23 hours ago, swansont said:

The issue is veracity, and memory is a fluid thing.

I agree, but that word has a very different meaning scientifically than it does philosophically, for instance, an emotional reaction can be measured, but it can't be understood scientifically.

But as Wittgenstein suggests 'language is fundamental to how we think', also there's many examples of philosopher's arguing against the veracity of the written word.

I feel this is still relevant to the topic, but feel free to start a new.

1 hour ago, Aiden Walker said:

Yet before if the people forget the god use to send messenger to guide the people.

"Cometh the hour, cometh the man" I can't remember who said it but google can.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I agree, but that word has a very different meaning scientifically than it does philosophically, for instance, an emotional reaction can be measured, but it can't be understood scientifically.

But as Wittgenstein suggests 'language is fundamental to how we think', also there's many examples of philosopher's arguing against the veracity of the written word.

I feel this is still relevant to the topic

Not sure how. Whether the information has changed from one work to the next doesn’t strike me as a philosophical issue.

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

, but feel free to start a new

I’m not the one pursuing this particular tangent of dubious relevance.

5 hours ago, Aiden Walker said:

Yet before if the people forget the god use to send messenger to guide the people.

Allegedly. I do not believe that myself but it is written in some holy books.

On topic then, in case the thread gets locked soon.

Christopher Hitchens made a good point and Tim Rice about 40 years prior.

If the gods were so concerned about being unloved and forgotten, why choose a such a few select times to show up? In such an undeveloped part of the ME? Where literacy was about 2 or 3%? To so few people? Assuming everyone rejects the Adam and Eve story that is.

I would say I am a hard atheist (I reject God and played Rugby, b bum)

However, if god appeared, announced their existence, to everyone on the planet simultaneously and made it so we could see each race, each tribe, city, nation watching each other in wonder finally realising we are one whole beautiful species living as one, I would agree they existed.

I would have questions but agree and be a theist again.

Easy for a god to that, as easy as me arranging a teams with people across Eurasia and I'm just a human.

19 hours ago, swansont said:

Not sure how. Whether the information has changed from one work to the next doesn’t strike me as a philosophical issue.

It's the difference between a scientific fact and a human truth.

19 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

If the gods were so concerned about being unloved and forgotten, why choose a such a few select times to show up?

What's god got to do with it?

19 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

I would say I am a hard atheist (I reject God and played Rugby, b bum)

However, if god appeared, announced their existence, to everyone on the planet simultaneously and made it so we could see each race, each tribe, city, nation watching each other in wonder finally realising we are one whole beautiful species living as one, I would agree they existed.

Wouldn't that be easy for the madman with his light in the morning; few people get the opportunity to say "I told you so" just bc human life is so nuanced that the hour is seldom the time...

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's the difference between a scientific fact and a human truth.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What's god got to do with it?

The subject of the thread.

20 hours ago, swansont said:

I have no idea what this has to do with anything.

Socrates' Thoughts on the written word.

I think Jesus and Mohammed had similar thought's:

Perhaps there's a reason Jesus' teachings weren't written down for many decades.

And perhaps Mohammed's attempt at fixing the written word in the Quran, was an attempt to fix the problem.

I can't help but think, that if the teachings were handed down orally, this conversation would be out of the question.

If religions were allowed to evolve with society, then neither side of the argument would question the need for god or established real world 'facts'.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Socrates' Thoughts on the written word.

Socrates was apparently unaware that you can memorize things without understanding them.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I think Jesus and Mohammed had similar thought's:

Perhaps there's a reason Jesus' teachings weren't written down for many decades.

And perhaps Mohammed's attempt at fixing the written word in the Quran, was an attempt to fix the problem.

I can't help but think, that if the teachings were handed down orally, this conversation would be out of the question.

If religions were allowed to evolve with society, then neither side of the argument would question the need for god or established real world 'facts'.

I have no doubt that if religious stories were handed down orally that they would have evolved, because that’s precisely the issue I was pointing out. You apparently agree, but have posted in a way that suggests you also don’t

21 hours ago, swansont said:

I have no doubt that if religious stories were handed down orally that they would have evolved, because that’s precisely the issue I was pointing out. You apparently agree, but have posted in a way that suggests you also don’t

In general I do agree, my only caveat being, the non existence of god as an argument for the dismissal of religious philosophy.

I apologise if you haven't suggested this, other poster's must have bled into my thinking when replying to you.

22 hours ago, swansont said:

Socrates was apparently unaware that you can memorize things without understanding them.

Indeed, one can memorise a joke and regurgitate it, but without the correct intonation, no one would laugh and it would wither on the vine.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, one can memorise a joke and regurgitate it, but without the correct intonation, no one would laugh and it would wither on the vine.

You could also memorize a story about an event, but not fully understand it, so would not notice if you didn’t retell it quite the same. Or omit something you deemed unimportant, or added some embellishments to get a better response from your audience. Which is why one can’t trust that oral tradition gives a faithful account of what the original story was.

19 hours ago, swansont said:

You could also memorize a story about an event, but not fully understand it, so would not notice if you didn’t retell it quite the same. Or omit something you deemed unimportant, or added some embellishments to get a better response from your audience. Which is why one can’t trust that oral tradition gives a faithful account of what the original story was.

