"ID is false and not scientifically plausible "

Bullshit. Prove it isn't scientifically plausible. You can't. Science is the "how", not the "why". Epic. Fucking. Fail.

Again, I have a degree in science. Do you?

"Bullshit. Prove it isn't scientifically plausible. You can't. Science is the "how", not the "why". Epic. Fucking. Fail.

Again, I have a degree in science. Do you?"

Oh, ho, this is going to be fun...

PROVE you theory is bullshit?

Nuh-uh--

It's YOUR theory, pal, the burden of proof rests on YOU, not me!

I can say that the often cited "Too complex to have evolved as it did, ergo, it was created with all the necessary parts" argument is bogus, as species generally evolve without a set direction or goal and gradually improving; the human eye wasn't "designed" to operate with all the parts it has right now, it evolved over millions of years, and we have evidence of that evolution in more rudimentary eyes found in other animals...I wish I could find that Dawkins link, in this quick video he explains it so much more eloquently and technically than I can.

But, again--

Burden of proof is on YOU, and so far, all alleged proof for ID has been shot down by the scientific community at large.

Epic. Fucking. Fail. On. Your. Part.



Your burden of proof, and...

If you have a degree in science and believe ID, Draug, that truly saddens me...

"You are a philosopher, or claim to be (some doubt that you have ever had an original philosophical thought, dare I say any original thought)."

Ummmmmmm.....

No I haven't claimed I'm a philosopher?

I'm interested in philosophy, read it, and would like to write something someday...that's it?

*Shrugs*

Seriously, where did you get tha "Obi is a philosopher" garbage because, hey! I'm not, I'm nowhere good enough or brilliant enough or wise enough to be one right now, so...

Where'd you dig that up? (Or were you just pulling that from thin air to try and make me sound bad, because if so, again, jokes on you, pal--I've never claimed to be a philosopher...)

As for the rest of that rant...I've written quite a bit, I'll see if anyone else wants to take a pinata whack at that whacked reasoning of yours before I post yet again.

Obi, to the opening post, this is my answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty33v7UYYbw

Theories don't have to be proven to be theories. Your understanding of science is truly weak. Theories are there to be disproven. If you can't disprove it, then it is a legitimate theory. The burden of disprove is on the naysayer in the scientific community. sorry, Obi, but you fail.

As far as you claiming to be a philosopher or not. You may have never explicitly stated it, but have implied that belief in numerous posts where you state your personal philosophy as if you have some incredible insight. But just as the asshole in the bar in Good Will Hunting did, you usually plagiarize and regurgitate something you recently read thinking it was even remotely an original.thought.

But i would still like to see you define ID and answer to the fact that you equated intelligence as strictly being in the realm of.logic, removing creative genius from the realm.of intelligence or worthy of having a conversation with.

"Theories don't have to be proven to be theories."

And I can have a theory that the Moon is made of green cheese and that Shakespeare was a gay android from the planet Neptune created by Doctor Who.

Doesn't mean anyone should treat that theory with credence...they'd want a tad bit of proof first.

Same with you.

"Your understanding of science is truly weak."

Amazing, I was just thinking the same of you.

"If you can't disprove it, then it is a legitimate theory."

Uh-huh...then take my theory above, or, better yet--

I HAVE A THEORY--

We were ALL created as one tremendous bowel movement by the Flying Spaghetti Monster after he had a bad dish of his brother, The Pastafarian.

Can you disprove my creation theory?
No?
Than by your logic, it's legit.

But...we all know it's rubbish, and so, I submit, so is your "burden of proof is on the opposing party" nonsense--

If you make a scientific claim, or a logical claim it is YOUR burden to back it up, NOT the other parties to prove your batshit insane bullshit wrong.

" sorry, Obi, but you fail."

Sorry, Draug, but you do...and rather obviously too, I'm afraid.

"As far as you claiming to be a philosopher or not. You may have never explicitly stated it, but have implied that belief in numerous posts where you state your personal philosophy as if you have some incredible insight."

