Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 207 posts

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#191

Post by Minor49er »

moloch-hai wrote: post #187
colineartheta wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could provide any scholarly evidence, or even a cited critical reading of the Book of Enoch, showing that this character (whom has been a noted point of contention and much thought and writing amongst theologians and secular researchers alike for millennia) is intended to be an invented metaphorical personality of the type that you described.

They are all metaphorical. No one seriously imagines Adam, Noah, or Moses as historical, flesh-and-bone, people, any more than we imagine that of Paul Bunyan, Slue-foot Sue, or Hamlet. Jesus, too, BTW. Everything written as if of real events came at least two generations after the cult began.

Username checks out

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#192

Post by moloch-hai »

Minor49er wrote: post #191
moloch-hai wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are all metaphorical. No one seriously imagines Adam, Noah, or Moses as historical, flesh-and-bone, people, any more than we imagine that of Paul Bunyan, Slue-foot Sue, or Hamlet. Jesus, too, BTW. Everything written as if of real events came at least two generations after the cult began.

Username checks out

And karma at 666. But it was supposed to be "morlock-hai".

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#193

Post by brutusborn »

Beltalowda wrote: post #107
brutusborn wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to believe this after reading Dawkins as a teenager. After reading lots of philosophy I’ve come to believe that the question as posed is unfalsifiable and thus not possible to test scientifically. Asking “is the bible divinely inspired” is similar to asking “what is the meaning of life”, it cannot be tackled scientifically, thus it falls into philosophy and theology. The same thought process led me to abandon…

You can't "scientifically prove" that I didn't write this comment under divine inspiration either. Making unfalsifiable claims is not hard. I guess what you're saying is technically true , but adhering to an extremely strict interpretation of "science" doesn't strike me as terribly useful here. Science can't offer a definitive conclusive question for a lot of things in life, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have anyt…

Philosophy has existed long before science and produced things like democracy, so it’s unfair to claim it’s just “people talking shit.” I agree that science is very useful, but thinking that science can be applied to every problem is delusional. I think of it as a subset of philosophy (specifically epistemology). Thinking that science can be applied to morality results in dystopian situations, like nazi eugenics “improving” the population because Darwinism is scientific.

How can science inform morality? You are right that it can help us determine if animals are suffering; but what we do with that information comes down to our morals, which are generated through philosophy or theology. All the proponents of scientific morality are very passionate about promoting it, but you will notice that they don’t follow through and actually develop a moral system, they just discuss it theoretically (e.g. Sam Harris)

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#194

Post by NateEag »

brutusborn wrote: post #193
Beltalowda wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't "scientifically prove" that I didn't write this comment under divine inspiration either. Making unfalsifiable claims is not hard. I guess what you're saying is technically true , but adhering to an extremely strict interpretation of "science" doesn't strike me as terribly useful here. Science can't offer a definitive conclusive question for a lot of things in life, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have anyt…

Philosophy has existed long before science and produced things like democracy, so it’s unfair to claim it’s just “people talking shit.” I agree that science is very useful, but thinking that science can be applied to every problem is delusional. I think of it as a subset of philosophy (specifically epistemology). Thinking that science can be applied to morality results in dystopian situations, like nazi eugenics “imp…

In my limited experience, proponents of scientific morality don't seem to know about or grant David Hume's is/ought duality.

I'm still not entirely sure what I think of it, but it's certainly something anyone with an interest in moral philosophy ought to deal with.

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#195

Post by brutusborn »

NateEag wrote: post #194
brutusborn wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philosophy has existed long before science and produced things like democracy, so it’s unfair to claim it’s just “people talking shit.” I agree that science is very useful, but thinking that science can be applied to every problem is delusional. I think of it as a subset of philosophy (specifically epistemology). Thinking that science can be applied to morality results in dystopian situations, like nazi eugenics “imp…

In my limited experience, proponents of scientific morality don't seem to know about or grant David Hume's is/ought duality. I'm still not entirely sure what I think of it, but it's certainly something anyone with an interest in moral philosophy ought to deal with.

I must admit I don’t know the philosophy very well, thanks for referencing actual theory.

I would love to have a rational, consistent, data driven moral system but I will need an existence proof before I become a true believer.

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#196

Post by lisper »

NateEag wrote: post #170
lisper wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation

I haven't read it, but I believe that book addresses how certain behaviors may have evolved. That is unrelated to whether those behaviors are in an abstract sense "right" or "good".

It never ceases to amaze me how people can appear so confident while pontificating from a position of profound and self-professed ignorance. You admit you haven't read the book, and yet somehow you know that its content is unrelated to whether or not behavior is "right" or "good". You are wrong. Evolved behavior has everything to do with it. There is no behavior other than "evolved behavior". Without that, you can't even say what it means for a behavior to be "right or good in an abstract sense" without appeal to authority.

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#197

Post by npteljes »

gobrewers14 wrote: post #146
npteljes wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Isn't the whole bible a collection of fictional stories / articles? It isn't, according to my Catholic upbringing. It's the word of God, which he dictated through the people who originally wrote it. There are supposedly 1.345 billion Catholics. So, I think there are many people who care.

The Catholic Church declaring that a collection of fictional stories are the word of god and 1.345 billion people believing that does not make the collection of stories not fictional. You're appealing to authority and the populace.

I'd rather appeal to, let's say, popularity. So, because a lot of people take it seriously, to a degree, it's important to look at it how valid it is really, instead of just dismissing it all as fake, or forgery.

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#198

Post by mensetmanusman »

lisper wrote: post #196
NateEag wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't read it, but I believe that book addresses how certain behaviors may have evolved. That is unrelated to whether those behaviors are in an abstract sense "right" or "good".

It never ceases to amaze me how people can appear so confident while pontificating from a position of profound and self-professed ignorance. You admit you haven't read the book, and yet somehow you know that its content is unrelated to whether or not behavior is "right" or "good". You are wrong. Evolved behavior has everything to do with it. There is no behavior other than "evolved behavior". Without that, you can't…

Evolutionary arguments allow for any moral behavior that improves your survival chance, which is why it isn’t taken very seriously.

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#199

Post by lisper »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #198
lisper wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It never ceases to amaze me how people can appear so confident while pontificating from a position of profound and self-professed ignorance. You admit you haven't read the book, and yet somehow you know that its content is unrelated to whether or not behavior is "right" or "good". You are wrong. Evolved behavior has everything to do with it. There is no behavior other than "evolved behavior". Without that, you can't…

Evolutionary arguments allow for any moral behavior that improves your survival chance, which is why it isn’t taken very seriously.

No, that's not true. You need to read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. Evolution produces behavior that improves the reproductive fitness of your genes, not you. And that turns out to be a very significant constraint.

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#200

Post by NateEag »

lisper wrote: post #196
NateEag wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't read it, but I believe that book addresses how certain behaviors may have evolved. That is unrelated to whether those behaviors are in an abstract sense "right" or "good".

It never ceases to amaze me how people can appear so confident while pontificating from a position of profound and self-professed ignorance. You admit you haven't read the book, and yet somehow you know that its content is unrelated to whether or not behavior is "right" or "good". You are wrong. Evolved behavior has everything to do with it. There is no behavior other than "evolved behavior". Without that, you can't…

Statements like "you are wrong" indicate more confidence to me than statements like "I believe."

I may well be wrong about the book's nature. My assessment was based on the Wiki article you linked and my study of moral philosophy, epistemology, and science as a methodology for the past several years.

Are you familiar with the is-ought problem? If so, what do you make of it? How does that fit with your understanding of evolution as creating moral good?

Post reply on HN