Talk:Biblical scientific foresight/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

If you want to respond to something specific in the archives, please wikilink to the section or copy the relevant argument.

Contents


New name

Well, Ken, you're showing your ignorance of Wikipedia rules again, by moving a page visited by many without any consultation or whatnot. It isn't your page, so at least ask if anyone wants it moved before you do it, OK? Incidentally, I don't particularly like the new name, and think the old one was equally NPOV.--Scimitar parley 16:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Beware Herodotus accounts of Egyptians

Here something I wrote at CreationWiki:

It appears as if the ancient Egyptians practiced circumcision although it appears not to be clear when they first began this practice and the origins of it and if it ever was widespread (The ancient historian Herodotus is one of the sources, but it appears as if Herodotus's value as a historical source has been questioned due to the possible existence of a pseudo Herodotus who mistakenly refers to the Egyptians as "black skinned, wooly-haired and circumcised" according to Jim Reilly author of Nebuchadnezzar & the Egyptian Exile. [1][2] See also: O. Kimball Armayor, "Did Herodotus Ever Go to Egypt?" Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 15 (1980) 59-71).[3][4][5]. In short, skeptics cannot show the Jews adopted circumcision as a result of Egyptian influence (circumcision appears to be benefical medically overall which will be commented on later).


ken 16:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

  • I tend to agree with those discrediting Herodotus' accounts. His description of the Battle of Thermopylae was wrought with apparent inaccuracy, and as a historical source he must be taken with a grain of salt.--Scimitar parley 17:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I tend to think that the amount of attention given to pointing out deficiencies in ancient Egyptian medicine is excessive in the current revision. If you hold both the Hebrew and Egyptian bodies of knowledge to the same standard, you see that they both have flaws and are lacking in a number of areas. Just as we are not here to fight the battle on the accuracy of ancient Hebrew medicine, likewise we should not do this for the Egyptian. I shall remove some cruft in order to advance this goal.

On "scholarly caution"

This section is not needed. This topic does not need any more warning about due diligence than any other controversial topics, and Wikipedia does not include special warnings to this effect on similar articles. I will remove this section. The Hokkaido Crow 18:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Organization of this article

In an effort to help this become more of a documentation piece and not a persuasion piece, I will organize the example claims under a single heading. The Hokkaido Crow 18:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to add some organization to the article. What I've done is: 1) Grouped related topics. 2) Removed "biblical view" wording from headings, as it should be clear from the article context that these are biblical. 3) Categorized the various beliefs by discipline. The article is still in pretty chaotic shape, but I think this is an improvement. The Hokkaido Crow 19:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The next thing I think is important is to organize each BSF belief paragraph so that the relevant scripture is the first, or very close to the first thing in the paragraph, followed by a brief description of what foresight is supposedly described by that scripture. The Hokkaido Crow 19:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag restored

I have restored the NPOV tag, which was removed by anonymous User:128.205.191.118 with no attempt to seek consensus. I will not speak for other users, but I still see significant neutrality problems in the article. Sometimes people will step back from an article just to let a contentious environment cool down before resuming work, but do not take this to mean that all disputes have been conceded. And I am pretty sure that the much-needed cleanup of this article carries a risk of aggravating these disputes. The Hokkaido Crow 18:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Next: Public health and hygeine

The next thing I think should be done is pick up the scattered pieces of health and hygeine, associate them with their respective scriptures, and cut out the excessive description of what modern medicine believes about these things. For example, the dangers of infectious disease are well-known, scientifically proven, and documented, there is no need to have several paragraphs reviewing notable historical losses due to poor sanitation. The Hokkaido Crow 14:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The day of rest

