most moderate religious people don't believe the stories of their faith have to be the literal truth in order for them to have spiritual value.
their age, in this regard, indicates they speak to human experience in some way that is meaningful to people.
so they are clearly valid for the reason they are used by the majority of people
Originally posted by inimalist
most moderate religious people don't believe the stories of their faith have to be the literal truth in order for them to have spiritual value.their age, in this regard, indicates they speak to human experience in some way that is meaningful to people.
so they are clearly valid for the reason they are used by the majority of people
You miss the point. Christians, have to believe in certain things; like, Jesus was the son of God, to do this they must believe at least in part about miracles etc.
Tell a Roman Catholic (Worlds largest religion) the virgin birth didn't happen.
Tell a Muslim, the old testament isn't true...etc.
If a girl says god knocked her up, a simple DNA test will almost certainly prove her false.
Originally posted by ChristmasPast
You miss the point. Christians, have to believe in certain things; like, Jesus was the son of God, to do this they must believe at least in part about miracles etc.Tell a Roman Catholic (Worlds largest religion) the virgin birth didn't happen.
Tell a Muslim, the old testament isn't true...etc.
If a girl says god knocked her up, a simple DNA test will almost certainly prove her false.
valid isnt the word you are looking for then. because, to the majority of people, religious texts are not an accurate measure of history already, it really says nothing about the validity of the text. or, you could say religious stories are valid tools of spirituality if not history.
It actually seems the opener has a far better understanding of the possible meanings of the word valid than most members of this site.
How sad, he is talking about miracle's and laws re: validity testing methinks. Is something siad anymore valid as a basis for a hypothesis because it was said long ago.. Of course not. Now the veracity of such a statement like the virgin birth is equally dubious.
Originally posted by Orderinchaos
It actually seems the opener has a far better understanding of the possible meanings of the word valid than most members of this site.
❌
Originally posted by Orderinchaos
How sad, he is talking about miracle's and laws re: validity testing methinks. Is something siad anymore valid as a basis for a hypothesis because it was said long ago.. Of course not. Now the veracity of such a statement like the virgin birth is equally dubious.
not quite
validity deals with how well a model or idea represents a phenomenon in question. So, if you are trying to measure a person's startle reflex, a study is valid if it actually produces a startled response from subjects.
So, if the question is "can a story's age be a valid measure of its truth?", the answer isn't as clear as you might want to believe. While I generally agree, in principle, that it is not a valid measure, remember that one of the most important aspects of the scientific method is replication and review of models and theories. In fact, in cases like the theory of evolution, the fact it has survived so long and so many empirical tests is a very profound statement about its likely truth.
Further, if we redefine the question as "can a story's age be a valid measure of its X", we can use many different terms here that produce very valid measures. For instance, the story's age can be a valid measure of its age. Or, in terms of what I argued above, the age of a story can be a valid measure of its ability to speak to personal human experiences in a meaningful way. Arguably, one of the reasons, among others of course, that these stories have survived for so long is that they are able to speak to the human condition and provide spiritual satisfaction.
Originally posted by inimalist
❌not quite
validity deals with how well a model or idea represents a phenomenon in question. So, if you are trying to measure a person's startle reflex, a study is valid if it actually produces a startled response from subjects.
So, if the question is "can a story's age be a valid measure of its truth?", the answer isn't as clear as you might want to believe. While I generally agree, in principle, that it is not a valid measure, remember that one of the most important aspects of the scientific method is replication and review of models and theories. In fact, in cases like the theory of evolution, the fact it has survived so long and so many empirical tests is a very profound statement about its likely truth.
Further, if we redefine the question as "can a story's age be a valid measure of its X", we can use many different terms here that produce very valid measures. For instance, the story's age can be a valid measure of its age. Or, in terms of what I argued above, the age of a story can be a valid measure of its ability to speak to personal human experiences in a meaningful way. Arguably, one of the reasons, among others of course, that these stories have survived for so long is that they are able to speak to the human condition and provide spiritual satisfaction.
You're trying to over complicate things because the other two poaters are correct. Is a story anymore 'logically true', because it's old. Answer no. They are right you're wrong.
Anyway, the real reason these stories have lasted because they were simple models to give order of the environment. That includes relationships and what you term 'spirituality'. Where I live in Malaysia I have temples everywhere. I doubt spirituality.
Originally posted by inimalist
❌not quite
validity deals with how well a model or idea represents a phenomenon in question. So, if you are trying to measure a person's startle reflex, a study is valid if it actually produces a startled response from subjects.
