Ted Cruz picks a fight with Wikipedia, accusing platform of left-wing bias

Cruz sends letter demanding answers from Wikimedia Foundation.

See full article...

 

[Ferrin]

Wikipedia's reliable sources page is a house built on a tissue of lies.

In their first ever ban, the Daily Mail in 2017, these anonymous unqualified "editors" INSISTED over and over that if something only ever appeared in a banned source, that's going to be proof it's not relevant to Wikipedia.

Eighteen months later, and Wikipedia found itself in the business of whitewashing pedophiles. A prominent but not famous astronomer with a noteworthy public facing role, of which he said "I get to talk to school kids, which is really good fun." to a Guardian journalist, was convicted of downloading child pornography.

According to reports in both The Sun and Daily Mail (both banned by Wikipedia, despite being the first and second best selling newspapers in the UK, and famously right wing), when police raided his flat, apparently in October 2017, they found that some time between 2006 and 2009, he had been searching terms like "man boy sex" and had downloaded material including boys aged 10 having sex with adult men. He obtained his prominent role in 2008.

So what did the Wikipedia editors do? Well, turns out the "consensus" is that you can't delete his biography (even though it's only 330 words) because "notability is not temporary". But you can't update the biography with this conviction, because it's not been mentioned in a reliable source.

His employer naturally didn't broadcast the fact they'd unwittingly exposed school children to a pedophile. His staff profile simply went 404. So his Wikipedia biography now makes for curious reading. It documents his very good life up to 2017, a real feel good story, and then it just stops.

It's only through a clever bit of phrasing, use of tenses, that means they're not stating he still has his role. Which is cute, because there's no reliable source that says he doesn't still have it. So this lack of candour can at least be said to only be a lie of ommission. But it's not a small lie, is it?

My view, as a humble citizen (with kids), is that deletion is best. No reason to shame this man for life, for a crime he will, this year, have completed his sentence for. Those reports are still prominent in Google News, for anyone who needs to know. His contribution to both science and public engagement, while not nothing, were not all that either, in the grand scheme. You don't have to do much to get a Wikipedia article as a scientist, or science educator.

I get the impression he's the cause of deep embarrassment to the scientific community and British establishment, and understandably they don't want this to be broadcast in any high brow source. But to ignore the fact this means he has a small but glowing Wikipedia biography, top result in Google, in perpetuity, is pretty disgraceful. I expect better of men of learning or high office. But like everyone else on the outside it seems, they have no power over Wikipedia's editorial decisions.

Obviously, the issue may be clouded with mattes of confidentiality and data protection. Hence why deletion is the sensible course of action. But that has been attempted twice, and rejected twice. These "editors" are adamant. Consensus is clear and firm.

To their credit, many Wikipedia editors seem to be genuinely ashamed that this is a direct result of their enthusiastic leap into the source ban era. What can we do, they mutter. Our hands are tied. They're really not. A problem of their own making, is down to them to solve. It is categorically not the job of reliable sources to publish for the sole reason of ensuring Wikipedia articles aren't total shams.

Far worse is the non-trivial number of Wikipedia editors prepared to argue that this man genuinely might not even have done this crime. Their proof? Literally just the blacklist. They don't have a single other shred of evidence that either these specifc reports are wrong, or there is some other alternative explanation for his dissappearance from public life.

Wikipedia does have a sister project, WikiNews, where accredited journalists are allowed to research things like this and publish them. It's perhaps as simple as calling the judge named in those reports and asking, did you convict this man on this date for this crime? Such things not being public records in the UK. But that would be pointless, because Wikipedia doesn't even consider WikiNews a reliable source.

It comes to something when the Doctor Who wiki (not a reliable source) is willing to publish the details, and retract his contributions to their platform. But Wikipedia would rather take the view that this man is entitled to their protection from the Daily Mail.

These Mail hating editors not above claiming, without evidence naturally, that the Mail published this fake report for clicks. How can we be sure they didn't? Citing the blacklist. Quite why the man or his employer or the quoted lawyers and judge didn't sue, or why he disappeared, is conveniently ignored. The original ban discussion was full of that kind of behaviour. On Wikipedia, it works. In real life, not so much.

Hopefully a Republican senator learns of this scandal, and finds some way of putting the Wikipedia editors responsible before a Committee to explain themselves. From beginning to end.

Because the beginning of this story is a Wikipedia editor saying the Daily Mail is "trash, pure and simple" in his proposal to ban it. He was subsequently banned from Wikipedia for deception, but his finest work lives on. Ever seen that in a reliable source? Me neither.

 

[Komarov]

Wikipedia's reliable sources page is a house built on a tissue of lies.

Is that you, Ted? Nah, probably a staffer intern, or even a freebie stan. "Mr." Cruz is surely too busy to write anything, including his "own" letter.

 

[ranthog]

You're doing a lot to defend this view and claim it's valid, but it's begging the question, do we have ANY reason to believe these events happened, in any form. We don't seem to. Excuses aren't evidence, they're an admission of it's absence. The default assumption is there is no "lost culture".

I'm not doing a lot, just thinking critically. I'm going to argue against silly claims. Even if you don't care about this, discussions about what the archeological record can show us and its limits are interesting by themselves.

There are a couple big reasons to think that the exodus story is rooted in actual history.

• From other cultures, we know that oral histories often do preserve real historical events that occurred.
• Other parts of these texts that were not part of the oral traditions do include real historical events.

The question is not just if it happened, but what parts of the story are accurate. There is strong evidence that you can't take it at face value and that it includes exaggerations, like with the population numbers. On top of that, we do not see any record in the records from the time, so that likely indicates the event was not nearly so dramatic or as impactful for Egypt as indicated.

It is pretty clear you're not going to find it fully historically accurate, but it is also not a historical record. It is a religious one and should not necessarily be taken literally. Also, given that it is rooted in an oral history that was written down, we have to assume that it evolved in some way. You may want to consider it as similar to The Iliad in some ways.

 

[ranthog]

There are famously no contemporary Egyptian records of the exodus. We do know the Egyptians were nigh on obsessive about recording anything and everything they could. Most of those records were on papyrus scrolls, so few of them survive. But, something like a significant fraction of the population just packing up and leaving should leave some trace somewhere; and surely not only in Egyptian records, but stories from other places, too.

