- Image via Wikipedia
Two factors have merged to inspire this blog. The first is my seemingly endless debates about God’s existence. The second is the History Channel‘s series Clash of the Gods.
In a recent discussion of God‘s existence, the arguments turned to the matter of whether or not archeological finds can serve as evidence for God’s existence. For example, if a place that is mentioned in the bible is found to be real, does this help support the claim that God exists?
My position on this matter has been and remains that such findings do not provide such support. Naturally, folks have objected that such findings would help show that the bible makes credible claims about historical places and this adds to its credibility. While I am quite willing to agree that such findings would help add to the credibility of the bible as a source for historical information, this is quite a distinct matter from providing evidence that God exists.
My first argument in support of my view is a very simple and perhaps even a silly one. However, I think that it is rather effective in its simplicity. Suppose I give you a call and claim to have seen a ghost in my kitchen. Sensing your doubt, I assure you that I have evidence that supports my claim and I invite you over to see it. Intrigued (and perhaps worried about my sanity), you head on over to see this evidence. I lead you to my kitchen and say “here is my proof. As you can see, my kitchen is quite real!”
Naturally, you would think that I had either gone off my rocker (once again) or that I was pulling some sort of odd prank (once again). After all, showing you that I have a kitchen just proves that my kitchen exists (well, for practical if not philosophical purposes) and does not establish anything about ghosts. What is wanting is a bit of evidence relevant to spirits of the ghostly sort rather than a view of where I keep my mundane spirits.
Likewise, showing that a place where a supernatural biblical supernatural event took place exists merely proves that the place exists. Without further evidence of this alleged event, such a find does nothing to support a claim of divine activity. For example, finding the city of Sodom does not prove that God destroyed the city. What would be needed would be signs that the city was destroyed via means available only to God.
My second argument for my view is more or less an extension of the first one, but it adds in the stuff relating to the Clash of the Gods.
In the episode on Medusa, the program presented both the mythology and discussions about the possible facts behind the myths. Also, the real places where the events where said to have taken place are presented. For example, in the myth Medusa is raped by Poseidon in the temple of Athena. This temple still exists to this day. As another example, the birthplace of the hero Perseus is also quite real.
In various other episodes, the same sort of approach is taken. The possible historical facts that inspired the myths are presented (such as the maze like palace that probably inspired the infamous maze of the minotaur) and the places where the events allegedly took place are often revealed as real places.
While the places mention in the Greek myths are often real, it would not be inferred that finding such places establishes the truth of the supernatural (or extraordinary) aspects of the myths. For example, the fact that the temple of Athena is real does nothing to prove that Medusa was raped there by Poseidon and transformed by Athena into a Gorgon. Likewise, finding places mentioned in the bible are real does nothing to show that any alleged supernatural events really took place.
To use a final example, consider another book about the supernatural and great events: Homer’s Iliad. This book tells tales of the supernatural: the doings of the gods, the existence of demigods and so on.
In a nice parallel, the city of Troy was long believed to be a legend. It was not until Schliemann found Troy did people accept that the story had some basis in historical fact. However, no reasonable person believes that the re-discovery of Troy proves that the Greek gods really exist (or existed). After all, it is one thing to find evidence of a legendary city and quite another to infer the existence of divine beings.
The same would seem to be true of the bible. Even if every earthly place in the bible is found, this would not provide a single piece of evidence for God’s existence. What would be needed would be evidence of the allegedly supernatural events that took place.
Naturally, some folks might object that certain findings would seem to show that God exists. For example, it might be claimed that finding Noah’s ark would do the trick. However, this is not the case.
Finding the ark would certainly be an amazing discovery, but it would not prove that God exists. After all, men can build huge vessels without any divine intervention (just consider some of the huge vessels built in ancient days). Also, we know that serious flooding occurs naturally. As such, finding such a ship would not show that God destroyed humanity in a vast flood.
Of course, I do accept that finding archeological evidence that the entire earth was flooded and all humans (aside from Noah’s folks) perished would point towards an event that would seem to be beyond natural explanation. After all, a natural event that could flood the entire earth (putting the mountains under water) during the time that humanity has been around does not seem to be geologically possible. Of course, there seems to be no indication of such a massive event, despite the fact that it should have left a significant amount of evidence.
In light of the above discussion, archeological findings that do not contain actual evidence of divine activity cannot be considered as evidence for God’s existence.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i2.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
Placing Abe Lincoln in Tatooine doesn’t render the setting real.
Placing Obi-Wan Kenobi on the Gettysburg Battlefield doesn’t render his character real.
Finding the bones of Lucille Ball and Muhammad Ali in a professional boxing ring doesn’t prove that they died in a Battle-of-the-Century.
