Monday, February 12, 2007

Don't confuse me with the facts.

Some people have an amazing ability to entirely disconnect contradictory beliefs or values. They can look at evidence which proves themselves wrong and walk away unfazed. Their theory of life is something along the lines of: “I know what I believe so don’t confuse me with the facts.”

No where is this astounding ability more apparent then when it is applied to religious faith. I well remember some religious types (fundamentalists) who descended on me one day while I was working. They wished to convert me. Surprise, surprise. One argument they offered is that the Bible was infallible and had no contradictions.

What is a contradiction? Well, here is an example. You met a friend, Sam. He tells you has never seen your other friend Suzy. You are surprised. You thought he had. So you ask: “Are you sure you never met Suzy?” He assures you he is. You verify that you are talking about the same Suzy even. And then he says: “Well the last time I saw Suzy she was wearing that red dress she likes so much.”

“Hold on,” you yell. “A second ago you said you never saw Suzy, ever. Now you say that in fact you did see Suzy and she was wearing the red dress when it happened. You are contradicting yourself.”

He says: “No, I’m not.”

Now what? He simply refuses to acknowledge that this is a contradiction. In most cases you would assume a screw loose. So it was with these fundamentalists. I noted that the Bible says that God is a spirit and that “no man hath seen God”. They agreed that was the case. No one has ever seen God they said. Now we didn’t delve into the idea that Jesus is God and thus anyone who says they saw Jesus saw God. They would argue that the first verse meant God the Father not God the Son -- convenient having several deities who are one but separate (contradiction).

They also agreed that Moses was a man. But the Bible says Moses spoke to God “face to face”. It also says that Moses “saw the hindparts of God”. I think that means he saw God’s butt. So one moment they are face to face and the other “cheek to cheek” or something like that. But it clearly says that Moses and Jehovah had a chat and that Moses saw God.

These two young men agreed that was accurate. So no man has seen God but Moses who is a man did see God. I suggested this was a contradiction. They both said: “No, it isn’t.” And they held firmly to the belief it was not a contradiction. I would ask: “Why isn’t that a contradiction?” The answer: “Because it isn’t.”

We never got any further than that. They refused to explain how they define contradiction and they refused to explain why these two opposite claims were not opposites at all. They just asserted it wasn’t. It couldn’t be since the Bible is infallible. Infallible means there would be no contradictions. So any contradictions you find can’t be contradictions because the Bible is infallible. And you know the Bible is infallible because there are no contradictions. And around and around we go and where we stop no body knows.

What reminded me of that story was an article in the New York Times regarding Marcus Ross, a fundamentalist nutter affiliated with Jerry Falwell and his faux university at Lynchburg.

Apparently Ross studied paleontology and all his academic work was scientifically spot on. He discussed species that existed on earth millions of years ago. In fact he discussed species living millions of years before he thinks there were any species or any earth to live upon. Ross is a fundamentalist nutter. He was already infested with Jesus-think before he went to university. And he insists the Bible teaches the world is not more than 10,000 years old. And since that book says it and that book is true the earth did not exist millions of years ago. And therefore no species existed here millions of years ago.

Contradiction? Obviously. Ross says it isn’t. He says he is merely working in two paradigms -- two contradictory paradigms. If Sam said he never met Suzy in one paradigm but did met her into another paradigm you would give him his meds and tell him to rest.

Ross has written papers about things happening tens of millions of years ago. Tens of millions of years before he says there was anything to happen. Asked about this he says: “I did not imply or deny any endorsement of the dates.” What?

November 22, 1963 John F. Kennedy is shot in Dallas. I have written that. I said that Kennedy was killed in Dallas on that specific date. Now if I were to say that by writing that I am not implying or denying that I endorse that date what does that mean? In fact take the Ross theory of logic and apply it to all the facts contained in that one sentence.

I am neither implying or denying the date in question, the person in question (JFK) or the location in question. I am merely writing something without saying whether it has any meaning whatsoever. Ross is stripping every sentence he makes of all meaning and content. He neither implies nor denies when he says something.

Now he studied paleontology. When he writes about paleontology he writes the facts as they are best understood by paleontologists. But he goes out and promotes creationism using his paleontology degree to endorse the theories he himself won’t use when acting like a paleontologist.