Okay, granted, the weekend's a great thing, but somehow I'm not seeing this as something that confirms divine inspiration or Biblical inerrancy. In point-of-fact, I can't see how it even fits this topic. Comments?--Scimitar parley 20:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

to: scimitar
I suggest looking up the medical historian reference given. Also, you could consult some medical/exercise science experts. Hebrew slaves got a full day off. According the medical historian cited it was an innovation that benefitted humanity greatly. (unsigned user)
A couple of things on this topic... first to Scimitar, we don't need to demonstrate exactly how something is biblical scientific foreknowledge. We only need to document the relevant scripture and document what scientific precept people believe that it foresees. Second, to unsigned user: The opinion of a single medical historian does not conclusively represent the entire body of scientific knowledge. We need to state what scientific concept is believed to be foreseen, not that some obscure historian thinks it is "one of the greatest benefits to humanity". That is an opinion, not a scientific fact. If you want to talk about the scientific benefits of rest and stress reduction, there is probably an abundance of neutral, scientific information out there for you to find. 72.15.120.212 11:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Unsigned user: Due to technical issues in Wikipedia, users need to follow conventions in comments so that it is clear who is writing what. Please keep these 4 things in mind: 1) Don't introduce empty lines in your comments. 2) It is not necessary to put a "to:" line in your comments, but if you do so, don't put it on its own line. If you put a colon character ":" at the beginning of the line, it will create an indentation that will clearly show who you are replying to. 3) Please conform to Wikipedia standards by signing your work by using four tildes (like this: ~~~~) following your comments, to differentate one comment from another. 4) Also, please consider using a username so that you can be distinguished from other users. 72.15.120.212 11:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Of course you have to log in to Wikipedia before your username will be shown (The above is my mistake) The Hokkaido Crow 11:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, it may have benefitted humanity greatly, but I don't see a scientific reference lauding the medical benefits of one day off. My main point, though, is that this is hardly evidence of BSF, and yes, actually, we have to show that it's somehow connected to BSF for it to be included. I don't see a scientific precept foreseen by the Sabbath, unless we now count the weekend as a scientific precept. One further point: the burden of proof is on the person who included it, not on me.--Scimitar parley 14:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
We don't have to prove whether or not the "day of rest" is actual BSF. The purpose of this article isn't to re-fight the scientific battles, it's just to document a religious belief. Of course, the belief has to be documented and textually present elsewhere... if not, then it's original research and will have to be removed. 72.15.123.191 16:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
So is there some kind of reference (anywhere?) presenting this day of rest as BSF? Or a reference referring to the scientific research about the benefits of the day off? If I can see one, I'll drop it.--Scimitar parley 18:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Karl Sudhoff is a well known medical historian. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1954/JASA6-54Knudsen2.html He is quoted by BSF people. For example, I cite this website here http://www.godstruth.org/chap08
I see the non-BSF people raising objections but without doing their homework. Is Karl Sudhoff obscure like one person claimed? If so, then why does Wikipedia in Germany have a whole bio on him? Both sides have a burden of proof. The non-BSF people who claim non-BSF and the BSF people who claim BSF. ken 03:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

And does he say that the day of rest has some kind of benefit scientifically? That's all I want to see. As of now, nobody has shown me a reference. And ken, given your track record of questioning contributions, you should have no trouble attributing your material.--Scimitar parley 14:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Read this Cambridge source about fatigue/disease/day of rest. [6] But if you wish to peruse the sports/physiology literature about days of rest please feel free to do so.ken 01:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
The Law of Moses introduced a revolutionary new principle to conserve human strength. The Law of Moses has a provision for a weekly day of rest. (Exodus 20: 8-10). This law applied to everybody in the land including slaves. The medical historian, Karl Sudhoff, said: "Had Judaism given nothing more to mankind than the establishment of a weekly day of rest, we should still be forced to proclaim her one of the greatest benefactors of humanity." (Cecil Roth, The Jewish Contribution to Civilisation, East and West Library, London, 3rd edition, 1956). Peter Baldwin in his work Contagion and the State in Europe, 1830–1930 wrote that the day of rest given in the Pentateuch was a public hygiene measure (fatigue in a individual can make them susceptible to disease). [7] According to H. Kawato, in Japan about 10,000 worker deaths occur per year due to "death by work" (In Japan death by work is called karoshi). [8] The Ministry of Labor's Confidential Manual in Japan stated that overwork could be the cause of death only if the worker was engaged continuously for 24 hours just before death or worked at least 16 hours a day for seven consecutive days before death (Tsushin Rengou, Asahi Shinbun [Asahi Newspaper], May 19, 1990. [9] ken 18:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Delightful! Precisely what I was looking for!--Scimitar parley 15:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
This is precisely what you were looking for? None of these papers are based on scientific study. The Baldwin paper is a historical work that has exactly one sentence characterizing the ancient Mosaic law as a "public hygeine measure". This may be an accurate characterization, but it is not a scientific study endorsing a day of rest. The Sudhoff work, again, is a historical analysis, not a scientific one. The Japanese source is a Ministry of Labor confidential manual... by definition, it is most certainly not a peer-reviewed journal. We need a scientific study showing that there is a specific requirement that humans need exactly one day of rest. I am aware of a number of scientific studies that say adequate sleep and rest are needed, but none that say that the period should be exactly one full day. The Hokkaido Crow 15:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Herbivory in Lions

