Is That a Burning Bush? Is This Mt. Sinai? Solstice Bolsters a Claim
By: Isabel Kershner (The New York Times)
Science and theology collide once again. In the end empirical evidence doesn't matter. Everything depends upon belief and faith.
Exodus 3: Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.”
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
MOUNT KARKOM, Israel — The mountain kept its secrets for centuries, its air of sacred mystery enhanced by a remote location in the Negev Desert in southern Israel.
But one day last week, hundreds of Israeli adventurers headed deep into the wilderness to reach Mount Karkom, determined to get closer to answering a question as intriguing as it is controversial: Is this the Mount Sinai of the Bible, where God is believed to have communicated with Moses?
Mount Sinai's location has long been disputed by scholars both religious and academic, and there are a dozen more traditional contenders, most of them in the mountainous expanses of the Sinai Peninsula across the border in Egypt.
But Mount Karkom's claim has gained some popular support because of an annual natural phenomenon that an intrepid group of archaeology and nature enthusiasts had come to witness for themselves.
In 2003, a local Israeli guide and ecologist happened to be atop Karkom's vast plateau one day in late December around the time of the winter solstice, when he came upon a marvel.
At midday, with the sun low in the sky on one of the shortest days of the year, he peered across a deep ravine and spotted a strange aura of light, flickering like flames, emanating from a spot on a sheer rock face.
It was sunlight reflected at a particular angle off the sides of a cave, but the discovery soon made its way to Israeli television and was fancifully named "the burning bush." Perhaps this, some said, was the supernatural fire that, according to the Book of Exodus, Moses saw on the holy mountain when God first spoke to him, and where he would later receive the Ten Commandments as he led the Israelites out of Egypt.
The burning bush, never consumed by the fire, is symbolic in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other faiths including Baha'i.
But decades before this accidental astronomical discovery, Mount Karkom was already captivating some archaeologists with hints that the site had played an important spiritual role thousands of years ago.
More than half a century ago, Emmanuel Anati, a young Italian archaeologist, found an extraordinary concentration of thousands of rock carvings and rock circles as he surveyed the plateau of Mount Karkom, about 2,500 feet above sea level. Among the rock drawings are many of ibexes, but also some that have been interpreted as depicting the tablets of the commandments or other references from the Bible.
At the base of Mount Karkom, named in Hebrew for a desert crocus, there is evidence that ancient migration trails converged here and that cultic rituals took place in the area. Mr. Anati identified what he thought was a sacrificial altar with the remains of 12 pillars of stone that could conceivably correspond to the one described in Exodus 24 that Moses built, representing the 12 tribes of Israel.
In his writings, Professor Anati said he had not set out to look for Mount Sinai. But after years of fieldwork and exploration, he proposed in the early 1980s that, on the basis of topographical and archaeological evidence, Mount Karkom "should be identified with the sacred mountain of the biblical narrations."
But aside from usual difficulties of desert archaeology — nomads tend to leave few permanent traces — and the whole question of whether any archaeology could be tied to the biblical story of the Exodus at all, Professor Anati's theory posed a problem of chronology.
Israel Finkelstein, a professor emeritus of archaeology at Tel Aviv University and an early critic of Professor Anati's theory, said that most, if not all, of the datable sites around Mount Karkom are from the third millennium B.C.
The Exodus, if it happened, is generally dated to sometime around 1600-1200 B.C.
"So there is more than one millennium gap between the reality at Karkom and the biblical tradition," Professor Finkelstein said, adding that since the evidence is vague, and identifying such sites as cultic is a matter of interpretation, "It is perhaps safer not to speculate."
However heated the academic debate, the air was chilly when a convoy of sturdy jeeps with four-wheel drive set out for the mountain through jagged terrain at dawn on the day of the winter solstice.
Access to Mount Karkom is usually limited to weekends and certain holidays because it requires passing through a military firing and training zone. A paved road that helps shorten the hourslong journey, much of which takes place on dirt tracks, has mostly been closed to civilian traffic in recent years because of the fear of cross-border attacks by Islamic militants from the Sinai.
This year, in a midweek first, the military opened the paved road and allowed passage through the firing zone for the Burning Bush seekers.
As the group arrived in the parking lot at the foot of Mount Karkom, there was an unexpected bonus: Professor Anati, now in his early 90s, was sitting in a deck chair, holding court and promoting his books.