I merely state my beliefs confidently--trying to give evidence as, well, they're claims and it's my burden to back them up--as it's my opinion that, if you're going to have an opinion, you better be ready to express it and express it with confidence and, hopefully, clarity.

That doesn't mean I consider myself the next Nietzsche.

"But just as the asshole in the bar in Good Will Hunting did, you usually plagiarize and regurgitate something you recently read thinking it was even remotely an original.thought."

Well first, as I CITE my sources--and we all know I do, as it's practically a WebDip meme as to WHO I cite, Shakespeare, Plato, Nietzsche, Milton, and Eliot, chiefly, with some Hobbes and Woolf and Hitchens and others--so, I'm NOT plagiarizing, saying, "Hey, guys, I've had this brilliant idea that God is Dead!" but rather quote Nietzsche there, give him his academic credit and due, and then say what I THINK about that position, why I agree or disagree, and move on.

It's called backing up your argument with credible academic sources--try it sometime, it's not plagiarizing if you give credit to who you're citing, and the great thing about citing? Again, you can give some form of proof--strong or weak aside--to try and support your claim because, hey! it's a claim you're trying to make, so the burden is on YOU!

"But i would still like to see you define ID and answer to the fact that you equated intelligence as strictly being in the realm of.logic, removing creative genius from the realm.of intelligence or worthy of having a conversation with."

Erm...

As for the second part of that, I'd consider creative genius an outgrowth of logical genius--there is after all, a logic to Shakespeare's meter or Mozart's musical structure or Michaelangelo's works--so I would say that logic and creativity are not mutually exclusive and when I mention one, the other isn't excluded.

Artists can be logical (even Absurdists are logical within their own realm, that is, there's a logic to the structure of their created illogic)...

And Scientists can be creative.

Not AT ALL mutually exclusive, so no, creative geniuses are not out of the intellectual discussion, I just feel they're logical geniuses in their own way and thus don't distinguish between themselves and other geniuses.

As for the former...

I'll wait until morning, because I don't want to explain, in my not-a-science-major terminology, poorly why ID doesn't work or why it hasn't been accepted as a scientific theory in proper--

So I'm not ducking your challenge, I just want the help of a WebDip colleague who can explain it better than I, because being an English major, it'd be a shame if I screwed the logical pooch here because of poorly-chosen words; I understand the concept as to why it's not considered a properly scientific term, the exact terminology, less so, and thus I'll wait and get some assistance from our fellow WebDippers on that account, as those such as abgemacht can doubtless explain it better than I.

@Draugnar:

"Theories don't have to be proven to be theories. Your understanding of science is truly weak. Theories are there to be disproven. If you can't disprove it, then it is a legitimate theory."

First, to clear up a bit of confusion: scientists don't quite use the same terminology as non-scientists on this sort of thing. Without knowing the details, a good guess most of the time is that a "theory" represents the current consensus on how something works, backed up with experimental evidence; a "law" is something that isn't quite true but is probably a good approximation and once represented our understanding, etc.

If you cannot disprove something, it is *not* a legitimate scientific theory. In fact, this is a good test for whether something is or is not science. Ask yourself this: is there some evidence you could imagine which would convince the person forming a hypothesis that they are wrong? If the answer is no, it's not science. The scientific method consists not just of making assertions, but of constructing ways to test those assertions -- a good model is falsifiable. Religion is not falsifiable; ask a devout adherent of [pick your favorite faith] if there is any evidence they could imagine which would convince them God does not exist.

Of course, just because something cannot be tested does not mean it is necessarily wrong. It is certainly a logical possibility that some true things are untestable. We know that in mathematics, for example, some theorems cannot be proven true or false (or, depending upon your axiomatic system, can be proven both true and false). But, science is by its very nature the study of things that can be tested. [And yes, this is one of the reasons I'm not a string theorist].

So, the question I have for you as an adherent of creationism: imagine you're wrong. Could you give me a situation in which an experiment, archaeological record, etc. could be found that would convince you that you are wrong? If you cannot, then what you are doing might be valid logic, but it's not science.

I have got a question for you guys. Is naturalism and science compatable?

>has a science degree
>calls intelligent design a theory

Damn Draugnar you are getting fistraped in this conversation. You are so so very wrong my friend.

