I am glad that I could enliven things a little bit. However, before I address some of the issues that have been raised, allow me to note that I will unfortunately be unable to provide such exhaustive responses in the future (which I suspect some of you will be rather pleased with; it took more time that I would like to write this and it probably takes more time than you would want to read it). Just a warning, so that you do not think I am trying to ignore you (unless I AM trying to ignore you).
Anwho.
***
In support of your position you argue that our current knowledge of science coincides with the Christian perception of God as "omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent". I would argue that you have it exactly backwards: the Christian perception of God is colored by our current knowledge of science.
Nope, those traits predate our current knowledge of science. While it would be quite interesting to consider the metaphysical idea that the present could alter the past, in a sort of trans-temporal form of the collective subconscious, that really isn’t what we are talking about here. Christianity (and indeed, Judaism) established these traits for God well before the Scientific Revolution.
You would be quite free to point out that the traits Christians attribute to God do not match with what is in the Bible. That, however, is another issue.
***
Hmph, well, if you have philosophical questions, you should probably ask Thought. I think he knows these things way, way better than I do, and seems to have a clearer way of explaining them.
Thanks, but unfortunately you would think incorrectly in the regard, Daniel.
While I would like to think that I can philosophize, I do not know philosophy, as a topic of study, well. Most of what I know of philosophy comes from history books that happen to cover philosophers (and thus, in turn, their philosophies).
If you want to know of Kant, I can tell you little; wikipedia would actually be a better source than myself in that regard.
***
Lastly, let me apologize in advance that the following is not as long as I might like. I gave up the Compendium for two reasons, and one of them was limited time. As much as I would like to engage you at full length, there are other things I would like even more, and only so many hours on the clock. So if I miss something that you were particularly keen on seeing addressed, be forgiving and let me know.
I fully understand, and greatly appreciate the time that you can give. Though, I am glad I could make you break your promise by returning to this thread. I don’t expect to do it a third time, but on the off chance that you do happen to glance (and for the sake of others who might desire to consider the issues), allow me to respond to some of your counterpoints.
The short answer is that you are correct, and a number of people have made that point already…
The longer answer is that you are not correct. Atheism is illogical only inasmuch as it is not one hundred percent veracious, and in some situations the only binary that matters is the perfect match versus everything else.
I must disagree. Atheism is
reasonable (thus, taking into consideration that evidence which is present), but not
logical (which must take into consideration all facets). As I said, this is nothing to be ashamed of. Logic is a tool, it has its limits.
As logic is rather mathematical (indeed, I suspect you've seen a few logic equations in your day), allow me to show you the problem, logically and mathematically.
If A>B, then C is True
If A<B, then C is False
Let C represent the statement "God exists," and In turn, let A equal the arguments for the existence of a God and B equal the arguments against the existence of God. Now of course, A and B are equations in themselves. A is the result of all possible arguments and evidence for, and B is the result of all possible arguments and evidence against. As we agree (at least, I think we do) that not all the evidence on the matter is in, we can assume that in the equations of A and B we will not receive a constant number; there will still be a variable left as we simply do not know the value of it yet.
Let us be generous to your point and assume that the equation of A (which would be far too complex for me to imagine what it would look like) equals 1X. In turn, equation B equals 1,000,000,000,000,000Y (though while you might disagree to the magnitude of difference, I think you can agree to the spirit behind that magnitude). Plug this back into the original equation and...
If 1X>1,000,000,000,000,000Y, then C is True
If 1X<1,000,000,000,000,000Y, then C is False
Unfortunately, the equation is still unsolvable! We must solve for ALL variables before we can come to a logical conclusion.
I spend so much time on this for one very important reason: logic is not the end-all be-all argument. It is perfectly fine that Atheism and Theism are illogical. We can use logic as a tool to imply an answer (in the above equation, as I put it, it certainly is implied that C will be false, as X and Y would have to be very unexpected numbers to make it anything else), but we cannot use logic to reach that answer. For that we need reason.
To lump the two together is a common tactic among religionists, because it serves a dual and most advantageous purpose: If the atheistic party takes the bait, they are forced into a sudden defense of their position on strange ground. More importantly the tactic infuriates many among the atheistic party, by accusing them of practicing faith by eschewing it—an absurdity.
