continues its slide anyway, due to the drifting away from God. Yet it still has to be counted as a more religious nation than several on the list who trail it in measures of social problems. There are many other categories given; I've chosen ones that relate most closely to families.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

Families headed by a single parent

United States 8.0%
Germany 6.7
Netherlands 6.7
Canada 5.6
Denmark 5.1
France 5.1
United Kingdom 4.0
Sweden 3.2
Japan 2.5


Sexually active teenage population:

Norway 66%
United States 65
United Kingdom 57
Germany 56
Canada 53
Italy 34
France 34

Percent who have not had intercourse by age 20:

Boys Girls
Belgium 61 63
Netherlands 58 62
Germany 33 28
Norway 33 25
United Kingdom 24 23
France 9 25
United States 12 16


Teen pregnancies per 1,000 teenagers:

United States 98.0
United Kingdom 46.6
Norway 40.2
Canada 38.6
Finland 32.1
Sweden 28.3
Denmark 27.9
Netherlands 12.1
Japan 10.5

Total teen abortions per 1,000 teenagers:

United States 44.4
Norway 21.1
Sweden 19.6
Denmark 18.2
Finland 17.9
United Kingdom 16.9
Canada 16.2
Japan 5.9
Netherlands 5.5
Average hours spent watching TV per day:

Japan 9:12
United States 7:00
Canada 3:24
United Kingdom 3:10
Germany 2:13
Sweden 2:00
Finland 2:00
Denmark 1:54
Netherlands 1:42
Switzerland 1:34

Divorce rates http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_d ... vorce-rate


Showing latest available data.
Rank Countries
Amount

# 1 United States:
4.95 per 1,000 people
# 2 Puerto Rico:
4.47 per 1,000 people
# 3 Russia:
3.36 per 1,000 people
# 4 United Kingdom:
3.08 per 1,000 people
# 5 Denmark:
2.81 per 1,000 people
# 6 New Zealand:
2.63 per 1,000 people
# 7 Australia:
2.52 per 1,000 people
# 8 Canada:
2.46 per 1,000 people
# 9 Finland:
1.85 per 1,000 people
# 10 Barbados:
1.21 per 1,000 people

According to the link you provided:

Unless otherwise indicated, all statistics come from the international encyclopedia Where We Stand, by Michael Wolff, Peter Rutten, Albert Bayers III, eds., and the World Rank Research Team (New York: Bantam Books, 1992)

I could not find World Rank Research Team, Bantam Books 1992 listed anywhere. As for Where We Stand, the source of the data provided, I am unsure of it as well. Amazon lists it but it has no reviews and the popularity is in the 3million plus. I would expect to see a reference to a government database like the US Bureaiu of the Census.

[DWill]

Being able to verify the reliability of sources seems to be important to you.

[stahrwe]

Being able to verify the reliability of sources seems to be important to you.

An occupational hazard. In business we are often confronted with less than perfect information and sources. Part of the discovery process is to evaluate information. With respect to your statistics I am just curious as to why the source is such an obscure book. Perhaps they culled the information from government statistics but what we were provided was your summary of a summary of a web article of the contents of an obscure book, so we are at least three levels from the raw data. There isn't anything necessarily wrong with that, but it is alway best to have primary sources if possible. I have the same issue with the Bible. I find too many instances of people telling me what others have told them about the Bible instead of reading it themselves.

[DWill]

Being able to verify the reliability of sources seems to be important to you.

An occupational hazard. In business we are often confronted with less than perfect information and sources. Part of the discovery process is to evaluate information. With respect to your statistics I am just curious as to why the source is such an obscure book. Perhaps they culled the information from government statistics but what we were provided was your summary of a summary of a web article of the contents of an obscure book, so we are at least three levels from the raw data. There isn't anything necessarily wrong with that, but it is alway best to have primary sources if possible. I have the same issue with the Bible. I find too many instances of people telling me what others have told them about the Bible instead of reading it themselves.

So you would call the Bible a primary source? A primary source of what?

[stahrwe]

Being able to verify the reliability of sources seems to be important to you.

