"Just a theory" negation has me concerned with how that word is typically used

[peacewithoutgod]

You likely know of the negation for the Xtian argument "evolution is just a theory". It's meaningless because theories aren't just ideas, they are rigorously-tested explanations for how elements of fact interact with each other. Math and music are understood facts, our theories on them and evolution explain how they work, and are tested via demonstrations of how well they consistently work when applied. Any idea not tested would just be a hypothesis.

So, today I decided to indulge my curiosity on the Dead Sea scrolls, and on the Wikipedia page I saw numerous "theories" regarding their origin, when they were produced, and who wrote them. The referential titles of these ideas were apparently assigned by historians, all containing that word "theory", although they were probably assigned before most of them were eventually falsified. Shouldn't the word "theory" be restricted to matters of proven fact, rather than somebody's untested hypothesis? With this sort of linguistic confusion running rampant, it only makes the job of the religious apologist easier.

I'd love to know what your thoughts are on this.

[Baruch]

The discussion is probably better under the regular religion section ... either Christian or General.

It is a common habit, particularly in English, to use vocabulary in a causal way, like casually running over pedestrians with your car.

The extra-Biblical literature, which includes the Dead Sea Scrolls .. are a fascinating if specialized topic.  Maybe ask something specific under the General Religion category.

[peacewithoutgod]

The discussion is probably better under the regular religion section ... either Christian or General.

It is a common habit, particularly in English, to use vocabulary in a causal way, like casually running over pedestrians with your car.

The extra-Biblical literature, which includes the Dead Sea Scrolls .. are a fascinating if specialized topic.  Maybe ask something specific under the General Religion category.

Well, I'm sure this is a question which is better to ask in a more specialized section, but I came to this forum curious (frustrated with the blog zoo), and the rules say I can only post here for my first 10 posts. Counting down...

Anyway, the Dead Sea Scrolls, on which little if anything appears to be conclusive, are just an example how the word "theory" seems to be used inconsistently. I'm concerned that this is causing too much confusion over what that word's definition really is, and then I'm not really sure that I can know for sure what it really is.

[Baruch]

Keeping things general ... there is a whole history of the canonization of scripture by the various pre-Constantinian movements, and by the eventual State Church established in somewhat fractured form in the 4th century.  The official transcript of the debates are the pre-Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers .... but there are all sorts of non-canonical material left out by the rabbis and priests, that is both before and after the historical Paul (if we can take him as the first really substantial Christian we can name).  Pseudepigraphy not withstanding, at least some of the Pauline corpus is reasonably Pauline, if edited ... and is earlier than any official Gospel.  So a Christian theologian would respond ... these questions have already been settled centuries ago.

So if you already exclude part of the genuine pre-Constantine writings ... Jewish or Christian ... then the official canon is "just theory" too .. just a very old one.  Papias was the first Church Father to try to do an investigation along your lines ... but his definition of theory was pretty casual to say the least.

So do you want the Greek definition of "theory" or the modern one ... that is a problem talking in English.

[peacewithoutgod]

I think the Greeks can use their own language however they wish to, and that the rest of the world need not defer to their choices just because modern languages contain derivatives of theirs in its oldest form. Most English-speaking people today are incapable of comprehending 12th Century English, and the definitions of that language's words have morphed significantly well inside of the past 100 years. I'm only concerned that in order for rational secularists to be able to effectively communicate reason to those who have the buzzards of faith circling over their heads, it will be important that we also work with linguists to tighten up our own language so that it will be used more consistently. Not sure that can happen, but what do you think on that?

[Baruch]

An example ... "doxa" means opinion, not truth.  And "ortho" means proper ... so "orthodoxy" means proper opinion ... not proper truth.  The ancients didn't argue scientifically, they argued legalistically, whether rabbi or Roman.  Roman jurisprudence, such as that perfected by Cicero, is the kind of reasoning they meant by being reasonable.  As it says in trials today ... "beyond a reasonable doubt" ... but there was no science in Roman trials, or for many centuries after.  The promoters of orthodoxy have been pissing in the well of thought and speech.  So a "doxa" is just a conjecture ... as is "theoria".  One of the means of arguing in a Roman court was that of "authority" and "writings".  Of course the judge had all the authority, and the "writings" were the law code and legal tradition built upon that law code (the litany of judgements at trial).  In a Roman court they had "condemno" and "damno" ... to be condemned meant you were found guilty (whether or not you actually did it or not ... but the bad karma had to be expiated somehow or bring down the wrath of the gods) ... but you aren't given the maximum sentence.  To be damned means you are guilty but you get the maximum sentence.  Theodicy is "god's justice" ... which has been a problem for theologians at all times.

