quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Lameness of the Documentary Hypothesis?
Please do tell me of its faults! Since I'm not certain about it anyway, and I don't have as much certainty about that as, say, certain other things, I'm very interested to see your view on it.
God, where do I even start. I did an entry called DH Stupidity on my blog over a year ago. I've been fighting it ever since I found out about it when I was a freshman in college. Well before I had so much as a glimmer of becoming observant. It's just dumb. And in all honesty, I don't know where to start.
Here's a thing I posted here called Torah 101. It doesn't address the documentary hypothesis directly, but it does address some of the methodology according to which the biblical text is meant to be read, and the documentary hypothesis explicitly ignores this in order to pull "contradictions" out of its nether regions.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Another fallacy. Two people say contradictory things; therefore, they're both wrong. Lame.
I think it was more of a "If you understand why you don't believe their claim, you understand why I don't believe yours." Or, alternatively, assertion is not necessarily equivalent to truth.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: And the Muslims/Koran...
I've actually never heard a Muslim say the Koran was beyond Mohammed's ability to write it. I believe that it is certainly possible that they claim that, but is that really a general belief in the religion?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that it is certainly possible that they claim that, but is that really a general belief in the religion?
Yup. Mohammed's illiteracy is trumpeted in the same way that Joseph's status as an uneducated farm boy is. It's a commonly stated proof of the divine origin of the Koran that no one has ever been able to write a Sura like those in the Koran. Heck, it's *in* the Koran:
quote:Sura 2:23 If you have any doubt regarding what we revealed to our servant, then produce one sura like these, and call upon your own witnesses against GOD, if you are truthful.
also
11:13 If they say, "He fabricated (the Quran)," tell them, "Then produce ten suras like these, fabricated, and invite whomever you can, other than GOD, if you are truthful."
11:14 If they fail to meet your challenge, then know that this is revealed with GOD's knowledge, and that there is no god except He. Will you then submit?
and
17:88 Say, "If all the humans and all the jinns banded together in order to produce a Quran like this, they could never produce anything like it, no matter how much assistance they lent one another."
posted
About the three million: That's according to the same source whose trustworthiness is under discussion. Circular reasoning. There are any number of ways in which a document can claim to have 3 million witnesses, have strong error-checking, and nonetheless be wrong. For example, it might be written before the error-checking is put in place; it might also be edited so that the error-checking appears to have been there from the start. This is hardly very difficult.
In fact, Lisa, you are making the same assumption that you so often lambast us for: That as things are now, they were in the past. There is no reason to assume that the error-checking rituals were there from the start.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not just a matter of conflicting assertions about different source documents for faith. Some might take the knee-jerk, thoughtless route, and say they must all be wrong. But there is another possibility. Perhaps we should rather expect that if there are many counterfeits, there must be one that is geniune.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps we should rather expect that if there are many counterfeits, there must be one that is geniune.
Sure. And as soon as the learned advocates for each of these documents come to a consensus on how to determine which one is genuine...
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Another fallacy. Two people say contradictory things; therefore, they're both wrong. Lame.
I think it was more of a "If you understand why you don't believe their claim, you understand why I don't believe yours." Or, alternatively, assertion is not necessarily equivalent to truth.
No, because they aren't the same argument. They are based on different things entirely. Joseph Smith was one man. Last I checked, one was less than 3 million.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is not just a matter of conflicting assertions about different source documents for faith. Some might take the knee-jerk, thoughtless route, and say they must all be wrong. But there is another possibility. Perhaps we should rather expect that if there are many counterfeits, there must be one that is geniune.
Oh, right. And because there are so many UFO sightings, one of them must really be aliens.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Another fallacy. Two people say contradictory things; therefore, they're both wrong. Lame.
I think it was more of a "If you understand why you don't believe their claim, you understand why I don't believe yours." Or, alternatively, assertion is not necessarily equivalent to truth.
No, because they aren't the same argument. They are based on different things entirely. Joseph Smith was one man. Last I checked, one was less than 3 million.
Yes, yes, but nobody except you believes the 3 million any more than we believe the golden plates.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was the plural 'you', indicating 'you Jews' rather than 'you, Lisa'. Civilised languages have a way of indicating this. English doesn't.
Anyway, while we're comparing numbers, how many golden plates does the Bible have? Joseph Smith has two, so I'd say that puts him two up, two being greater than zero.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Occam's Razor is on my side. Not with your silly blowtorch and icecubes, because that didn't happen. But because God told 3 million of us publically, all at once, that He was there, and gave us a whole boatload of information. You have to either do backwards cartwheels to get around that information, or simply ignore it, to reach your atheist position.
