Article <5g2itjhngta4ubboio4lu7ruif2slav2sj@4ax.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<5g2itjhngta4ubboio4lu7ruif2slav2sj@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Observe the trend
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 22:56:35 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 122
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <5g2itjhngta4ubboio4lu7ruif2slav2sj@4ax.com>
References: <vqvcgh$3pg29$1@dont-email.me> <e0o7tj1tq4gnlq44g1rfhqvnvctvbkfdkt@4ax.com> <vr0rvp$vs38$1@dont-email.me> <jgl8tj1qm963i0cj3joknts1po6j9smqh8@4ax.com> <edkatjttj2obvn3vpbn5hh51kih5n8jhte@4ax.com> <3mabtj5mernnk3c1p5ldq4pdfj0avdb4is@4ax.com> <ok5dtj1615i6m77svtsjbbchg8l3m40qmc@4ax.com> <bavdtj97rgn68vv0kn1rnhn3m0vbmhmr2u@4ax.com> <8jrftj5bf9a2kieo18uccs2emcugbr2r57@4ax.com> <5thgtjtdallr1qmbf45e2bu6aumjbp7ddf@4ax.com> <5llgtjdo41b0vbdcrgnopken8ib1hqp6lv@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="15246"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:GxbZX6/vd0wrSgMNxpxcvesNZac=
Bytes: 7931

On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 17:08:32 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:

>On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 09:23:41 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>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 <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>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 <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>>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 <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 20:13:29 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>in talk.origins, posted by MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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.
>
>>But *my*
>>point was that I didn't comment about the content, only
>>about the meaning of "literal" (or, of course, "literally"),
>>and MarkE's assertion that "The measure of literalism is in
>>the *interpretation* of the text of  Genesis, not the
>>quoting of it.". I thought I made that clear with my further
>>comments made in reply to him and others. IOW, he misused
>>"literal", which is defined (OED online) as (paraphrased)
>>"exact or actual meaning, not allegorical or figurative".
>>"Exact or actual meanings" do not allow of interpretation,
>>regardless of how the word may be misused ("literally
>>Hitler"; "I literally died"). At least that's how I see it,
>>and the OED seems to agree.
>>>
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov