Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 December 23

= December 23 =

Mistakes in Holy Books and Proving Religions False
I’ve heard that one way you can know, test, prove, discover, or find out that a religion is false, that it is not the “one true religion”, is by finding, looking for, and searching for mistakes and errors in its holy religious book or books. By mistakes and errors, they could probably be, for example, scientific, historical, archaeological, chronological, or logical mistakes and errors.

There are so many different religions in the world today. Many of them have so many believers, millions and millions of them around the world. Many of them have existed for such a long time, for hundreds and thousands of years throughout history in the past to today. Religions have had such a big impact on the world’s history, art, music, societies, culture, recreation, holidays, people, philosophy, politics, government, and countries.

So I don’t understand. Is that it? Is it that simple? Can religions be disproved, proven wrong and false, and proven not to be the one true religion so simply, easily, and quickly?

Bowei Huang (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Most people can't think critically. It's sad, but true, and that affects every one of us. They are little more than trained animals. Despite any amount of evidence they will continue believing in that nonsense, which is either a false theory or a non-falsifiable theory. All believers share one basic false belief: the belief that the outcome of events are somehow affected by a mystical intelligence. Scientific tests prove this to be false, only random governs such things, but the populace will never accept that, they aren't intelligent enough. Something similar happens with the proof that 0.999...=1. Most people simply can't understand that, and will never be able to. As Max Planck noticed, new ideas triumph not because you convince your opponents, but because older opponents die and are replaced by younger people. --Taraborn (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be assuming that there is in fact a single religion that is the 'true religion' or that any religion is provable. Just about every religion claims to be 'the religion' or 'the chosen people' and that all the others are mislead. Rfwoolf (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Past experience suggests that the many errors which have been found in scripture have no great effect on belief. - Nunh-huh 06:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A truly all-knowing God would be able to predict even the most random events. I don't see how your idea proves anything either way, Quantum Theory or no Quantum Theory. Wrad (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(To answer the original question): Obviously not. If that were the case, everyone would have given up their religions by now. Sure, there are people who try to maintain that the Earth is less than 6,000 years old and that Noah had dinosaurs in the Ark. But many, many people who accept basic scientific principles also maintain their belief in religion. How? Well, some simply accept that the Bible, for instance, was written by human beings who lacked modern knowledge of astronomy and geology. But while rejecting the literal truth of the Bible's historical accounts, they maintain their belief in the religion itself because of its moral principles and because it is the tradition of their ancestors. Others refuse to take the Bible's historical accounts literally. In Jewish tradition, for instance, it's common to assume that the "Garden" of Eden, the "man" Adam and even the "days" of creation were not a garden, a man and days like we know them in the physical world. After all, if God is all-powerful, certainly He can mess with time and space to create humanity by way of the Garden of Eden in a metaphysical sphere and still make the physical world look like we came from Homo erectuses. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah many religions are either ambigious or support evolution Level of support for evolution (not very good article but does cover it somewhat) even tho it appears to contradict the teachings of many religions particularly Abrahamic ones Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The bigger issue here is that religion often attempts to claim a place for itself afforded to no other system of belief, in the sciences or otherwise: that contradiction, historical errors, and other things we would normally use to discount a scientific theory are somehow not applicable. The paradox is that while religion is free to make scientific propositions about the creation of the earth, man, and historical events, it is not held accountable when those propositions fall through. For a good discussion on this, first try Stephen Jay Gould, then try this article. To be honest, I find the "non-overlapping Magisteria" principle silly - if religion should make scientific predictions, it should be taken accountable when errors are found. Your mileage may vary - precedent seems to say it doesn't matter anyway, people will still believe in stories contrary to scientific fact. - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 09:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-overlapping magisteria is not itself a new idea. Paul H Hirst proposed the idea of "Forms of knowledge" ("logically discrete forms of rational understanding" see here)in 1965. He was not original in this idea either, but he was when he suggested that school pupils should be taught the different forms of knowledge, and that they should learn to think as scientists, mathematicians, historians, moralists, etc, and thus that they should be able to distinguish between situations in which the different modes of reasoning were applicable. ("It is because the concepts are used in a particular way that any proposition is meaningful. The concepts on which our knowledge is built form distinctive networks of relationships. If we transgress the rules of the relationships which the concepts meaningfully permit, we necessarily produce nonsense.") The existence of this question seems to indicate that he had a point. SaundersW (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-overlapping magisteria goes back quite a bit earlier, even. It's what sociologists of science call boundary-work—erecting safe little walls in order to impress your authority over one area and maybe try to avoid conflict in others. It is never as non-contentious as its practitioners would like to pretend it is. The idea that different professions should know when and where they have the authority to say things goes back to medieval scholastism; the whole preface of Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium is all about why a mathematician should or should not be allowed to talk about things usually reserved for "philosophers" (that is, why someone using "just math" should be allowed to talk about things in the "real world"). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see where you are coming from here, and yes, I agree that it is dangerous to shut off bits of knowledge as appropriate territory only for specialists. Hirst's thesis was that all students should be taught to think in all these manners, so that they can distinguish between different categories and use the appropriate kinds of arguments in the appropriate context, ie that the same person can "do math" where math is appropriate and "do theology" where that is appropriate. SaundersW (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "After all, if God is all-powerful, certainly He can mess with time and space to create humanity by way of the Garden of Eden in a metaphysical sphere and still make the physical world look like we came from Homo erectuses." — Mwalcoff, that's an interesting theological point of view; I don't believe I've ever encountered it before. Do we have an article on it?--Pharos (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's similar to Omphalos (theology) - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 04:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. Omphalos is a pseudoscientific "explanation" for the material world.  What Mwalcoff was describing was some sort of mysticism.--Pharos (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have an article on the concept, but I once saw an article on the Internet talking about how creationism as promoted by some Christians is foreign to Judaism, and it gave the example of how the Garden of Eden and Genesis story are described in rabbinic sources. I can't find that article, but you can see in the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Adam that Adam in the Garden was clearly not a plain old "man" like we think of men. Here is Dovber Schneuri's description of the Garden of Eden :
 * The Garden of Eden is an ethereal state of being, which is an intermediary between the physical and the spiritual, between matter and spirit. For example: the taste of an apple, though the taste is within the physical apple, yet it does not occupy tangible space. Before Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge their bodies were also on this ethereal state; once they ate from the tree, they became more ‘materialized’ and therefore could no longer remain in the spiritual state of the garden. The Garden of Eden therefore exists on Earth, yet we (with our material eyes) cannot see it on the map. Just like the vegetative properties in the soil cannot be seen on the map. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The difficult is that 'truth' is not the only real thing in life. Whether or not religions are disproved really doesn't alter the value they bring to many people (and yes problems too). We must remember that those with religion have their culture just as those without religion do. I would say to me this is the same idea as who is (or isn't) factually your family. By simple DNA you might tell a father his son of 20 years is actually not his at a.., but someone else's. Will that 'fact' alter their belief in who is their son? Often not. Why? Because the fact alone is not why they are their son - it is the years of shared-experience, the closeness, the connection etc. Similarly in religion if you suddenly had 100% proof that religion Y is based on false evidence will those who have put 30 years of belief into it convert? Not likely. They will consider the 'lie' to be worth as much as the 