The "best" explanation I could get for this is that there was a conspiracy of silence in Egypt about this. That's about as realistic as any other conspiracy theory.

The most likely explanation is that the exodus, as described, did not happen and that the Jews did not, in fact, build pyramids^* in Egypt. Or anything else, either, having never lived there in any significant numbers.


^*It's probably inconvenient that no-one built pyramids in the New Kingdom, but inconvenient facts are regularly ignored by conspiracists.

I'm not sure what pyramids have to do with this. I think you are mixing up something else with the biblical story.

Many of the more narrative records from Egypt are political propaganda from the government. This is of course true from a lot of the primary documents that survive from before the early modern period. You always have to consider who is speaking and what they may not be speaking because of that. Assuming that all major historical events are in these records is probably not a good assumption.

However, it is pretty obvious if the story is anchored in real historical events, it couldn't have been as impactful on the Egyptian state as the story implies. That almost certainly would have shown up somewhere in the records.

 

[Nilt]

Sorry, what, millions? Wow. I just spent some time reading various "scholarly analyses". That is indeed the claim – up to 6 million. Which, funnily enough, is more than the rather more seriously estimated population of all of Egypt during the New Kingdom period.

If I were Rameses and all my citizens and slaves etc. just upped and left, I'd be a bit miffed, too, and might also take my much larger army to pursue ... oh, wait.

Something's off with the maths. Either that, or the population of Egypt then was the same as now.

Yup, and that's literally something a huge number of Christians claim much be correct "Because The Bible Says So". There is absolutely no chance of that many people not leaving some trace at some place. The various sources of water are extremely well documented and studied. If even 1 million people spent a single day at one, there would have been significant detritus left in a midden, if not more than one. The idea that multiple millions somehow left absolutely no trace whatsoever is absurd.

 

[Nilt]

Differences in material culture show up in archeology, but material culture is not necessarily enough to differentiate different groups that are living relatively closely together. There is no reason to think that there would be a clear difference here.

That may be true in many instances but at this time and in that place, it's quite possible to differentiate between cultures in the archaeological record when there's enough of it. Millions of people would leave sufficient trash alone that we could tell. Things such as the specific species consumed and not consumed, for example, may as well be a dated receipt from a grocery store. Heck, for that matter, we literally find such documentation of purchases in middens, for that matter!

Who says that there were millions of people? That is your assumption. Like other historical texts, that the head counts involved could be wildly exaggerated or were never intended to be taken literally.

Yeah but, again, this is a discussion about how a lot of Christians claim the Bible cannot err in any respect whatsoever and thus 6 million people wandered that area for literally 40 years. These Christians literally believe that happened and have spent likely millions of dollars but I know for a fact it's hundreds of thousands of dollars funding searches for the evidence to prove it.

You can assume that if the events are real, what really occurred is almost certainly much more complicated than what we get out of the Old Testament.

In point of fact, the general assumption is it was a lot less complicated and extra details accreted over time as the story was told. That's how such things actually tend to go.

 

[Nilt]

There are a couple big reasons to think that the exodus story is rooted in actual history.

• From other cultures, we know that oral histories often do preserve real historical events that occurred.
• Other parts of these texts that were not part of the oral traditions do include real historical events.

The question is not just if it happened, but what parts of the story are accurate.

Bullshit. There's simply no evidence of it ever happening at all, from any one of several distinct cultures which left separate well documented records in addition to the archaeological record. The reality is that this is almost certainly a myth that developed to explain the whole "We remember were freed from Egypt but don't know what that meant" thing once the area ended up back in a less organized state without a king to speak of. This kind of thing happened several times through actual history but these folks didn't exactly have a nation as we'd think of it now until quite late.

They were almost certainly people from the general area who slowly turned into what eventually became the nations of Judea and, later, Israel. Because they were most likely pastoral people living in hilly terrain, they didn't have a repository for records which was maintained by professional scribes. It doesn't really even take 100 years before people forget details. FFS, it's happening to us now in well under that and we DO have written records!

we do not see any record in the records from the time, so that likely indicates the event was not nearly so dramatic or as impactful for Egypt as indicated.

Egypt left very detailed records of things such as large groups moving around, though. Heck, we have a bunch of records from there when just several hundred people moved to a new area! The idea that any large group of people were freed and left along with a shitload of livestock is simply absurd. That would absolutely have not only been described in some manner but the gap in livestock would be noted. This is one of the most-studied areas of the world, archaeologically speaking, and we can identify trends in livestock over the course of years pretty well because their bones tended to survive in some parts of the area.

Also, given that it is rooted in an oral history that was written down, we have to assume that it evolved in some way. You may want to consider it as similar to The Iliad in some ways.

Yeah, which is what I've been fucking saying! I'm not the one arguing for it. You're preaching to the choir here.

 

[Nilt]

The "best" explanation I could get for this is that there was a conspiracy of silence in Egypt about this. That's about as realistic as any other conspiracy theory.

There's no way to silence the record of the livestock and such, though. That's what so many don't seem to understand about this. There are multiple different lines of evidence which would have been left if any of that happened even close to how it's claimed. It most certainly did not happen. Heck, there are even a fair number of Jewish people I know personally who say that, even, and they're generally fine with that because whether it happened or not is irrelevant to their culture now as far as they're concerned. The only folks who need for it to have happened are those who claim the Bible is unable to be wrong.

 

[ranthog]

That may be true in many instances but at this time and in that place, it's quite possible to differentiate between cultures in the archaeological record when there's enough of it. Millions of people would leave sufficient trash alone that we could tell. Things such as the specific species consumed and not consumed, for example, may as well be a dated receipt from a grocery store. Heck, for that matter, we literally find such documentation of purchases in middens, for that matter!

There almost certainly wouldn't have been millions of people involved with this sort of migration.

Do you know if at that point and time there would have been differences in what animals were being eaten between the two groups? We know it is true later on, but was it true at this time? You can't always assume, for instance that pork was always disallowed in this group.

Different groups do not necessarily have different material culture that will show up in the archeology. Material culture can also migrate without mass population migrations. We are also finding that when people more to an area that sometimes they adopt the local material culture.