Occam's Razor weights completely unproven assumptions without a quantity of evidence sufficient to merit the claim?
Sir Occam would probably like to be informed of this change immediately.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: That was the plural 'you', indicating 'you Jews' rather than 'you, Lisa'. Civilised languages have a way of indicating this. English doesn't.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: That was the plural 'you', indicating 'you Jews' rather than 'you, Lisa'. Civilised languages have a way of indicating this. English doesn't.
Y'all.
*snort*
Can we conversely refer to ourselves and those in the immediate vicinity as, "W'all?"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: That was the plural 'you', indicating 'you Jews' rather than 'you, Lisa'. Civilised languages have a way of indicating this. English doesn't.
Y'all.
*snort*
Can we conversely refer to ourselves and those in the immediate vicinity as, "W'all?"
"We" works fine. English used to have different words for singular second person and plural second person, and it still should. Right now, "y'all" is the only way to do that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:just because you can't personally observe something happening in another area of our universe does not mean that it can't be theoretically observed. and it doesn't have to be with your eyes. if someone has a thought, you can't observe it visually, but the processes which produced that thought *can* be observed with instruments.
This makes it very ambiguous what is observable and what isn't though. Is there anything we could think of that can't in theory by observed by some theoretical thing? Isn't it at least possible in theory that some God exists and can observe everything imaginable? Or isn't it possible that for any given possible thing we can imagine, we could in theory someday invent some instrument that could observe it?
quote:
quote:If things happened that didn't have an observable effect, how would we know?
We wouldn't. Ergo, they don't matter.
Isn't it possible for something to have no observable effect yet still be important?
quote:Ahhh....I'm having flashbacks of my afterlife thread. When do we start talking about qualia? Tres?
I'm pretty sure y'all already have, although not by name.
I suppose I should note that qualia is one major reason I disagree with Tom's assertion that unobservable things are not important. In fact, I'd argue the things that are actually important for their own sake are the things that we are calling "unobservable". Physical objects such as chairs, computers, solar systems, etc. are not important for their own sake (they are only physical objects after all.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there anything we could think of that can't in theory by observed by some theoretical thing?
Nothing that exists and matters. But I can think of lots of irrelevant crap -- like "qualia" -- which can't.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is your argument for qualia being irrelevant? Qualia includes both the feeling of happiness and the experience of pain - two things that I suspect most people would consider to be critically important to human affairs.
But aside from that, why couldn't there in theory be a way to observe such things like qualia? Science fiction has long hypothesized about the ability to see into another person's mind, for instance. Doesn't that seem at least as plausible as teleporting to the opposite side of the universe to observe the things happening there, which we'd otherwise have no ability to observe?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Qualia includes both the feeling of happiness and the experience of pain - two things that I suspect most people would consider to be critically important to human affairs.
Tom can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe his view is that such experiences are ultimately, in principle, quantitative ones. That is, there is a specific set of neurons firing in a specific order to produce an individual experience of happiness. We only consider happiness to be a qualitative experience because the process by which we experience it is too complex for us to map it.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that it is certainly possible that they claim that, but is that really a general belief in the religion?
Yup. Mohammed's illiteracy is trumpeted in the same way that Joseph's status as an uneducated farm boy is. It's a commonly stated proof of the divine origin of the Koran that no one has ever been able to write a Sura like those in the Koran. Heck, it's *in* the Koran:
quote:Sura 2:23 If you have any doubt regarding what we revealed to our servant, then produce one sura like these, and call upon your own witnesses against GOD, if you are truthful.
also
11:13 If they say, "He fabricated (the Quran)," tell them, "Then produce ten suras like these, fabricated, and invite whomever you can, other than GOD, if you are truthful."
11:14 If they fail to meet your challenge, then know that this is revealed with GOD's knowledge, and that there is no god except He. Will you then submit?
and
17:88 Say, "If all the humans and all the jinns banded together in order to produce a Quran like this, they could never produce anything like it, no matter how much assistance they lent one another."
Learn something new everyday, thanks Matt. Incidentally a similar challenge is found in the Doctrine and Covenants, asking anyone to write their own revelation from God and to see if it stacks up with the genuine ones.
I can't link it off the top of my head as I can't think of any key words to search for but I am sure it's there. Apparently several people (Mormons that is) took up the challenge, none with very much success. I don't know anything about non believers attempting the feat.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't link it off the top of my head as I can't think of any key words to search for but I am sure it's there. Apparently several people (Mormons that is) took up the challenge, none with very much success. I don't know anything about non believers attempting the feat.