Came here from the RFC. I appreciate the information in this article, and I think a lot of it is very useful and helpful. For unbelievers, it illuminates the beliefs of fundamentalist Christians. Some believers will be interested in this information as well. However, I don't see how the herbivory in lions section illuminates anything. A single freak lion does not prove or disprove anything in the Bible. Nor does it meet any kind of scientific test. Let's get rid of it. Danlovejoy 22:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The Bible says one day lions will be herbivors. I gave more than Little Tyke in regards to feline evidence. Is someone excluding feline evidence here? If so, why? ken 03:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
The problem isn't just with feline evidence. The problem is with evidence in general. It needs to be understood that the point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. It is not a place for rhetorical or persuasive arguments, and it is not a place where we come to try to prove things that we think ought to be proven. There are other wikis, blogs, and message boards where you can do that. This is just an encyclopedia. Please browse through the following policies -
That being said, I'll change the lion section in a way that I think complies with Wikipedia policy, and maybe this can get it going in a useful direction. Again, it's not the problem with so-called pro-BSF evidence, it's about the use of evidence in general, on both sides. The Hokkaido Crow 13:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Lion predatory behavior

I've edited this section to remove the excess evidentiary padding, and leave it to express without judgement what is believed vs. what is known, as I have done with the "lion herbivory" section. These aren't the sections that needed the most cleanup, but I wanted people to see the format that I plan to employ before I apply it to more extensive sections. Note that there are some implied logical fallacies that I had to put in conditional language... for example, we don't know that lion kills are always made in one way or another, and we don't know that all naturalists believed a certain way before 1970. But we do know that BSF people believe these things, so that is how I have represented it. And of course, I have put the scripture first, to promote objective evaluation. The Hokkaido Crow 13:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Clarify definition of "biblical scientific foresight?"