Not at all, the tactic was to get you to realize that logic is itself not a definite measure. That something is illogical does not make it unreasonable. Of course, this does provide the religious an advantage; once realized, the atheist cannot toss the label "illogical" and leave it at that, in good form. No, rather the atheist must resort to reason. It is a trick, yes. I am trying to trick the atheist into actually using their abilities of reason
Atheism is illogical only in the sense that it is incomplete by virtue of the subject matter, while theism is illogical not only because it is incomplete in the same way, but because it contradicts our reliable observations of the natural world with extraordinary, non-falsifiable claims of its own.
Illogical by virtue of the subject matter is still illogical. Logic
is binary, there are no shades of grey. You cannot dismiss that which is illogical in one case and not in another. To do so is
illogical and unreasonable.
You speak with a conviction that is not borne out by the ideas you present—a flaw of my own when I was younger. You have no immediate standing to assert that “a good majority” of our knowledge of the universe is “almost assuredly incorrect,” and if I asked you to defend that position you would be compelled to research for hours simply to find mistakes in past scientific thought and controversies in modern thought
Actually, I am speaking with historical conviction. And no, it would take me about 5 minutes to defend my position because research is not needed (human error is rather obvious). Shall we discount all mythologies as being false understandings of the universe? (Now I know that some would want to include religion in the definition of mythologies, but as that is the matter in question we must keep it apart). Well, that tosses out Nordic, Roman, Greek, Chinese, India, Aztec, Incan, Egyptian, African, etc means of perceiving the universe. No matter how you cut it, that is a large chuck of knowledge right there that was wrong. Philosophers have been wrong (theory of the elements), doctors have been wrong (theory of the humors), writers have been wrong (The Crying of Lot 49), architects/engineers (the levies around the Gulf coast), farmers (slash and burn), industrialists (mercantilism), etc. Merits of science aside, humans have been wrong on basic understandings of the universe for over 18000 years!
Now some humans are claiming that we have finally gotten it right?! That is an extraordinary claim and needs extraordinary proof. That proof may come, but it will take time. I am merely arguing from probability here. This group of people (humans) have been so wrong so often that we can reasonably expect them to be wrong again.
You are using an incorrect definition of logic. Throughout my early reply in this topic, I was referring to formal logic—the study of deductive reasoning and its principles and methods. Krispin was also referring to that. But in your example of making decisions prior to having full information, your reference to “illogical” applies to those methods of human reasoning other than critical analysis, such as intuition, repetition, and so forth.
You are getting reasoning and logic confused. See above: logic can be represented mathematically (and usually is). If we get an answer that cannot be represented mathematically, then that answer is not logical, though it may have included sounds logic and it may be reasonable.
Wishful thinking. Faith will never substitute for any fact-based method of speculation, such as hypothesis or inference. You are welcome to defend your claim, but if I were you I would save myself the trouble of such a futile effort and go on to the next quote.
Not substitute, I fully agree there. Rather, supplement. In addition to, not in exclusion of. As your point is invalid due to a misunderstanding of what I meant by extra-logical (admittedly easy, as I made up the word), I will save my time and not defend an unchallenged claim.
Fascinating. Untenable. The discoveries of science do not amount to “circumstantial evidence.” Indeed, you could not have found a more antonymous pairing. “Circumstantial” implies a condition of the moment, whereas scientific experimentation deliberately attempts to weed out those false conclusions by imposing the requirement of reproducibility.
You misunderstood, I did not claim that scientific discoveries are, in of themselves, circumstantial. Rather, in how science can be used in a discussion of the existence of God. Consider this analogy; in a court of law, evidence is still evidence, but unless there is a direct connection to the crime it is "circumstantial." The evidence may still be empirical evidence (man A was seen entering a place of business shortly before a crime was committed there), but it can still be circumstantial. Of course, even at that I did not claim that it was circumstantial evidence; rather, I claimed that it is on the same level of usefulness. This is another example of me using History; the historian is largely concerned with evaluating the respective value of sources.
One of the most consistent weaknesses I notice in religious thinkers is a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is, how it is conducted, and where it is applied.
To counter that, one of the most consistent weaknesses of the non-religious thinker is a fundamental overestimation of what science is, how it is conducted, and where it is applied.
There is, unfortunately, a disconnect between Science and science; the ideal and the practice. That is exactly why I have a lower regard for it than you might.