In the search for Mount Sinai, Professor Anati said, some insist for political or nationalistic reasons that the site must be within the borders of Israel, not in Egypt. Others, for religious reasons, say it must be outside the borders, to comply with the tradition of the Israelites wandering in the desert for 40 years before reaching the Promised Land.
"None of these approaches is correct; one must seek the truth," Professor Anati said. "I bring all the opinions and evidence and let the reader decide for themselves," he said, adding of the mountain's treasures, "This is the story of the history of humankind."
After a steep climb up the side of Karkom to its windy plateau, scores of people fanned along the ridge and peered across the ravine at the distant window in the cliff to spy the "burning bush."
Without binoculars or biblical vision, it was possible to make out a strange, if faint, glow, though some visitors expressed disappointment that the aura around the cave mouth was not more fiery.
But stumbling across the rocky plateau, it was thrilling to come across pieces of ancient rock art, the images chipped into the dark brown patina of stones, exposing the light limestone below.
Shahar Shilo, a researcher who manages the Negev Highlands Tourism cooperative, spoke of the importance for ancient peoples of being able to measure the seasons for agricultural purposes, and the holiness imbued in those who could identify with precision the shortest day of the calendar.
Mr. Shilo also had a more prosaic explanation for why Mount Karkom had drawn people there in the distant past: the ready supply of quality flint that was crucial for anything from hunting to household tools. Even after much of humanity had advanced into the Bronze and Iron Ages, he said, the desert dwellers here still depended on stone.
Whether this is Mount Sinai and the winter solstice phenomenon the burning bush "is in the eye of the beholder," Mr. Shilo said.
"But," he added, "it's a great myth, you have to admit."
Tags
Who is online
78 visitors
Everyone is going to believe whatever they choose. Science and theology only provide excuses - or - vindication.
As I have often said, belief does not equal fact.
Science provides, or attempts to provide, explanations based on evidence. Theology provides unsubstantiated claims based on nothing but belief.
The phenomena has been empirically observed. Empirical archaeological evidence indicates the phenomena was observed in ancient times. The empirical archaeological evidence is consistent with what is known about the spiritual importance of the winter solstice to ancient people. Some of the archaeological evidence is suggestive (not definitive) of a direct connection to the recorded description in Exodus.
These are empirical facts.
The physical phenomena can be explained by science but that explanation does not, in any way, address the spiritual or religious aspects of the site. The importance of the site to ancient people cannot be determined or explained by geology, topography, or planetary orbital physics. Science cannot explain the human story of the site without delving into metaphysics and making non-empirical conjectures about the spiritual and religious beliefs of ancient people.
Believing that science explains the metaphysical spiritual and religious importance of the site to ancient people would be a scientifically irrational belief.
The difference is, supernatural explanations are not necessary for an explanation.
So? That does not mean any events have a spiritual cause as many ancient people believed.
Yes, and? Those are still just stories relayed by ancient people based on what they might have observed without actually understanding why or how such events might have occurred.
The physical phenomenon was the basis for the spiritual. People turned to spiritual aspects as a way to explain the phenomenon they observed. If they had known why the solstice occurs, or why the eclipses occur, or why a bush appears to burn but not actually burn, they probably would not have invented religions or rituals around it.
Cultural significance is not the point.
Who said (or believes) science explains the metaphysical? Science explains the phenomenon itself, nothing more. It's people who made such phenomenon of some importance.
Supernatural explanations weren't necessary in the distant past any more than they are now. Isn't it true, from what we know, that supernatural beliefs were more about the future than they were about the present or the past? Wasn't the supernatural importance of the winter solstice about the coming year (the future) rather than the previous year (the past)?
But a known cause doesn't diminish spiritual significance. The cause of the seasonal flooding of the Nile was known and understood. Yet that knowledge did not inhibit the spiritual importance of the event.
How does that explain people dragging tons of stone over hundreds of miles to mark an event they could predict? That trite description seems inadequate as an explanation of millions of tons of stone piled into a pyramid that was precisely aligned with true north. What did the pyramid of Khufu explain?
Doesn't spiritual beliefs precede the empirical experience of miracles? Spiritual beliefs are often the basis for explaining the significance of what is experienced.
