Dudes, science doesn't know anything, not really. It's theories that try to account for the evidence as best as possible. That's all. And even that is an ideal.

When scientists start talking about Truth and saying "We Know X" then they are going beyond science and starting to sound more like a religion.

Every decade or so there is some revolution in our thinking - why should we ever suppose the current scientific worldview is True, that we've finally figured out even the basics of reality?

100 years ago we didn't know there was more to the universe than the Milky Way. Ten years ago we didn't know about dark energy and dark matter (whatever they are).

1000 years from now we will surely look back to 2012 and say "what a dark age, so naive and clueless."

There could be stuff going on all around us that we don't even perceive, because our senses can't detect it, or our minds can't process it. I don't even really hear half of even what my wife says to me, to be honest, not for lack of trying.... We are very limited by our prejudices and expectations and senses and plain myopia.

There is plenty of unknown out there, and plenty of room for spirituality. To say otherwise is presuming to know more than we do.

Dudes, science doesn't know anything, not really. It's theories that try to account for the evidence as best as possible. That's all. And even that is an ideal.

When scientists start talking about Truth and saying "We Know X" then they are going beyond science and starting to sound like a religion.

Science is great, but let's not make it more than it is.


Every decade or so there is some revolution in our thinking - why should we ever suppose the current scientific worldview is True, that we've finally figured out even the basics of reality?

100 years ago we didn't know there was more to the universe than the Milky Way. Ten years ago we didn't know about dark energy and dark matter (whatever they are).

1000 years from now we will surely look back to 2012 and say "what a dark age, so naive and clueless."

There could be stuff going on all around us that we don't even perceive, because our senses can't detect it, or our brains can't process it. I don't even really hear half of what my wife says to me, to be honest, not for lack of trying.... We are very limited by our prejudices and expectations and senses and plain myopia.


There is plenty of unknown out there, and plenty of room for spirituality. To say otherwise is presuming to know more than we do.

Dudes, science doesn't know anything, not really. It's theories that try to account for the evidence as best as possible. That's all. And even that is an ideal.

When scientists start talking about Truth and saying "We Know X" then they are going beyond science and starting to sound like a religion.

Science is great, but let's not make it more than it is.


Every decade or so there is some revolution in our thinking - why should we ever suppose the current scientific worldview is True, that we've finally figured out even the basics of reality?

100 years ago we didn't know there was more to the universe than the Milky Way. Ten years ago we didn't know about dark energy and dark matter (whatever they are).

1000 years from now we will surely look back to 2012 and say "what a dark age, so naive and clueless."

There could be stuff going on all around us that we don't even perceive, because our senses can't detect it, or our brains can't process it. I don't even really hear half of what my wife says to me, to be honest, not for lack of trying.... We are very limited by our prejudices and expectations and senses and plain myopia.


There is plenty of unknown out there, and plenty of room for spirituality. To say otherwise is presuming to know more than we do.

But how could Satan prove his point if it isn't true?

And if it is true, what difference would it make whether Satan thought it true or not?

[There seems to me to be a huge difference between "What if God made a mistake?" (which I don't see as inherently a bad thing, without adding a whole bunch of assumptions) and what we are discussing, i.e. "What if God didn't bother to prove to Satan that he hadn't made a mistake?"

That's a very good question, I'd also like to know what he was thinking at the time, but, like most slanderers, he obviously had another agenda.



If it is true, Satan's the hero if he figured it out. If he didn't figure it out, then he just got lucky.

But, as it was, it became a question of whether it was a legitimate rebellion or not that needed to be answered, and whether God indeed has the right to put it down or not using His limitless power. Rather than blaming God for all our woes, we should instead be grateful he has allowed this much time for the matter to be dealt with, since He himself knew very well the answer way back then, as did Satan - for it's not them who has to figure things out, but rather it is the other involved intelligent beings in the universe who have been allowed time to reach the correct conclusion and to regain what has been lost. Yes, it's been a painful process, but like a trip to the dentist, it's been necessary to avoid future difficulties along the same lines.

Hmm, I don't really understand what you mean.

Let's take the example of Job. Suppose after Satan had come to God with his bet or whatever you want to call it. Let's posit the two different events that could have happened.

a) Satan says "I bet he'd stop worshipping you if he wasn't so well off".

God replies "No he wouldn't".

Satan: "Prove it".

God: "No, I'm not going to make someone (and their family) suffer to just prove some point to you. Go away and grow up."

Satan goes away.

What is lost here? Obviously as a story, lots is lost. As an event in history, God, to me at least, come off a lot better in this story than in the real book of Job.

b) Same as above but God takes the bet. He loses, Job turns away from God. What has Satan gained? What has God lost? Why would anyone really care?

Satan's rebellion could have gone on completely separate from humans. There's no reason why he needs the option of getting us involved.

You keep saying "who cares?", but that's just the point. For one, God cares, since he had previously had a clean reputation without even a hint of corruption(which is essentially what Satan accused Him of in the case of Job) cast upon His rulership.

Yes, it could have gone on without getting us involved, so again, you'd have to ask the Devil why he felt the need to involve us.

But you treat that as an absolute justification for the events.

Suppose for a moment God's reputation is damaged by Satan (the prince of lies) saying something. (Which is a big supposition in my book, since if beings in God's creation are convinced by such a thing, then clearly there is a lack of basic education about things going on in Heaven). How is God's reputation made better by these actions?

In the story of Job, by your reading, God inflicts (or allows Satan to inflict) a huge amount of suffering on Job in order that his reputation be proved to be justified.