An occupational hazard. In business we are often confronted with less than perfect information and sources. Part of the discovery process is to evaluate information. With respect to your statistics I am just curious as to why the source is such an obscure book. Perhaps they culled the information from government statistics but what we were provided was your summary of a summary of a web article of the contents of an obscure book, so we are at least three levels from the raw data. There isn't anything necessarily wrong with that, but it is alway best to have primary sources if possible. I have the same issue with the Bible. I find too many instances of people telling me what others have told them about the Bible instead of reading it themselves.

So you would call the Bible a primary source? A primary source of what?

I wasn't necessarily thinking of the Bible when I mentioned primary sources. I was thinking of works such as The Christ Myth Anthology, and Christ in Egypt by Murdock where she quotes authors quoting authors. With respect to the Bible, it should be considered a primary source of information with respect to TEoG. Wright refers to it often, too bad he didn't read the sections he referenced. For example, when he says, "Jesus never explicitly referred to himself as the Son of Man, Wright should have discussed the verses I brought up instead of making a broad statement.

Don't feel too bad about TEoG. I find the same issues in Christian books. In both cases they seem to be written to their target market. Most of the Christan books that challenge atheism are horrid in their superficiality. Why, because most people don't want to read more indepth material so KISS. Why would you expect authors on the other side of the fence to be any different. I see an almost visceral disdain for the Bible so it is natural that Wright and his ilk would keep the actual scripture to a minimum and KISS the rest of the book. You even confirmed this when you apologized for the complexity of the chapter on the emergence of Jesus as Savior.

[DWill]

I wasn't necessarily thinking of the Bible when I mentioned primary sources. I was thinking of works such as The Christ Myth Anthology, and Christ in Egypt by Murdock where she quotes authors quoting authors. With respect to the Bible, it should be considered a primary source of information with respect to TEoG. Wright refers to it often, too bad he didn't read the sections he referenced. For example, when he says, "Jesus never explicitly referred to himself as the Son of Man, Wright should have discussed the verses I brought up instead of making a broad statement.

Still, anyone would wonder about the significance of any of the errors you've cited (and I don't think the number appears large). These are errors negating Wright's thesis in the book? If so, that must be shown, and you haven't done that. Why is what you have done more than nitpicking?

Don't feel too bad about TEoG. I find the same issues in Christian books. In both cases they seem to be written to their target market. Most of the Christan books that challenge atheism are horrid in their superficiality. Why, because most people don't want to read more indepth material so KISS. Why would you expect authors on the other side of the fence to be any different. I see an almost visceral disdain for the Bible so it is natural that Wright and his ilk would keep the actual scripture to a minimum and KISS the rest of the book. You even confirmed this when you apologized for the complexity of the chapter on the emergence of Jesus as Savior.

I simply disagree entirely that The Evolution of God is any kind of slam against the Bible. You see it a such because Wright is a materialist and would examine any book whatseover in the same way, as one written by humans and displaying the same characteristics as any other written product. Does Wright use language of disrespect to describe the Bible? Show me this. The visceral disdain you speak of really occurs in other sources, I concede that, but Wright is not that type. I don't see KISS operating in his book, either. It seems a rather elaborate, even over-elaborate, argument that he gets into, as you say I indicated earlier.

[stahrwe]

I wasn't necessarily thinking of the Bible when I mentioned primary sources. I was thinking of works such as The Christ Myth Anthology, and Christ in Egypt by Murdock where she quotes authors quoting authors. With respect to the Bible, it should be considered a primary source of information with respect to TEoG. Wright refers to it often, too bad he didn't read the sections he referenced. For example, when he says, "Jesus never explicitly referred to himself as the Son of Man, Wright should have discussed the verses I brought up instead of making a broad statement.

Still, anyone would wonder about the significance of any of the errors you've cited (and I don't think the number appears large). These are errors negating Wright's thesis in the book? If so, that must be shown, and you haven't done that. Why is what you have done more than nitpicking?

Don't feel too bad about TEoG. I find the same issues in Christian books. In both cases they seem to be written to their target market. Most of the Christan books that challenge atheism are horrid in their superficiality. Why, because most people don't want to read more indepth material so KISS. Why would you expect authors on the other side of the fence to be any different. I see an almost visceral disdain for the Bible so it is natural that Wright and his ilk would keep the actual scripture to a minimum and KISS the rest of the book. You even confirmed this when you apologized for the complexity of the chapter on the emergence of Jesus as Savior.