Cultural significance is beyond the empirical capability of scientific scrutiny. Humans are the direct cause of cultural significance and that cultural significance can only be explained and understood through the human story.
And, yet, you have attributed metaphysical spiritual and religious beliefs to people attempting to explain what they have experienced. You have established an argument that empirical scientific understanding obviates the need for spiritual and religious beliefs to explain phenomena. But that argument demonstrates a very narrow and myopic understanding of the significance of spiritual and religious beliefs in the human story.
The Harry Potter series does an excellent job of explaining much of the lore we grew up with (witches, gremlins, fairies, trolls, magic wands, incantations, potions, spells, ghosts, goblins, dragons, unicorns, giants, ...). But the explanation is fiction. It is not truth. The tales of mythology which explain the Greek and Roman gods offer all sorts of interesting details, story lines, etc. But they are fiction; not truth. Explanation alone does not mean truth.
Comparing that which approximates truth based on formal evidence, reasoning and continuous verification/refinement (science) with that which merely proclaims truth (religion) is a category error.
What is the point of explaining phenomena by mere speculation and/or fiction? Other than possibly making one feel good, it does nothing to advance understanding.
Supernatural explanations were only a way to explain observed natural phenomenon that people did not understand. But of course it's not necessary. Science and rational thinking negate the need for supernatural explanations.
Spiritual significance is not the issue and is otherwise irrelevant. So I'm not sure why you keep hanging on to that point.
What empirical evidence of miracles? There is none.
Yes, because people are unable to formulate any logical explanation based on evidence.
See second statement. Here, let me help you: the issue is about explaining certain events which supposedly took place. Not about the cultural significance behind or the as a result of them.
No Nerm. I utilize scientific inquiry and critical thinking into explaining what was observed. People may have believed in a spiritual component or cause because they did not understand what they were observing. Scientific analysis provides an objective and more plausible explanation.
Any such need for religious or spiritual belief is simply an emotional and subjective desire. Science and empirical evidence establishes the truth behind phenomenon with a degree of veracity.
Once again, irrelevant to the establishment of actual truth. As I repeatedly say, belief does not equal fact. If you want to believe there's something spiritual or religiously significant behind a magical burning bush or some other supposed phenomenon, that's on you. But that does not mean there is anything actually spiritual or supernatural behind the cause. All you're doing is trying to shift the argument away from plausible causes (which is what my argument has focused on) to any cultural significance after the fact.
The purpose of Exodus 3 is not to explain a burning bush. Believing that Exodus 3 was written to explain observed phenomena is an irrelevant conclusion, otherwise known as missing the point.
The Harry Potter series is not an explanation of how magic works or how to use magic. There isn't an expectation that the Harry Potter series will teach witchcraft. That is not the purpose of the Harry Potter series. Thinking that the Harry Potter series is intended to convey and teach witchcraft would be an irrelevant conclusion or missing the point.
If the burning bush in Exodus 3 is entirely fiction, that would not change the story told in Exodus 3. That's because the purpose of Exodus 3 is not to explain burning bushes. The purpose of the story in Exodus 3 is to present a spiritual or religious revelation or epiphany.
What are you talking about? I wrote nothing about Exodus 3 and clearly made no claim on the intent of Exodus 3. If you are going to reply to me then at least stick with what I have written.
Talk about missing (more like running from) the point.
Comparing that which approximates truth based on formal evidence, reasoning and continuous verification/refinement (science) with that which merely proclaims truth (religion) is a category error.
What is the point of explaining phenomena by mere speculation and/or fiction? Other than possibly making one feel good, it does nothing to advance understanding.
Some people believe the events and circumstances in the Bible are literal fact, including a magically burning bush. Regardless of one's religious beliefs or views surrounding such events, science provides a plausible and rational explanation of those events that do not require supernatural causes or explanations. How one feels about these events is merely personal belief and does not reflect or speak of the veracity of these events, especially if one leans toward supernatural causes.
In the absence of better explanations, ancient human beings invented supernatural explanations. They had nothing other than their imagination to offer explanations for that which they could not understand (e.g. famine, floods, tornadoes, volcanic activity, earthquakes, thunder, ...).
What value is it for you to deny the blatantly obvious?
It's argument shifting TiG. When one does not have any relevant point to make or cannot address the point made, it's easier to shift the argument in a different direction in an attempt to save face and look like one is addressing the issue.