Yeah but, again, this is a discussion about how a lot of Christians claim the Bible cannot err in any respect whatsoever and thus 6 million people wandered that area for literally 40 years. These Christians literally believe that happened and have spent likely millions of dollars but I know for a fact it's hundreds of thousands of dollars funding searches for the evidence to prove it.

Only a few Christians who believe that. On top of that, those aren't the groups that have had the resources to fund archeological expeditions to the Levant. Most of those would have received funding and money from more mainstream denominations. The entire field of archeology in this region at one point was centered around biblical sites.

I'm sure that the more fundamentalist side has spent a ton of money on it, but they've likely spent it on far less academic aspects. Instead, you often get stunts and propaganda related things like the ark museum. They're not funding someone to go out and search for the next Dead Sea scrolls.

In point of fact, the general assumption is it was a lot less complicated and extra details accreted over time as the story was told. That's how such things actually tend to go.

I was talking about the more factual information that was slowly dropped from stories. Almost certainly at one point there would have been more facts and details in the story, especially during the first few generations. In the case of exodus, there aren't a lot of details about what they were doing for years while they "wandered" in the desert. Things you might want to know.

The extra details that accreted likely are related to the religious purpose of the story.

 

[geof2001]

Republicans really do hate free speech.

Almost as much as they hate facts and the truth.

 

[orwelldesign]

You might have that experience but it's absolutely not the general usage among those who believe that. I was quite literally raised by an evangelical lunatic who forced me to attend the sorts of churches that teaches this kind of thing. It is the norm in evangelical circles and has been spreading into what many consider mainstream denominations for decades. These people believe that every single word is exactly correct and cannot have been mistranslated because their god wouldn't have allowed that to happen. They literally say so in as many words when called on it, too. This isn't a fringe belief as you're claiming. It's pretty much the norm now in

You do realize that "I was raised by..." and ".
..that is the norm" don't logically follow, right? The Chicago Declaration folks just isn't as significant a population as you're saying.

I recognize that you have deep religious trauma, and I'm sorry that happened; however, there is a LOT of biblical archaeology that indicates parts of some of the stories are true.

I mean, I live in deep red rural North Carolina, and even here the Primitive Baptist Church (biblical literalists) is recognized as fringe.

 

[Nilt]

Do you know if at that point and time there would have been differences in what animals were being eaten between the two groups?

Not off the top of my head and my notes are all in storage. My recollection is it's dated as far back as ~1000 - 1200 BCE, though. This sort of thing is documented via animal bones as well as carbonized remains of various plants they ate. There are fairly distinct differences between them and their close neighbors such as Phoenicia & Ugarit in terms of crops and even animals consumed. IIRC, one interesting tidbit was there was fairly high consumption of non-kosher fish right up to the 1st century BCE or thereabouts, so some aspects seem to have been in flux up until pretty recently.

Another interesting thing is we can identify similar diets in houses in Babylonia which can be reliably dated to the exhilic period, so we know we can detect this sort of thing in other cultures yet there's absolutely nothing like this in Egypt even in areas where we know there to have been Semitic people living.

We know it is true later on, but was it true at this time? You can't always assume, for instance that pork was always disallowed in this group.

Right but it's more than just pigs. It's a mix of grains and particular animals as well as shellfish.

Different groups do not necessarily have different material culture that will show up in the archeology. Material culture can also migrate without mass population migrations. We are also finding that when people more to an area that sometimes they adopt the local material culture.

This is true but there are some fairly significant differences in the textile remains which have been found as well, although those sorts of things tend to be very rare finds so I don't know that anyone would try to extrapolate it to the whole region. One aspect of material culture which would have been quite obvious, though, is the gold and silver which was supposedly given to the Israelites as they were leaving Egypt. There is no sudden increase in the sorts of things they'd have made with this anywhere in what would have been Canaan nor is there a corresponding decrease of it in Egypt. These sorts of changes have happened at other times, usually associated with various collapses, but there's absolutely nothing that would correspond to even thousands of people leaving.

Only a few Christians who believe that.

This is just plain incorrect, though. The most recent numbers I saw were pre-pandemic, somewhere around 2013 or so IIRC, and the number of those whose denomination explicitly teaches this as a matter of doctrine was over 100 million individuals. That's a third of the US population! "A few" my ass, dude.

On top of that, those aren't the groups that have had the resources to fund archeological expeditions to the Levant.

The Green family and others of their level of wealth, for example, funds this sort of shit heavily. So do a huge number of tiny "independent" churches, though. They do it via meeting locally and gathering donations so it doesn't show up on crowdfunding sites historically but they absolutely do it. My own mother was very involved in this stuff for decades.

The entire field of archeology in this region at one point was centered around biblical sites.

Yeah and despite literally having examined tens of thousands of sites in the desert area, they've found diddly shit. These are people who exaggerate claims or just lie about them all the time. You don't think they'd have been literally trumpeting it to the heavens if they found anything in that area which might sort of support their ideas?

I'm sure that the more fundamentalist side has spent a ton of money on it, but they've likely spent it on far less academic aspects. Instead, you often get stunts and propaganda related things like the ark museum. They're not funding someone to go out and search for the next Dead Sea scrolls.

Yeah, they absolutely do. That's why this sort of thing happens.

I was talking about the more factual information that was slowly dropped from stories. Almost certainly at one point there would have been more facts and details in the story, especially during the first few generations. In the case of exodus, there aren't a lot of details about what they were doing for years while they "wandered" in the desert. Things you might want to know.

The extra details that accreted likely are related to the religious purpose of the story.

This is both slightly correct and just plain wrong at the same time. Sure, over time, some details tend to be lost. Those are usually details like the name of a person involved, though. The other details which accreted are in no way limited only to religion. They were religious in nature in many respects, to be sure, but that was largely to consolidate control by various individuals and groups, such as during Hezekiah's reign when he consolidated worship in Jerusalem instead of allowing it to be done in smaller shrines around the region. He did this by claiming to have found a book of the law in the temple. It is, of course, merely coincidental that this "found" book aligned perfectly with Hezekiah's interests. (Giant /s there in case it isn't obvious.)

Similarly, the number of people claimed would have been a civil matter, not religious, in order to claim the origin of everyone in the nation as being descended from those millions. Remember that these are folks who obsessively tracked their genealogy so they'd have recognized that there was no way a handful of people form Egypt could have a) conquered the whole region or b) had so many descendants as literally lived in that area. Instead, the most likely reality is these were Canaanites who spread from their area into the rest, mostly incorporating the people into their own groups over time as was often done. That doesn't work as well, though, when they're trying to set themselves apart from everyone else in the area so they had to explain how all of their ancestors would have been living there.