Etc.
“. . .actual evidence of divine activity.”
Therein lies a huge problem for those seeking any kind of evidence of God’s existence: Even if it’s evidence, how would we know it’s evidence when we find it? Is it like Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography? Will we know it when we see it?
As a poster on your most recent “Rambling on God” wrote:”The ‘how would we know’ sort of question comes from the knowledge economy.” Facts won’t get you much in the faith marketplace, and that’s the reason their weak attempt at creating a pseudo-scientific counter to evolution is doomed to ridicule. If facts are virtually weightless in their world, how can they hope to employ facts (archaeological, biological, historical, etc.)to prove or disprove anything?
Of course the verification of the existance of places names in the Bible does not prove the existance of God, but it seems there are a number of issues that must be faced before people will admit that the Bible can at least be a legitimate piece of documented history. Indeed, in many ways the ancient writers were more reliable than the writer’s of today.
As I wrote in my Realist’s Manifesto: “Though he (ancieant Man) was limited in his ability to determine causality, he never lacked the ability to see phenomena clearly, he never denied seeing what he was seeing.”
Many people who critique the Bible hold it to a higher standard than virtually any other historical writing. For instance, even the story of Gilgamesh is thought to be about a real king named Gilgamesh. Perhaps he did not battle demons, but can we at least admit he existed? Yet I hear atheists question all the time if Moses or David existed. The worst is when they try too say Jesus didn’t exist. There are whole documentaries and books on this. At the very bottom of the barrel are people like Dan Brown who write a piece of fiction, watch as he collects a cult-like following, then suddenly declare that what he has written is actually more real than not. And the same people who question if Moses existed believe Dan Brown…
My experience is this: People who want to believe do, and those who don’t want to believe, don’t. The evidence is not the issue–the person’s own ethos is.
“. . .he never denied seeing what he was seeing. . .”
I hesitate to use the word “never”. The flip-side: He sometimes saw what wasn’t there. Case in point. My father saw a ghost, took a wild swing at it, and left a gaping hole in the wall. My father was drunk.
Some epileptics see visions, hear sounds and voices.
Schizophrenics likewise. Fanatics likewise.
I don’t think one has to be an “atheist” to question the historicity of David:
http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Historical_David
“And the same people who question if Moses existed believe Dan Brown…”
I question if Moses existed or, if he did,that he was as depicted in the Bible. And I don’t believe Dan Brown. Here’s an interesting site. It’s titled “The Exodus out of Egypt:Archaeology Basically Confirms Biblical History”.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/8830/exodus.html
“Weasel words” abound in the piece. One supposition is tacked to another supposition that’s built on another supposition. The suppositions are all based on actual historical events (at times loosely interpreted)so that, at the end, a critical reader is left with less than he came with and a believer says “Amen”. It should be noted that an actual David or an actual Moses might have existed in an actual historical time frame, just as depicted in the Bible and they may not be historically correct. Thousands of years ago, gathering, composing, maintaining any kind of historical record was at best a hit or miss proposition. These days, with computers and videotape, “history” has attained a bit more accuracy, though even now it can manipulated.
Let’s create a character and plunk him down in that “quasi-historical” swamp.Let us name him Levi. Let us say he received revelations from God, but that his communications were misplaced by story-tellers/historians of the time. Perhaps those reporters weren’t comfortable with the new Word and conveniently lost the record. Perhaps “the ass ate it”.The media never changes, right? It’s always excuses and it’s about them and yada yada yada. Anyway, Levi’s message remains unknown to man. If it were to be otherwise, God would have made it so. But someone who knew someone who knew someone, tells someone else that Levi got a message from God, and a different “historian” hears the story and that story, all naked generality and blatant specificity, becomes enfolded in a different Biblical book or a different chapter of the same book , unverifiable but “not to be disbelieved on penalty of Hell” a source for limitless interpretation and misinterpretation by God’s representatives on Earth and their faithful followers. And God made it so.
Well, I don’t like writing repetative statements like, “usually, almost always, for the most part or many…”
“Well, I don’t like writing repetative statements like, ‘usually, almost always, for the most part or many…'” Smiley?
Neither do I. Ex: I can’t remember the last time I may have written something like “John usually, almost always,for the most part,frequently, mostly had steel cut oats for breakfast .” Perhaps as part of a grade school exercise. . . ?Just sounds freaky.
But,”usually” is only repetitive if it’s repeated or strung together in silly phrases like the one above. By itself it can be useful to describe a frequency of events that occur anywhere on a sliding scale from some significant amount over 50% (“half the time”being a useful phrase for 50% 🙂 ) on up to 100% .”He usually admitted seeing what he was seeing” or “He almost never denied seeing what he was seeing” or “He on occasion saw what wasn’t there” are, thus, preferable to “he never denied seeing what he was seeing.”