In my personal experience, G-d is both human and inhumane, blessing and cursing, loving and hating.  That is also confirmed by some verses in the Bible.  But the idea of an all loving G-d can either be seen as a contradiction of that, or something that has to be seen in a greater light.  I don't believe in G-d, I know G-d ... but that doesn't mean I like G-d.  I find G-d rather monstrous.  For some that is reason to disbelieve.  I would like to disbelieve in nuclear weapons, but I don't think my belief is going to make any difference.  Nuclear weapons are both real and monstrous.  The invention of these weapons caused some people, at the time, to lose their faith ... because they couldn't put a square severity in a round mercy.

Well secular jargon already exists, in philosophical circles.  Unfortunately language is like a giant plate of spaghetti, where you can't find the ends, so we cut all up into little pieces, like Alexander with the Gordian Knot ... but then we can't find the "original" ends, can we.

[SGOS]

When theists say "evolution is just a theory" they imply that theories by definition, can't be facts, that theories do not explain the observed phenomena, and that they are not subject to testing.  Whether you agree that these things are part of the definition of theory or not, isn't really that important.  The statement is an obfuscation, attempting to discredit science and put science on equal footing with religion.

But while they attempt to discredit, they do nothing to bolster their own speculations about creation, which can be nothing more than just another theory (this assumes that their "only a theory" meaning is correct; which it is not).  Whether you accept creationism or not, it does none of the things they imply scientific theory doesn't do.  There's no testing, no falsification, no explanation of all the observed phenomena.  Creationism remains no more than an untested idea, or by their definition, just another "stupid" theory.

But the creationist now feels better because he has misled himself into believing he has said something meaningful.

[TomFoolery]

It is a common habit, particularly in English, to use vocabulary in a causal way, like casually running over pedestrians with your car.

This. Sort of like when I hear the word "proof" I think of mathematics and how that's very different than say for example a legal definition of proof. When Christians try to pull the "evolution is just a theory BS" on me, I usually counter with "Well, so is gravity." Hell, biological cell theory is "just a theory", but I don't walk around pretending people are actually made of Hershey's kisses. I think the biggest part in attempting to get through and make a scientific point is to point out how dismissive the word "just" is in that sentence, like saying the Bible is "just a book." Even as an atheist, I wouldn't call it that. I might call it a manual of destruction and oppression whereas a Christian might call it divine, but either way, it's not "just a book."

[Baruch]

The Hershey Kiss theory has some backing ... white chocolate, brown chocolate ... but more brown numerically ;-)  The Aztecs used cocoa beans as money ... and we know how important money is to people.

[peacewithoutgod]

In my personal experience, G-d is both human and inhumane, blessing and cursing, loving and hating.  That is also confirmed by some verses in the Bible.  But the idea of an all loving G-d can either be seen as a contradiction of that, or something that has to be seen in a greater light.  I don't believe in G-d, I know G-d ... but that doesn't mean I like G-d.  I find G-d rather monstrous.  For some that is reason to disbelieve.  I would like to disbelieve in nuclear weapons, but I don't think my belief is going to make any difference.  Nuclear weapons are both real and monstrous.  The invention of these weapons caused some people, at the time, to lose their faith ... because they couldn't put a square severity in a round mercy.

Nuclear weapons are a proven reality. Gods, not so much, not a one of them. The existence of life speaks for no intelligent design whatsoever. Humans design from the top down, because this makes the best sense when you actually are designing something with a purpose. Our lives are short, but the earth had all of 4.8 billion years to produce life as it exists today from the bottom up, as genetic analysis reveals it happened. Bottom-up design is no design at all It all fell into existence through a long chain of endless repetitions of colliding atoms, until self-repeating chain reactions were launched to produce life. The survivors in the game of life correct past mistakes, relative to the demands of current environmental and geographic factors. That it happened this way is the only good explanation for the common genes which we share with everything else which has or had genetic material, even at the lowest level. There was time, and in the case of the Earth there were the right materials and energy levels. Somewhere along the genetic line something very rare and unusual happened, so that now we can be here to ponder and discuss it all, but that still proves nothing on anybody's claims to any extraterrestrial, much less supernatural design and execution.

