Slashdot Mirror
Researchers To Climb Ararat To Seek Noah's Ark
fudgefactor7 writes "CNN/AP has a story about researchers that plan on ascending Mt. Ararat in search of the Ark of Noah. My favorite quote: ''We are not excavating it. We are not taking any artifacts. We're going to photograph it and, God willing, you're all going to see it,' McGivern said.' As if pictures can't be doctored and are absolute proof...."
I'm not even going to bother. Those of you with a bit of logic and reasoning skills can already figure the impossibility of the whole idea.
So, for a some more fun, check out this cute rebuttal of the scientific arguments against the story. It boggles the mind how people can accept this as truth.
In the past there have been quite a number of similar investigations:
1. It was said for many years Pontius Pilate never existed, until digs started turning up roman coins & carvings with his name on them.
2. It was said that Ur never existed, until they found it a few years ago.
Up to now, bibilical texts have proven to be a remarkably good resource, and every bit as reliable as other texts from the periods in question. I'm really very interested to see what, if anything this investigation turns up. Biblically the Ark should be less than ten thousand years old, and even myths often start with some grain of truth.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
The small percentage of the world that are atheist or agnostic
About 14%.
What?
http://skepdic.com/noahsark.html
Noah's Ark
Noah's Ark is the boat built by the Biblical character Noah. At the command of God, according to the story, Noah was to build a boat that could accommodate his extended family, about 50,000 species of animals, and about one million species of insects. The craft had to be constructed to endure a divinely planned universal flood aimed at destroying every other person and animal on earth (except, I suppose, those animals whose habitat is liquid). This was no problem, according to Dr. Max D. Younce, who says by his calculations from Genesis 6:15 that the ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet deep. He says this is equivalent to "522 standard stock cars or 8 freight trains of 65 cars each." By some divine calculation he figures that all the insect species and the worms could fit in 21 box cars. He could be right, though Dr. Younce does not address the issue of how the big boxcar filled with its cargo rose with the rainwater level instead of staying put beneath the floodwaters.
Those not familiar with the story might wonder why God would destroy nearly all the descendants of all of the creatures he had created. The story is that God was displeased with all of his human creations, except for Noah and his family. Annihilating those one is displeased with has become a familiar tactic of the followers of this and many other gods.
Despite the bad example God set for Noah's descendants--imagine a human parent drowning his or her children because they were "not righteous"--the story remains a favorite among children. God likes good people. He lets them ride on a boat with a bunch of friendly animals. He shows them a great rainbow after the storm. And they all live happily ever after. Even adults like the story, though they might see it as an allegory with some sort of spiritual message, such as God is all-powerful and we owe everything, even our very existence to the Creator. Furthermore, the Creator expects us to behave ourselves. But there are many who take the story literally.
According to the story told in chapter 7 of Genesis, Noah, his crew, and the animals lived together for more than 6 months before the floodwaters receded. There are a few minor logistical problems with this arrangement, but before getting to them, there is one other thing that needs commenting on. It is obvious that floods are no laughing matter. The destruction of life and property caused by floods has plagued many animals, not just humans, from time immemorial. To watch one's family or home swept away in floodwaters must be a terrible spectacle. To see one's children drown, one's life and dreams washed away in an instant, must be a devastating experience. But if one were to discover that the flood was not a whimsical effect of chance natural events, not unplanned and purposeless, but rather the malicious and willful act of a conscious being, one might add rage to the feelings of devastation. I suppose one could argue that it is God's world; he created it, so he can destroy it if he feels like it. But such an attitude seems inappropriate for an All-Good, Loving God.
the "finding" of the Ark
Yet, as preposterous as this story seems, there are people in the twentieth century who claim they have found Noah's ark. They call themselves "arkeologists." Yes, they say that when the flood receded, Noah and his zoo were perched upon the top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey. Presumably, at that time, all the animals dispersed to the far recesses of the earth. How the animals got to the different continents, we are not told. Perhaps they floated there on debris. More problematic is how so many species survived when they had been reduced to just one pair or seven pairs of creatures. Also, you would think that the successful species that had the furthest to travel, would have left a trail of offspring along the way. What evidence is there that all species originated in Turkey? That's what the record should look like if the ark landed on Mt. Ararat.