Welcome to the forum, CS (or welcome back?), I've enjoyed reading your posts so far.

Pull out your Pooppers, folks, we're gonna need them!

CS, may I interest you in this? http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-experiment-would-disprove-string.html Just don't stray away of the physics section of that blog!

"The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy"

Who said that?

"I do, it's called "Captialism," check it out...well, it's not MY theory, but it's one I endorse, moderated, of course..."

Hey Obi, you're not the center of my universe. I wasn't referring specifically to you.

"How do you define a theory?"

In terms of politics, an idea of what 'good' politics looks like (which necessitates a value-system which informs what they look like)..

Thank goodness for CSteinhardt.

Did you bother to read the context of that quote, Fulham? No, ok, moving on.

Obi,

Quite a long screed there. I'll just respond to a few major points.

First -- and this one more or less invalidates most of your points -- you admit right out of the gate that the Bible has lots of atuhors. Um, OK then. Why wouldn't you judge each book as a work of literature? Judged this way, you'd have to view, say, Job as one of the greatest works of literature in the western world. Ditto many of the books. Genesis is absoltuely incredible.

2) One-dimensional characters? Are you KIDDING me? Have you ever ready ANY of the Bible? Like any book, of course, there are characters who appear only so briefly (less than a page) that they don't get much development. But almost any other character is going to be so complex that it's virtually impossible to even assign a "good" or "bad" label. As soon as you start liking somebody, they do something horrible -- or vice versa. Just off the top of my head, we have David, Hezekiah, Asa, Abner, Joab, Solomon, Peter, Paul, Elijah, Saul, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Judah... these are all multi-faceted characters, and that's just typing off the top of my head. It would be harder to come up with one who wasn't. (Goliath?)

3) You may find other, apocryphal books of the Bible great literature, but that doesn't really have any bearing on whether the books that are included are. You complain of "editing." Well, it would be far more severe editing to take a composition by Mark (for example) and edit in some fourth century concoction in a different style.

I'll respond to your other post later I guess. In brief, certain things may be outside the mainstream, but I don't see the benefit of pre-labeling them such, apart from making ourselves feel good for not believing them.

@CSteinhardt - Read again. I am *not a YEC or creationist. ID is not creationism nor is it YEC. So your question starts with an invalid assumption and isn't addressed to me because you didn't read or didn't comprehend when I challenged obi's condemnation of ID.

@Obi - I didn't ask you to invalidate it (feel free try) but to *define* ID. Want to see if youbeven know what the fuck you are talking about. *Anyone* who wishes other.invalidate something must first have a clear understanding of it. Oh, and I've read Dawkins work. Sloppy science that twists facts and takes shortcuts.

"Here's philosophy for you. If all these people were alive today and in the same room:
Einstein
Socrates
Plato
Jesus
Marx
Charlie Chaplin
Robespierre
Rasputin
Stalin
Hitler
Marley
Elvis


Who would have the biggest willy?"

Rasputin by far. 11 inches by reputation. That monk was hung.

“You're an English major, Crazy Anglican?"

Yes, well I was about twenty or so years ago. I'm an ELA teacher now. Biologists make a lot more money, you can change your major ya' know :-) I'm a little surprised though by your critique of The Holy Bible as a having a chaotic structure. If you insist on seeing it as one text then it would appear so, but the word bible means "book, or collection of books" (bibliography = works cited, German bibliotek = library). So first and foremost it cannot be taken as one work with respect to its structure.
Within the Psalms, for example, I see no real structural problems. For instance set it alongside Shakespeare's sonnets; they are both examples and very good examples of lyric poetry. Shakespeare holds to a more confining form, so for instance you'll not be able to as easily say "Look here's an unintentional break in rhythm, etc." while reading the Psalms. Yet, even so, being translated from another language will have its effect on any poetry form. So that's something to take into account as well. When looking side by side at the 23rd Psalm and Sonnet 130 it isn’t easy to point out which is clearly the inferior work of literature. Not to mention being inferior to Shakespeare doesn’t automatically disqualify one as worthy of study. One might like one work above the other, but in terms of the writing, the themes, and their clarity it becomes harder to distinguish and easier to see the merit of the poets in both cases.