I simply disagree entirely that The Evolution of God is any kind of slam against the Bible. You see it a such because Wright is a materialist and would examine any book whatseover in the same way, as one written by humans and displaying the same characteristics as any other written product. Does Wright use language of disrespect to describe the Bible? Show me this. The visceral disdain you speak of really occurs in other sources, I concede that, but Wright is not that type. I don't see KISS operating in his book, either. It seems a rather elaborate, even over-elaborate, argument that he gets into, as you say I indicated earlier.

The number is not large only because I have refrained from nit picking. As I have mentioned nearly every page which refers to the Bible teams with misstatements and gross errors.

I happen to live near the Kennedy Space Center and so have an opportunity to hear both local and national newscasters provide information about the space program and the area. I am frequently amused at the mistakes they make. Of course I know they are mistakes because I am here but most of the audience doesn't know. Still, it does give one pause, if they are wrong about the stuff I know about, what about the stuff I don't know about. How do I know they have that right.

I don't think Wright's errors are because he is a materialist I think they are because he is either lazy or disinterested. Then again, we can probably eliminate lazy because he could have had his manuscript reviewed by someone who could catch errors like the 'Son of Man' so that leaves disinterested. I think he had his idea for the book and filled in the pieces he needed and when necessary, he made them fit.

In fact, the errors do negate Wright's thesis. Take the Son of Man example. Wright clearly parses this to fit his theory and therefore leaves what Jesus said on the table. Wright did not deal with it outright so what are you to conclude? Wright thought it was important enough to bring up and as long as Jesus did not say it Wright uses that as license to move forward with his story. But, in fact, I think the quote in the Bible and the Pharisees reaction stops Wright's theory in its tracks.

The situation is just as bad, or worse with the call of Abram. The Bible clearly provides a narrative of the transition from polytheism to monotheism and Wright doesn't even mention it.

As for Wright's attitude toward Christianity and the Bible, I think it is obvious from the first sentence. What does he choose as an example of polytheism? Primitive humans farting. I suppose it was meant to be funny but it also set a tone. Throughout the rest of the text little snide comments and sarcastic comments pop up. I didn't mark them but they are there.

Wright wrote the book he wanted to. It is directed at his target audience with enough footnotes to impress, but his premise consists of conspiracy theories, marginalizing the Bible and often admittedly wild speculation.


The number is not large only because I have refrained from nit picking. As I have mentioned nearly every page which refers to the Bible teams with misstatements and gross errors.

I happen to live near the Kennedy Space Center and so have an opportunity to hear both local and national newscasters provide information about the space program and the area. I am frequently amused at the mistakes they make. Of course I know they are mistakes because I am here but most of the audience doesn't know. Still, it does give one pause, if they are wrong about the stuff I know about, what about the stuff I don't know about. How do I know they have that right.

I don't think Wright's errors are because he is a materialist I think they are because he is either lazy or disinterested. Then again, we can probably eliminate lazy because he could have had his manuscript reviewed by someone who could catch errors like the 'Son of Man' so that leaves disinterested. I think he had his idea for the book and filled in the pieces he needed and when necessary, he made them fit.

In fact, the errors do negate Wright's thesis. Take the Son of Man example. Wright clearly parses this to fit his theory and therefore leaves what Jesus said on the table. Wright did not deal with it outright so what are you to conclude? Wright thought it was important enough to bring up and as long as Jesus did not say it Wright uses that as license to move forward with his story. But, in fact, I think the quote in the Bible and the Pharisees reaction stops Wright's theory in its tracks.

The situation is just as bad, or worse with the call of Abram. The Bible clearly provides a narrative of the transition from polytheism to monotheism and Wright doesn't even mention it.

As for Wright's attitude toward Christianity and the Bible, I think it is obvious from the first sentence. What does he choose as an example of polytheism? Primitive humans farting. I suppose it was meant to be funny but it also set a tone. Throughout the rest of the text little snide comments and sarcastic comments pop up. I didn't mark them but they are there.

Wright wrote the book he wanted to. It is directed at his target audience with enough footnotes to impress, but his premise consists of conspiracy theories, marginalizing the Bible and often admittedly wild speculation.

This really belongs in the TEoG discussion.