It's the considered opinion of a lot of scholars in this field that the whole thing is just made up out of whole cloth. Whether by Hezekiah or someone else is not something on which there is a lot of agreement because they don't just assume shit without actual evidence. The complete lack of any evidence for the exodus, however, is well settled academically.

 

[Nilt]

You do realize that "I was raised by..." and ".
..that is the norm" don't logically follow, right? The Chicago Declaration folks just isn't as significant a population as you're saying.

Jesus Christ, dude, of fucking course I know that! That's why I pointed out that evangelicals make up a third of the US population! This isn't something I'm saying is the norm because I saw it as a kid. It's the norm and I know it to be so because I have been trying to get people to pay attention to this problem for literally 36.5 of my nearly 54 years on this planet!

I recognize that you have deep religious trauma, and I'm sorry that happened; however, there is a LOT of biblical archaeology that indicates parts of some of the stories are true.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE ALL OF THEM TRUE AND I'M TALKING ABOUT THE INACCURATE BITS!

It's ridiculous that I have to fucking point this shit out in here so often. Just because you aren't familiar with the things I'm pointing out doesn't make them not true.

Edit: You might want to find a copy of The Evangelicals: The Struggle to Shape America by Frances FitzGerald and read it. It's a primer, of sorts, on this kind of thing and honestly freaks a lot of folks out who were just blissfully unaware of how widespread this kind of thing has become.

Edit 2: Maybe you'll listen to Pew on this. Since you clearly haven't bothered to do the most cursory Google search on this stuff, I did it for you and here's what they said in 2015:

https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...he-changing-religious-composition-of-the-u-s/

The prime quote from that:

Evangelicals now make up a clear majority (55%) of all U.S. Protestants.

 

[Komarov]

I'm not sure what pyramids have to do with this. I think you are mixing up something else with the biblical story.

Many of the more narrative records from Egypt are political propaganda from the government. This is of course true from a lot of the primary documents that survive from before the early modern period. You always have to consider who is speaking and what they may not be speaking because of that. Assuming that all major historical events are in these records is probably not a good assumption.

However, it is pretty obvious if the story is anchored in real historical events, it couldn't have been as impactful on the Egyptian state as the story implies. That almost certainly would have shown up somewhere in the records.

Regarding the pyramids, I actually read claims that the Jews built or helped build them. Those claims are completely crazy, being more than 2000 years off, but they're there.

As for political propaganda – I invite you to read the news today. The Egyptians were completely modern in that respect. I know about them defacing their own monuments because they mentioned the wrong pharaoh. Nothing new under the sun ... I mean Ammun ... sorry, Ra? it gets confusing.

 

[Nilt]

Regarding the pyramids, I actually read claims that the Jews built or helped build them. Those claims are completely crazy, being more than 2000 years off, but they're there.

There are some who try to shift the entire dating system around to match them up, too. It's a whole heck of a lot of "See, you're all wrong because <insert scientifically absurd claim here>." The result would mean we have to literally rewrite huge portions of ancient history even beyond Egypt. Why beyond? Because we have multiple places where they had documented treaties with other nations which have also been corroborated in the archaeology of those nations' former territories. So to shift this stuff around would mean that not only did we screw up Egypt's history but all of the rest of the field is also way out of whack by multiple millennia as well. Which is just plain impossible to substantiate scientifically since we have solid radiometric dating in addition to the actual histories written in stone and such.

 

[orwelldesign]

Jesus Christ, dude, of fucking course I know

Edit: You might want to find a copy of The Evangelicals: The Struggle to Shape America by Frances FitzGerald and read it. It's a primer, of sorts, on this kind of thing and honestly freaks a lot of folks out who were just blissfully unaware of how widespread this kind of thing has become.

The Pew study doesn't say what you're alleging, though: it DOESN'T use "biblical literalist" as a marker for evangelical. Whatsoever. In fact, biblical literalist doesn't appear in that document at all.

Even so: so, let's agree it's a problem. That still doesn't mean that the Catholic inerrancy and the "Evangelical" literalism are the same thing. That, and "Evangelical" is a huge group. Yes, there are parts of the Evangelical movement that are true YEC literalists, but there's some who aren't, as well.

...

One Arsian to another: dude, we're on the same side. Take a deep breath. Mostly, I'm nitpicking, especially because the Catholic "inerrancy" (as to matters spiritual) with some Evangelical churches "literacy" (the Catholic Church isn't full of Young Earth Creationists)

 

[numerobis]

Yup, and that's literally something a huge number of Christians claim much be correct "Because The Bible Says So". There is absolutely no chance of that many people not leaving some trace at some place. The various sources of water are extremely well documented and studied. If even 1 million people spent a single day at one, there would have been significant detritus left in a midden, if not more than one. The idea that multiple millions somehow left absolutely no trace whatsoever is absurd.

Christians who believe the book is literally true don’t agree with each other about this (nor about much else, of course). They meet at BBQs to calmly discuss their different interpretations.

 

[Nilt]

The Pew study doesn't say what you're alleging, though: it DOESN'T use "biblical literalist" as a marker for evangelical. Whatsoever. In fact, biblical literalist doesn't appear in that document at all.

The Pew study was about how many there are, not the belief. The majority keep the inerrancy stuff relatively quiet because they know it makes them sound like lunatics. That doesn't change that this is a key part of evangelical doctrine.

Even so: so, let's agree it's a problem. That still doesn't mean that the Catholic inerrancy and the "Evangelical" literalism are the same thing.

Again, there are a lot of Catholics in the US who adhere more to the evangelical line than you'd think. I've met several of them personally. And the professional apologists literally use the same term when discussing it: inerrant.

That, and "Evangelical" is a huge group. Yes, there are parts of the Evangelical movement that are true YEC literalists, but there's some who aren't, as well.

Sure but again, the historicity and inerrancy of the Bible are key components of evangelical belief. The ones who aren't YECs still try to handwave it away by, as seen in this very thread, claiming that words don't mean what they clearly mean in context and so forth. They negotiate with the text to get it to mean what they think it needs to mean, to be sure, but that doesn't change that the accuracy, inerrancy, or any other term applied to it is absent.

