“This ancient cosmology, which the Israelites shared with their neighbors, included a flat disk-shaped earth with mountains at its ends supporting a multi-layered sky, or domed firmament…the dome had chambers through which the water above it came down as rain,” B. Arnold, Genesis (Cambridge 2009), 41.
Paul Seely assures us that “primitive” people simply judge by appearances. Well, if that’s the case, then this description would go against appearances.
Given the water cycle (evaporation>precipitation>evaporation), the same basic amount of water is constantly recycled (with some variations). So the sea level remains fairly steady. Even if the ice caps melted, the sea could only rise so far. It’s a closed system.
But suppose the source of rain or snow comes from outside. If the “firmament” is like a dam, which releases water in the form of rain or snow, then the earth is like a saucer, bowl or fish tank, and every time it rains, the sea level would rise. There’s no place for the water to go. So it just accumulates.
Assuming that the ancients were simply judging by appearances, wouldn’t this cosmography belie appearances? It doesn’t look like the sea level is steadily rising, does it? It doesn’t look like the dry land is incrementally overtaken by coastal flooding, does it?
I’d add that both Egyptians and Mesopotamians lived on flood plains. Both civilizations were intimately acquainted with flooding. Yet the floodwaters receded. But if you’re living in a cosmic fishbowl, how is that possible? Where is the drain?
Steve, couldn't one assume that the water went under the earth?
ReplyDeleteAlso a quick search suggests that there are more passages in the Bible stating that rain comes from the clouds (Judges 5:4; 2Sam 22:12; Job 26:8; 36:28; 37:11, 13; Pss 18:11; 77:17; Ecc 11:3; Isa 5:6; 45:8; Zech 10:1; Jude 12) than from above the firmament (Gen 7:11; 8:2; 2Ki 7:2, 19; Isa 24:18; Mal 3:10).
i) I don't deny the Scriptural awareness that rain came from clouds. That's just one more reason to reject Babinski's argument.
ReplyDeleteii) On the flat-earth model, rainwater would collect in the subterranean sea. However, if we stick with that model for the sake of argument, then the "bucket" would continue to fill up.
If the water under the earth and the water above the firmament were connected then an equilibrium could be maintained (Enns' picture show them connected).
ReplyDeleteHow can they be connected when the point of the "firmament" (on the view of Enns, Seely et al.) is to create a barrier between the waters above and the waters below? Is it a leaky barrier? Does rainwater from the primeval sea travel uphill all the way back to the waters above? Was there a primeval pump?
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteDon't you think you are overstating Seely's case unnecessarily? Surely there can be a predominant strain of beliefs based on appearances mixed in with some other ideas, right? I agree the Bible notes that rain comes from clouds, and I don't fully understand where there are windows of heaven for more water. But maybe they thought the sky was blue because there was so much water stored up there? Do we really have to understand every bizarre rationalization they may have had?
WAR_ON_ERROR SAID:
ReplyDelete"Don't you think you are overstating Seely's case unnecessarily?"
That's a face-saving way of admitting that his overarching principle can't survive elementary scrutiny.
"I agree the Bible notes that rain comes from clouds, and I don't fully understand where there are windows of heaven for more water. But maybe they thought the sky was blue because there was so much water stored up there?"
Maybe clouds are literal while windows (or sluice-gates) are figurative for clouds.
And, of course, the color of the sky varies according to atmospheric conditions, the time of day, &c.
For that matter, the color of water also varies depending on the body of water, weather, time of day, &c.
"Do we really have to understand every bizarre rationalization they may have had?"
Now you're being duplicitous. You want to cite anything you can twist into disproving Scripture, but once we apply some common sense logic to Enns, Seely, Babinski et al., you kick up a dust cloud to salvage their thesis.
WAR_ON_ERROR SAID:
ReplyDelete"But maybe they thought the sky was blue because there was so much water stored up there?"
If the sky was a solid dome, then they couldn't see what lay behind the dome.
And if you suggest the dome was transparent, then there would be no need for the luminaries to be under the dome rather than above the dome.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteIt is not "duplicitous" to point out you are misrepresenting Paul Seely's perspective in order to make it easier for yourself to disprove. You conveniently set yourself up so that you only have to show just one thing that isn't directly related to appearances in ancient rhetoric as though that in any way disproves what is likely happening in general. I don't know who that is fooling. There is "dust being kicked up" because epistemology is HARD and it is simply representative of the dust that is already there. That's not my fault, Steve. It's no one's fault and it certainly isn't some atheist conspiracy to disprove the Bible.