"@CSteinhardt - Read again. I am *not a YEC or creationist. ID is not creationism nor is it YEC. So your question starts with an invalid assumption and isn't addressed to me because you didn't read or didn't comprehend when I challenged obi's condemnation of ID."

OK, clearly I wasn't addressing you when I started my post with @Draugnar. I bow to your superior logic.

If at some point you'd like to actually have a discussion, a good starting point would be to define a plausible test that, if you do not get the outcome you expect, would convince you that you are wrong. If you can do that, I'd be happy to discuss the merits of your idea as a scientific model. If you devise a test that makes your model falsifiable, and the test gets run, I'll believe the results of the test. When the theory and the data disagree, it's generally a good idea to trust the data. :)

On the other hand, if you'd prefer to try the ol' appeal to authority fallacy, we argue over whose scientific degree is bigger (mine is). Fortunately, to a scientist it's not the size of the degree that counts, it's how you use it. But while we're going around being unscientific, let me know if you'd like me to whip mine out and measure.

Sonnet 130

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damask'd, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground:
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.

First Shakespeare, Petrarch and Shakespeare are the two who have their names most consistently attached to the sonnet as a form. This particular sonnet is complex and in my opinion there is a bit of Shakespeare thumbing his nose at all of the competitors who were writing in what was a very popular form at the time. On the surface it’s another love poem. Shakespeare, however, does absolutely the opposite of his contemporaries and compares the Dark Lady unfavorably to nature “My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun;”, and also specifically denies her divinity “I grant I never saw a goddess go;/
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground:”. In so doing he allows her to be human and at the same time praise her and declare love of her as a person “And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare/
As any she belied with false compare.” Not a lot of space for an actual in depth analysis but this should suffice for comparison.

@ulytau: That list is fair in the sense that yes, any of those would falsify string theory. However, it's not fair in the sense that the most plausible aren't actually testing string theory. Essentially, string theory came about because of two problems:

1) The "standard model", our understanding of how particle physics operates, works perfectly to many decimal places in a large number of high-precision tests. However, in regimes that we cannot test (very high energies), it is mathematically flawed.

2) General relativity works perfectly to many decimal places in high-precision tests, but in regimes we cannot test (for example, the center of a black hole), it is mathematically flawed.

String theory is mathematically identical to GR and the standard model in the regimes we can test, yet in the regimes we cannot test, fixes the mathematical inconsistencies. As a result, if you want to test string theory specifically, you need to test predictions made my string theory that are *not* made by GR or the standard model. And that knocks out most of the list, basically leaving 4, maybe 6 (I think that one can be worked around), 7, and 8. All of which aren't feasible as tests. And for what it's worth, you'll get a lot of disagreement over whether 7 is really a test, or just would cause string theorists to focus on a different class of models.

There are actually a few other ways to test some bits and pieces of string theory, including some of my own work. At one point, the main hope for trying to prove its validity was actually trying to show that it was the unique mathematically consistent theory -- that doesn't seem plausible given what we've learned in the past few decades. But, it's an idea that essentially is untestable by construction, and at the moment is, not surprisingly, untestable. On the other hand, it's beautiful mathematics, and that's another motivation for continuing to look at it. And you never know where these things will turn up -- AdS/CFT is a wonderful idea and turns out to be more widely applicable. But, it remains to be seen whether it's physics or mathematics.