So, if the question is "can a story's age be a valid measure of its truth?", the answer isn't as clear as you might want to believe. While I generally agree, in principle, that it is not a valid measure, remember that one of the most important aspects of the scientific method is replication and review of models and theories. In fact, in cases like the theory of evolution, the fact it has survived so long and so many empirical tests is a very profound statement about its likely truth.
Further, if we redefine the question as "can a story's age be a valid measure of its X", we can use many different terms here that produce very valid measures. For instance, the story's age can be a valid measure of its age. Or, in terms of what I argued above, the age of a story can be a valid measure of its ability to speak to personal human experiences in a meaningful way. Arguably, one of the reasons, among others of course, that these stories have survived for so long is that they are able to speak to the human condition and provide spiritual satisfaction.
This is the simplest explanation for why you're wrong and they are right.
In science and statistics, validity has no single agreed definition but generally refers to the extent to which a concept, conclusion or measurement is well-founded and corresponds accurately to the real world
So does being old mean it corresponds more accurately with what we know? Obviously not, because we know virgins don't give birth and dinosaurs were around before man. ;-)
It's O.K. for you and the mod to be wrong and an asian to be right.
Originally posted by Validity
You're trying to over complicate things because the other two poaters are correct. Is a story anymore 'logically true', because it's old. Answer no. They are right you're wrong.
if your point is that I was being pedantic, sure, I was taking his question very literally.
however, in terms of how to use the word "valid", I'm not mistaken at all
Originally posted by Validity
Anyway, the real reason these stories have lasted because they were simple models to give order of the environment. That includes relationships and what you term 'spirituality'. Where I live in Malaysia I have temples everywhere. I doubt spirituality.
there are probably hundreds of reasons why they have lasted. My point is that their usefullness for spiritual purposes is probably one of them. For instance, I'm sure people focus on certain books and parts of the bible for spiritual reasons, and abandon others, simply because they aren't as useful as a spiritual tool.
Originally posted by Validity
This is the simplest explanation for why you're wrong and they are right.In science and statistics, validity has no single agreed definition but generally refers to the extent to which a concept, conclusion or measurement is well-founded and corresponds accurately to the real world
So does being old mean it corresponds more accurately with what we know? Obviously not, because we know virgins don't give birth and dinosaurs were around before man. ;-)
actually, I agreed with this, and that is simply a more complex way of defining validity than I used above (also only as validity is used in science, which is not the only way that the term can be used)
however, even then, your point isn't totally true
many stories, re: theories, are absolutly considered to be more true because they have survived decades of testing and replication. So, like I said above, one of the most profound statements about the truth of things like Newtonian physics, or the theory of evolution, or any of these Victorian ideas in science, is that they have been around for so long.
so, even in terms of the definition of validity you want to use above, you are incorrect. There certainly are stories for which age is a good indication of their veracity.
Originally posted by Validity
It's O.K. for you and the mod to be wrong and an asian to be right.
if you were right, I'd have no problem conceiding it
Originally posted by siriuswriter
Amen.Try a game of "Telephone" involving billions of people over a 2000 year time span.
That ***t's gonna be uber-twisted.
by that arguement, the theory of evolution should be less true now than it was when Darwin wrote it.
time alone is probably not a good way to judge if something is true
Originally posted by inimalist
if your point is that I was being pedantic, sure, I was taking his question very literally.however, in terms of how to use the word "valid", I'm not mistaken at all
there are probably hundreds of reasons why they have lasted. My point is that their usefullness for spiritual purposes is probably one of them. For instance, I'm sure people focus on certain books and parts of the bible for spiritual reasons, and abandon others, simply because they aren't as useful as a spiritual tool.
actually, I agreed with this, and that is simply a more complex way of defining validity than I used above (also only as validity is used in science, which is not the only way that the term can be used)
however, even then, your point isn't totally true
many stories, re: theories, are absolutly considered to be more true because they have survived decades of testing and replication. So, like I said above, one of the most profound statements about the truth of things like Newtonian physics, or the theory of evolution, or any of these Victorian ideas in science, is that they have been around for so long.
so, even in terms of the definition of validity you want to use above, you are incorrect. There certainly are stories for which age is a good indication of their veracity.
if you were right, I'd have no problem conceiding it
If you knew how to spell 'conceding', 'absolutely' etc, I'd take you seriously. Actually you are mistaken as 'valid' has multiple uses and no fixed definition, as they other have tried to explain, his definition is equally valid to yours and in context superior.