It is somewhat difficult to edit this article without a clear definition of what constitutes "biblical scientific foresight." It seems fairly clear to me that the bible contains certain passages describing knowledge of the natural world, knowledge which has since been confirmed and described by modern science. I don't have any problem writing about these things. But if I believe that this knowledge was discovered by simple human observation of cause and effect, and not divine inspiration, am I "anti-BSF", as some have described? Is there an actual text or treatise describing what the belief of "biblical scientific foreknowledge" means, or is it just a pile of dubiously referenced quotations representing the opinions of Christian-friendly historians on the fringe of their disciplines? I guess I am hoping to see an original source describing the meaning of the "biblical scientific foreknowledge" belief - not yet another source describing why some people think it is divine. 13:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think in part the lack of a definition here is an aspect of the subject. BSF is a loose collection of opinions about the meaning and significance of various Bible verses.
The name "Biblical Scientific Foresight" (or as it was until recently: "Foreknowledge"), is something of a neologism - what we have here is a subject that is referred to, but only loosely named by its proponents. The terms used to describe the subject are influenced by the message the person is trying to convey. Sometimes it's inerrancy, sometimes divine inspiration, sometimes proof of God, sometimes a more abstract philosophical meaning, sometimes just a sense of wonder at God's works.
I was planning to do some more writing on the history of the subject, but got sidetracked by actual work. One early example I found was Harry Rimmer, who wrote "The Harmony of Science and Scripture" in 1936, and said therein:
"So then, the greatest argument for the inspiration of the Bible and the surest proof of its harmony with science would be to find in the pages of this ancient Book instance of wherein the writers anticipated the discoveries of modern science. It is possible for the careful student of science and Scripture to discover literally scores of such anticipations!"
You could take that to be some kind of early definition of BSF.
Other key early 20th century proponets were George McCready Price and later Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb. Looking at it in this context, you can see modern BSF is very closely tied to creationism and the various forms of Biblical literalism. The important "science" issues here for these people are flood geology and evolution - the rest of BSF is just window dressing. (Incidentally, doing a google search for price rimmer morris whitcomb produces some very interesting articles related to the history of this subject.)
MickWest 18:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I understand the phenomena involved in supposed BSF. My question is, is the belief in divine inspiration of the bible a central part of BSF, or is that just the most common domain of BSF? Is it sort of like how "Intelligent Design" does not specify that a god was involved (though we know that practically all of its adherents do believe this), or is it always invoked as a proof of prophecy? The article is still due for a ton of revision and de-crufting either way, but to me the definition will partially influence how this is done. The Hokkaido Crow 21:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately a "definition" here is impossible. The term Biblical Scientific Foresight/Foreknowledge is not something that is even in heavy fringe usage. I think the article is about a genuine phenomena, but it's not one that has been given a name, and certainly not BSF. There is no definition. There are hardly any articles on BSF. Personally, after researching it for some time, I wonder if a better title might be something like "Science and the Bible", or "The role of science in American Apologetics".
But, to your question, I think that proponents of BSF would purport that belief in divine inspiration was not a central part of BSF, and that the evidence of foreknowledge should stand alone. But as you imply, this is just a "wedge" approach. Clearly the historical intent of all proponents of BSF has been to push Christianity. However, we could easily amend the definition to say that SOME advocates claim it as evidence of whatever.
So what to do with the article? De-crufting is a good thing. I'd also like to put more history in there. Giving an appropriate representation of the claims would also be good.
MickWest 05:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Nocturnal emissions

We have quite a bit of repetition of a scripture which stated that men having a "nocturnal emission" must clean themselves in running water, etc. As far as I'm aware, there are neither scientists nor religious people who believe that wet dreams are a public health hazard (although some people consider it evidence of an impure mind or demon possession). Thus, it does not belong here and I shall remove it. The Hokkaido Crow

Objections, Counterobjections, and CounterCounterobjections

Notice: This section will be cleaned up severely. Sections containing objections to BSF should be the minority in this article. Thus, they will be brief, and any rebuttals to these objections will be even more brief. This is to remove the battlefield re-enactment that exist in the current revision. The Hokkaido Crow 21:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I notice that someone is now adding BSF rebuttals in the BSF sections. Previously this article was overwhelmingly biased toward a pro-evangelical POV, I do not think it should swing too far in the other direction. There are 2 very conspicuous sections devoted to the various objections, please consider expanding your objections in that space. Also, consider that not every single viewpoint needs to be rebutted in an encyclopedic article. The Hokkaido Crow 22:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Advocates and critics

This section has a serious neutrality problem... it is so frantically defending so-called BSF that it borders on nonsensical. It will be pared down to describe who the advocates and critics are, and perhaps a bit about their beliefs. The Hokkaido Crow 19:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ready to remove NPOV tag

I propose that this article has had enough POV removed that it does not require a neutrality warning. If nobody claims that consensus does not exist after a week, I will remove the NPOV tag on or after November 1, 2005. The Hokkaido Crow 14:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it. A bit early perhaps, but nobody seems to be much interested anymore. The Hokkaido Crow 14:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Article not finished after cleanup.

I have done quite a bit of cleanup of this article. In spite of all the work I did, I don't think this article is finished... I think it is at a better starting point than it was, more uncluttered and more neutral. If someone wants to flesh it out with neutral and relevant detail, be my guest. I'm not really interested enough in this bit of pseudoscience to expend much more effort on it. The Hokkaido Crow 21:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you've done on the article. I am interested, and still plan to contribute more, but I'm a bit busy right now. MickWest 01:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/b/Talk%7EBiblical_scientific_foresight_Archive_4_353e.html"