Still, none of t
Something that I think gets lost frequently in the Noah's ark discussion is the fact that most relegions have a flood myth in one form or another. Off the top of my head I can recall a Roman myth, a Norse myth, a Chinese myth and a Native (or whatever the politically correct term is) myth that involve the Earth's destruction by a flood followed by a re-building by a man-woman team. Therefore any finding of a boat proves that something majorly wrong involving water and a boat happened early on in human history. We already knew that from geological surveys of the areas where early humans resided, any proof for or against the presence of the ark answers nothing one way or the other for or against the Judeo-Christian point of view.
>onsistent with archaeological evidence.
/2/982front.html
This is simply untrue. Till wrote a good article on the subject:
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazine s/tsr/1998
Archaeology and Biblical Accuracy
Farrell Till
Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.
Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.
What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.
The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corro
You are falling for the god of the gaps fallacy.
You claim that someplace or something isnt known then it must be the work of the gods. This argument keeps getting killed everytime a rational/scientific explanation comes about for such things as the weather, evolution, gravity, etc.
Now your just taking the god of the gaps to a friggin mountain. Not terribly convicing.
So today its a mountain, will your grandchildren be telling us that its in a far off galaxy (just interpret the ark as being a spaceship) when this is debunked/explained? When will the "gappers" stand-down and not take some ancient script as fact, but as interpration of events through the eyes of highly religious and uneducated peoples?
During the Ice Age, Ryan and Pitman argue, the Black Sea was an isolated freshwater lake surrounded by farmland. ? About 12,000 years ago, toward the end of the Ice Age, Earth began growing warmer. Vast sheets of ice that sprawled over the Northern Hemisphere began to melt. Oceans and seas grew deeper as a result. ? About 7,000 years ago the Mediterranean Sea swelled. Seawater pushed northward, slicing through what is now Turkey. ? Funneled through the narrow Bosporus, the water hit the Black Sea with 200 times the force of Niagara Falls. Each day the Black Sea rose about six inches (15 centimeters), and coastal farms were flooded. ? Seared into the memories of terrified survivors, the tale of the flood was passed down through the generations and eventually became the Noah story. from: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/fram e.html
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
However, W. F. Libby, inventor of radiocarbon dating, thought that the samples that were tested had been contaminated by their surroundings, and by the rate of decay in high altitude. So nothing has been conclusively shown either way.
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
I don't think that writer of the CNN article has --ahem-- RTFB. (Sorry bout that.) In Genesis 8:4 it says that the ark "rested upon the mountains of Ararat." (NASB) Ergo, it did not necessarily rest upon the particular peak that we call "Mount Ararat", but rather upon one of the peaks in that region.
I'll take you to the ball, Barbara Manitee!!!
The space.com have the satellite image of the object that they suspect the Noah Ark. The enlarge imagecan be seen here.
High altitude doesn't effect the decay rate (other than minuscule relativistic effects related to being further outside the gravity well of planet Earth).
Okay, I don't think it's right to say evolution is a "doctrine", because it's not. In fact, why would the Church even need to comment on it? Regardless of where we came from, the Church's mission is to evangelize the Good News, etc.
But more to the point, the Church certainly recognizes that even if evolution is true, it does not contradict our belief.
My comment: It doesn't affect me, the prostitute or homeless on the street, the people in Iraq, or anyone with any worry in her life whether or not evolution is true! We just want lasting peace, which only Christ can provide.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm):
Passing now to the theory of evolution as a philosophical speculation, the history of the plant and animal kingdoms upon our globe is but a small part of the history of the entire earth. Similarly, the geological development of our earth constitutes but a small part of the history of the solar system and of the universe. The theory of evolution as a philosophical conception considers the entire history of the cosmos as an harmonious development, brought about by natural laws. This conception is in agreement with the Christian view of the universe. God is the Creator of heaven and earth. If God produced the universe by a single creative act of His will, then its natural development by laws implanted in it by the Creator is to the greater glory of His Divine power and wisdom. St. Thomas says: "The potency of a cause is the greater, the more remote the effects to which it extends." (Summa c. Gent., III, c. lxxvi); and Suarez: "God does not interfere directly with the natural order, where secondary causes suffice to produce the intended effect" (De opere sex dierum, II, c. x, n. 13). In the light of this principle of the Christian interpretation of nature, the history of the animal and vegetable kingdoms on our planet is, as it were, a versicle in a volume of a million pages in which the natural development of the cosmos is described, and upon whose title-page is written: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."