When dealing with a subject about which absolute proof is lacking, the words in your list are far preferable to words like “never, always,invariably, absolutely, unequivocally”.
Truth be told, “I don’t like writing repetitive statements like, [‘never, always,invariably, absolutely, unequivocally’]” 🙂 but I’m open to using those words one at a time when the text demands.
There is no absolute proof with evolution either. Do you believe in the ‘Evolutionary Theory’ as it stands Biomass?
Posting to Michael’s “Ramblings on God” I wrote:
“. . .a scientific theory that has undergone extensive testing for well over a hundred years and is supported by massive amounts of fossil evidence. . .”
“. . .a scientific theory that has yet to be proved false by any reputable scientist. . .”
“Scientific theory exists so legitimate theories like Darwin’s can be proven right or wrong. Recent genetic finding have made the theory even stronger.”
So, kernunos, what do you think my answer to your question would be, if I felt like answering it one more time?
————
For an explanation of laws, theories and scientific method, see here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070807220925AAwEBXl
Sample quote from the article:”A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. In experimental sciences, a theory can never be “proved”, it can only be “disproved” by experiment. This is precisely what makes a theory scientific.”
For satirical purposes, you might find this interesting:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p67.htm
I take issue with those who can accept a bare belief yet reject without thought or reason a scientific theory like evolution. That is very much like rejecting the theory of gravity which is still standing after ‘lo these many years and, for some unexplained reason doesn’t seem to be the focus of religious ire.
————
BTW: Regarding your claim about spinal fluid—
I responded:”You state this [your claim] with such assurance that I just [must] ask for documentation of the claim.” Could you provide
some proof?
Oh thank you as I have never known the difference between theory and law before.
“BTW: Regarding your claim about spinal fluid—
I responded:”You state this [your claim] with such assurance that I just [must] ask for documentation of the claim.” Could you provide
some proof?”
Let me see if I can find it. It was some time ago that I read of the process but the problem at the time is that human rights would probably prohibit any process. It was along the same lines as being able to trace drugs in a piece of hair as long as the length of hair’s growth was during the time of chemical ingestion. I cannot remember if it was the fluid some sheath or part of the brain stem. I know it had something to do with the spine or spinal area but it was highly interesting.
Here is talk of a hair drug test.
http://www.passyourtest.com/shampoo.htm
Here is some interesting info and is a bit hard to read so please forgive me first.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/medical/ch4.htm
What I am remembering is a very long time ago and it may have been when they thought THC never truly leaves your system but has a half life. THC likes to bond with nervous system receptors and gets trapped for longer period of times within fatty tissue. Fatty brain tissue like in the Cerebral Cortex or the Hypothalamus would probably be prime territory for the theory I half recalled. This was back in the late 80’s and during the nineties that I heard this. I will keep looking as the theory was interesting even if proven wrong.
THC: That’s “one”.
You said: “A spinal cord’s fluid contains a person’s history of all the chemicals they have taken in. Any drugs you have taken can be found in traces there.”
To satisfy that claim, you first have to present a spinal cord study, not a hair study. Spinal cord fluid and hair are not the same. Then you have to satisfy the “all” and “any” claims.
I appreciate that you’re trying to defend your statement; keep trying if you wish. You may be right. . . But the mere fact that you’re just piecing together conjecture at this late date, long after you wrote the statement in question, may be a sign that you really didn’t know the facts to begin with. If that’s true, and all the evidence to now seems to point in that direction, I’d be even more appreciative if you hadn’t made the statement in the first place.
Please forgive my skepticism. . .and good luck in your search.
biomass–seriously–stop… please.
magus71:
“biomass–seriously–stop… please.”
OK. Maybe. But only for you. 🙂 But wouldn’t it be neat to know for a fact that one’s entire drug history is contained in one’s spinal fluid?
Why,at some point,once the technology reaches a level of sophistication, instead of filling out a pain-in-the-ass list of drugs I’m taking every time I enter a physician’s office I could have a by-then-run-of-the-mill spinal tap. Of course,I would hope the test itself would be safer in the future.
If they could get rid of the headache that comes with the procedure, I would gladly choose it over those damn forms. Ah: hope resting on wish supported by unsupported claim. . .
magus71:
“I will not let you come here and think that you can safely say such crap without recourse.”
I just found that as part of a kernunos post on Secret School Speech. In light of that statement, what do you think? Should I keep my recent promise to you, or should I continue until kernunos supports his claim?