. . . in the Bible.
Hi,
The Bible contains metaphorical truths
Yes. As well as a few historical truths and a large collection of folklore, prejudice and superstition.
From that conclusion you can generate questions like, 'which parts are metaphorical', and 'who decides so' etc. which leads to large differences
Not just between the two systems you've outlined, but between many groups in the second system. The point you've overlooked or are glossing over is that "The Bible is the literal truth" is indeed an axiom, and if used as such it rapidly leads to internal contradictions. "The Bible contains metaphorical truths" is *not* an axiom. It is an invitation to search the Bible for things that one believes, thus making those things (or, sometimes one's interpretations of those things) the axioms. In many cases the axioms so generated are not used to develop any further viewpoints. But, it is the possibility of generating so many axioms, and the fact that many of the axioms so generated can be contradictory, that gives rise to so many mutually antagonistic sects of Christianity. The history of the West is tinted red with the blood of all those who've died over issues such as "Was Jesus God and man or was He God made man."
It is possible to make from the Bible a set of self consistent axioms that can be the basis of an ethical life. Indeed, one doesn't even need to believe that god exists to do so. Jefferson did a fair job of it, even including much of the life of Christ. However, it is possible to do the same in all major world religions, or, indeed on the basis of no religion at all. One can devise a code of ethics based solely on the "golden" rule, which is nothing more than an expression of enlightened self interest. And which is coming closer all the time to being "provable" in game theory. Just as Christianity holds no patent on religious evil, it also holds none on good.
To show something to be false that has already been 'proven' true, you need to show that one of the assumptions that the conclusion was based on is false (or can be false under some situation), or you need to show a misapplication in the logic leading to the conclusion.
I'm going to quibble here a bit. Of course, if the logic is wrong, the conclusion is not proven (which, I suspect, is why you had "proven" in quotes). In such a case, the conclusion would just be a conjecture whose truth or falsehood is yet to be determined. But to discuss the rest of your statement, I think we have to distinguish "truth" from "Truth" following the convention of Hofstadter in Godel, Escher, Bach. An Eternal Golden Braid (which I highly recommend to everyone). Within a logical system, there is no Truth, just truth. Anything logically derivable from the axioms is "true" within the system. If that result is to be compared with something outside the system (i.e., if we are "modeling" something), then that result may be not "True" to the model.
Now, looking just at a axiomatic system, the only real requirement is consistency. If it is possible to both derive statement S and statement not S under the system, then the system is inconsistent. An adjustment to the axioms needs to be made to eliminate that problem. Much of the mathematics of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century focused on that. Not a requirement, but something that most logicians consider part of the "beauty" of a system is parsimony, that there be as few axioms as possible and that each be as "simple" as possible. It was the lack of parsimony in Euclid's parallel postulate that eventually lead to non-Euclidean geometries which helped to develop the concepts of consistent axiomatic systems in math in general. A third desideratum is that the system be as complete as possible. Prior to Godel's work, this was the "requirement" of completeness, namely that any well founded expression in the system be decidable (equivalently, that either that expression or its negation be derivable).
So, the only problem with a derivation is that it could have been made under a set of inconsistent axioms. The result would then not be "false" but simply "unproven". Or, perhaps just considered nonsense. However, if we are modeling something, then there is a bigger system. And one of our assumptions (another "axiom") is that the smaller system (say, "mathematics") can model the bigger system (say, "the universe"). That the two systems are somehow isomorphic. Over the course of the twentieth century, it became more and more obvious that that assumption is, in general, wrong. Some characteristics of the universe can be modeled to some degree of accuracy by some branch of mathematics. But only in the (physically unrealistic) simplest cases can math provide a complete solution.
Many people, when speaking of "science" think of it only in the equation driven form of classical physics. That form is very useful and very powerful when it applies, but it does not apply to many qualitative phenomena. Thus, for instance, the formation of global features that can be explained by plate tectonics is not amenable to reduction to a simple equation. However, even in the absence of the mathematics, science is still a "logical" system. It is still a system where the phenomena are described by a set of axioms that are, as much as possible, self consistent, parsimonious, and complete. This set of axioms does not, at present, meet any one of the three "requirements". It is this admission that science is *not* complete, and the willingness to throw out what is found to be wrong and to accept (however much it hurts the preconceived notions) what is found to be right that gives science its great predictive power and that justifies the acceptance of science as the best world-view we have now.
The battle between religion and science only comes about because religion refuses to accept its limitations. Descendant from a time of ignorance and superstition, when the only answer to any physical process was "god did it", religion had a great power over its followers. As knowledge and observation replaced ignorance and superstition, the need for the mystical explanations of religion was reduced. It is this thousand year retreat from law, from science, from customs that religion is fighting. The spiritual is still in the hands of religion, and thus it should remain. The moral (as opposed to the secular ethical) is still in the hands of religion, and so too should it remain.
There are many people whom I've known that fully subscribed to the model of science and yet were deeply religious. The two are not incompatible, not even in conflict at the fundamental level. One does not need to be an atheist to accept science. Indeed, a scientist is most likely to be an agnostic, at least on the intellectual level. On the emotional (or spiritual, if one prefers) level, being an atheist or a theist each require an act of faith.