It's D&C 67:6-8
quote:6 Now, seek ye out of the Book of Commandments, even the least that is among them, and appoint him that is the most wise among you; 7 Or, if there be any among you that shall make one alike unto it, then ye are justified in saying that ye do not know that they are true; 8 But if ye cannot make one like unto it, ye are under condemnation if ye do not bear record that they are true.
According to the History of the Church, William E. McLellin tackled the task the evening after that text was revealed. His failure was considered by the council of High Priests to be a confirmation of the veracity of the D&C (then the "Book of Commandments")
I don't know about non-believers having attempted to meet the challenge, as most would likely consider it a fool's errand. The criteria for success is entirely subjective.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: How did they judge success (or lack of it)?
I wasn't there, I couldn't tell you. I do know that several of the attempts such as Thomas Marsh's were withdrawn by the author as they themselves admitted that they were not inspired of God.
You could check the writings for prophecies and observe if they come true. You can check them for doctrinal consistancy with previous works in the canon. You can also, (and I am not especially interested in discussing the validity of this method) pray about them asking God for confirmation whether the revelations were authentic.
edit: Matt seems to have found the passage, I forgot about McLellins attempt the evening of the revelation's...um.. revelation? I'm not sure what the text of the attempt said or by what criteria it was found to be fradulant. Thanks again Matt.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, so your focus is more on creating a new set of writings that other people and the author, could be convinced are a genuine set of revelations that extend pre-existing revelations (in your case, Mormon revelations).
This would be contrasted with my idea which was more creating a new set of writings that could convince other people (but not necessarily the author) that they are divine in origin (partially due to their "complexity"), but may or may not extend pre-existing religions.
Is this an accurate hypothesis?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In your theory of mind, this may be true, but you have no rational support for this.
Sure I do. That which has an effect has a perceptible effect. Premise 1.
You can say there's something wrong with the premise, but there's nothing remotely irrational with my position based on that premise.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That which has an effect has a perceptible effect.
That's not true (see my earlier point about discrimination) and it is irrelevant to the point. Qualia, free will, and a host of other things can have perceptible effects.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your point on discrimination was this, correct?
"Things can occur that have effects, but they are not observable unless we can discriminate them from other things.
In many instances, there isn't a way to tell the difference between a deterministic and non-deterministic system. From a rational and scientific standpoint, there often isn't any way to decide between these two options, so you are basically left with a blank area and a choice between two equally valid options. "
Just because circumstances state that we cannot find it out in that particular case, does not mean the effect did not have a perceptibe cause. If it happened, it was caused by something, and even if, say, we cannot detect it yet, or we cannot measure the precise things (such as the physics of throwing a dice. Ugh.)
Just because we can't tell WHICH thing causes something, doesn't mean, first, that we never will be, or second, that it implies a nondeterministic universe, especially considering how much of it IS observed, and how much it just so happens to BE determinable.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, what are these imperceptible qualia, and so forth?
And how is free will, a concept which is created by our thoughts, and stored in a physical location in the brain or on paper, which is merely a theory of activity, really, something that cannot be percieved?
The brain is complex, and makes many calculations, has many choices to make. It can decide things, but how is that beyond perception?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
0Meg, I don't think you understood my point there. You've reversed the order.
I was talking about effects. In order for an effect to be perceptible, it needs to be discriminated against something.
Also, I'm not saying that things are definitely not completely deterministic and materialistic. I'm saying that there is no rational or scientific reason to claim that they definitely are. It's a statement of faith, not of rationality or science.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And how is free will, a concept which is created by our thoughts, and stored in a physical location in the brain or on paper, which is merely a theory of activity, really, something that cannot be percieved?
I may have been somewhat imprecise. When I was talking about free will, I meant the reality of free will existing and the structures/aspects of reality that make it possible, not the concept.
However, limiting the existence of the concept of free will as "created by our thoughts, and stored in a physical location in the brain or on paper" is again arguing your conclusion. It only works if I accept your theory of mind and of how the universe works.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The brain is complex, and makes many calculations, has many choices to make. It can decide things, but how is that beyond perception?
In a completely materialistic universe, the brain makes no choices. It merely responds to stimuli in a completely deterministic manner. Any perception of choice is an epiphenomenon.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless, of course, you choose to define "choice" in a way that grants the inevitability of the physical decision without obviating the reality of the choice to the "individual" experiencing it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Show that we DO have free will, that it is anything BUT a concept.
You say in a completely materialistic (you mean deterministic?) universe, the brain makes no choices, and simply responds to stimuli.
Does this not describe our brains? After all, the stimuli are quite complex, and in many cases come from other parts of the brain. A memory crosses the mind, hearing a sound makes you think of a thought, a message is interpreted, and the sense of it is considered in a complex manner.