'truth'. It isn't a case of lacking intelligence or being resistant to change/ignoring new information - it is that there is bond in religion (as in most cultural groups) beyond the mere 'facts' which gets into many more aspects of life. In short it is not that simple, because proof isn't what many people are looking for. ny156uk (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The major holy texts are very, very old and have been written, edited, re-written, and translated by semi-literate people for hundreds if not thousands of years. To expect them to be of the same empirical quality as, say, modern work (if we hold that in a high esteem) seems to me rather foolish. To believe that the will of a deity has somehow guided said semi-literate monks correctly is itself problematic (what of multiple copies? who decides what is canon? where in the canon does it explain who decides what is canon?). Obviously fundamentalists (of any sort) believe this to be a good approach, but they are clearly not approaching this from an empirical or skeptical viewpoint, by definition. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Religions are not scientific disciplines, and scriptures are not science textbooks. I don't look to religion to tell me about the evolution of man or the diffusion of the world's languages. Science can answer those questions. I may look to religion to answer questions about what science cannot, such as morality and metaphysics. I'm sure many of the world's non-atheists feel the same way. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Science can't tell us anything about morality? - Woo ty   [ Woot? ]  [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam! ] 03:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well not quite. Social-science can theorise and explain what differing cultures across the world/history think of morality 'en masse'. They could even look for constants and consider them part of a group of non-moving morals but it cannot provide facts or 'answers' any more than religion can. Philosophy would be a much better place for theories on morality and ethics because they seem to be more abstract and non-committal than things such as traditional sciences and even religion - which are both bound by more of demand for yes/no clarity to their decisions. The point, though, seems to be that science alone is not a guide to life - whereas religion can be. It offers direction in how to live, what is right and wrong that sort of thing. Good science doesn't. Good science doesn't say (for example) that killing animals is wrong because of the pain/suffering they endure. It provides evidence that this is the case and leaves society to make the decision on the relative value of that 'truth'. A poor example i'm sure, but the point is not about whether that is right or wrong, but that science is not an apparatus for proving morality. Religion on the other hand does not offer evidence, it offers guidance on what is right and wrong based on the words of deities/gods/whatever. Though to make matters worse even religious morality changes across time, across the world!! ny156uk (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Religion doesn't really have any answers about morality, just opinions. And I doubt we can say there are such things as "answers about metaphysics". &mdash; Kieff | Talk 00:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * However, I don't think anyone should compare social-science with other sciences such as Physics and Chemistry. Social-science provides no explanation into 'how things work', instead it tells us that 'things do work'. It cannot tell us anything about morality, it can only tell us that such a thing exists. Cyclonenim (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And that statement itself can be seen as an opinion... Wrad (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To be clear on the morality issue, philosophy has a whole branch called 'ethics'. Rfwoolf (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking this because I've heard that there are mistakes in the Qu'ran. See the sections Mistakes in the Quran, number 18 in page 11, and Major Mistakes in the Quran, number 19 in page 12, in Islam - A Case Of Mistaken Identity in the Answers Book. But is that true? Bowei Huang (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Qur'an asserts that angels and other supernatural beings were milling about in the Middle East 1400 years ago. To me it's obvious that that's nonsense, but whether it counts as a mistake depends on whether you consider such things possible.  Any minor historical quibbles you might find will certainly pale in comparison to its big demand on your suspension of disbelief: "magical beings came to Earth".  --Sean 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fox on Barbados
Why did George Fox visit Barbados in 1671 and what was the impact of his visit? Major Barbara (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Here (http://www.quakerinfo.com/barbados.shtml) might help get a bit more info. ny156uk (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is also an online copy of Fox's journal where he discusses this time period. -- Saukkomies 11:13, 23 December 2007