And the source of these comments would be???
h tml states that Carbon 14 dating is useless for objects more than 70,000 years old, because the half-life of C14 is 5730 years. The article goes on in some depth about dating old things, in direct contradiction to your comment.
It's not enough to simple make a statement like this - back it up with proof - a URL, a citation, whatever - so I can go to the same source as you and read that comment myself.
For example, http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.
Its *not* a uniform event. The production rates of carbon-14 vary over time due to flucuations in cosmic ray output of the Sun. That is the reason that we are currently not at equilibrium (production of carbon-14 equals decay). Of course creationists like to use the fact that we aren't at equilibrium to claim that the earth couldn't be more than 30,000 years old by extrapolating back using the *current* production rates, while convieniently ignoring the fact that rates change. Anyway, we have a method for finding out what the production rates were in the past and using that to correct our dating. That method is to date objects that we know the age of, such as fossilized trees where we can date each ring separately, or core samples from certain lakes where there are periodic sedimentation layers.
> If you hypothesize a flatter planet then it seems definitely possible that the whole of it could be covered with water, assuming that your hypothesis holds.
No need to investigate further, then. The science of geology has already discredited a flatter planet.
here's you calculation
Radius of earth = 6371Km = 6.371e6 metres
Surface area of earth = 1.7e14 metres^2
height half way up Ararat = 2590 metres
Volume of water needed to cover surface of earth to this level = 4.4e17m^3.
Volume of water held in atmosphere = 1.3e13 metres^3
Volume of water on land or frozen in ice sheets (almost all of this is in the latter) = 3.3e16 metres^3.
So even if all of the water on the planet fell as rain, you'd still only have about a tenth as much to get you half way up Ararat.
The legend of the Ark is not solely a Christian tradition! Refer to Surah 11 of the Qu'ran
011.040 (Thus it was) till, when Our commandment came to pass and the oven gushed forth water, We said: Load therein two of every kind, a pair (the male and female), and thy household, save him against whom the word hath gone forth already, and those who believe. And but a few were they who believed with him.
011.041 And he said: Embark therein! In the name of Allah be its course and its mooring. Lo! my Lord is Forgiving, Merciful.
011.042 And it sailed with them amid waves like mountains, and Noah cried unto his son - and he was standing aloof - O my son! Come ride with us, and be not with the disbelievers.
011.043 He said: I shall betake me to some mountain that will save me from the water. (Noah) said: This day there is none that saveth from the commandment of Allah save him on whom He hath had mercy. And the wave came in between them, so he was among the drowned.
011.044 And it was said: O earth! Swallow thy water and, O sky! be cleared of clouds! And the water was made to subside. And the commandment was fulfilled. And it (the ship) came to rest upon (the mount) Al-Judi and it was said: A far removal for wrongdoing folk!
Link for further reading: Surah 11 at Islam.tc
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Canada built a space needle, it has as far as I can tell no practicle purpose what-so-ever, but they built it to have a really tall building I think.
That'd be wrong.
"Defining the Toronto skyline, the CN Tower is Canada's most recognizable and celebrated icon. At a height of 553.33m (1,815 ft., 5 inches), it is the World's Tallest Building, an important telecommunications hub, and the centre of tourism in Toronto."
"Although the CN Tower inspires a sense of pride and inspiration for Canadians and a sense of awe for tourists, its origins are firmly rooted in practicality. The construction boom in Toronto in the 1960's transformed the skyline characterized by relatively low buildings into one dotted with skyscrapers. These new buildings caused serious communication problems. With its microwave receptors at 338 m (1,109 ft.) and 553.33m (1,815 ft., 5 inches) antenna, the CN Tower swiftly solved the communication problems with room to spare. As a result people living in the Toronto area now enjoy some of the clearest reception in North America."