One Arsian to another: dude, we're on the same side.

Then maybe you should stop taking the side of those who are literally trying to destroy the US. I get nitpicking but there's been a lot more than that here, even after I clarified the Catholic stuff up. And I absolutely do not accept anyone trying to say I'm saying this because of traumas. That's pure hogwash.

 

[Nilt]

Christians who believe the book is literally true don’t agree with each other about this (nor about much else, of course). They meet at BBQs to calmly discuss their different interpretations.

They do so about how they interpret it, yes, but they still believe it to be correct in their preferred way. Which is, of course, a major part of the problem with these folks. They refuse to recognize reality.

 

[orwelldesign]

The Pew study was about how many there are, not the belief. The majority keep the inerrancy stuff relatively quiet because they know it makes them sound like lunatics. That doesn't change that this is a key part of evangelical doctrine.

Again, there are a lot of Catholics in the US who adhere more to the evangelical line than you'd think. I've met several of them personally. And the professional apologists literally use the same term when discussing it: inerrant.

Sure but again, the historicity and inerrancy of the Bible are key components of evangelical belief. The ones who aren't YECs still try to handwave it away by, as seen in this very thread, claiming that words don't mean what they clearly mean in context and so forth. They negotiate with the text to get it to mean what they think it needs to mean, to be sure, but that doesn't change that the accuracy, inerrancy, or any other term applied to it is absent.

Then maybe you should stop taking the side of those who are literally trying to destroy the US. I get nitpicking but there's been a lot more than that here, even after I clarified the Catholic stuff up. And I absolutely do not accept anyone trying to say I'm saying this because of traumas. That's pure hogwash.

No, I'm not saying the rational component of your response is because of trauma. I'm saying that your 48 point type argument suggests that you're directing your anger in the wrong direction.

I'm sure you know I attend an Episcopal church. I'm sure you know I'm not in favor of biblical literalism. I'm sure you know the difference between inerrancy and literalism.

It honestly feels from this end like you've seeing ghosts. Inerrancy and literalism aren't the same thing.

And, look, my friend, I do a lot of interfaith work. I mean, mostly, we're feeding the hungry, not having deep debate about anything, but my experience with even the Primitive Baptist folks (they're a KJV only fundamentalist denomination) says that there aren't as many YECs as you suggested.

...

A genuine question: what would let you walk away from this discussion feeling okay about it? What points need to be ceded? What beliefs validated? What can I say that would let you know that I believe you, am not invalidating your concerns, and largely share those concerns?

 

[Nilt]

No, I'm not saying the rational component of your response is because of trauma. I'm saying that your 48 point type argument suggests that you're directing your anger in the wrong direction.

The 48 point font isn't anger. It's "how the F can you miss this point so many times in the same thread?"

And, look, my friend, I do a lot of interfaith work. I mean, mostly, we're feeding the hungry, not having deep debate about anything, but my experience with even the Primitive Baptist folks (they're a KJV only fundamentalist denomination) says that there aren't as many YECs as you suggested.

Again, though, even those who aren't YECs will handwave away the days in Genesis as meaning an unspecified long period, for example, even though no language expert in Hebrew of any sort, let alone ancient Hebrew, would say that's accurate. They do a really good job of looking quite reasonable in person. That's what's so insidious about this particular brand of Christian.

A genuine question: what would let you walk away from this discussion feeling okay about it? What points need to be ceded? What beliefs validated? What can I say that would let you know that I believe you, am not invalidating your concerns, and largely share those concerns?

We're good. It's extremely frustrating to see so many blow past basic points is all. At a certain stage it starts to look as though those sorts are, in fact, apologists themselves. That doesn't seem to be you. Just try to do better at making sure you read what folks are saying. I often open a reply, type a response, and leave it for 15 minutes or so before rereading it to be sure I didn't miss something. There was a lot of kneejerk posting in response to me in here and while I'm used to it, what with P2025 ongoing, I'm no longer tolerating it. The bad actors are on the verge of kicking off a hot civil war as it is. We don't need it to become a crusade on top of that.

 

[graylshaped]

... The bad actors are on the verge of kicking off a hot civil war as it is. We don't need it to become a crusade on top of that.

Howard Johnson's right!

 

[orwelldesign]

Howard Johnson's right!

That sounds like a punchline.

Can chatGPT do "here's a punchline, what's the joke"?

 

[Nilt]

Howard Johnson's right!

I'm with @orwelldesign here; just a bit lost. Is this in reference to something said about civil rights or something? I know Howard Johnsons were very progressive in general, even opposing segregation in the South and only having their restaurants segregated where legally obliged to. I'm not sure what else this may be in reference to, though.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Because the beginning of this story is a Wikipedia editor saying the Daily Mail is "trash, pure and simple"

Because it absolutely is.

We don’t call it the ‘Daily Fail’ for nothing, mate. It’s only suitable for lining the bottom of bird cages.

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

I’m sure this forum is where we’ll finally square the circle of religion v science, the main philosophical question we’ve been debating since the enlightenment.

It's always useful to dicsuss issues such as these where to a lot of people it (including me, at least) the debate itself really helps when it comes to crystallize the internal logic as to WHY we hold the opinion we do.

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

This is absolutely not true, though, at least for the Catholics. You're not looking for the word "true" or "inerrant" to describe things. Most all denominations are going to say the bible is true and inerrant, including the Catholic Church itself. The word you're looking for is "literal." Just because you don't believe a text is figurative or metaphorical doesn't mean that you think it is false.

That is something that is primarily the domain of the fundamentalist evangelicals. This is why you have Catholic schools that teach evolution and the big bang, and evangelical ones that have those fun books where humans and dinosaurs lived together. It is also why evangelicals tend to eschew higher education, whereas Catholics do not.

The fundamentalists are certainly leading the spearhead of wanting the country to be a theocracy. But there are people from most all other denominations that are drawn to this thinking in disturbingly large numbers. I doubt most of them would be happy when it isn't their form of Christianity that is in charge.

Here's the problem when we try to draw the line on to which extent a believer must be literal or not before we decide that No True Scotsman does not apply to someone sufficiently removed from every core teaching of said religion; we literally end up rendering the words meaningless.

