david f,
Understand the Hebrew poetic text of poetry of the sun standing still. Which it did not! There was a massive hail storm that darkened the sky for almost the whole day = the text means the sun ceased to shine for almost the whole day. Unfortunately the Septuagint written hundreds of years later gives the wrong idea that has been translated into English as "stand still". That is not a miracle it is a falsehood promoted by ignorance of language. I will find my writing on the subject and post.

Dear Josephus,

The prophesy of the virgin birth is also a mistranslation. In the original Hebrew in Isaiah an almah or young woman will conceive. The Septuagint (translation into Greek) translated the Hebrew, almah, into the Greek, parthenos (meaning virgin). This was probably done to bring the birth of Jesus into line with the many virgin births of pagan deities. Neither the Jewish Bible nor the New Testament is a reliable source of history, science or morals.

uyutsu,

" .... we call something "true" when it authentically corresponds to our sensory perception and mental interpretation ...."

No. Otherwise whatever we perceived, or believed, to be true, would be true, which is - to use David's celebrated word - nonsense.

E.g., no, the sun does not rise in the East. We traditionally have perceived it as such, but since the Greeks, we have known that the earth revolves on its axis, giving the impression etc.

So, no, God didn't stop the sun for 36 hours for Joshua, he/she stopped the earth from revolving (at 1000 mph) for 36 hours, then fired it up again. According to legends - obviously pre-Greek legends.

So, to amend your statement, " ... gravity is true, but is not the whole truth in the vast spectrum of phenomena .... "

Which says nothing in particular.

Joe

Dear david f,

I would not say that what Josephus or others say is nonsense but would not object to you saying that. I reacted only to your ninefold use of the word nonsense in reference to what many thinkers consider deserving serious study (and eventual reinterpretation). In this respect there is no difference between various kinds of scholarship, be it biblical exegesis or physics, although you are right that opinions of specialists vary more in the case of the former than in that of the latter.

Now you bring also philosophy of physics (and religion) into this.

>>there are many conflicting religious beliefs, and there is no objective standard to differentiate among them. <<

I suppose you meant “adjudicate among them” since where there is conflict there is an obvious difference. In that case I agree in the sense that in distinction to physics religious “theories” cannot make predictions that could be verified experimentally or by observation/measurement.

In physics these measurements (like that of the gravitational waves) could add to the acceptability of the theory but do not make the theory valid in the sense that different theories are “invalid”. Strictly speaking if A (a theory) implies B (predicts an experimental outcome), verification of B does not imply the (absolute) validity of A, but makes it more “adequate” in the empiricist’s meaning of the word: Is classical Newton’s theory valid or invalid? Since Einstein’s GRT and QM contradict each other is one of them valid, the other invalid?

I think it is not that simple and validity is not an appropriate term to be used either for physical theories or for religious representations of a Reality that religions are about. This is partly so because the one involves the subject as part of what is to be represented, the other (physics) does not (never mind Copenhagen).

I think we should leave it at that; this is not the appropriate place for such an abstract discussion between an atheist (experimental?) physicist and a theist (pure) mathematician.

Dear Poirot,

You refer to Einstein equating gravitational and inertial mass - his famous mental experiment with a free falling lift - which led him to his general relativity theory built on sophisticated mathematics, rather than mathematics "confirming" Einstein’s assumption. It is observations that confirm (the adequacy of) physical theories, not mathematics that can be used to write down all sorts of theories.

However, what I had in mind as being “against common sense” was not this but the notion of an absolute speed limit: If A moves with a speed 2c/3 and B in the opposite direction with the same speed 2c/3 then “common sense” would dictate that the speed of B with respect to A is 4c/3, hence c cannot be the maximum speed. [The answer here is that “common sense” assumes the Galilean model of space and time, whereas Einstein assumes the Minkowskian model of spacetime.]

david f,
You keep harping on about pagan deities. In the ancient world men of power were considered as gods as a Pharaoh or a Roman Emperor and to ensure their birthright young virgin women were inseminated by the use of a straw, rod or tube. They had no intercourse with a man till the child and heir was born. This was a practice used of women in the Essene community so the men did not become ceremonially unclean, even in Orthodox thinking today the young men thank God they are not born a woman. Men in early thinking considered woman to be unclean. We today see this is sexist.