Fundamentalists are like the woman who is beaten by her husband but insists he really, really loves her. Giving her a black eye is proof. She ignores the evidence to the contrary. Worse yet she takes that evidence and twists it inside-out so that it means the very opposite of what it means.

She has so much emotionally invested in her “marriage” that she won’t accept, can’t accept, anything that indicates it is a sham. So she either ignores the facts, “Oh, I just fell down the stairs” or she twists them, “It is how he shows his love to me.” Her very identity is defined by her relationship with this abusive, violent man.

So if something happens it is her fault not his. It doesn’t happen when it does. It means something it doesn’t mean. She has lots of way to justify her situation and avoid the uncomfortable truth that she needs a divorce and he needs jail time.

Fundies married Jesus, the Bible, Jehovah and a host of associated doctrines. Just like Ross and his paleontology or the abused wife and her husband they have many coping mechanisms that allow them to turn a blind eye to the truth.

18 Comments:

Blogger Publius II said...

Do you actually want intellectual answers to your so-called contradictions, or do you just enjoy bashing things that you haven't bothered to research?

The arguments and explanations for the so-called "contradictions" have been dealt with quite thoroughly in the past several hundred years.

But then again, I suspect you don't really want the intelligent answers.

February 12, 2007

 
Blogger Ethereal said...

I could ask you of the same thing publius. It was indeed a contradiction when NGZ pointed the question out to the fundamentalist about moses seeing god face to face and then it states in the bible that no man has or never will see god.

Personally, I think that you do not like it when someone questions your bible. Like I have said before, the bible is a book used by christians to impose their viewpoint on others that disagree with them.

Robert

February 13, 2007

 
Blogger IConrad said...

All resolutions of the conflicts within "The Book book" (Bible = latin for 'book', direct/literal translation.) do so at the cost of its infallibility. The fact that multiple authors with multiple perspectives (historical, personal, regional, AND ideological) wrote the sundry books is in fact an entirely plausible explanation for the contradictions.

IF -- and ONLY IF -- the Bible is taken as an allegorical philosophical guide to spirituality. Fundamentalists -- such as what NGZ was discussing -- cannot accomplish this.

Some of the contradictions can be resolved via record of transliteration; i.e.; the greek word for "day" is also the greek word for "epoch" (aeon), and in the latter sense was not exclusionary. This, however, does not mesh with the statement that most "Fundies" exert; the King James version is Absolute and Infallible.

February 13, 2007

 
Blogger Publius II said...

Good point about the KJV only people. But one does not need to abandon the view of infallibility to resolve the alleged conflicts. Certainly there are difficult passages to interpret, but in every case I've ever examined, there's always at least one plausible answer, sometimes quite a few possibilities that adequately resolve any supposed contradiction.

February 13, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

The fundamentalist must always believe there is one plausible explanation -- no other belief is possible given their premise. They argue the Bible is infallible thus it can't have a contradiction. If one exists then they jump through some amazing hoops to find it doesn't really exist after all. Plausible to them means it confirms what they already know.

February 13, 2007

 
Blogger Publius II said...

The reason for this is that there are much much bigger and trickier hoops to jump through to believe there is no god that created us, or that he has no desire to communicate with his creation.

Plausible to me, means that it adequately explains, in a convincing enough manner, why something that may seem contradictory at first glance, is not contradictory at all, when examined with more than a very surface study of the subject.

February 13, 2007

 
Blogger IConrad said...

"Bigger hoops to jump through to believe no god exists" ...

Let's see: Either
A) All that exists requires a source, and thus there must be a thing which exists that is "The Source" which itself has no need of a source

OR...
B) All that exists simply exists, and there is no "Source."

Where's the hoop, again?

Nice try, though, Pubie. :)

February 13, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Whatever you want! You just can't see it and won't see it because you are incapable of seeing it. There is a reason the term "blind faith" exists.

February 13, 2007

 
Blogger DiscoveredJoys said...

Contadictions that can be explained like the two versions of the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2? Or the two versions of the 10 Commandments? Or the differences beween the Gospels? Or the attempted eradication of the Gospel according to Thomas?

Even when not contradictory there are books like Leviticus that are so far out of step with reality that no civilized society can accept them.