Can you claim to be a christian if you in fact do not truly believe in christ, his death, his resurrection, that he died for humanity's sins...all the pillars of faith said to define christianity? Or if you do not believe in the god of the old testament, his commandments, and so on? at that point it's like taking, say, a limestone wall, scribble "car" on it, and then trying to debate oil change, tire checking, and whether the gauges on the dashboard are properly calibrated against a backdrop where none of that makes much sense.

Figuratively and metaphorically you could wedge the above comic, the FSM joke, and some lovecraftian Mythos into the narrative of christianity, but at that far a removal, is that still definable as "christian"?

Logically speaking, is No True Scotsman applicable or not if the one we're talking about is a native Brazilian who has no ancestry outside of south america, does not practice any habits from the UK in general and scotland least of all, and has no knowledge about the region save that it exists? I'm all for anyone's personal right to define themselves, but at some point words should have meaning.

And this is true even where religion is a culture, as can be argued that most secularized forms would be.

 

[orwelldesign]

@Nilt I woke up in the middle of the night, because something hasn't been sitting right with me.

I think you're responding to people arguing about the specifics as though those people are espousing biblical literalism, when that doesn't seem to be the case. I just went and read the last 5 pages of discussion, and I don't see a single person actually being literalist.

I mean, I joined the discussion because I needed to clarify that the Catholic inerrancy and the some Evangelical literalism aren't the same thing at all, and to note that Evangelical doesn't necessarily mean literalist. I even sent a message to a friend who is an Assemblies of God preacher; they're not even literalist in the sense under discussion.

Evangelical doesn't require literalism. The most important marker for Evangelical seems to be "saved." "Are you saved? Have you asked Jesus to be your personal lord and savior?" That's Evangelical. The other markers vary wildly -- the Primitive Baptists are a KJV-only YEC sect under that umbrella, but so's Pastor Rick's megachurch, and that congregation almost exclusively does good works and sings modern day rock band hymns, and Rick isn't anything close to a literalist -- but his church would be on Pew's Evangelical list

I've also noted how few Evangelical parishioners actually read the Bible at all. They kinda just don't, by and large. I think, for the purposes at hand, YEC would be a better marker than Evangelical for your concerns. In a lot of ways, Evangelical churches seem to be about feeling good about God, and not all of them feel good about God at the expense of everyone else.

...

Always remember, this is ars. There will always be people vigorously arguing, say, 2.B.iii.h of an argument who don't believe or support the entirety. Just... that's what we do.

 

[orwelldesign]

Here's the problem when we try to draw the line on to which extent a believer must be literal or not before we decide that No True Scotsman does not apply to someone sufficiently removed from every core teaching of said religion; we literally end up rendering the words meaningless.

Can you claim to be a christian if you in fact do not truly believe in christ, his death, his resurrection, that he died for humanity's sins...all the pillars of faith said to define christianity? Or if you do not believe in the god of the old testament, his commandments, and so on? at that point it's like taking, say, a limestone wall, scribble "car" on it, and then trying to debate oil change, tire checking, and whether the gauges on the dashboard are properly calibrated against a backdrop where none of that makes much

Logically speaking, is No True Scotsman applicable or not if the one we're talking about is a native Brazilian who has no ancestry outside of south america, does not practice any habits from the UK in general and scotland least of all, and has no knowledge about the region save that it exists? I'm all for anyone's personal right to define themselves, but at some point words should have meaning.

And this is true even where religion is a culture, as can be argued that most secularized forms would be.

I mean... The Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed are 1500+ year old "this is what Christian beliefs are" documents.

One could argue that if you don't believe what's in those creeds, you aren't a Christian, or, if you are, a schismatic.

Of course, the more one reads the Bible as a text, the less some of modern Christianity makes sense: have no other gods before me is, lately, interpreted as "like money, or a warlord, or any form of idolatry" but textually, it's clear they were talking about other literal Gods -- Baal, Asherah, etc.

...

Also, it's a very recent development that we compartmentalize as much as we do now. Secular/ religious wasn't as clear a divide as we'd like it to be. Religion is a culture. But... almost inseparably so, at least during the time under discussion.

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

Since when are science and religion the only two domains of knowledge to exist? You are presenting a false dichotomy here, which twists the OP's argument. There are other paradigms to acquire knowledge and wisdom besides science and religion.

Ethics and morality aren't derived from science. Science is rather agnostic about the idea. Science can tell you what is, but it can't tell you if it is right or wrong. Just because something is natural and the way the world is, doesn't mean it is right.

As the OP mentioned, there are other paradigms such as philosophy that work in the domain of ethics and morality. So pretty explicitly refuting the words you're putting in their mouth.

I'd argue that point is fallacious by definition - you either acquire knowledge based on empirical observation and logic or you choose to believe otherwise. Reality is, in the end, the only viable source of knowledge and science is the tool we use to acquire it.

Ethics and morality all spring from the attempt to logically codify assertions as to what would pose an objectively "better" way of life. With the premises either being religious or based on objective reality - i.e. science. And the process of logic is a central pillar of scientific rigour so even philosophers don't quite get away from the guys with the calipers and calculators.
The only variable introduced is the fundamental premise that, for instance, human happiness and prosperity is a desirable quality, and this too is nothing more than self-evident observation based on qualities which are measurable.

So what you might say is that premises of morals and ethics have a tertiary source - that life should be good, or what constitutes quality of life. That's the only part where we can see both science and religion try to make an input in what is often just a subjective positive so commonly held it borders the objective.

Perhaps ironically the idea that science and philosophy was inextricably intertwined was better described by the ancient greek philosphers where in contrast it was also ironically understood that religion was completely separated from either process.

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

You absolutely are twisting my words. I in no way meant "ethics can't apply to science," when what I said was "science doesn't apply to ethics." Science is not the right framework to consider what's ethical and what's not.

I'd argue it absolutely can. Logic is, in the end, a natural part of the scientific framework.

Ethics and morals are logical codifications of assumed premises. That human happiness is a positive quality is one such premise, for instance.

Yet this differs from religion in the regard that we can certainly empirically find a human to be happy or unhappy but the same can not be said about an alleged deity.

I must say I find it disconcerting to debate such with a person flying the Tzeentch serpent as their portrait.