Take a look at a random issue of Cell, or Nature, or Lancet, or any other scientific journal. You will notice two things are missing that are supposedly key; rigorous retesting of experiments and negative results. Both of those things are important to the scientific process, but you can’t get published with these things. Scientists live and die by what they can publish, so those areas, though key to the Scientific Method, are forgotten.
Take a look at how research is actually conducted; the PI generally sits in a room writing grants while the research is delegated to Grad Students, Post Docs, and Lab-Techs. Scientists seldom personally perform scientific experimentation!
Science is good, but the egos of scientists get in the way of it.
I have spoken, as have we all here, of “science” in the collective, perhaps making it sound as though it were some monolithic force almost like god, and maybe that is confusing to my friends on the pro-religious side of the table. Science is not religion’s counterpart. Science is the methodical investigation of phenomena for the purpose of understanding their nature. Religion is antagonistic to science because it is threatened by science, but the war is decidedly unilateral and science, for its part, does not care. It concerns itself only with questions that can be put to the test. It is utterly without ego, and thus incapable of taking any notice of the threat posed to it by religious fundamentalists.
Now see, you are being hasty there. Religion is not antagonistic to science, nor is it threatened by science. Some religious people are; however, others are not. Therefore you cannot talk of "religion" in the collective, making it sound as though it were some monolithic force.
Most of what we do creatively is analogical, or, at best, metaphorical. Seldom do we create anything that is truly original—and when we do, it is often poorly received. (Postmodernism comes to mind.)
This is a total aside, but no, postmodernism was poorly received because it was bunk, everyone knew it was bunk, but people didn't want to admit it was bunk. Luckily, we are in the post-postmodern age (let us disregard how anything in the present can be named something that means after the present).
But back then, in the oldest days of civilization, our thoughts were simple and our gods were too. Indeed, your observation that we tend to borrow from what we know when we engage in creative acts is so astute, and so straightforward, that I am surprised you did not follow it to its natural conclusion. Instead you accuse humans of being unimaginative (quite demonstrably untrue), then bizarrely conclude that, therefore, we must have come up with the idea of god because, in fact, god came up with us.
Not at all. I pointed out that the divine is not human, it is not in our sphere of experience (if there is no god). I then pointed out an inherent problem in the argument that humans created gods via the observation of natural forces and applying it in progressive steps; people don't behave that way. That there are no gods of gravity illustrates that early-humans did not need to use gods to explain natural phenomenon, they were quite willing to accept such things without question. That there are gods of roads illustrates that early-humans did not just use gods to explain natural phenomenon either. The use to which the divine has been ascribed is not the use that it was actually applied.
The question is a bit further back than how gods developed, but why they were started. The divine is a curious luxury for primitive man to have afforded. As I originally concluded, the idea of the divine could have developed in a universe without the divine. However, as I also concluded, that it did develop is unexpected. That this is unexpected tells us nothing definite, unfortunately.
We questioned thunder because of its relevance to our lives, its dangerousness, and its overwhelming, fear-inspiring presence.
Yeah, it is a good thing that people in the past never tripped, threw criminals off cliffs, wondered why birds didn't fall, why arrows and spears would return to the earth, or anything else like that...
Of course I think of gravity as something as obvious. My point was that early humans should have thought lightning was just as obvious. It is not hubris, it is quite the opposite. If things can be obvious to us so that we do not question it, things should have been obvious to people in the past. These things might be (and are) different, they might be (and are) obvious for different reasons. I am questioning why the obvious was questioned.
Again, your religious point of view obscures your understanding of the wider world. You characterize the concept of good and evil as requiring an authority “higher” than humanity—a religious construction of an irreligious concept. People’s sense of good and evil can come from any number of sources. Mine comes from an observation of human nature, and then follows by ascertaining what is best (and worst) for humans, from a human standpoint.
Thank you for clearly demonstrating the problem with your reasoning. You can ascertain that which is
best and worst[/i], but not good or evil. Curiously, that which is best can still be evil, and that which is worst can still be good. For example, in voting for a president, there are Americans who often feel that they are stuck with a choice of the lesser of two evils. The lesser evil is "best," but it is not good.
People’s sense of good and evil can come from any number of sources, but each of those sources is tainted by religion. When philosophers have attempted to separate the two, they have failed.
Not “out of hand.” Now that is a straw man. For you to suggest it is to imply that all those who reject religion, such as myself, are either pitiably irrational or up to no good.
