Argument from Mundanity

[Zhavric]

From Letters to a Christian Nation:

"... just imagine how breathtakingly specific a work of prophecy would be, if it were actually the product of omniscience. If the Bible were such a book, it would make perfectly accurate predictions about human events. You would expect it to contain a passage such as 'In the latter half of the twentieth century, humankind will develop a globally linked system of computers--the principles of which I set forth in Leviticus--and this system shall be called the Internet.' The Bible contains nothing like this. In fact, it does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century. This should trouble you."

From Christopher Hitchens' God is Not That Great:

"One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody--not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms--had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think--though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one--that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell."

Dan Ferrisi writes:

...one thinks of the approximately 10,000 distinct religions infecting our otherwise-sophisticated species. Of all the religious texts I have ever read or heard of, none has been the source of new knowledge about natural principles or the miraculous impetus for a scientific leap. Rather, each has been the work of mere humans, serving up large doses of primitive superstition, baseless moralizing, useless commandments and promises just beyond the reach of confirmation. If one religion of the 10,000 actually were true, I should think its veracity would be proved by its unique ability to reveal (think 'revelation') factual information before scientists had discovered it. Then, religion would spread by the power of its evidence, rather than spreading, passively, by the coincidental geography of one's place of birth and, actively, by parents' talent for inculcating their defenseless, trusting young.

The argument from mundanity tells us what we should be seeing from religions, but don't. If any allegedly inspired text or religion were written by or inspired from an all-knowing being we'd expect to see a lot more than what we actually see. Religions don't spread on the basis of fact. They're spread to children who don't know any better and those who don't fully investigate what they're getting into.

Topics for discussion:

A universal litmus applicable to any text claiming to be divinely inspired.

Intellectual honesty in examining texts obviously written by human beings.

[CJFreeman]

Meh. Going over and over and over these arguments for the non-existence of God is arguably mundane.

Christopher

[Zhavric]

Looks like no one can refute this argument. That's a shame. I was looking forward to discussing it.

[CJFreeman]

So, umm, exactly why do you think that the ommision of this-that-and-the-other detail in human history must therefore mean that the Bible is just folklore, and God is nonsense?

Just curious. 'Cause I'm wondering if you could uphold the same line of reasoning if it was put this way: I haven't told you in detail about what was going on while I wrote this, therefore what I've just written lacks creativity, or credibility.

Christopher

[CJFreeman]

Come to think of it, shouldn't it occur to these 'oh-so-laudable' atheists that maybe God has other priorities other that, say, the inevitability of the internet (to use the example from the first quote)?

I find this argument from mundanity to be one of the most simplistic, illogical arguments I've ever encountered. It's whole premise is an argument from silence, which is a not a proper basis for an argument. In fact, it's without basis.

Christopher

[another day]

It's argument of archaity. The fact that the bible contains nothing that is advanced at all...

The mere fact that it doesn't mention other galaxies and such is enough for me to throw it out the window.

[Charlatan]

This argument tells us all religion is boring and not revealing of the future, yet some scripture tells us what will happen in the future, but we don't think it has come to pass yet, but after all the arguments I have been through, all those things will be justified won't they? I mean we won't have a new Christ being bought a path through life will we? Surely not. So of what use is scripture? It tells us a story of what has happened, supposedly, in the past, actually from the dawn of time they claim. It tells us the commandments, things we do not follow and have made up our own laws, and that is about it, we don't need scripture, but there is guyidance therein for people who seek it. Believe me there are pearls of wisdom in the stories, tales of patience and forgiveness, and if you have those then maybe the bible is taking up space on your bookshelf you could use for something else. Who cares who married who, who cares who killed who? People walk with lions today too. The scriptures are thought of too highly.

[CJFreeman]

So Charlatan and Another Day disregard the bible because they prefer other things.

That's all nice and such, but it's not in line with what's been proposed.

Christopher

[Milton Bradley]

I think I'm going to have to rad that Hitchens book.


He seems to have the same approach, or methodology to debunking that I do.

[CJFreeman]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I think I'm going to have to rad that Hitchens book. He seems to have the same approach, or methodology to debunking that I do.

I haven't read the book, but from what was quoted there isn't much of a debunking going on so much as a round-about way of saying, "there's nothing to talk about, so let's move on."

Christopher

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Zhavric From Letters to a Christian Nation: "... just imagine how breathtakingly specific a work of prophecy would be, if it were actually the product of omniscience. If the Bible were such a book, it would make perfectly accurate predictions about human events. You would expect it to contain a passage such as 'In the latter half of the twentieth century, humankind will develop a globally linked system of computers--the principles of which I set forth in Leviticus--and this system shall be called the Internet.' The Bible contains nothing like this. In fact, it does not contain a single sentence that could not have been written by a man or woman living in the first century. This should trouble you." From Christopher Hitchens' God is Not That Great: "One must state it plainly. Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody--not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms--had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as for comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would like to think--though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one--that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell." Dan Ferrisi writes: ...one thinks of the approximately 10,000 distinct religions infecting our otherwise-sophisticated species. Of all the religious texts I have ever read or heard of, none has been the source of new knowledge about natural principles or the miraculous impetus for a scientific leap. Rather, each has been the work of mere humans, serving up large doses of primitive superstition, baseless moralizing, useless commandments and promises just beyond the reach of confirmation. If one religion of the 10,000 actually were true, I should think its veracity would be proved by its unique ability to reveal (think 'revelation') factual information before scientists had discovered it. Then, religion would spread by the power of its evidence, rather than spreading, passively, by the coincidental geography of one's place of birth and, actively, by parents' talent for inculcating their defenseless, trusting young. The argument from mundanity tells us what we should be seeing from religions, but don't. If any allegedly inspired text or religion were written by or inspired from an all-knowing being we'd expect to see a lot more than what we actually see. Religions don't spread on the basis of fact. They're spread to children who don't know any better and those who don't fully investigate what they're getting into. Topics for discussion: A universal litmus applicable to any text claiming to be divinely inspired. Intellectual honesty in examining texts obviously written by human beings.