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

I mean... The Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed are 1500+ year old "this is what Christian beliefs are" documents.

One could argue that if you don't believe what's in those creeds, you aren't a Christian, or, if you are, a schismatic.

Of course, the more one reads the Bible as a text, the less some of modern Christianity makes sense: have no other gods before me is, lately, interpreted as "like money, or a warlord, or any form of idolatry" but textually, it's clear they were talking about other literal Gods -- Baal, Asherah, etc.

The literal interpretation is the more likely, at that. At the time most of the fragments of text eventually being combined into current scripture was written, religion was law - as is incredibly clear in most of judeo-christian history and has been underlined quite clearly in writings by the only ancients who actually did take their deities as ideals rather than facts - greek city-states inflicted by philosophers, for instance, and to even greater extent, the romans for whom the "gods" were nebulous forces to be contracted with which ironically both made them forces of mundane law and superstition, and highly secular.

...

Also, it's a very recent development that we compartmentalize as much as we do now. Secular/ religious wasn't as clear a divide as we'd like it to be. Religion is a culture. But... almost inseparably so, at least during the time under discussion.

I'm quite sure Aristotles, Plato, Archimedes and Democritus might beg to differ. Philosophy, logic and science were incredibly intertwined in the thinkier bits of ancient history, but religion was kept very strictly as a complete standalone in most assumptions. Something which got no few philosphers in trouble in areas where priests held secular power.

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

It could but it doesn't. Such long-term living leaves evidence in the archaeological record and there's been absolutely no such evidence found.

Or, not implausibly, the entire "wandering in the desert" period refers to a small gang of savage nomads under the thumb of a zealous fanatic which invaded and slaughtered its way into a more sedate and prosperous agricultural center, as has happened often enough.
Once the new leaders of the community started passing down history, it was the history of the winners - leading to a narrative where "the people of judea" spent a generation walking in the desert when in truth that was only true for a small band of murderers who'd been rebuffed from every other area until they managed to encounter a city-state weak enough to conquer yet prosperous enough to be a regional power.

A bit like how Kublai Khan pillaged china and for the time the Yuan dynasty held power, "chinese" history was largely mongolian history.

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

Regarding the pyramids, I actually read claims that the Jews built or helped build them. Those claims are completely crazy, being more than 2000 years off, but they're there.

As for political propaganda – I invite you to read the news today. The Egyptians were completely modern in that respect. I know about them defacing their own monuments because they mentioned the wrong pharaoh. Nothing new under the sun ... I mean Ammun ... sorry, Ra? it gets confusing.

A not implausible root of the entire moses story is that a radical preacher and his extended family left egypt after a run-in with the local tax collector...fast forward a few generations and it's suddenly turned into the mass migration of an entire people with their family godhead decisively intervening to stop the evil pharaoh at every turn and the role and name of "moses" being handed down to every patriarch to lead the small gang of fanatics through the desert to be rebuffed by every population center wise enough to realize they were bad news for about a generation.

 

[orwelldesign]

I'd argue it absolutely can. Logic is, in the end, a natural part of the scientific framework.

Ethics and morals are logical codifications of assumed premises. That human happiness is a positive quality is one such premise, for instance.

Yet this differs from religion in the regard that we can certainly empirically find a human to be happy or unhappy but the same can not be said about an alleged deity.

I must say I find it disconcerting to debate such with a person flying the Tzeentch serpent as their portrait.

I'm still having a hard time imagining the scientific method applied to ethics. Sure, let's assume that human happiness is good. Mine? Yours? My family? Your family? The neighbors ?The tribe? The nation? The aligned? (NATO might be a good proxy?) The global?

Those are all possible. But picking which? Not science's job.

...

Tzeentch? I am vast. I contain multitudes. In a much more literal sense than was originally intended. And, well, I'm a Tzeentch cultist. There is no ritual besides all of them that has any meaning.

 

[orwelldesign]

I'm quite sure Aristotles, Plato, Archimedes and Democritus might beg to differ. Philosophy, logic and science were incredibly intertwined in the thinkier bits of ancient history, but religion was kept very strictly as a complete standalone in most assumptions. Something which got no few philosphers in trouble in areas where priests held secular power

Note my qualifier: "at the time under discussion." The Greek separation of disciplines isn't the historical norm. We (the Western world) sometimes forget how much we've been shaped by those blokes. The Greeks seemed to delight in chipping the world into ever-smaller shards, yet lots of cultures had rather work towards a whole.

 

[orwelldesign]

The Pew study was about how many there are, not the belief. The majority keep the inerrancy stuff relatively quiet because they know it makes them sound like lunatics. That doesn't change that this is a key part of evangelical doctrine.

I've seriously spent hours trying to find this fracture line. That. That's it right there: "evangelical doctrine."

The mainline Protestant churches have clear and defined doctrine, set out in the Apostle's and Nicene creeds. It's a safe bet that churches informed by those creeds are mainline Protestant.

The "Evangelical" churches are a big group, but it's not a creed that unifies them, rather, the idea that "Jesus Saves!" (Then catches his own rebound! He shoots, he scores! Jesus with the buzzer beater again! Jesus, draining threes throughout the season, drains one when it matters most!)

Now I can get some sleep. That's the fault line I've spent hours trying to figure out. They aren't unified by anything other than the idea of Jesus as your personal lord and savior and imaginary friend. Literally nothing else unifies them -- because Rick's church isn't literalist.

...

Also, Rick, my boyfriend, and myself had one hell of a Friday/Saturday six weeks ago before he had to go home to his wife and kids to work on his sermon. His church doesn't preach against The Gay, it's never his topic. Evangelical isn't as unifying a label as you're assuming, when you're looking at that Pew poll. I can finally sleep and dream of bears.

 

[Ferrin]

We don’t call it the ‘Daily Fail’ for nothing, mate. It’s only suitable for lining the bottom of bird cages.

Keep telling yourself that. This is why you're losing elections. That's why we're probably seeing the end of democracy as we know it.

Your hatred (jealousy?) of the Daily Mail, is more important to you than updating the Wikipedia biography of a science outreach officer at a prestigious national institution to note his conviction for being a pedophile. Or just delete it.