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever
On the surface, this Psalm seems a much more simply written poem. It’s a song of adoration, much like Sonnet 130, but without the twist of unfavorably comparing the object to other examples of beauty. Shakespeare relies on surprise and on the surface there is little surprising about the 23rd Psalm. Yet it doesn’t have to be surprising to be good. It opens with “The LORD is my shepherd” calling upon a common symbol used throughout the Bible. The Lord is the good shepherd, Christ is the Lamb of God, We are the sheep of his pasture. It’s such a common theme that it’s been satirized with derogatory term “sheeple” as people who follow supposedly without asking questions. On one level it’s a statement of faith. “God you take care of me and I won’t be afraid because I know you are with me”, the clear theme seems to say. Digging deeper the symbol of Shepherd and sheep allows connections to other stories. For instance can we make connections to the Last Supper? Sure, take a look at the Lamb being lead. Take a look at the table in the presence of an enemy (enemies if you count the Sanhedrin, as he was in Jerusalem and they were out to get him). “My cup runneth over” may be a reference to the cup of Christ. To say that these are absolutely references to one another wouldn’t be something that I could go into in an internet forum and the claim of one having to be a prophesy of the other is one I wouldn’t make in a scholarly debate. The point is simply that the works of literature in the Holy Bible constitute a complex set of historical and literary texts that have had such an impact upon so many societies within the past three thousand years that there is no way to legitimately say they aren’t worthy of study as works of literature. Within these stories are connections to earlier works such as “Gilgamesh” and they have had influence upon writers up to and surpassing the works of Milton, Tolkein, and O’Conner right up until the present internet forum in which it seems to be such a topic of controversy and debate. If longevity, influence, and controversy are in any way a measure of importance and worthiness of study within literary circles then the Holy Bible in not only admissible but an absolute necessity.

Let me clarify, I wouldn't make the claim of prophesy in a debate over literary merit as it's a claim of religious significance and as such doesn't forward the my point.

@ Putin, sorry it escaped you but the point of that quote from Darwin himself is that pure naturalism is inherently incompatible with a scientific world view. After all if the only driver is biological fitness then strength, guile, speed of foot etc. will be likely just as, if not more important, than telling and striving for the truth. What might be missing?

Plantinga puts it rather well:

........The basic idea, which is far from being original, is that if you are a naturalist and think that we have come to be by evolutionary processes, then you will think that the main purpose of our cognitive processes, our mental faculties, is survival and reproductive fitness, not the production of true belief. Evolution doesn't give a rip about whether your beliefs are true. It only cares whether or not your actions are adaptive, whether they contribute to your fitness. From the point of view of evolution together with naturalism, you wouldn't expect that our faculties would be really adjusted to truth or aimed at truth. They would just be aimed at fitness.

But if this is true, if our minds are aimed at mere survival, not at truth, then it's not probable that our minds should be reliable—that is, produce an appropriate preponderance of true over false beliefs; and if that is so, then one who believes both naturalism and evolution should reject the thought that our minds are reliable. But that's a crippling position to be in. Nietzsche is among the people who have suggested this problem. Some contemporary philosophers—Thomas Nagel, for example—have voiced the same worry, and so did Darwin himself.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/december/conflictresolution.html?start=2

OK...

While I find the Dawkins quote--tell me you're kidding, Eden!--and such...

@semck:

"Why wouldn't you judge each book as a work of literature? Judged this way, you'd have to view, say, Job as one of the greatest works of literature in the western world. Ditto many of the books. Genesis is absoltuely incredible."

That presumes that I think Job or Genesis are good stories--

I don't.

Leaving Genesis alone, as I think I've made clear time and again why I think that's a horrible excuse for a consistent story, let alone a coherent or even moral one, Job HAS gotten something of a reputation of being "a good story" on it's own, so to speak.

And I disagree with that:

1. I don't see Job acting realistically whatsoever...I'm sorry, if someone had that much done to them by a supposed "friend," if you had your wife and family killed, your property destroyed, your wealth taken away, were cursed with sickness, and everyone turned against you, all because of what a friend did...you wouldn't still be friends with that person, ESPECIALLY after you found out

2. It was a prank! How horrible is THAT, that this supposedly-loving God makes a bet with Satan--knowing he's going to win, since he knows everything--and destroys this person's life just to see if he'll keep praising him, and then gives him some gifts to pretend that makes it OK? Not only is that a horrible story, and not only, again, does it suffer from God's being there (really, the few parts of the Bible I'd consider good literature are often the one's without God, because the sheer paradoxical nature of his character's power ruins almost any other scene he's in, someone that powerful and that omniscient, that opens any scene with God up to enormous logical criticism, because anyway God chooses to do things, we can think of far better and more logical and often less harmful ways of doing it just by ourselves, right off the bat, so really, God ruins his own book, to a large degree) but it actually seems to almost trivialize suffering...Job's family dies, and the answer is "Eh, it's OK, here's some stuff to make it up to you, thanks for being loyal!" What's more