Schrodinger's cat was purely fictional and of a supernatural nature. Einstein's fast trains were purely fictional and of a supernatural nature.
Those supernatural examples were not intended to explain empirical observations of cats or trains.
Spiritual significance is irrelevant to discussing metaphysical spiritual and religious beliefs? Spiritual significance is the central and only issue of importance for understanding spiritual and religious beliefs.
It's impossible to continue a rational discussion when confronted with such vapid and irrational logic. There's no point in continuing since you clearly do not understand what is being discussed and are making irrational demands to confine discussion to your ignorance.
It is
Yes Nerm, supernatural significance is irrelevant as that is not the point of the discussion. Your insistence on trying to make that the topic only shows you are unable to address the topic or cannot accept a non-supernatural explanation. Then you start whining about it and attempt to end the discussion, which only further demonstrates your inability to address the issue as its presented. But if you cannot or will not continue the discussion, then it's probably better for you not to, as I'm not interested in this game you're playing. And I suspect I'm not alone in that regard.
Exactly!
How in the world could you NOT KNOW that Schrödinger's cat was a thought experiment related to the scientific finding of superposition and that Einstein's train thought experiments led to his theory of Special Relativity?
Why make such stupid comparisons? Seriously, Nerm, how dumb do you think the NT audience is?
Your final paragraph is laughable projection. You accuse others of what you are demonstrably doing right here.
At this point TiG, I suspect he's just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks. Each post seems to be getting more out there than the last, [deleted]
If the burning bush is immaterial to the story then why is it included at all? And why would anyone today bother trying to link it to a natural phenomenon?
We know that some people took the phenomenon of the Hale-Bopp comet as a sign of fulfillment of scripture and 39 members of Heavens Gate committed suicide in an attempt to catch a ride on the spaceship they believed was hidden in the comets tail. I believe the idea of some hidden space ship was "entirely fiction" so shouldn't that have an effect on the supposed "spiritual or religious revelations or epiphanies" the leaders of Heavens Gate were claiming?
The visual phenomenon of both a burning bush and the comet were used as supposed empirical evidence of the supernatural, they were used by believers to bolster their faith. With people today searching for Mt. Sinai they are looking for evidence to bolster their faith because they know their faith is weak without some physical manifestation they can cling to and proclaim adds weight to their faith. So of course the story of the burning bush without the burning bush would change the story and impact of that religious claim.
Also, when you say "empirical archaeological evidence" in reference to the burning bush, wtf are you talking about? There is no "empirical evidence" of said burning bush described in the bible.
Empirical: adjective - based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory
We have verifiable observation of "sunlight reflected at a particular angle off the sides of a cave" but that isn't what is described in the bible at all. If a believer wants to stretch the reflected sunlight phenomenon to fit with their desired burning bush narrative, that's their choice, but it's certainly not "empirical archaeological evidence".
What you call blatantly obvious depends upon a grossly stereotyped prejudicial depiction of early people. Ancient people were not intellectually inferior. Ancient people did develop logical, rational explanations for observed phenomena without any modern conveniences.
A plausible argument can be made that ancient people were intellectually superior to modern people because they did not have access to modern conveniences.
So ancient people using the equivalent of "God did it" to explain natural phenomenon is what you consider "intellectually superior?" Note how you twist what TiG said to make up your own interpretation, which is intellectually dishonest. TiG said nothing about the intellectual capabilities of ancient people. Only that they utilized supernatural explanation behind various natural phenomenon.
Strawman. I made no argument that they were intellectually inferior. My argument was that they did not have the knowledge to ascertain the scientific explanation for things like thunder.
As if this was not obvious.
Agreed this illustrates the majority of the crap that always occurs in these discussions. We need to shovel through all this crap to sometimes get a little nugget of gold.
You've claimed the burning bush is not the topic of discussion, although that is the topic of the seeded article. You made the general claim that ancient people relied upon supernatural explanations for what was observed.
You are straying off topic and you are denying what you have claimed.
Seems like we need to dig deep. Very deep.
The burning bush is included because of its spiritual significance. The phenomenon describes in the seed article appears on the winter solstice which is known to have had spiritual significance to ancient people. We know the winter solstice was of spiritual significance to ancient people because of the number of sites intentionally constructed to create similar types of phenomena.