No, I suspected it, so I did it instead. That isn't a straw man; however that was use of weasel words. Terribly sorry, I didn't even notice. But to defend, if we conclude that religion was not worth the advancements it made, then those advancements that directly concerned religion (theology, for example) are also not worth it. To compare; let us suppose we are debating if a tumor is good or not. We suppose that growth is good, so I could point out the tumor's growth as being good. If we then conclude that the tumor is bad, then the tumor's growth (though growth is good) is still bad. Strictly speaking, it is a little too close to circular logic for my tastes. If you want to include it, that is fine with me.
My argument is not that those events did not occur. Obviously, I know better than that. There will always be some progress inside even the most oppressive society. That Christianity did not destroy society completely during the Middle Ages is to be expected; humans are made of heartier stuff than that, and churches can fall. Rather, my argument is that the adoption of Christianity itself slowed what progress might otherwise have been made. Had another imperial power, free of the corruption and excess that had diminished Rome, arisen and taken over the West of Europe before Christianity set in, the Goths could have been turned back, society could have been rehabilitated, and commerce could have regained its footing.
As, well see there we must disagree. My perspective is, the Goths were a very good thing. They got the west out of the rut Rome was in (look at Byzantium! The rot of the Roman Empire needed to be cut away to allow for new growth). But I am not sure such a discussion would benefit anyone; that will take into realms of historical minutia and argument that could result in four or five dissertations.
As a side note, the Germans were pestering the Romans at the very founding of the Empire. Indeed, they shaped the Empire. No imperial power could have turned them back.
Nonetheless, from our perspective, the story is plain.
Quite right, it could use some butter couldn't it?
Sorry, but again I must disagree. History (that is, the story) is never plain (nor is it ever clear, which is actually why I like it so much). As for human advancement, if nothing else the Printing Press is what made Christianity earn its keep. Without Christianity providing a common text that the population was desperate to get their hands on, it would have remained a curiosity. However, that Christianity preserved Latin is nothing to sneeze at either (the Germans had little to no interest in it otherwise).
Justice is not a choice between religion and survival of the fittest. That’s a false dilemma, a logical fallacy. Yet again your religious perspective has muddled your mind and prevented you from recognizing the palpable fact that nonreligious principles are as effective as religious ones in determining civic ideals.
Not at all, non-religious ideas are quite effective. Like Democracy! ... oh wait, what makes Democracy so wonderful is that it is utterly ineffective (we muddle the efforts of the good and evil alike and can live happily apart from such concerns).
But you claim this is a false dilemma (for those not in the know, that is stating that there are only two choices when others may be present); this is very easy for you to prove. What are the other options?
Survival of the fittest trumps everything else. The nonreligious may come up with an idea that is splendidly wonderful, a shining beacon to everyone. Unfortunately, it will be built in a metaphorical swamp and it will sink into the swamp (that is, it will pass as all human institutions have done in the past). So they'll build another one... that one will sink into the swamp. So they'll build another, that one will burn down, fall over, then sink into the swamp.
What I mean by metaphor (and movie lines) is that nonreligious ideas will survive because they are fit and they will fall because they are (comparitively) unfit. Gender equality? I like it, I hope you like it too. I also hope that a social system doesn't come along that is better able to survive than it; if so, it will be replaced. That system may well be worse off, from a perspective of what is good or bad.
Anything that humans envision can easily be discarded by humans. Take the arguments we have been making here: I have put a lot of time and effort into mine, and I suspect you have as well. But we humans, we can just ignore them. Perhaps post a picture of a rabbit with a pancake on its head, distract people. Soon enough, our arguments are forgotten. Even if someone tries to bring them up again, others will pounce on that person for raising the dead (or for not being modern enough). If we argue from religion, if we claim that there is an ultimate standard (even if there isn't; yes, religion may be a useful lie), then at least we have something to point to in order to justify ourselves with the belief that it too wont burn down, fall over, and sink into the swamp.
Although it might not be obvious from inside a religious frame of mind, Ms Black is right again: Christianity shapes its followers’ behavior with a clear system of rewards and punishments. Christians don’t want to be damned; they want to be saved.
Well I'll tell you what I want, what I really really want (so tell me what you want, what you really really want)… sorry.
So since you already said that the psychologically unstable don't count, I guess I will have to discard Rasputin (a monk who essentially thought he'd get to heaven by damning himself).