 * And a similar question from september 2007; Fox on Barbados in 1671 SaundersW (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hamilton and Montrose
First Question: Is there any obvious reason why James, 1st Duke of Hamilton should have been such a poor military commander and James, 1st Marquis of Montrose such a talented one, considering the first had more campaigning experience than the second?

Second Question: What was the reason for the decline in trust between Hamilton and King Charles I? Thank youDonald Paterson (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Q1 - Because experience is not a useful indicator of quality? There are those who have done things for years who cannot do them as well as those who have done them for weeks... On a scantly more useful note perhaps there were more factors at play than simply leadership in their respective commanding campaigns? Certainly when we judge political-leaders it is difficult to remove them from the global history/circumstances affecting what they could and couldn't achieve in power. 00:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

the promised one of Islam and the Seal of the Prophets
Muslims, to the best of my knowledge, are waiting for a "Promised One" of some sort, eg. Shi'a Muslims are expecting the return of the 12th Imam, and Sunnis the Mihdi, and/or the return of Christ (please correct any errors I have made here). However, they also regard Mohammed as the Seal of the Prophets, that is, the last prophet. How can they await the appearance of a Promised One if they also believe their prophet is the last? 203.221.127.216 (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a contradiction here: the Mahdi is the prophesied "redeemer", not a prophet. Skarioffszky (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Italian army in WW2
The performance of the Italian army in WW2 was generally very poor. The various failures over a number of fronts suggests a lack of preparation, surprising considering the militant nature of the regime. Is there any evidence, then, on the structure, organisation and levels of investment in the armed forces before 1940? Were there specific command or logistical problems that could explain successive defeats? Henry Henryson (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The poor performance of the Fascist Italian army during WWII can not be attribiuted mainly to insuficient investments in military hardware and logistics, there were severall other reasons:


 * 1) the Italian fleet was given priority over other branches of the Italian army (and was one of them of powerful navies in the world at the start of WWII)
 * 2) lack of morale
 * 3) the inability of the Italian factories to produce large numbers of modern equipment, (medium tanks like the P40 tank never entered mass production)
 * 4) The inability of Italian allies (Germany, Japan, Hungary and others) to suply Italian forces with substancial number of military equipment that they were not able to produce themselves. Mieciu K (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Although Mussolini was a very militaristic character, his military was not organized in the same way that other powerful militaries were during the time of the Second World War. Part of this was due to the fact that Mussolini was fixated on the concept of trying to replicate the ancient Roman civilization, which carried over into how the Italian military was supposedly patterned after the Roman armies in antiquity. Wiki has a somewhat decent article about this under Blackshirts. I'd suggest following up on it by looking at the links posted at the bottom of the article. -- Saukkomies 12:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cruelty reduced disposal
If I catch a mouse by a leg in a mousetrap, how should I execute it in the manner that is least cruel. I have no cyanide/ arsenic, etc. I am not prepared to hit it on the head with a hammer. - 91.106.39.188 (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Aspirin? 70.162.25.53 (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps let it run free rather than catch it in the first place? Alternatively if you've already caught it perhaps you could set it free after having a check to see how bad its leg is? Certainly I know that if I were to be caught by a trap i'd rather have a broken-leg (or snapped) and be alive than be killed...Of course it might be considered 'cruel' to set it free when it is liable to struggle to continue to survive so how about packing it on its way with a nice bit of cheese or whatever mice actually like to eat? ny156uk (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that instantly destroying the brain is by far the most humane death possible for any animal. But I, too, can see several problems with the hammer method. They say freezing to death is not too bad once you get past the shivering. See hypothermia. How about dropping mouse and attached trap in a bucket and filling it with ice cubes. Wait for the mouse to fall asleep from the cold, and then pour in water to drown it. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen my father neck various critters in the past. Always seemed to be a pretty quick death if done correctly. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A college lab lists several ways for humanely killing mice (they like to call it "sacrificing" but that calls up images of pagan rites). Anesthesia or sedation of the animal prior to killing is recommended by the lab. Edison (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "the most humane death possible for any animal" would occur after that animal becomin' human ... Human death is NOT what electric chairs or drugs used for death penalty in some countries offer : why bother for mice and not for men ? -- DLL .. T 11:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We may never know :) --Taraborn (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One method of "sacrificing" lab mice is a guillotine, but that calls up images of the mouse getting a final ride through the lab in a little cart, with the other animals jeering and throwing refuse, like in A Tale of Two Cities. 71.57.125.95 (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't that the lab techs' job? ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidence of possession of WMD (Weapons of Mouse Destruction) may result in your home / suburb / town / state to be reduced to neat piles of smouldering rubble by the intergalactic ratpack. Corollary rodenticide will solve the problem of any relatives to Disneyworldian mice.
 * If you use such a WMD in your home, you must be aware of the consequences. Regret and Ooopses post facto / post mortem are a bit too late.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have dispatched many injured mice by cutting off their heads with a shovel, and never felt that it was at all inhumane. Anything that lasts less than a second from start to finish has to be close to optimally uncruel.  --Sean 00:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)