The burning bush is not immaterial to the story of Exodus 3. That's your attempt to move the goal posts. What I said is that if the burning bush was a fiction then the spiritual significance of the story presented in Exodus 3 would not change.
Everyone seems to be attempting to discount the significance of spiritual or religious beliefs in the human story because empirical science is completely incapable of addressing spiritual or religious significance. But the topic of discussion IS spiritual or religious significance. The topd of discussion is not science.
Science and theology collides again. Science is incapable of addressing the spiritual significance of theology. And science cannot alter the spiritual significance of theology. So, science attempts to move the goal posts and make irrelevant arguments that have nothing to do, whatsoever, with the importance of metaphysical spiritual and religious beliefs in the human story.
In discussions of spiritual and religious significance, science is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.
I did not. I stated that I did not bring up Exodus 3:
Strawman after strawman with you Nerm.
I stated that ancient people invented supernatural explanations when they could not otherwise explain phenomena such as lightning:
Do you actually disagree with the above??
Bullshit. You are trolling your own seed.
I pointed out that the purpose of Exodus 3 is not to explain a burning bush in response to your comment @1.1.4 where you stated:
"Comparing that which approximates truth based on formal evidence, reasoning and continuous verification/refinement (science) with that which merely proclaims truth (religion) is a category error. What is the point of explaining phenomena by mere speculation and/or fiction? Other than possibly making one feel good, it does nothing to advance understanding."
According to your quoted comment, the purpose of the Harry Potter stories was to provide an explanation for magic. The Harry Potter stories do contain descriptions and explanations for how magic works and how to apply magic. And based upon your comment, the mere mention of the function and application of magic and witchcraft in the Harry Potter stories means that was the purpose of the Harry Potter stories.
I brought Exodus 3 into the discussion before you made any comment. We're discussing the burning bush story in Exodus 3 and not the Harry Potter series. And the purpose of Exodus 3 was not to explain a burning bush any more than the purpose of the Harry Potter stories was to explain magic and witchcraft.
You have introduced an irrelevant conclusion into the discussion. You are not discussing the topic. Your logic is flawed and applied incorrectly. You don't even describe science correctly.
That whole post and criticism of TiG is utterly laughable. Science plausibly explains the burning bush just as it can explain other religious stories. So there's nothing actually significant about them. It is only because ancient people who didn't know better applied some sort of significance to them and carried it on through the centuries that any significance remains. Kind of like carrying on a bad habit.
I am done attempting to take you seriously Nerm.
(you continue to troll your own seed)
Comparing that which approximates truth based on formal evidence, reasoning and continuous verification/refinement (science) with that which merely proclaims truth (religion) is a category error.
What is the point of explaining phenomena by mere speculation and/or fiction? Other than possibly making one feel good, it does nothing to advance understanding.
There's nothing spiritually significant about scientific explanations. Are we to accept that ancient people did not understand the glow that occurred at the site on Mount Karkom on the winter solstice was not caused by the sun? Are we expected to assume that an ancient people who could predict the winter solstice were completely baffled by phenomena that were observed on the winter solstice? Are we to give credence to the logic that ancient people deliberately built structures for the purpose of artificially creating phenomena on the winter solstice that they could not understand or explain?
What seems even more absurd is the idea that ancient people needed some sort of solar clock to explain and understand what they directly observed in nature. The conjecture that ancient people needed to know when the winter solstice occurred is logically flawed and that flawed logic is being inductively applied irrationally.
What is the point of ignoring that science relies upon mere speculation to establish the need for empirical observation and testing? The process of developing scientific explanations begins with mere speculation.
The idea that ancient people did not understand that the sun caused observed phenomena on the winter solstice, like the glow at the site on Mount Karkom, defies logic.
No kidding! No one said there was. So I am not sure why you felt the need to point out the obvious.
Let's see, they thought a bush was on fire but not burning and believed such an occurrence was of a divine cause. So offhand, I will say yes, they did not understand the actual cause.
I don't think burning bushes are a part of the solstice.
Which structures are you referring to specifically?
Just because they could observe something does not mean they could understand it. Ancient Greeks observed lightning but did not understand it. They thought Zeus was having anger management issues and throwing lightning bolts around. They even built monuments and temples to recognize and worship Zeus.
I see you're trying to move the goal posts again. Or have you forgotten that I have largely focused on the idea of an actual, plausible cause of shrubbery appearing to burn for no reason? Or are we to accept that such phenomenon has a supernatural cause to them?