Where were the accredited court reporters of The Guardian (or any other reliable source Wikipedia deems "reliable") when the judge sentenced him? Because they clearly weren't in the courtroom. A hilarious clause in the Daily Mail ban being that The Guardian isn't even allowed to say "according to The Daily Mail, at the Inner London Crown Court today....", and have that used in Wikipedia.

The Daily Mail has the money and plain common sense to continue this kind of public interest reporting for the benefit of the voting public, either through first hand journalism or paying a pool reporter (since The Sun's report is almost identical). If that's because they also do celebrity gossip, bringing them the money and reach to fund it, welcome to the real world. The market economy with a free press. Democracy.

You should cherish the freedom that allows anonymous randoms to dare to even suggest on a California hosted website that a UK newspaper report about a UK court proceeding can't be assumed to be reliable, let alone have that directly impact the accuracy of an "encyclopedia" "biography" about the man sentenced in that court.

It clearly happened, no reasonable doubt about it. It should be for the randoms to prove it didn't. Find the man, prove he's just on some middle class retreat off the grid. For seven years. Or accept you've made a mistake, and fix it. That's what a real encyclopedia would do. That's what ethical editors guided only by the search for truth, would do.

It's not looking like this freedom will last much longer. Due to a lack of care in how it's been exercised, with clear vitriol and reckless abandon, and long before Trump/MAGA was on the scene giving the left wing a convenient excuse. Go higher indeed. This is the low. Whitewashing pedophiles on the world encyclopedia. It's a mico-Epstein. The sheer irony.

Unless you're a communist and believe in state run news? Notably, not even the publicly funded BBC had a reporter in that court it seems. But they, like The Guardian, happily wrote about this man's wonderful career when he was a feel good story of the left wing. Bringing him Wikipedia "notability" and thus a nice free biography which doesn't contain one word of negative information. Not. One. Word.

It's quite possible that the man is even harmed by having this clearly false biography at the top of a Google search, given the truth is easily found at the top of a Google News search. Given Wikipedia's record, some might think he had paid for it, or has even done it himself. The sad truth is that he hasn't, it's established Wikipedia editors.

The "Daily Fail" stands with the common people. The parents. The voters. The people whose hard earned taxes pay for the jobs of the people who employed that man and put him in close contact with our children. We don't expect the job interview to feature tortured confessions of secrets, but we do expect to be told when something somewhere, went horrifically wrong.

Or to at least not have Wikipedia telling the world he's an all round good guy, with the truth being the very last thing anyone would assume was the reason his biography just stops in 2017, when he wasn't even 50.

Although hopefully thanks to the free press reporting the pedophiles in plain sight scandals of the few years, when they see a curiosity like this in Wikipedia, people might increasingly be considering a conviction like this as a possible explanation for such a dramatic, extended and to date unexplained absence.

Far easier just to document the truth though, right? For the sake of the reader. Or like I said, delete the biographies of those who fall from grace this way, but who probably won't be missed and didn’t acheive all that much when they were "notable".

Daily Fail indeed. Imagine a world where Wikipedia had the power to get those court reports taken down, for lack of reliability. And it's the left who are railing against disinformation and fascism? Really?

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

I'm still having a hard time imagining the scientific method applied to ethics. Sure, let's assume that human happiness is good. Mine? Yours? My family? Your family? The neighbors ?The tribe? The nation? The aligned? (NATO might be a good proxy?) The global?

Oh, man, now you're just tempting the ghost of half a dozen greek and roman philosophers to roll right out of their graves and pitch in, likely demanding a pitcher of wine and some olives to go with...
...but ethics is codified logic following a premise.

Premise: Human happiness is good.
Therefore the more human happiness there is, the better.
Some humans being happy will render others unhappy.
Therefore the method which brings the most humans happiness while bringing the least humans unhappiness is preferable.

The logic of the above chain holds as true irrespective of whether the happiness to be concerned with starts from your, mine, my family's, your family's, the neighbor's or the tribe's point of view. The rest is demonstrable logic.

Whereas the premise that only my happiness matters is fully subjective and in conflict with literally everyone else's opinion on that matter, and can thus not be extended according to logic into any form of universal guiding principle. The premise can objectively be considered false.
A similar meltdown happens when we try to use logic to extend such a premise based on religion where the core premise is that "God must be kept happy", logically either followed by "We don't know who god is or how they may be kept happy. The end" or by any number of additional non-demonstrable postulates trying to establish the validity of said premise.

Philosophy and science have long been interwoven. Arguably the former is today still considered the root of the latter, best described, I found, here;

https://througheducation.com/whats-the-difference-between-a-ph-d-and-an-sc-d-degree/

For the difference between ethics - often held to be as objective as value standards can be - and morals, otoh - that's another debate which craves another lecture, but in brief, if you want to find where religion or specific cultural mores can wedge themselves, morals is where you'll find that.

Those are all possible. But picking which? Not science's job.

It actually is, which is why in the academic world the PhD is either given equal weight to the ScD or considered a required foundation for it.

...

Tzeentch? I am vast. I contain multitudes. In a much more literal sense than was originally intended. And, well, I'm a Tzeentch cultist. There is no ritual besides all of them that has any meaning.

Stand rebuked in the name of the Omnissiah, heretic.
And on that second note I know understand fully why it's uphill work trying to tell you about logic.There's no arguing absolutes with people who deny there's anything other than uncollapsed quantum superpositions.

 

[Scary Devil Monastery]

Note my qualifier: "at the time under discussion." The Greek separation of disciplines isn't the historical norm. We (the Western world) sometimes forget how much we've been shaped by those blokes. The Greeks seemed to delight in chipping the world into ever-smaller shards, yet lots of cultures had rather work towards a whole.

Well, yes...but I should posit there's a reason that greek philosophy survived whereas damn few today still pay heed to the code of the middle kingdom pharaoh's, druidic theocracy, or about a few thousand other various cultures to try to combine the irreconcilables of science and religion. Europe was completely in thrall to the church in medieval times but as soon as progress of technology and philosophy emerged once more, the church suddenly needed to encourage ever increasing deviation from dogma to just remain relevant.

What we call "secularization" today is something which I consider a large amount of people who call themselves "believers" are mistaken about when the truth is that what they cling to is ritual and community, not faith in whatever godhead is the choice of their congregation.

Of course, this is the point where we have to start arguing No True Scotsman again.