From: nospam@buzz.off   
      
   On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:22:39 +0000, the following appeared   
   in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran   
   :   
      
   >On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 22:56:35 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   >wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 17:08:32 +0000, the following appeared   
   >>in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran   
   >>:   
   >>   
   >>>On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 09:23:41 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   >>>wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 06:04:13 -0400, the following appeared   
   >>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 09:33:54 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   >>>>>wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>On Sun, 16 Mar 2025 05:18:02 -0400, the following appeared   
   >>>>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 09:30:41 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   >>>>>>>wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 08:50:22 -0400, the following appeared   
   >>>>>>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:19:20 -0700, Bob Casanova    
   >>>>>>>>>wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared   
   >>>>>>>>>>in talk.origins, posted by MarkE :   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>The measure of literalism is in the *interpretation* of the text of   
   >>>>>>>>>>>Genesis, not the quoting of it.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>Nope; sorry. "Literalism" literally (sorry 'bout that) means   
   >>>>>>>>>>that the text is taken exactly as read; no interpretation   
   >>>>>>>>>>allowed. If it's interpreted it's not taken literally.   
   >>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>That's right.  Everybody knows the Bible was originally written in   
   >>>>>>>>>English.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>...which has exactly zero to do with my point regarding the   
   >>>>>>>>meaning of "literal", or his error (an error he has   
   >>>>>>>>admitted).   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>Check your jerky knees.  My comment is an *affirmation* of your point   
   >>>>>>>to his error.  That means it has everything to do with your point,   
   >>>>>>>contrary to your point to me.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>I concede that may have been the meaning you intended.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>The literal point is that it's silly to argue about THE literal   
   >>>>>meaning of THE Bible when THE Bible being referenced is an   
   >>>>>interpretation of a translation of a translation of an interpretation.   
   >>>>>Children who play telephone know this.  Even if there was a literal   
   >>>>>omni-everything God who literally quoted Its pearls of wisdom   
   >>>>>literally directly to some mortal, finite humans in their limited   
   >>>>>native languages, there is literally zero chance they would have   
   >>>>>literally understood what It literally meant.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>I don't disagree; arguing about the "real" meaning of any   
   >>>>religious text is a fool's game, as nonproductive as   
   >>>>conjectures about angels dancing on pinpoints.   
   >>>   
   >>>I disagree.   
   >>>   
   >>Your prerogative.   
   >>>   
   >>> Science is a particularly useful way of finding out stuff   
   >>>that we can verify through testing and experimentation but there are   
   >>>many things that are simply not open to scientific investigation and   
   >>>it is an inherent part of human nature to try to figure out how those   
   >>>things work, how those things have happened.   
   >>>   
   >>>That is where approaches like theology and philosophy come into play;   
   >>>whilst they are very limited in verification techniques in comparison   
   >>>to science, reasoning and debating can give us better understanding of   
   >>>areas not open to science - not perfect understanding but still   
   >>>better. For example, it is theology and reasoning, not science, that   
   >>>has pushed the Western world to try to move away from warfare as a   
   >>>means of settling disagreements   
   >>>   
   >>>The problem comes when someone tries to hold onto a theological or   
   >>>philosophical idea when science throws up contradictory but clear-cut   
   >>>evidence. That is the problem with Bible literalism, there is so much   
   >>>contradictory evidence against a 7-day creation or God creating man   
   >>>directly by breathing into dust that it is outright foolishness for   
   >>>someone to try to hold out against that evidence which damages   
   >>>religious belief in the way St. Augustine warned about.   
   >>>   
   >>I don't know how long it will be until the idea that   
   >>religious belief can be addressed by the methods of science,   
   >>or that science can be addressed by the tenets of religion,   
   >>can be relegated to the dustbin of bad ideas, but it can't   
   >>come any too soon.   
   >   
   >Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that science can be used to   
   >directly uphold religion or vice versa but I do think both can be used   
   >collaboratively to give us a bigger picture. That's where I think   
   >organisations like Biologos, the Templeton Foundation and the   
   >Pontifical Academy of Sciences make important contributions.   
   >   
   I suppose that's theoretically possible, but all such   
   "collaborations" of which I'm aware tend to devolve into   
   cross-justification, usually by ignoring those pesky   
   contradictions. And until people become perfect and   
   perfectly rational I don't see that changing. They're   
   philosophically distinct (and frequently contradictory)   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)