Immaterial: adjective - unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant.
How is that not you claiming the burning bush is irrelevant?
Thus you are in fact claiming the burning bush is "immaterial" to the supposed "spiritual significance of the story".
Now if you're saying that whether or not the burning bush, or for that matter any supernatural claim in the bible, is "fiction", meaning it never actually happened and was invented or imagined by the authors, it doesn't lessen the import of the "spiritual significance" I would ask what was the need for the fiction in the first place? For a God that claims to love truth and hate lies, making stuff up to push his own God narrative doesn't sound rational.
Do you discount the significance of spiritual belief when it comes to other religions? Do you believe the Hindu or Egyptian creation stories to be just as valid as the Genesis account? What about the FSM creation story? If "empirical science is completely incapable of addressing spiritual or religious significance" then would that not mean Pastafarian's are no different than your average Christian? That the Heavens Gate folks souls may be living on the Hale-Bopp comet spaceship? We have no way to prove they aren't, so what method should one use when trying to choose between the thousands of different religions? What can one use to determine which is the correct "true" religion when all religions have the same exact amount of "spiritual or religious belief" and the exact same amount of "empirical evidence"? Doesn't it really just come down to ones own subjective tastes and opinions?
Where do you see me suggesting otherwise? Ignoring?? I often note that scientific speculation is part of science. The critical difference is that science, unlike religion, does not conclude with speculation ... it starts with speculation. See?
Another fucking strawman. Speak about what I wrote. Ancient people did not understand why lightning, floods, volcanoes, etc. formed. That is what I wrote. Honestly engage on what people write.
That's incorrect. The story of the burning bush is that God appeared in the form of a burning bush.
The spiritual significance of the glow at the site on Mount Karkom during the winter solstice is that the phenomena is caused by the sun on the winter solstice. The understanding that the phenomena was caused by the sun is why the event was spiritually significant.
Karnak Temple was aligned so the interior was lit by the sun during the winter solstice. The winter solstice was observed in ancient Egypt as the birth date of the Sun God Ra.
Did ancient Greeks deliberately build structures to create lightning? Ancient Egyptians did construct a number of structures to create solar phenomena on days with spiritual importance which included the winter and summer solstices.
Remember we are discussing phenomena as relates to Israel. The Israelites were in Egypt and not in Greece. Solar phenomena were spiritually significant in ancient Egypt.
I have already explained that there's nothing spiritually significant about scientific explanations. You claimed that was stating the obvious. But your continual circling back to the issue suggests that you are oblivious to the obvious.
The story of the burning bush isn't about a burning bush. The burning bush is not immaterial; the burning bush is necessary.
There wasn't a burning bush. God appeared in the form of a burning bush. Just as a sun god appeared as a glow at the site on Mount Karkom during the winter solstice. Both the burning bush and the glow on Mount Karkom are manifestations of God's presence on earth; holy ground.
Key word there is "story." Fortunately, science can provide a plausible explanation behind the story.
Why it's significant is after the fact and still irrelevant. Why or how it occurred is what is explained.
You're the one stuck on the issue of significance, not me.
That's nice. Prove it! That's what the story says. But science says differently and can adequately explain it using naturally observed phenomenon. Nothing supernatural about it.
Key word there is 'plausible'. Which doesn't avoid the need for belief.
Yes, that is the way science works. The plausibility of explanations is after the fact. And significance depends upon the size of the consensus.
That may be due to a biased scientific misanthropy that the human story is insignificant. It would be easier if people were pillars of salt.
Plausibility isn't proof requiring no belief. And the laity only requires plausible speculation.
Science attempting to make God insignificant with plausible conjecture certainly isn't a rational endeavor motivated by the search for knowledge.
Science does not seek to trivialize or disprove 'god'. That simply has been a consequence of knowledge. The role of gods has greatly diminished as they are no longer needed to explain much of what we observe. The belief in gods continues in the gaps of our knowledge.
That fails to recognize that Judaism is an inflection point in human spirituality. There were religions with many Gods and those Gods did, indeed, exert control over almost all aspects of the natural world. The Egyptian, Greek, and Roman pantheist religions are those most widely known in western civilizations.