Hopefully we can set that aside and move on.
I think you're probably right that clouds are probably metaphors for the windows of heaven. Not completely sure about that, but it makes sense.
Ben
WAR_ON_ERROR SAID:
ReplyDelete"It is not "duplicitous" to point out you are misrepresenting Paul Seely's perspective in order to make it easier for yourself to disprove."
You haven't begun to show that I misrepresented Seely's perspective. Instead, you simply gave your own alternative explanation. You didn't even quote Seely to substantiate your alternative.
"You conveniently set yourself up so that you only have to show just one thing that isn't directly related to appearances in ancient rhetoric as though that in any way disproves what is likely happening in general."
Actually, I gave several examples where his principle breaks down. And it would be easily to multiply further examples.
"It's no one's fault and it certainly isn't some atheist conspiracy to disprove the Bible."
You defend those who oppose the Bible rather than opposing those who defend the Bible. You prefer explanations which impugn the veracity of Scripture to explanations which sustain the veracity of Scripture. Better to make the Bible look bad and Bible critics look good than vice versa.
Somehow the Bible is always winds up on the losing end of your methodology. I don't think that's purely coincidental. But maybe we should roll the dice a few more times and see if that's just a fluke.
Uh, Steve. I'm working on a massively critical posting series of The Christian Delusion that John Loftus is already thoroughly pissed about. And I do give plenty of ground in my comments in this cluster of posts, if you'd care to notice. For example in my very last comment above, I agreed with you at the end. Did you miss that part? I don't know what to tell you.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you are going to be miffed at me for pointing that out, but what do you expect? I'd like to actually talk about the issues and not get wrapped up in petty politics and accusations of motive. That is possible here, right?
I'm going to assume it is and move on:
I don't see where Paul Seely says primitive people "simply judge by appearances" as though he thinks that's ALL they do. Those are your words. Your summation. You haven't shown Seely actually does that in even one example much less a plethora of others.
Ben
This is asymmetrical warfare. The unbeliever can afford to make some throwaway concessions because, from his standpoint, he only has to come up with a few plausible instances of error to disprove inspiration of Scripture–whereas the Christian has to plausibly explain every apparent error.
ReplyDeleteSo, sure, you can appear to be even-handed and keep your options open, but that's deceptive since the burden of proof is already stacked against the Bible.
As per Seely, he can't afford to qualify his thesis, for once he makes allowance for the fact that the ancients didn't necessarily judge by appearances, then he can't say when they do and when they don't.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteTrue. Inerrantists are at a disadvantage. But whose fault is it that they are defending extraordinary claims? The negative case is always easier in any debate and the claim that there is an ancient compilation of books without a single error is a hefty positive claim to be making without really good cause. So there's some potential "unfairness" on both sides.
Why is a skeptic "deceptive" for being even-handed even while making a negative case? Do Christians just get to jump to conclusions at every step of the way becuase we feel sorry for their epistemic burden they've inflicted upon themselves? Probably not.
It just seems like you are letting your angst overly-characterize people. And it seems you've defined "even-handed skeptic" completely out of your worldview before they even show up.
That all being said, if I'm mistaken and you do have some helpful advice for getting along well here in friendly (non-deceptive) disagreement, I'm listening. And if you give me a chance, and you actually lay out reasonable advice, I'll likely pleasantly surprise you.
Ben
"As per Seely, he can't afford to qualify his thesis, for once he makes allowance for the fact that the ancients didn't necessarily judge by appearances, then he can't say when they do and when they don't."
ReplyDeleteYeah, I don't think it's that harsh of a dichotomy. He can still maintain that by and large they are probably judging by appearances when that makes the most logical sense, when certain bits of rhetoric are consistent regardless of poetic context, and the overall case, etc. You're just looking for an iota of wiggle room and that's just not important to the other side that is generally looking for numerous converging abductive arguments.
WAR_ON_ERROR SAID:
ReplyDelete"True. Inerrantists are at a disadvantage."
