Arguments Against the Bible: Hittiteisms

Patrick Reany

3 August 2024

After my chat with ChatGPT-4o, I conclude with a teaching on the four cylinders of the Engine we have in our psyches to find and know God.

Patrick:
The so-called High(er) Criticism of the Bible included a claim that the Old Testament acknowledgement of the Hittite people was myth, but their civilization was discovered by Charles Texier in the nineteenth century. Comment?

ChatGPT-4o:
High Criticism, or Higher Criticism, is a scholarly approach to studying the Bible that emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries. It involves the analysis of biblical texts to understand their origins, authorship, and historical context. One aspect of Higher Criticism was the skepticism regarding certain historical claims made in the Bible, including the existence of the Hittites, a people frequently mentioned in the Old Testament.

For a long time, the Hittites were known only from the Bible, and there was little to no archaeological evidence supporting their existence. This led some critics to consider them a mythical or fictional people, part of the narrative rather than historical reality.

The situation changed dramatically in the 19th century when Charles Texier, a French archaeologist, discovered the ruins of Hattusa, the ancient capital of the Hittite Empire, in modern-day Turkey. His discovery was followed by further excavations and research, which revealed extensive records and artifacts belonging to the Hittite civilization. These findings provided substantial evidence confirming the historical existence of the Hittites and their significant role in ancient Near Eastern history.

The discovery of the Hittite civilization not only validated the biblical references but also demonstrated the value of archaeological evidence in understanding ancient texts and civilizations. It highlighted that some elements previously considered mythological by critics could indeed be based on historical facts.

This episode serves as a reminder of the dynamic nature of historical and archaeological scholarship, where new discoveries can challenge and refine our understanding of the past.

Conclusion/Explanation:

I have seen these Hittiteisms rise and fall over the decades; some are still out there -- as they have to be. God was never going to let His existence be decidable in our minds solely on the basis of the physical facts, for to do so would be at the same time too easy and too heavy-handed. (There's supposed to be some effort on our parts to find the living God!) However, to those Hittiteisms still remaining, I rest confident that they will all be resolved in God's favor when I get to heaven (or some of them maybe even before), if I would even care after I get to heaven. [One modern Hittiteism is that people do not have free will, even though it seems that Evolution has found it necessary to convince us that we do. Ha ha! A case of Evolution gaslighting us?]

If you have resolved only to approach the possible existence of God based on the facts (through the mind) as they are humanly provable, you will almost certainly miss God forever. Jesus, referring back to Deuteronomy, told us to seek God with all our heart, soul, might (strength) [Deuteronomy 6:5], and mind[Luke 10:27]. If we want to find and please God, and activate our (soulish) intuitions to discern both Truth and Morality, to love Good and Hate evil, to love telling the truth and to hate telling or receiving lies or conspiracy theories [Revelation 21:27, 22:15], we had better open ourselves up to consciously activate these four channels of communucation and worship with God. If we do this in all sincerity, Jesus said he would manifest Himself to us! [John 14:21]

For those of you who demand proof of God, this will be it. Are you courageous enough to put it to the test? God is not against us seeking proof of Himself, but He has set down the means by which we are to get it. These are the four channels God has set up for us to use to worship Him and to communicate with Him. Yes, of course, we have to use our minds, but there is so much more to it than that! Apologetics are helpful, but on their own, usually insufficient to convince most people of the truth of the Gospel.

If God had wanted the masses of humanity to come to Him based on brute-force, undeniable 'facts', He certainly could have done so from the beginning, but He didn't. He wants us to 'feel after Him' [Acts 17:27] in our hearts, minds, and souls (intuitively), for God is a spirit, and those who would seek after Him, must seek Him in Spirit and in Truth, for those are they whom He seeks after. [John 4:24]

Jesus has described to us what I would call the 'Engine of Worship and Communication' with God. It's supposed to be installed and be activated within our psyches (I use this word with the broadest of interpretation) by our consent and participation. Jesus has described it (using my metaphor) as having four cylinders of power. Are you running on all four of them or just one of them, at best?

There are scriptural reasons why the hittiteisms have to exist.

1) Some of them are apart of God's plan to delude those who insist on turning away from God's truth. [Isaiah 66:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:11]

2) God does what He does on His time table, according to His wants and wisdom, not ours. Adam, as a full-grown man, not as a helpless zygote, was placed in a full-grown garden, not a collection of a billion seedlings, that would have required years or decades to mature. Genesis got things off in a hurry, not to align with some unnecessary 'natural' time table of the secularists. You are only deluded by the apparent old age of the universe if you refuse to accept God's version of what happened and how.

3) After the Fall of Man, the perfect universe was corrupted, obscurring some of the clear traces of the original fingerprints of God on the world. And this was further corrupted after the world-wide Flood.

4) God doesn't want to coerce people to follow Him. He wants us to find something in Him that we can love, and from that, based on the Gospel, to follow Him in gladness of heart. Two things about God that I love, in particular, are that He wants us to be charitable one to another, and also that He wants us to love all truth and to hate all lies, and never lie one to another.