Seriously though, no. As a Christian, what do I want? To see the face of God. So yes, there is a "reward." Do I not want to be damned? Yes; however, here you are making the fatal mistake; I do not
want to be saved, I
have been saved. Simple question of verb tenses, a mistake easily made.
Now I understand, this is going to frustrate you as it is illogical (being a matter of faith). However, as you are addressing the motivation of a Christian you must get into the mind of a Christian. If a Christian first believes because they are illogical, should you expect all (or anything) that follows to be logical? Christians believe that they have been saved on faith. We operate under the assumption that this is true, illogical as you may find it. We may be wrong, but we are acting like we are right. So do I not want to be damned? Of course not. I also don't want the Earth to be turned into bread pudding. As I don't believe the earth is in any peril of turning into bread pudding, I don't act in a manner that is designed to prevent it. In the same way, I don't believe I am damned so I don’t behave in a manner designed to prevent it.
Now, if I believed that one could loose grace, that would be a different matter. Yet, as this is not seminary school I am not sure if there is much point in debating internal Christian doctrines. Please do correct me if I am wrong in this.
This is one of those times where the length of your reply gives away your feeling of vulnerability. Ms Black, myself, and others, have all stated pretty clearly why faith is illogical. It’s a one-sentence answer: Faith is illogical because it declares itself exempt from logic.
Quite right. But if you will read carefully, I never claimed faith is logical. I stated that there are apologetics that include logic (sans faith). Those are the arguments that you may be able to appreciate on a technical level. Apologetics will also include faith,
in addition to logic. A single argument may contain numerous, smaller arguments. You may discard the larger argument as illogical (though that is unreasonable) since the larger argument contains faith, but you are then still left with the smaller arguments that are internally logical and do not include faith.
That’s the very sort of thing that Krispin just doesn’t understand. I’d like to think that you do, and are just playing dumb so as to further your argument (and, at the same time, give me a chance to further mine even more), but maybe I’m wrong. You tell me.
Oh, I’m not playing
You are certainly not a scientist, then. In colloquial usage, facts are superior to theories—witness that old canard, “Evolution is just a theory.” But in science, facts are the small coins, and theories the mighty houses of exchange. In science, a good theory makes use of many facts to describe a piece of the natural world and its function. A fact on behalf of evolution is nothing compared to the theory itself, which is supported by legions of facts. Just as facts rule the day, theories “light the way.” Okay…that was not as poetic as I had hoped. But, you get my idea. Your usage of these terms is decidedly in the colloquial sense, and does not capture this important distinction, so I thought I would point it out for your erudition.
And I am quite grateful that I am not a scientist. That aside, I must debate this point. Which of us is using the correct, scientific, non-colloquial definition of facts and how they relate to theories?
Allow me to quote myself:
To be fair to science (and to make sure I am not misunderstood), a scientific theory is nearly as good as fact. It is as good as money in the bank, as it were. However, there is still that gap, albeit very small, between Truth and Theory.
Science recognizes only one type of “fact,” that of the observation. The observation itself may be flawed, but it is a fact that it was observed. These observations are then used to support a hypothesis (though really it happens in reverse, unfortunately) which, if it stands up to peer review and rigorous testing may, MAY, be promoted to the realm of theory. Theory is still not a fact.
Thus, to summarize what I said: facts are the instances of observation (this mouse gained 3 ounces while on this drug, this cell bursts when exposed to this type of radiation), those facts are used to support a hypothesis (this drug will cause weight gain, this radiation is harmful, etc). Ideally, that hypothesis is passed along to another scientist who performs the same tests. The facts should then match. That is passed along again and again and if the hypothesis survives, the scientist gets tenure (or something like that).
Thus, to summarize what you said: facts are the components that are housed in a theory. As such, a theory is greater.
Let us compare the nature of facts and see which of us is right. A fact is that which
is. Not matter what, a fact stands. A theory, on the other hand, is just a tested hypothesis. A hypothesis is a possible explanation for why the facts are the way they are. If the hypothesis does not match the facts, the hypothesis is thrown away (not the other way around). A long standing Theory, regardless of how tested it is, can be discarded for the sake of a single fact that contradicts it.
Now theories can obtain near factual status, but they never reach it. True facts can always out do it.
In a way, your analogy is quite apt. Facts are the coins, the theory is the house that they are in. The facts, however, are what is bringing worth. Remove the facts, and the house is worthless. Remove the house, and the facts still have value.