Information from the official CN Tower website.
Now onto the fun. If you go ahead and actually read Genesis 7, instead of listening to what your minister/priest told you, you'll find two complete stories completey interwoven with different details. It is believed that there were two main authors of Genesis, one from Judea in the south, and one from Israel in the north. Convienently, they used different names for God (Yahweh and Elohim). The King James Version, thankfully, keeps these names separate by referring them to as "the Lord" and "God". Which makes separating the two flood stories a little easier.
In one version, "God" asks for two of every animal, and they go on the ark two by two. So far so good, right? But it then says the rains kept up for 150 days. And what kind of bird brings back the olive branch proving the land is appearing again? A raven.
The next version, with "the Lord", fills in the gaps we're all used to. In this version, seven pairs of animals are to be loaded up (!?). But it then rains for the familiar 40 days and 40 nights. And then Noah sends out a dove, which returns with the branch.
So the version we learn is a simple hybrid of the two stories that were almost certainly written by different authors at different times.
Sure, one of the stories could be true, but it is most likely based on an older flood myth. From what I've heard, many religions have a flood story, so some people believe there was a great flood, but we just don't have enough evidence.
Before repeating quotes you have heard, what you might want to do is check with someone who actually can read the Greek of that passage you quote from John 19:30. So here's how the NIV translates verse 30:
"When he had received the drink, Jesus said, 'It is finished.' With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."
Here's the actual Greek:
"Hote oun elaben to oxos ho Iêsous eipen, Tetelestai, kai klinas tên kephalên paredôken to pneuma."
And here's a word for word translation of the Koine:
"When therefore he took the sour wine the Jesus said, It has finished, and bowing the head he gave up the spirit."
A more fluid, still literal, English translation would yield the following:
"Therefore, when he took the sour wine Jesus said, "It is finished," and bowing his head he gave up his spirit."
For your information, let me fully parse the word and account for why it is the way it is. The word translated into, "It is finished," tetelestai, is a perfect tense middle/passive voice (though in this case it must be passive since there's no object implied or otherwise), third person singular, indicative mood from the verb teleô. The verb teleô has many meanings, so here's a list from the Liddell & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon: "I. (1) to complete, fulfill, accomplish: generally, to perform, execute, Lat. perficere -- Pass. to be completed, fulfilled, accomplished: to come to pass, happen; (2) to make perfect, bring to maturity; (3) to bring to an end, finish, end: in Pass. to come to one's end; (4) sometimes intr. like teleutoô, to come to an end, be fulfilled, turn out. II. (1) to pay one's dues or taxes, to pay as tax, duty, due: generally to lay out, spend; (2) to be rated or assessed, to belong to, be classed among. III. to consecrate, initiate, Pass. to have oneself initiated." So yes, it *can* mean "the debt is paid," but I would argue against that for several reasons. First of all, in the account, Jesus is dying and his ministry up to his death is finished. Most logically it seems that his work on the earth before death is being referred to here. Secondly, the words "the debt" do not appear in the Greek text, so the Greek would have to be rendered "It is paid," not "the debt is paid," to be completely literal. Furthermore within the immediately surrounding context, no mention is made of debt. Finally, from a strictly Christian theological perspective, the debt had not been paid by that point, since Jesus had not suffered the pain of death, the subsequent descent into hell, and his resulting resurrection.
One other point to be made would be that it is relatively difficult to translate the Greek perfect into English, since their perfect tense is said with the viewpoint of the speaker now speaking about the ramifications of an action having occurred in the past. So a verb in the perfect tense does *not* refer to the past action, but actually to the present state/consequences. For example, take the verb lambanô, which means "I take." In the aorist, elabon, it means "I took." However, the perfect, eilêpha, can mean "I have taken" or just simply "I have" since if you have taken something, speaking about the current state now, you actually have it in your posession.