But Judaism is different. The influence of the Abrahamic God was over human behavior and not over nature. The Biblical scriptures are not stories about God(s); they're stories about humans and human behavior. And the message of Biblical scriptures is that humans govern their own behavior by the choices they make. And Biblical scriptures attempts to teach which choices are good and which choices are bad. The Abrahamic God takes control over good and evil away from the many Gods and places humans in direct control over good and evil.
Science is attempting to revive the pantheist Gods of nature. Science lacks the frills and grandeur of ancient pantheist mythology but, nevertheless, attempts to take away human control over good and evil. The plausible explanations of science relegates humans to playthings of nature, subject to the whims of nature. Good and evil is a causal result of nature; nature is in control over good and evil just as were the pantheist Gods of ancient mythology.
My comment was about science being unconcerned with gods and the subsequent diminished role of gods due to no longer being required to explain natural phenomena such as thunder, volcanoes, disease, etc.
Science does not concern itself with gods.
All Gods, even the God of the Hebrews, claimed to "exert control over almost all aspects of the natural world", hell, the Israelites believe their God not only made the universe but later made the sun stand still, flooded the entire planet, made rivers run as blood and used nature as plagues against Egypt.
No, it's not.
I've read the bible cover to cover, Old Testament and New, multiple times in my life and I can definitively say the bible is stories about God(s), supernatural control over nature and human behavior just like virtually every other religion that has ever existed. Trying to claim Judaism, or its redheaded stepchild Christianity, is somehow different or superior to other religions because it "attempts to teach which choices are good and which choices are bad" is just stupid because it just makes it clear that the one making the claim has never studied other religions which all do the same fucking thing.
That's one of the dumbest statements I've seen here and that's saying a lot. Science isn't attempting to do anything other than study our tangible universe through repeated testing and verification.
Science doesn't in any way tell us what is "good" or "bad", it does not in any way tell us what is "moral". It explores and confirms facts about this universe which humans then assign moral value to. With the climate data, the science doesn't give a fuck about sea level rise, it's just data points. The humans reading that data and understanding the implications of such effects climate change is having label it "bad" simply because they recognize its "bad:" for humans. All morality, all things humans consider "good" or "evil" are based on the subjectivity of humans. What helps humans is seen as "good" and what hurts/harms humans is seen as "bad", there is only subjective morality. Even when humans decide killing a sacred cow in India is "bad" they're doing it not to protect the cow but to protect humans and the faith built around celebrating cows due to their incredible usefulness to humans.
Total laughable ridiculous bullshit. How you could even type that with a straight face I'll never know. Nature doesn't give a shit about good and evil, it doesn't care one bit whether you're Jeffrey Dahmer or Mother Theresa, you leave either one of them in the arctic in their jammies in the middle of winter and they're dying of exposure within a few minutes.
And science isn't making nature into a God, it's simply taking the data we've received from the measuring tools we've invented so far to sketch out a picture of the universe we live in. It's not perfect and its obviously incomplete, but it's a paint by numbers that can only be filled in as the data (numbers) is revealed.
Religion ignores the numbers (data) and paints freehand out of the imagination, wishes and dreams of humans which is why nearly every faith considers humans as the center of the universe, the most important or even the only sentient life form which is why every religion is human-centric and not really God-centric.
How has the Abrahamic God been used to explain natural phenomena? The natural phenomena in Biblical scriptures are singular events and the descriptions are not to explain the event but to explain the purpose for the event in terms of good and evil.
The Abrahamic God isn't used to explain seasonal floods, lightning and thunder every time there is a storm, every earthquake, every drought, or any other recurring natural phenomena. The Abrahamic God is not a god of nature but a god of good and evil. And the Abrahamic God has made humans responsible for good and evil through human choices. Good and evil are a result of human freewill.
Yes, science concerns itself with nature that was controlled by pantheist Gods in the past. Scientific knowledge displaces Ra, Zeus, Jupiter, and a menagerie of pantheist Gods. But science does not concern itself with good and evil; the dominion of the one God that matters.
Do you not remember that my point was that religion started with ancient men attempting to explain natural phenomena? I mentioned Zeus as an example. Remember that? I did not mention the Abrahamic God.
However, since you now bring the Abrahamic God into the equation, the Bible explains how biological entities, Earth, Moon, Sun, stars, etc. came into existence. Passages declare rain as a divine blessing and drought as a divine curse. That should get you started on your path to learn what is in the Bible.