Yes, I recall you tried to prove that earlier. It didn’t go very well for you, did it?
Actually, it went rather well. But of course, that is entirely the problem; we are observing the exact same things as being inherently different. When two men look at the same object and one proclaims it a moose, the other a diet soda, without an external arbiter, they are at an impasse.
I think this is the first (and hopefully to be the only) anti-intellectual cheap shot you have taken at me. By quibbling over my artistic use of the word “few,” you are, effectively, making argument where none exists.
Actually, I was being facecious. I assumed that the ridiculous nature of the argument in the movie would reflect on the ridiculous nature of the “argument” here. I generally find the more I seriously apply my mind to a matter, and the longer, the more random jokes get thrown in.
Revisionism is about the worst thing any historian could do with their position of authority.
Right, historians should assume Papal…I mean, academic, infallibility and move on.
Of course history should strive to be objective and disinterested as possible. Historians, however, fail to reach such a lofty goal. When new facts are brought to light, it is irresponsible of the historian not to consider them and adjust accordingly, as it is irresponsible of the scientist to ignore new evidence and rework the hypothesis (or discard it) accordingly.
There’s a book that came out a couple of years ago by Rodney Stark, I think his name is: The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and the Success of the West
I will keep him in mind, but to warn you; history is best studied by a historian. Now I am merely judging from what articles I could find on or by Stark in a basic JSTOR search (JSTOR being the humanities’ equivalent of medicine’s PubMed; that is, a discipline-wide database of articles from related academic journals), but Stark has never been published in a historical journal as far as I could find. This doesn’t mean he is wrong, mind you, just that his use as a source is suspect.
***
To Krispin: First, Daniel, you’re making me blush. I would not say I was cool-headed, just slow. It took me so long to write that response that I forgot what I was angry about, or why, and so I had time to delete those sections before I posted. Being slow and forgetful just happened to appear as virtue, but I assure you it was not.
Forget that Lord J accused him improperly of straw man arguments... that was misapplied (I've been accused of that improperly, too.)
To be fair, it was close. He had the fact that I was making a logical fallacy down (I didn’t realize I had done so at the time), he just misidentified it.
the Church has not stifled thought, and in fact has often been the birthplace thereof
No, sorry, it has stifled thought (or tried to, at least). Please do not misunderstand me in this, but look to Luther! Look to the Anabaptists! I never meant to make the point that Christianity (Religion, really. I must object that we all use the two so interchangeably; if this were a debate about Atheism v Christianity, it would be a much simpler matter. Rather, it is about religion itself, as an abstract ideal that has taken form in particular areas at particular times. Like Plato’s forms, we can argue what the ideal is based on the actual, but the ideal is more) has been a purely good influence; rather, I provided examples of its good directly as a means of countering the hasty assertion that it should be rejected for being evil. Christianity, like science, is like wine cut with vinegar. I merely was trying to argue that Christianity is not vinegar cut with wine, as it were.
And before someone objects to me labeling science in such a manner, allow me to say one word to you, just one word: Eugenics.
Music, painting, architecture... how did it hold these things back, may I ask?
Not on topic, but allow me to say that if the only thing good that ever came out of religion were Gregorian Chants and stained glass windows, then I am content. (These weren’t the only good, but I am just saying…)
Why the heck will I be studying, in depth, Homer's Iliad (book XXIV) this semester, in Greek no less?
I envy you
***
I'll attempt to clarify Zeality's assertion that popularity does not lead to accuracy. I think this is a communication breakdown. While having many copies of an ancient text can indeed lead to a more accurate picture of what the text contains, it speaks nothing to the accuracy of the content itself.
Quite right. Though since I brought up the issue of the bible’s popularity leading to its preservation, allow me to remind us that the point wasn’t that numerous copies of the bible, in such good condition and created so close to the originals, made it true. Rather, the argument was that the bible is singularly unusual in the sheer number of surviving texts. That the Bible has been preserved so well as a text (regardless of what the text says) is a historical anomaly (particularly considering that for a good portion of its history, the various books of the bible were
not popular). This is not what we should expect from any text that had to survive a pre-modern era. However, this is also within the realm of sheer luck.
It is unusual enough so that it
could mean something (beyond just popularity), but it is
not so unusual as to necessitate that it has meaning.
***
Just a,
Thought