[Solitary]

Facts are things that don't change with any belief. But how do we really know what the facts are with speculation on unknowns? Is the world we live in real, or just a creation of our minds, same for gods, God, or any other hypothetical question. I prefer to live in the world of objective reality, not the world of my imagination, with fears, and hopes wanting my mommy and daddy to comfort me, and decide what is best for me. I want to be able to make mistakes and learn from them, and I don't need absolute knowledge to live my life to the fullest, only the freedom to do so. Speculating on the unknowable is a waste of time, and using it for your life is foolish.

[Baruch]

More adults would enjoy imaginary stories if our parents had done a better job at parenting.  The product of nuclear weapons are the horrific result of human imagination ... plus some basic physics that humans had to exploit.  So no intelligent creation indeed ... but stupid creation maybe ... both human and divine.  Without evil monkeys opposable thumbs and big brains, there would be no nuclear weapons, or do you think that dolphins could build them underwater using flippers?  Evolution, as a synonym for change, produced nuclear weapons, using humans as intermediaries.  Of course one could personalize this as Gaia .. but most here prefer to worship quantum mechanics (the bulk of modern physics) ;-)  We are much like the degenerate telepaths of the 2nd Planet of the Apes movie, who worshipped the Omega bomb.  I find no rationality in the fact that humans are the way they are, however derivative we may be from our own biosphere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peHEOgiQgnI

[Mike Cl]

More adults would enjoy imaginary stories if our parents had done a better job at parenting.  The product of nuclear weapons are the horrific result of human imagination ... plus some basic physics that humans had to exploit.  So no intelligent creation indeed ... but stupid creation maybe ... both human and divine.  Without evil monkeys opposable thumbs and big brains, there would be no nuclear weapons, or do you think that dolphins could build them underwater using flippers?  Evolution, as a synonym for change, produced nuclear weapons, using humans as intermediaries.  Of course one could personalize this as Gaia .. but most here prefer to worship quantum mechanics (the bulk of modern physics) ;-)  We are much like the degenerate telepaths of the 2nd Planet of the Apes movie, who worshipped the Omega bomb.  I find no rationality in the fact that humans are the way they are, however derivative we may be from our own biosphere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peHEOgiQgnI

I follow what you say here, Baruch.  But that word 'worship'--interesting word.  What does that mean to you?  I like to think I don't worship.  Anything.  Okay, baseball and ice cream maybe, and my cat that passed--nothing else.  There is nothing to worship.  I have interest  in and respect for much.  Physics and cosmology are two such things.  I like to follow the explanations they offer; but with the understanding that those explanations can and often do change.  On the other hand, god never changes--and that seems quite odd.  Why would a never changing entity create something that never stops changing????  I just cannot stretch my mind around something unseen, unmeasurable, unknowable.    Especially when accepting the unseen as being real would not enhance any part of my life, but would make it much less rich.

[Baruch]

Shadow boxing straw deities?  Why is G-d changeless?  I see no reason to agree to that theological joke.  G-d as manifested in the human imagination for example, is as varied as the humans and constantly changing in each individual as each individual changes.  Heraclitus and Xenophanes trump Thales and Pythagoras ;-)  But the wrong answer by Thales and Pythagoras was pragmatically more useful, eventually.

Worship is such a loaded word.  Most people don't worship anything or anyone ... and that may be OK.  I find worship to be a kind of mania.  So I agree with you, at least today, I don't worship anything or anyone either.  Of course that may be because as an old guy I am simply burnt out, too tired to be a fanatic.

[peacewithoutgod]

More adults would enjoy imaginary stories if our parents had done a better job at parenting.  The product of nuclear weapons are the horrific result of human imagination ... plus some basic physics that humans had to exploit.  So no intelligent creation indeed ... but stupid creation maybe ... both human and divine.  Without evil monkeys opposable thumbs and big brains, there would be no nuclear weapons, or do you think that dolphins could build them underwater using flippers?  Evolution, as a synonym for change, produced nuclear weapons, using humans as intermediaries.  Of course one could personalize this as Gaia .. but most here prefer to worship quantum mechanics (the bulk of modern physics) ;-)  We are much like the degenerate telepaths of the 2nd Planet of the Apes movie, who worshipped the Omega bomb.  I find no rationality in the fact that humans are the way they are, however derivative we may be from our own biosphere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peHEOgiQgnI

Dammit Baruch, now you are stooping to the red herring tactics employed (and never missed by any single free thinker, agnostic or atheist ever) by the proselytizing trolls which have been coming around here! Do you really think anybody misses the fact that it took a lot of intelligence to create the first nuclear weapon, and that design had nothing to do with the questionable intelligence behind the executive decision to use it on the Japanese? Up until now I've regarded you as above the use of such manipulations.