And now, as usual, you go full bore strawman. Never did I claim that the Abrahamic God was used as an explanation of floods, lightning, etc. ? Zeus, etc. were my examples. Remember, thousands of gods predated the Abrahamic God.
And, again, where do I claim that it does? I have stated, in effect, the opposite. Do you have anything to offer other than strawman arguments?
A singular event described in terms of good and evil. God created and saw that it was good.
The only recurring natural phenomena attributed directly to the Abrahamic God are rainbows.
A defense of omission? Yes, there have been many, many Gods of nature. And science does address those Gods of nature by explaining nature. However, the Abrahamic God is not a God of nature. And Biblical scripture is not an ancient text attempting to explain nature.
Another defense of omission? No one can claim science concerns itself with good and evil. Empirical science functions within the domain of pantheist Gods of nature.
You asked ... I answered.
Well then you supplied an example. Add to it the biblical verses that cause the common 'acts of God' beliefs. For example:
It takes no effort to see that countless millions hold that God is actively involved in natural disasters and weather patterns in general.
Is that how you justify making strawman arguments? You presume that your interlocutor omitted something and then you supply your strawman as 'completing the thought'? Well that is certainly original. Intellectually dishonest, but original.
You are the one who focuses on the Abrahamic God instead of simply taking what I wrote (speaking of ancient gods like Zeus).
In select parts it most certainly does attempt to do that. Genesis is the prime example. And really only one example is needed. Note also that it was the Bible that suggested a flat Earth (four corners of same) and the notion of geocentricism. Ancient men writing based upon their limited understanding of reality.
Who makes that claim?? Certainly not me. You keep dreaming up shit and tossing it to see if it sticks.
It requires less effort to see that the linked presentation has snipped pieces and strung them together to make an argument. The same thing can be done with today's copy of the New York Times to create whatever argument one desires.
I have no need to presume when you have tacitly stated your comments have been directed toward something other than the Abrahamic God.
So you are claiming that science does concern itself with good and evil? Science either does or does not concern itself with good and evil; there isn't any gray area. Which is it?
Tacitly?? I explicitly stated that.
I suspect everyone reading this is not confused about what I wrote. So why are you?
Science does not concern itself with the questions of good vs. evil. You brought that nonsense into the discussion, not me. I was saying that nobody here has claimed science deals with good vs. evil.
Which means it is a more probable explanation than mere belief.
Why would anyone need or defer to belief?
Based on evidence gathered. Not wishful thinking or belief. Something happens and science attempts to explain how or why it happens.
Because it is insignificant. It has no relevance to how the event occurred. It was deemed significant afterwards.
Plausibility is what is reasonable or probable based on the evidence.
Science doesn't deal with god. I don't know how many times that has been explained in these discussions.
Pure nonsense. See previous statement.
My Fallacy of biblical stories series goes over multiple examples.
Yes, human nature.
There is a distinction to be made between belief and truth. The method of verification / corroboration will either take one closer to truth (in general) or away. Science trends toward truth and can provide a formal, empirical foundation for its findings. Religion declares truth and then attempts to justify its declaration.
There is no comparing science and theology in terms of approximating truth of the reality in which we exist; science demonstrably is the better method.
From theophany to epiphany to cacophony … so many kaching-ophonies for the opportune-ophanist.
Not to religion anyway. It never did.
Another biblical story which has a logical and scientifically plausible explanation not requiring belief or superstition. This might have become another entry in my Fallacy of Biblical Stories series, but you beat me to it Nerm.
So, you believe that science explains metaphysical spiritual and religious beliefs? How is that circular logic rational?
No Nerm, that is not what I "believe." Neither have I ever suggested or said that. So I'm not sure where you came up with that? But your statement does tell me you do not really understand what I actually said.
Gordy can correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me more like he sees this as an instance of something supposedly supernatural having been explained as an entirely natural phenomenon. No gods or goddesses required. When that phenomenon was supposedly God on Earth, and delivered the Ten Commandments, well, that strikes a body blow to the Abrahamic religions.
Unless those religions are reduced to sun worship, to which I imagine they'd object.
You are spot on correct
Never have been either.
Or perhaps a groin shot.
At least we know with certainty the sun is real. That's one reason why George Carlin worships the sun .