--Pete
EDIT: Typo and changed "ascribed" to "subscribed"
Hi,
The Bible contains metaphorical truths
Yes. As well as a few historical truths and a large collection of folklore, prejudice and superstition.
From that conclusion you can generate questions like, 'which parts are metaphorical', and 'who decides so' etc. which leads to large differences
Not just between the two systems you've outlined, but between many groups in the second system. The point you've overlooked or are glossing over is that "The Bible is the literal truth" is indeed an axiom, and if used as such it rapidly leads to internal contradictions. "The Bible contains metaphorical truths" is *not* an axiom. It is an invitation to search the Bible for things that one believes, thus making those things (or, sometimes one's interpretations of those things) the axioms. In many cases the axioms so generated are not used to develop any further viewpoints. But, it is the possibility of generating so many axioms, and the fact that many of the axioms so generated can be contradictory, that gives rise to so many mutually antagonistic sects of Christianity. The history of the West is tinted red with the blood of all those who've died over issues such as "Was Jesus God and man or was He God made man."
It is possible to make from the Bible a set of self consistent axioms that can be the basis of an ethical life. Indeed, one doesn't even need to believe that god exists to do so. Jefferson did a fair job of it, even including much of the life of Christ. However, it is possible to do the same in all major world religions, or, indeed on the basis of no religion at all. One can devise a code of ethics based solely on the "golden" rule, which is nothing more than an expression of enlightened self interest. And which is coming closer all the time to being "provable" in game theory. Just as Christianity holds no patent on religious evil, it also holds none on good.
To show something to be false that has already been 'proven' true, you need to show that one of the assumptions that the conclusion was based on is false (or can be false under some situation), or you need to show a misapplication in the logic leading to the conclusion.
I'm going to quibble here a bit. Of course, if the logic is wrong, the conclusion is not proven (which, I suspect, is why you had "proven" in quotes). In such a case, the conclusion would just be a conjecture whose truth or falsehood is yet to be determined. But to discuss the rest of your statement, I think we have to distinguish "truth" from "Truth" following the convention of Hofstadter in Godel, Escher, Bach. An Eternal Golden Braid (which I highly recommend to everyone). Within a logical system, there is no Truth, just truth. Anything logically derivable from the axioms is "true" within the system. If that result is to be compared with something outside the system (i.e., if we are "modeling" something), then that result may be not "True" to the model.
Now, looking just at a axiomatic system, the only real requirement is consistency. If it is possible to both derive statement S and statement not S under the system, then the system is inconsistent. An adjustment to the axioms needs to be made to eliminate that problem. Much of the mathematics of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century focused on that. Not a requirement, but something that most logicians consider part of the "beauty" of a system is parsimony, that there be as few axioms as possible and that each be as "simple" as possible. It was the lack of parsimony in Euclid's parallel postulate that eventually lead to non-Euclidean geometries which helped to develop the concepts of consistent axiomatic systems in math in general. A third desideratum is that the system be as complete as possible. Prior to Godel's work, this was the "requirement" of completeness, namely that any well founded expression in the system be decidable (equivalently, that either that expression or its negation be derivable).
So, the only problem with a derivation is that it could have been made under a set of inconsistent axioms. The result would then not be "false" but simply "unproven". Or, perhaps just considered nonsense. However, if we are modeling something, then there is a bigger system. And one of our assumptions (another "axiom") is that the smaller system (say, "mathematics") can model the bigger system (say, "the universe"). That the two systems are somehow isomorphic. Over the course of the twentieth century, it became more and more obvious that that assumption is, in general, wrong. Some characteristics of the universe can be modeled to some degree of accuracy by some branch of mathematics. But only in the (physically unrealistic) simplest cases can math provide a complete solution.
Many people, when speaking of "science" think of it only in the equation driven form of classical physics. That form is very useful and very powerful when it applies, but it does not apply to many qualitative phenomena. Thus, for instance, the formation of global features that can be explained by plate tectonics is not amenable to reduction to a simple equation. However, even in the absence of the mathematics, science is still a "logical" system. It is still a system where the phenomena are described by a set of axioms that are, as much as possible, self consistent, parsimonious, and complete. This set of axioms does not, at present, meet any one of the three "requirements". It is this admission that science is *not* complete, and the willingness to throw out what is found to be wrong and to accept (however much it hurts the preconceived notions) what is found to be right that gives science its great predictive power and that justifies the acceptance of science as the best world-view we have now.
The battle between religion and science only comes about because religion refuses to accept its limitations. Descendant from a time of ignorance and superstition, when the only answer to any physical process was "god did it", religion had a great power over its followers. As knowledge and observation replaced ignorance and superstition, the need for the mystical explanations of religion was reduced. It is this thousand year retreat from law, from science, from customs that religion is fighting. The spiritual is still in the hands of religion, and thus it should remain. The moral (as opposed to the secular ethical) is still in the hands of religion, and so too should it remain.
There are many people whom I've known that fully subscribed to the model of science and yet were deeply religious. The two are not incompatible, not even in conflict at the fundamental level. One does not need to be an atheist to accept science. Indeed, a scientist is most likely to be an agnostic, at least on the intellectual level. On the emotional (or spiritual, if one prefers) level, being an atheist or a theist each require an act of faith.
--Pete
EDIT: Typo and changed "ascribed" to "subscribed"
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?