3. I don't sympathize with Job, either as, again, I'm sorry, but a REAL person would have had to have been more proactive than that, instead of standing their moaning "Why has God done this to me, why...even though I'll still praise him even though he's punishing me...?" Actually, the story almost is sort of sickening, when you think of it, it's almost like Job has Battered Wife Syndrome, or is in an abusive relationship with God--suffers tremendously AND manages to convince himself it must have been HIS fault and keeps coming back to the relationship for more...that's just sick.

And I can keep going, but--I don't think Job IS a good story.

To presume that I must view the Bible as good because these books by themselves are incredible presumes...I think these stories are incredible.

I don't, again, I find a great majority of them rather horrible and badly written.

"One-dimensional characters? Are you KIDDING me? Have you ever ready ANY of the Bible? Like any book, of course, there are characters who appear only so briefly (less than a page) that they don't get much development. But almost any other character is going to be so complex that it's virtually impossible to even assign a "good" or "bad" label."

...Well, except the Bible itself tries to label them good and bad, as it's trying to give moral teachings (and I'd argue often simplistic moral teachings and ones that are morally repugnant by today's standards at that) but alright, let's take a look at your examples:

David--OK, I'll grant that one, he DOES grow and change over the course of the story, and has an actual arc, and shows how he might be a good ruler but a bad family man, so alright, we'll grant David...

Hezekiah--An actual person, probably, but besides that, really, it seems to me like the Bible talks about more of what he did than who he was...

Asa--Again, mostly concerned with just the fact he was a king, not WHO he was...

Abner--AGAIN, talks about mainly what he DID, not WHO HE WAS...David so far being our example of some depth here, really, these folks following him can't touch that level of depth, and in all honesty, it's not surprising, as these phases of the Bible are concerned with trying to tell a history...and not twist it for propaganda and artistic license as Shakespeare did (maybe they did try and twist it, but I'll leave that alone, lest I make an accusation I can't back up.)

Joab--Eh...he's really the Mordred to David's Arthur, and Mordred isn't so much a deep character as written as he is a foil and a way to further flesh out Arthur's character...the same goes with Joab...I'll grant that at the very least he performs an important function in helping to flesh out David as he does, but by himself...not nearly as deep, we know some of what he wants, but again, it's pretty clear he exists solely to flesh out David and David's story, not to be his own character with his own story

Solomon--I suppose he has some depth...I dunno, I'll punt here, as there's plenty to read on Solomon, so at least he has enough material, I suppose that he might have enough text to build him into a three-dimensional character, but as I don't know this character and his story well enough, I'll punt

Peter--Sort of like the Merry Men for Robin Hood...the Disciples have characteristics to distinguish them by, but that doesn't mean CHARACTER depth so much as different abilities and different..."stuff" that happened to them, again, "what they do" =/= "who they are," and with the disciples, we get a BIT of who they were, but it's too periphery for
me to call them three-dimensional...they have MORE depth than other characters, but more depth on a 2-D character is still 2-D.

Paul--See Peter.

Elijah--AGAIN, it says WHAT he did, that doesn't = WHO he was as a character...Superman and Batman and Spiderman aren't defined by their powers, they're defined by the sort of people they are...even in Homer, powers don't make the character, case in point, Achilles, who's strong, but immature as well, and struggles to reconcile physical strength with emotional weaknesses...but Biblical authors REPEATEDLY equate ability to character development and growth, and that's NOT how it works...I don't care what miracles someone performed or what they saw as a prophet if I don't know who they are as a person, and so far, with the exception of David (and Joab in part by way of fleshing out David) we see the Bible giving people abilities, yes, but not true characters...the Bible places way too great an emphasis on what people did rather than who they were as people; again, for an admitted case of the Bible getting the balance RIGHT, see David--we get some accounts of what he did and how he came to be a hero and King, and then we see the other side of the coin, and learn his home life is horrible and he gets to power in blood, possibly, and perhaps he's not such a great person privately as he was publicly, it's a very old sort of trope, Agamemnon and King Lear can both relate to David, and surprise! both are multi-dimensional literary characters...so is David, but so far, he's the exception to the Biblical rule here. Saul,