That, in a village wide collective, depends on the complexity of the message, usually human truths can be explained quite simply; the ten commandments, for instance, can usually fit broadly, in many culture's.

In an oral only tradition, the noise of those story teller's that don't understand, are drowned out by the number of teacher's that do understand; if each of the twelve disciples, past on their understanding to twelve more and so on, wouldn't that become enough (I'll bow to your mathematical prowess if the anwers no.)?

Whereas, the written word when the author has died, however profound the message is, becomes the source of so much noise, in terms of the shear number of different interpretations, that the original message becomes whatever best fit's one's avarice...

Edited September 9Sep 9 by dimreepr

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

That, in a village wide collective, depends on the complexity of the message, usually human truths can be explained quite simply; the ten commandments, for instance, can usually fit broadly, in many culture's.

In an oral only tradition, the noise of those story teller's that don't understand, are drowned out by the number of teacher's that do understand;

Evidence?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

if each of the twelve disciples, past on their understanding to twelve more and so on, wouldn't that become enough (I'll bow to your mathematical prowess if the anwers no.)?

Have you ever played the telephone (aka Chinese whispers) game?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_game

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Whereas, the written word when the author has died, however profound the message is, becomes the source of so much noise, in terms of the shear number of different interpretations, that the original message becomes whatever best fit's one's avarice...

Again: evidence?

You can at least compare the current version with the original, which is impossible with oral transmission over many generations. As I’ve said.

The Gospels in the New Testament all convey the same story, but they don’t agree on details. And they were written down fairly soon after the events.

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

In an oral only tradition, the noise of those story teller's that don't understand, are drowned out by the number of teacher's that do understand; if each of the twelve disciples, past on their understanding to twelve more and so on, wouldn't that become enough (I'll bow to your mathematical prowess if the anwers no.)?

No. Oral tradition does not work like that and it is nothing to do with mathematics.

There are lots of contradictions in the synoptics that were written within 20 years of each other.

19 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Oral tradition does not work like that and it is nothing to do with mathematics.

I think there is mathematics involved. Error correction would be one concept.

16 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

There are lots of contradictions in the synoptics that were written within 20 years of each other.

Written being the operative word here; and my argument that information crosses the generation gap more easily, orally...

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Written being the operative word here; and my argument that information crosses the generation gap more easily, orally...

The point is that this was an oral tradition before being written down, and it didn’t survive intact over a small number of generations.

Another example would be the fairy tale The Smith and the Devil. Many variations exist, partly because language changes as culture changes.

20 hours ago, swansont said:

Evidence?

Have you ever played the telephone (aka Chinese whispers) game?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_game

Again: evidence?

You can at least compare the current version with the original, which is impossible with oral transmission over many generations. As I’ve said.

The Gospels in the New Testament all convey the same story, but they don’t agree on details. And they were written down fairly soon after the events.

Your constitution was written by the people who authored (fully understood) it, and ever since the noise has grown and it continues to denude the original meaning.

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Your constitution was written by the people who authored (fully understood) it, and ever since the noise has grown and it continues to denude the original meaning.

But the words haven‘t changed. We can all refer to a passage and know that 200 years ago, people were debating the meaning of the same passage. Nothing added, subtracted or substituted, without a record of those changes.

Just now, swansont said:

But the words haven‘t changed. We can all refer to a passage and know that 200 years ago, people were debating the meaning of the same passage. Nothing added, subtracted or substituted, without a record of those changes.

But those that do understand it's meaning are disconnected from the pupil's that need to understand (for their own good), an oral teacher can at least understand why the pupil doesn't understand and can plan a lesson to compensate.

51 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Written being the operative word here; and my argument that information crosses the generation gap more easily, orally...

Current thinking in anthropology actually proposes the opposes of this as the reason why H. Sapiens superceeded the more numerous H Neanderthalis.

The last episode of the recent BBC series Human made this point most emphatically.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Current thinking in anthropology actually proposes the opposes of this as the reason why H. Sapiens superceeded the more numerous H Neanderthalis.

The last episode of the recent BBC series Human made this point most emphatically.

The problem is, we'll never know which branch would be more successful, since we've got both in a sort of Brownian motion ("A strong cup of tea"); but it's fun to think about. 🙂

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The problem is, we'll never know which branch would be more successful, since we've got both in a sort of Brownian motion ("A strong cup of tea"); but it's fun to think about. 🙂

Why is that a problem ?

We both sprang from a traceable common ancestor so have some common genetic material.

But when push came to shove HS proved more adaptable than HN so outcompeted them.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

But when push came to shove HS proved more adaptable than HN so outcompeted them.

Indeed, but why is just a guess.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Written being the operative word here; and my argument that information crosses the generation gap more easily, orally...

Bart Ehrman cites studies on oral tradition that shows stories change.

Not just because people get mixed up and forget details which happens, but because the speaker would want to emphasize a particular point, or change a detail according to the audience.

The Gospels should tell you that.

15 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Bart Ehrman cites studies on oral tradition that shows stories change.

Of course they change, that's my point...