So feel free to take what I've said as you will. I can assure you, though, that the translation "it is finished" is at least as valid as "the debt is paid" if not a more accepted translation of what Jesus says.
By the way, all this comes by means of analysis from myself, a second year Greek student at the University of Illinois, so you could probably ask most people who know Greek and they could confirm what I have written here.
God bless,
Kyle Johnson
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
"In one story God smote with fire, the other with rain, both plentiful elemental forces, leading me to suspect these stories have even older roots than the bible."
I forget all of the details, but the story of the great flood originates from either the Babylonian or Sumerian mythos, long before Xianity. Most of the Xian stories from the Black Book of Fairy Tales originate from older religions in a similar fashion. But, then again, most older religions "borrowed" their tales from even older mythos as well.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'Lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
The reason nobody can find it is because it's probably not there. The modern mountains in Turkey were named from the account in the Bible as people thought that was the place, but in actuality the real location isn't known for sure. It's just the "traditional" site. Just like Mount Sinai is actually just across the Red Sea in Saudi Arabia. But anyway, that's just my opinion, for some interesting research look at:
/ /www.noahsarksearch.com/iran.htm
http://www.ldolphin.org/franz-sinai.html
http:
I know you shouldn't feed the trolls, but I'll bite..
I must say I'm surprised there weren't any dinosaur questions.
On one of the modern expeditions (1980's) men brought back wood which appeared to match the ark specs which was taken from near the historically reported site.
The first pieces of hand-tooled wood found on Mt. Ararat were discovered in 1953 by Ferdinand Navarra. He returned to the site in 1954 and 1955 bringing back a sample on the latter expedition. This piece of wood was lignite dated (a method of dating used before current carbon-14 methods) to be approximately 5,000 years old. The only problem with lignite dating is that it's horribly inaccurate. Modern dating results for this sample were obtained by five different labs all with similar conclusions: the wood is from the seventh century CE. There was a great deal of controversy at the time about the assumptions that went into these five tests, but the results still stand. If you wish to read more on Navarra's discrediting then a simple Google search should suffice.
The second pieces of hand-tooled wood found on Mt. Ararat were discovered in 1984 by George Jammal. Jammal did visit Mt. Ararat in 1980, but his expedition was unsuccessful. This piece of wood has been carbon-14 dated to be only 2,000 years old. Again, there is controversy surrounding the assumptions used in the dating process. Jammal's story isn't quite right, either. Should the reader be so inclined, a Google search will turn up more information on his discrediting.
This wood is of a species not living today and similar to cypress which lives nowhere near the mountain now.
The piece of wood is not only of a species of tree that is living today, but it is also not a cypress tree. The 1984 wood sample is from a type of oak tree that is found in abundance today. What makes people think it is "not living today" is that this tree is not currently found on Mt. Ararat. The closest place one could find this tree is approximately 300 km away. However, local records, whether verbally passed or written I'm not sure, indicate that Mt. Ararat was a heavily forested area sometime around 200 to 300 years ago. It is feasible that this species of oak was found on the mountain during that time period.
I am not aware of any other wood samples being brought back from expedition.
It is of the proper carbon dated age range and has the proper machining marks to match.
As stated earlier, the carbon-14 dating used on this second wood sample showed it to be only 2,000 years old. This places the "great flood" and the ark firmly in the age of the Roman Empire. I'm quite certain Caesar would have noted something like this in his records. As for machining marks, I can't argue with you on that. The machining marks have been verified to be from bronze-age hand-tools - the kind a poor community during the early first century CE would use.
I sincerely doubt that even if the ark is found and is substantially intact that it will change any hearts or minds. The Atheists will remain adamant that it is a fabrication. The Biblical scholars will argue as usual and the Islamic nuts will...
The reason nothing will change is because nothing is proven. The existence of the ark would no more prove that God exists than it would prove that Moore's Law will be broken. The only thing a discovery like this would prove is that a large ark that possibly housed animals was built. It may or may not have "landed" on Mt. Ararat. There is absolutely no concrete evidence to show that this mountain was once submerged. If it was, one should be able to find large amounts of sea salts, pillow lava, water-formed sediments, and/or fossiliforous rocks. Only pillow lava is reported to be on the mountain. However, geologists have not performed an exhaustive study of these formations, and many experts claim that it is not pillow lava at all.