Abraham--I obviously don't like the Abraham story...but I'll at least give credit for giving some introspection into how the guy must've felt knowing his son was about to die...that being said, a lot of that is LOST when, quite rightly, any sensible person at the thought of killing their son or daughter to appease a stranger would've been appalled. So, we get points for trying, but taken back for that attempt at character growth sort of flopping once we see how utterly ludicrous the action is--we have to believe the actions to some extent to buy character growth, and I'm sorry, I DON'T buy any normal person sacrificing their children like that--so I'll call this a break-even case.

Jacob--Again, what he did, not who he was...defined by actions and stuff, not character growth...

Esau--See Jacob, as their story is intertwined, obviously...

Judah--Same thing, I'm sorry, I don't CARE WHAT HE DID IF I DON'T GET TO KNOW THE MAN BEHIND THE CHARACTER.

And that's dealing with your list, we have one out of there, David, who emerges with literary depth...I punted on Solomon, but even if he had some, that'd just make two...

And those aren't anonymous figures, either, for the most part. So...yeah...

Character depth in the Bible--the authors equated "he did stuff" with "this is character growth," but just "doing stuff" today is what we criticize in bad action movies or bad episodes of TV shows--we care about who the character is...without that, there's no pathos...

There's at least someone to genuinely be invested in in the David story, based on what sort of a person he is, and not merely what he did--not so with too many of these other figures. In addition, as I said about a few of them, many characters in literature are created to flesh out another character, and so lack character themselves, often:

Achilles' brother in Homer...
Horatio in "Hamlet"...
Watson in the Sherlock Holmes stories...

And so on; those characters have some depth, but it's clear they exist for the purpose of fleshing out a major character. Such is the case with Joab and the Disciples in my view here--we get better reflections of David and Jesus, they're more fleshed out, but aside from what they just DID, who these characters are, Joab and the Disciples, they're not nearly deep enough on their own.

" You may find other, apocryphal books of the Bible great literature, but that doesn't really have any bearing on whether the books that are included are. You complain of "editing." Well, it would be far more severe editing to take a composition by Mark (for example) and edit in some fourth century concoction in a different style."

How?

Not immediately in Mark, but why not after, say, as in the case of Thomas?

You're already allowing for texts to be included spanning hundreds of years...and the Hebrew ones already clash with the Greek ones some...

Why not, aside from the fact they didn't want them in?

@Draug:

"Oh, and I've read Dawkins work. Sloppy science that twists facts and takes shortcuts."

...DAWKINS is a sloppy scientist? O.o

Seems a bit like calling Dante a sloppy poet, but alright, I'll bite--how and why is he sloppy and a bad scientist? (And does anyone here agree with Draug?)

@Crazy Anglican:

" I'm a little surprised though by your critique of The Holy Bible as a having a chaotic structure. If you insist on seeing it as one text then it would appear so, but the word bible means "book, or collection of books" (bibliography = works cited, German bibliotek = library). So first and foremost it cannot be taken as one work with respect to its structure."

They edited it together with the intention of it being treated as one text, albeit one text split up, so that's how I'm treating it.

Yes, you can take books in isolation, I'm just saying, as they edited them together and intentionally created a canon and context in this way, I'll treat it as such.

Aaaaaand....

I'll gt to that Shakespeare reference of yours in a bit, time to do some math work. :/

Obi, I am not interested in getting into this debate, but I did want to clarify a point where you're in error:

"it's almost like Job has Battered Wife Syndrome, or is in an abusive relationship with God--suffers tremendously AND manages to convince himself it must have been HIS fault and keeps coming back to the relationship for more"

Job actually never says "I /must/ have done something wrong." Those were his friends who said he did something wrong. Job maintained his righteousness throughout.