False, but unbelievers try mightily to put us at a disadvantage.
"But whose fault is it that they are defending extraordinary claims?"
Shades of Sagan. I've responded to that intellectual shortcut on more than one occasion. Try again.
"The negative case is always easier in any debate and the claim that there is an ancient compilation of books without a single error is a hefty positive claim to be making without really good cause."
The "negative" case is illusory. In debate, both sides have a comparable burden of proof, for what one side affirms, the other denies, and vice versa. Only the simpleton is taken in by this rhetorical ruse.
"Why is a skeptic 'deceptive' for being even-handed even while making a negative case?"
That's ironic considering that you deceptively restate what I said. I said "appear" to be even-handed.
But, of course, you're hardly even-handed, Ben. To the contrary, you're a committed atheist. You affect the role of umpire, but you are betting on the home team.
"Do Christians just get to jump to conclusions at every step of the way becuase we feel sorry for their epistemic burden they've inflicted upon themselves? Probably not."
Thanks for illustrating your bias. You need to work on your act. The real you is showing through the make-up.
"It just seems like you are letting your angst overly-characterize people."
Babinski is a militant apostate. You're a vocal atheist. Not much to over-characterize.
"And it seems you've defined 'even-handed skeptic' completely out of your worldview before they even show up."
Your reputation precedes you. You have a paper trail. So does Babinski.
"That all being said, if I'm mistaken and you do have some helpful advice for getting along well here in friendly (non-deceptive) disagreement, I'm listening. And if you give me a chance, and you actually lay out reasonable advice, I'll likely pleasantly surprise you."
You're not a very good poker player, Ben. That involuntary tick is a dead giveaway. You need to consider a career change. Something that doesn't require a convincing game face.
"Yeah, I don't think it's that harsh of a dichotomy. He can still maintain that by and large they are probably judging by appearances when that makes the most logical sense, when certain bits of rhetoric are consistent regardless of poetic context, and the overall case, etc."
Logic is the very thing it doesn't have going for it.
"You're just looking for an iota of wiggle room and that's just not important to the other side that is generally looking for numerous converging abductive arguments."
That's rich coming from you. Here you've been trying to pry open some wiggle room throughout this thread to save Babinski and Seely from disconfirmation.
"False, but unbelievers try mightily to put us at a disadvantage."
ReplyDeleteI was *agreeing* with you. What is your problem?
"To the contrary, you're a committed atheist. You affect the role of umpire, but you are betting on the home team."
Cast the first stone, why don't you. You're blaming me for having other conclusions like you don't have your own? Does everyone that comes here have to have never thought about any other topic ever? Do you like not even attempt to be fair to other points of view? I know there's a lot of weird Christians out there who ideologically think that is just like absolutely impossible, but I assumed there were more reasonable Christians in the mix as well.
"You need to work on your act. The real you is showing through the make-up."
What does that even mean?
"You're a vocal atheist. Not much to over-characterize."
I am an atheist that speaks up. True. Did I ever present myself as something other than that?
"Your reputation precedes you. You have a paper trail."
What? I have a blog (and a twitter where I tend to get political!)...true. I'm really trying to follow where this gets insidious on my part.
"You're not a very good poker player, Ben. That involuntary tick is a dead giveaway. You need to consider a career change. Something that doesn't require a convincing game face."
Are there like any atheists you talk to on a regular basis that you actually respect? Or no? Are we like lepers to you or something? I'm trying to get along here and clearly it is your fault that is not happening.
If you've just had a bit too much of my participation lately...that's cool. Everyone can use a breather. Just say so. I can come back some other time. I'm still going to think the Bible is errant and that God doesn't exist next week, too. It's not that big a deal to me. I thought maybe you wouldn't mind some interaction.
take care,
Ben
"Are there like any atheists you talk to on a regular basis that you actually respect?"
ReplyDeletePeople who are atheists aren't intellectually respectable, while people who are intellectually respectable aren't atheists.
"People who are atheists aren't intellectually respectable, while people who are intellectually respectable aren't atheists."
ReplyDeleteAh ha! So we are lepers! Geez, just like put that disclaimer up so people don't get the wrong idea.
I at least appreciate your honesty. I will keep that in mind in the future.
take care,
Ben