Recent expeditions found the anchor stones from it in the proper region for them to have been dropped.
These expeditions were to the regions surrounding Mt. Ararat. The searchers discovered large stone blo
"If it comes from a source that I think is credible,"
then you believe it. The word "belief" doesn't automatically invoke religion. I believe that when I go out into the parking lot my car will be sitting there because the battery is dead. I have no *proof* of this, my car could have been towed or stolen or destroyed. But I believe that it will be in the parking lot when I walk out the door. So far I'm batting 1000.
"A scientist *thinks* that the earth is round, because somebody else explained it and it makes sense."
OK, now I see the problem. You have a semantic hangup with the word "believe". Fine, use the word "think". It's the same thing. If you *think* something is true, then you believe it to be true. And if you believe something to be true, it's because you think that it's true. Christians *think* the Bible makes sense, this is the same thing as saying they believe it.
And let's not forget that the actual scientist thinks that the Earth is round because of measurements and observations he's made. You, having heard the scientist and found him credible, choose to *believe* what he is saying, since you didn't make these measurements and observations and have no first-hand scientific knowledge that would lead you to that conclusion independantly.
Face it man, a vast portion of who you are is what you've been told. When you were five, did you not cross the street without looking both ways because you had personally experimented and obtained unfavorable results - or did you *believe* your mother when she told you it was a bad idea? Did you personally try talking to the nice stranger in the trenchcoat with the candy and find out through personal experimentation that he was a child molestor - or did you *believe* your parents and teachers when they told you he was a sicko? We all hold that murder is wrong (hopefully) not because we've tried it and been dissatisfied with the results, but because other people who have been involved with actual murders tell us it tends to not work out too well, and we choose to *believe* them. We subscribe to the theory of relativity not because we've proved it ourselves - we *believe* Einstein.
There are two sources of knowledge in the world - what you prove yourself to be true and what you accept from others to be true.
That's why, when asked a question to which one might not definately know the answer but is pretty sure, a common response is "I believe so", or "I believe not". Those are not inherently religious statements.
Anybody who tells anybody anything is either believed, disbelieved, or held in reserve judgement. (assuming they speak the same language, have the same mental capacity, blah blah blah).
Don't like the word? Don't use it. But it has a well-established meaning completely divorced from faith or religion. But hey, look it up yourself, don't *believe* me...
They will never stop until somebody makes the
In the case of the scientist believing that the world is round, the scientist is not taking this fact on faith - it's an explanation that makes sense and that meshes well with everything else that the scientist has seen and learned about the world around him. The scientist accepts it as true and works from there, until he learns otherwise. In the case of a religous person believing in the bible, believing that God dumped a miraculous amount of water on the planet requires absolute faith. It requires believing in something that *cannot* be tested, that is outside of the bounds of the observable universe. That's a very different kind of belief, and I would argue that it's not a very useful tool for living in the universe.
In my previous post I was purposely using a narrow definition of the word in order to make my point, but I suppose that just makes my point confusing.
You say that all knowledge comes from yourself or from others, which I agree with. You also say that anything you hear from others is either believed or not believed. This statement I either agree with or disagree with, depending on which definition of "believe" you are using.
It's the difference between "I believe that's a storm blowing in." and "I believe in ghosts." You hear people make the claim that everything requires belief, but they don't qualify what kind of belief they're talking about. I assume they mean the second (I believe in ghosts) kind of belief, in which case they're wrong. I can apply the scientific method and easily come up with evidence that such and such a scientific article is "believable." I highly doubt that any amount of effort could produce scientific evidence of ghosts. If it did, then ghosts would be outside of the realm of the second-kind-of-belief (see above), and faith would no longer be required to "believe" in them. In other words, nothing that is actually real (interacts with the universe) requires second-kind-of-belief for justification.
Now you see why I like to use only one of the definitions of "believe!" Maybe we need another word... in fact, we probably already have one. Maybe there's a better way to put it?
[javac] 100 errors