Illogical. Especially the first and third (the second being mostly insult and unwarranting of further discussion). You and they assume that the Bible is just around to sate the curiosity of doubters such as yourself. As if the King of the Universe is going to strip down, jump up on an examining table, and let you poke and prod him to your hearts content. He's not a tame lion, you know.

Assume for a second that God is real. Let's say He wants to send the revelations that become the Bible. What would be the point of telling people about the technical details of gadgets that won't be invented for thousands of years and anyway are beside the cosmic point? What do you think that people in 2000BC would've done with this information? They wouldn't have understood it, so they would have made it into a metaphor, searched for some moral meaning, and 4000 years later, it would not mean the same thing to us. "Internet" would have become some kind of holy jargon in the best case, and in the worst, it would never be invented. It screws with the timeline. Pretend that I had the prophetic ability to know whom I'm supposed to marry in the future. So armed with this knowledge, I decide to jump the gun, fly to London, track him down, and tell him (some random person) that in 5 years, he's going to marry me. You think that would work? Or do you think he'd say I'm crazy and do something different than he originally would have?

You can't just screw with time.

In the grand scheme of things, the existence of the Internet is not that important. If you're inspiring a book, you give the people the information they need.

Not only that but if the Bible mentioned the Internet, 2000 years in our future, people would probably just assume that the Bible was written in our time. :rolleyes: You wouldn't think so, but I've observed that people have near unconscionable abilities toward suppressing information they don't like. I know you're thinking that about me, but I'm thinking the same exact thing about you.

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Illogical. Especially the first and third (the second being mostly insult and unwarranting of further discussion). You and they assume that the Bible is just around to sate the curiosity of doubters such as yourself. As if the King of the Universe is going to strip down, jump up on an examining table, and let you poke and prod him to your hearts content. He's not a tame lion, you know.

"Believe in me and I will see that you get rewards in the after life, all you gotta do is do what the godfather wants. But if yous don't do what da godfather wants then it will be hell to pay."

What would be the point of telling people about the technical details of gadgets that won't be invented for thousands of years and anyway are beside the cosmic point?

Is that the only way to show that your god is real?

Tell me, which god is the real god? I have a whole list to choose from with each god having the same amount of evidence to back up. Perhaps it would be nice if this all powerful god would have the decency to communicate with us humans who the real god to worship is.

That is all I ask for. I don't god to make predictions 4000 years before they happened. I just need a clear sign as to which god is the right one.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: rez "Believe in me and I will see that you get rewards in the after life, all you gotta do is do what the godfather wants. But if yous don't do what da godfather wants then it will be hell to pay." Is that the only way to show that your god is real? Tell me, which god is the real god? I have a whole list to choose from with each god having the same amount of evidence to back up. Perhaps it would be nice if this all powerful god would have the decency to communicate with us humans who the real god to worship is. That is all I ask for. I don't god to make predictions 4000 years before they happened. I just need a clear sign as to which god is the right one.

I'm not arguing that at this time. All I am doing is addressing the OP. There are plenty of half decent arguments for atheism. This just idn't one of them.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: phoenix_fire There are plenty of half decent arguments for atheism. This just idn't one of them.

It's the perfect argument.


Still scared of the dark?


Exactly!

[phoenix_fire]

Clarify.

[HelioPrime]

I'm not seeing how this debunks anything...

So if I'm reading correctly basically religion was pondered. The http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?act...ewAsset&id=767 determined religion would be false if it provided no evidence, and could not be spread without being taught to children? So because religion fits this criteria it must be false?

I don't see how even intelligent people can just decide for themselves a critera religion must meet to be fact or believable. If you don't personally believe then you no doubt will think out a set of guildelines that fit into your ideas.

If I'm reading into this the wrong way please explain!

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Clarify.

I'm saying it's no different than an other "learned" superstition.

[phoenix_fire]

Really? Well, let me ask you a question: do you lock your door every night?

[rez]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I'm not arguing that at this time. All I am doing is addressing the OP. There are plenty of half decent arguments for atheism. This just idn't one of them.

This has nothing to do with atheism. It has to do with the irrational behavior you and many other superstitious people portray.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: rez This has nothing to do with atheism. It has to do with the irrational behavior you and many other superstitious people portray.

I really don't see that from the OP.

Do you lock your door at night? I do. No one has ever tried to enter my apartment uninvited. No one has ever tried to enter the apartment of any of the people around here I know uninvited. Experimentally, locking one's apartment is unnecessary where I am. I do it anyway. But I guess that's another of my irrational superstitions.