I think there are very few Christians that live in a way consistent with the Old Testament (they would break our laws, lots of smiting and stoning involved), and even fewer who live in a way consistent with what Jesus is alleged to have said (love God more than your family, rich men cannot get into heaven, turn the other cheek). There are rather more that follow the rebranded faith relaunched by Paul, but thats another story...

Infallible? Don't make me laugh.

February 13, 2007

 
Blogger Publius II said...

Two versions of the creation story? Exactly what details make you think that the second re-telling, is not just that... a retelling, a summation of the first story? There are no contradictory facts in the two that would negate one of them.

Again, two version of the 10 commandments? Where?

Difference in the Gospels? The supposed differences have been dealt with by biblical scholars very soundly. Name one and we'll discuss it, as tedious as it is to recap research you should be doing yourself, if you really want to be intellectually and honestly seeking answers.

When you guys throw out these ridiculous accusations of contradiction, you make yourself sound exactly as NGZ accuses the fundies of being, convinced of your own arguments to the point that you don't actually look at the facts, in this case the texts you're criticizing.

As for Christians living according to the law, apparently you've not read Romans, when it tells us that we're free of the Law, because the purpose of the Law is to show that humans cannot attain righteousness UNDER the law, which puts us in need of Christ. That's the whole point of the Bible! And yet here you are throwing out the accusation that Christians can't live consistent with the Law????? No kidding! And neither can non-Christians. THAT'S THE POINT! We are all incapable of even the law of love, which you speak of.

February 14, 2007

 
Blogger IConrad said...

Publius: Here's a beginner's list.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Rough count of the list showed 68 contradictions, such as Adam came before the beasts and named them, or the beasts came first and then God made Adam to have dominion over them. (Variance in Genesis 2 vs. Genesis 1.)

Also note the story of Noah's Ark which indicates in the same book, Genesis 7, that some animals would be in 7 pairs (male/female, and only the 'clean' animals at this rate; all others in two pairs) as opposed to simply 1 (or two depending on interpretation) pair of each animal.

The list is far more extensive.

Again, Publius; this is public domain information and hardly needs research or verification. A simple google search of the terms, "Contradictions in the bible", (w/o quotation marks), resulted with that list as the FIRST entry.

Ball's in your court, and the score's against you.

February 14, 2007

 
Blogger IConrad said...

Hyperlink got cut off. Re-paste the entirety of the below as one web-address to reach the site referenced.

http://www.infidels.org/library/
modern/jim_meritt/
bible-contradictions.html

February 14, 2007

 
Blogger DiscoveredJoys said...

Publius:

iconrad has provided the link for the creation story inconsistencies. You may also wish to visit
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewten02.htm for the comparison between the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions of the 10 Commandments.

A comparison of the differences in the 4 official gospels for the key Passion events can be found at:
http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/sites/partners/cbaa_seminar/Passion_Narratives.htm
and a more general comparison at:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/writings/other/misc/gospel_compare.htm

February 14, 2007

 
Blogger GodlessZone said...

Folks, really haven't figured out that Publius is a perfect example of the very thing the essay was about. And as such that menas it is impossible and useless to show him contradictions because he is sure that there can be no contradictions and will come up with bizarre arguments to avoid the obvious. The mind is closed.

February 14, 2007

 
Blogger Ethereal said...

Indeed. NGZ speaks the truth. Reason does not work toward christians that refuse to listen to something that contradicts their bible.

Robert

February 14, 2007

 
Blogger Publius II said...

On the contrary, I'm more than willing to look at the texts, and the arguments, and provide counter-arguments for the points presented. And because I know NGZ doesn't want long posts, or posts that he would label "preaching," I'll do so on my own site. I'll provide the link after I've made the first post.

February 15, 2007

 
Blogger Publius II said...

Blog is up. I plan on linking to NGZ, as well as some other regular readers of NGZ, if that's acceptable to the owners of the blogs.

I'll begin countering the first points of the linked writings that you guys have provided shortly.

Thanks for your patience.
Link: http://faithwithareason.blogspot.com/

February 16, 2007

 
Blogger IConrad said...

Publius -- add this site to your lists of contradictions to be resolved:

www.fixedearth.com

February 16, 2007

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

Web Counters Religion Blog Top Sites