The brain is vastly more complicated than a modern computer. What makes you so sure perception of choice ISN'T completely deterministic (with a number of anomalous occurances, like mistakes and whatnot?)
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What makes you so sure perception of choice ISN'T completely deterministic (with a number of anomalous occurances, like mistakes and whatnot?)
If the universe is entirely deterministic then there's no such thing as a mistake. Any so-called mistakes are the necessary result for the conditions present when they occur.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I decide to move my hand just for the sake of moving it, of understanding HOW I make it move. I do this purposefully, and with intent to understand. Yet, this is the decision of my brain, or at least part of it, because due to current stimulus it wants to observe its own actions, at least to a degree.
Considering the specific makeup of this particular brain, the preexisting premeses, the information already within it, and its tendencies to consider its own existence and the manner in which it works, how are these actions that I choose to do NOT simply deterministic?
I do it because I do it, because I want to. (The I and the brain, I guess, are synonymous in this particular case, as it's the conscious mind choosing this, which is, of course, part of the brain.) But I want to due to the nature of my brain, the nature of myself, a physical entity.
I "choose", but how is that not completely deterministic, considering the basis of this particular brain adn its particular set-up?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What makes you so sure perception of choice ISN'T completely deterministic (with a number of anomalous occurances, like mistakes and whatnot?)
I'm not. I'll quote myself:
quote:Also, I'm not saying that things are definitely not completely deterministic and materialistic. I'm saying that there is no rational or scientific reason to claim that they definitely are. It's a statement of faith, not of rationality or science.
Belief in free will or in materialism is a choice (or perhaps the outcome of the total reinforcement contingencies). It is not something that can be determined by science or rationality, (edit:) at least with our current udnerstanding of these things.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If the universe is entirely deterministic then there's no such thing as a mistake. Any so-called mistakes are the necessary result for the conditions present when they occur. "
Good point. That's a much better way of putting it. But the word mistake is convenient. Shall I instead say, results that you do not anticipate based on your imperfect information?
A misfiring of a neuron happens, but I guess you're right, the mistake is the result of the previous condition, which is caused by all sorts of things.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Belief in free will or in materialism is a choice (or perhaps the outcome of the total reinforcement contingencies). It is not something that can be determined by science or rationality, at least with our current udnerstanding of these things. "
Perhaps.
But what science CAN and DOES do is examine the brain, and find that manipulating the physical brain itself can change many things.
Not just make you feel specific emotions, but make you desire to do something, or want to "choose" something, is that not right?
If manipulating the brain can effect the choices we make, and the choices we wish to make, what does that say about the nature of our choices?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I decide to move my hand just for the sake of moving it
No you don't. You only think that this is why you are doing it. You can't initiate action on your own. It is entirely driven from outside forces.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Belief in free will or in materialism is a choice (or perhaps the outcome of the total reinforcement contingencies). It is not something that can be determined by science or rationality.
I'd add the caveat "at this time." Assuming we could actually observe, record, and recreate all of the physical processes involved in making a choice we may be able to determine that scientifically. However, that may never be possible to do.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd add the caveat "at this time." Assuming we could actually observe, record, and recreate all of the physical processes involved in making a choice we may be able to determine that scientifically
Yeah, I threw that in in an immediate edit.
edit: I think it is important to note that the barriers here are not ones of incomplete knowledge or lack of precision, but of a theoretical order. It is, with our current understanding, theoretically impossible to apply science to this question.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No you don't. You only think that this is why you are doing it. You can't initiate action on your own. It is entirely driven from outside forces. "
I kind of said that later in the post.
In fact, the specific outside force was you discussing this thing.
But it's a useful shorthand to say "I decided to".
Of course, remember that the brain is not one single thing, but a collection of many different parts, all with different specific goals, or different tasks. Reading your post made me think about it, and cuased the part of my brain in control of such things to decide to move my hand, observing it and calculating the nature of itself.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The brain is complex, and makes many calculations, has many choices to make. It can decide things, but how is that beyond perception?
In a completely materialistic universe, the brain makes no choices. It merely responds to stimuli in a completely deterministic manner. Any perception of choice is an epiphenomenon.
Thats not necessarily true because there are non-deterministic aspects to our universe. Our brain could theoretically make use of such phenomena though we have no evidence that it does. The possibility cannot be ruled out, however, because we have so little knowledge on what makes us conscious in the first place.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I'm not sure what the text of the attempt said or by what criteria it was found to be fradulant. Thanks again Matt.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Shall I instead say, results that you do not anticipate based on your imperfect information? 
