Argument from foreknowledge

termina
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Argument from foreknowledge

hello


This time, let's talk about an aspect of the Argument from science anticipation.

To promote their religion, fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are fond of claiming that their Scriptures contain many allusions to modern science (which is assumed to be impossible if these Book where human-made, considering the epoch of Revelation).


I noticed the verses they use for their thesis
are open to different interpretations (literal, compatible with science or not, allegorical) and choosing among them a meaning similar to recent scientific discoveries AFTER the very discovery, whereas these verses were understood more or less unscientifically before [1], looks nothing but cherry-picking to me.

However, these 'scientific verses' aren't written in the form: In X years, thou shalt discover "...." (fill the blank with a modern
discovery) but are reinterpretation of those where the supposed God speaks to the people of Revelation epoch, or when He narrates past events (Beginning of everything, prophets' life) or events in Last Days.



So, the question which arises is: if their Book really has such scientific merit, why isn't it clearer about modern scientific concept?




To this, these fundamentalists replied:

Quote:
<< if the verses were crystal clear about Big Bang, nuclear physics, slightly flattened round Earth, ect...

then the people at the epoch of Revelation would have thought these verses are wrong (or would have been confused) and thus would have easily rejected God- because the Book would have contradicted their science.

So it's necessary for the God's Book to "hide" its modern scientific meanings from ancient people by having many different interpretations, so that both ancient and modern people can understand it according to their respective science.

Therefore, the unclearness of verses is a fallacious reason for denying the astonishing modern knowledge in our Scriptures.>>


How can I respond to their reply?
 


termina
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-03-02
User is offlineOffline
[1] eg: 1,000 years ago,

[1] eg: 1,000 years ago, some Quranic verses were understood as supporting Flat-Earth theory and geocentrism, however the same verses are nowadays said to mention a round Earth (and even a slightly flattened sphereical Earth) and heliocentrism.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3729
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
If they can interpret it to

If they can interpret it to support anything, then it doesn't support anything.

Edit: I have not seen any passage from a religious scripture that I found even mildly intriguing with respect to science. Just point out the scientific errors and ambiguity in the verses that they use, and you can't really go wrong.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Honestly, Termina.

termina wrote:

hello


This time, let's talk about an aspect of the Argument from science anticipation.

To promote their religion, fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are fond of claiming that their Scriptures contain many allusions to modern science (which is assumed to be impossible if these Book where human-made, considering the epoch of Revelation).


I noticed the verses they use for their thesis
are open to different interpretations (literal, compatible with science or not, allegorical) and choosing among them a meaning similar to recent scientific discoveries AFTER the very discovery, whereas these verses were understood more or less unscientifically before [1], looks nothing but cherry-picking to me.

However, these 'scientific verses' aren't written in the form: In X years, thou shalt discover "...." (fill the blank with a modern
discovery) but are reinterpretation of those where the supposed God speaks to the people of Revelation epoch, or when He narrates past events (Beginning of everything, prophets' life) or events in Last Days.



So, the question which arises is: if their Book really has such scientific merit, why isn't it clearer about modern scientific concept?




To this, these fundamentalists replied:

Quote:
<< if the verses were crystal clear about Big Bang, nuclear physics, slightly flattened round Earth, ect...

then the people at the epoch of Revelation would have thought these verses are wrong (or would have been confused) and thus would have easily rejected God- because the Book would have contradicted their science.

So it's necessary for the God's Book to "hide" its modern scientific meanings from ancient people by having many different interpretations, so that both ancient and modern people can understand it according to their respective science.

Therefore, the unclearness of verses is a fallacious reason for denying the astonishing modern knowledge in our Scriptures.>>


How can I respond to their reply?
 

 

I'm not sure you should reply. The verses clearly indicate the people of the past had no naturalistic understanding and this is reflected in the religion they invented. The fact they mention a couple of visible star systems or the 'bowl of the heavens' doesn't indicate they understood modern science, or that god was revealing modern science to them. If he really wanted to impress he'd reveal some decent secrets about thorium fission or the hoggs bison, instead of droning on with the obvious. These modern believers are clearly suffering from a cognitive bias. There is no 'astonishing modern knowledge' in scriptures.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
termina wrote:How can I

termina wrote:


How can I respond to their reply?
 

To suggest that the Bible contains hidden verses about science is an argument from silence.

To suggests that some verses point to certain scientific discoveries is a post hoc fallacy.

Either way, the fundy is making a bad argument.

I think Christians, Muslims, or any other type of religious followers should not suggest that their scriptures are "scientific" or point thereunto. Scriptures are not science books, journals, or anything even remotely close. They'd be best to stick with theological readings.

Edit: Also, and sort of new knowledge about a given Bible verse would require new special revelation. If this is the case, then the Bible as written isn't complete. For your fundy friend to claim that there is something in the scripture that hasn't been revealed yet requires him/her to have divine revelation on the same magnitude as the original authors. This is deep water fundies are not likely to enter....

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”