Why is God's reputation more important than Job's suffering? Suppose this conversation happened later:

God: See Satan, I've proved my point. Job would still worship me without the good things in his life.

Satan: Yes, you are right. On the other hand, I've proved that you are willing to allow a great deal of suffering to be inflicted on a man and his family, just to prove a point.

I would find it hard not to agree with Satan in this conversation.




I think you miss my point. I want to ask, why God felt the need to allow Satan to involve us?

All of this is pretty irrelevant if it's allegory and not history of course. But you are not just claiming that they are history, you are claiming a specific moral conclusion that follows from the events. It's that moral conclusion that I'm questioning. If these things truly happened as the Bible describes, what moral conclusions should we draw?

This isn't pie in the sky stuff either. If God is taken to be the morally correct source, then what we figure out about his actions should affect ours.

To be more specific, consider the following example:

I have two friends, J and S.

J worships God and has a really nice car.

S claims that J would stop worshipping God if his car was destroyed.

Am I justified in destroying J's car in order to prove S wrong? Indeed, am I morally obligated to do so? Why, or why not?

I can't even fathom that statement as being believable.

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html

This isn't pie in the sky stuff either. If God is taken to be the morally correct source, then what we figure out about his actions should affect ours.

To be more specific, consider the following example:

I have two friends, J and S.

J worships God and has a really nice car.

S claims that J would stop worshipping God if his car was destroyed.

Am I justified in destroying J's car in order to prove S wrong? Indeed, am I morally obligated to do so? Why, or why not?

...you are not just claiming that they are history, you are claiming a specific moral conclusion that follows from the events.

We should perhaps be more interested in examining Satan's actions and motivations and then working to avoid those.

1)Why is it best the owner invite his rival to bring in the experts?

2)At what point should the rival curator admit his claims were false, but why might he still persist in having all the artworks tested?

I have perhaps assumed something about the nature of your moral system, but I'm guessing it's "God is always morally correct".

So here we see some direct actions of God, which must be morally correct, because they were actions of God. So we can try and see if they have a pattern that we can use to live our own lives correctly.

In the story, God's reputation is questioned (in this case directly). In order to rectify this, God allows Job to suffer a lot. It seems simple enough then to conclude that it is more morally right to defend God's reputation than to stop suffering.

So, in my case, my friend has questions God's reputation. I can restore that reputation by allowing a (relatively) small amount of suffering on another friend. Should I allow this, yes or no?

The story of Job seems to suggest yes. Our everyday lives seem to suggest no.

However, that God has reserved certain actions for himself to take, apart from man, is shown by Deuteronomy 32:35 - To me belongeth vengeance. So, even though we may see God act in a certain way, it does not necessarily justify our doing the same. God has wrought vengeance upon his enemies in times past, but He informs us it is not our place to do so.

Please don't forget that Job's own integrity was challenged as well.

In the end, actually, all things worked out quite well for Job.

That doesn't necessarily mean we should feel obligated ourselves to go out and outrightly cause suffering, not does it imply we should turn a blind eye when we see others suffering.

As an aside great deal of the problems in the story do go away if you don't consider it historical.

I'm curious as to what scientific statements you see in Job?

I can't agree with you there, probably because I don't see the same problems that you perceive. I'd say, for one thing, if it didn't really happen, there wouldn't really be any gain in recording it in the Bible Canon, "tactically speaking", as that would imply somebody like Job would indeed be a fictional character, thus proving the exact point made by the Satan character at the outset.

Simple astronomical observances? Perhaps, but the language being used to describe the various relationships is most intriguing from a scientific standpoint.

I don't think there is anything more specific to be said. People see what they want in these texts so if you're looking for divine wonder and revelation you see it. If you're expecting fairy tales and bronze age myth you see that.

On one point I just want to say that when Job's family was wiped out by God I fail to see how this was not real suffering. He had more children and was "blessed" when his trial was over but his original family were not returned to him. Frankly if God killed my daughter and then said "never mind, no harm done I was only testing you so you will have many children in future" I would not feel lucky or blessed.

Being a stargazer, I'm partial to these verses, Job 38:31-33 - Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion? Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons? Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

Simple astronomical observances? Perhaps, but the language being used to describe the various relationships is most intriguing from a scientific standpoint.

So, references to some of the oldest named astronomical bodies is proof of anything other than a literate and informed author? What about the reference to the word Mazzaroth, which we still don't fully know what was intended there.

Again, the truth of these stories clearly matters to those who would believe, and they strive to find truth to validate that belief. But to say any of the stories lose their meaning if not factual gets to the whole core of all religious texts I think. They clearly do NOT lose their purpose if they are not fact, as we clearly have not (and can not) verify them as fact, and yet they still hold their value to those who would believe.

God works in psycotic ways.

Could you be more specific? I don't see much there other than the names of certain star constellations.

Job's family was not wiped out "by God" - the account is pretty clear about that being done by God's enemy, the Devil, who does seem to display some rather psychotic tendencies.

Not to sound facetious, but did you try a quick google of any of them? Arcturus, for instance, has a most interesting "proper motion"(and companions, too).

Job's family was not wiped out "by God" - the account is pretty clear about that being done by God's enemy, the Devil, who does seem to display some rather psychotic tendencies. Now, I realize that raises a whole batch of moral ambiguities(see previous 50 or so comments :shake:), but we should at least stick to the facts as described.



Not to sound facetious, but did you try a quick google of any of them? Arcturus, for instance, has a most interesting "proper motion"(and companions, too). :)