5) It's God's wisdom that there have to be voices in our ears that contradict His message to us. From the very beginning, God permitted the Devil to lie to Adam and Eve. There has always been a counterexplanation or contradicting 'facts' against every important doctrine of the Bible. Jesus had to deal with contrarians against Him all the time, and so do His followers.

So, how are we to discern truth from error? Start with a desire to really care about truth. Then, read the Bible -- the Gospel of John in particular. (Notice in particular those verses on which Jesus talks about Truth, and what are the prerequisite things we should do to believe that Jesus is the Messiah.) Then have the help of the Holy Spirit to join with us in our worship of God through our heart, mind, soul, and strength. Be prepared for trials and tribulations.

I already know my God and have confidence in Him, thus, I don't care how many times the cock crowed the night Jesus was arrested. I refuse to strain at a gnat and thus ignore the weightier matter of life and salvation before me. Get to know the living God through your hearts and intuitions, as well as through your minds, people, and then you will have confidence in Him.

Afterthoughts:

Patrick:
According to some neuro-scientists, people do not have free will, even though apparently Evolution has found it necessary to convince us that we do. Is this a case of Evolution gaslighting people?

Copilot:
The debate over free will has fascinated scientists, philosophers, and the general population for centuries. While most neuroscientists and philosophers believe that humans possess some degree of free will [1], there are dissenting voices. One such voice is Stanford University neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky, who argues that virtually all human behavior is beyond our conscious control, akin to the involuntary processes of our bodies like cell division or heartbeats [1]. Sapolsky contends that attributing free will to our actions is misleading and that we should accept the absence of free will for a more just society [1].

However, it's essential to recognize that this perspective is not universally accepted. Many neuroscientists argue that our brain activity does not negate free will but rather reflects the complex interplay of neural processes that lead to our decisions [3]. Ultimately, the question of free will remains a fascinating and contentious topic, with no definitive answer. Whether it's evolution "gaslighting" us or merely the result of ongoing scientific inquiry, the exploration of free will continues to shape our understanding of human behavior [1].

Source: Conversation with Copilot, 8/2/2024
(1) Scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will. https://phys.org/news/2023-10-scientist-decades-dont-free.html.
(2) Neuroscientist Says Humans Are Wired for Free Will. https://pbs.dartmouth.edu/news/2013/03/neuroscientist-says-humans-are-wired-free-will.
(3) Scientist, after dec
ades of study, concludes: We don't have free will. https://phys.org/news/2023-10-scientist-decades-dont-free.pdf.
(4) Free Will Is Only an Illusion if You Are, Too | Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/free-will-is-only-an-illusion-if-you-are-too/.

Patrick:
What do you think of the claims of neuroscientist Sam Harris on this subject?

Copilot:
Sam Harris, a prominent neuroscientist, philosopher, and author, has engaged in thought-provoking discussions about free will. His views align with the determinist perspective, which posits that our actions are fundamentally determined by prior causes, including neural processes and environmental factors. Here are some key points from Harris's perspective:

1. Determinism and Illusion of Free Will: - Harris argues that free will is an illusion. He believes that our conscious experience of making choices is merely a narrative constructed by our brains after the fact.
- According to him, our decisions emerge from subconscious processes, and our conscious mind rationalizes them afterward.

2. Neuroscientific Evidence: - Harris points to neuroscientific studies showing that brain activity precedes conscious awareness of a decision. For instance, the famous Libet experiment demonstrated neural activity occurring before participants reported their intention to move.
- He contends that this evidence challenges the notion of free will.

3. Ethical Implications:
- Harris suggests that accepting the absence of free will could lead to more compassionate and understanding societies.
- Without blame or punishment, we might focus on rehabilitation and prevention rather than retribution.

4. Criticism and Debate: - Critics argue that Harris oversimplifies the complexity of human decision-making. They emphasize that our conscious minds still play a role, even if subconscious processes influence us.
- The debate continues, with no definitive resolution.

In summary, Harris's perspective challenges conventional notions of free will, emphasizing determinism and the illusion of choice. Whether you agree or not, exploring these ideas enriches our understanding of human behavior and consciousness.

Patrick:
I'd like you to explain to me Sam Harris's academic degrees progression, if you can. From the cover of one of his books (Waking Up), I read that Harris got his undergraduate degree in philososphy and then a PhD in neuroscience. Really? How does one do that? Of course, I'm glad that he has a good foundation in philosophy because he speaks on philosophical topics. But this is more what I'd expect of any student getting a neuroscience PhD: 1) BS in biology. 2) Masters in human anatomy and/or brain chemistry. 3) PhD in neuroscience. So, how does just a BS philososphy degree prepare someone to be ready to take on neuroscience at that level? If he had other official degrees to prepare him to take neuroscience, they weren't listed on the cover.

Copilot:
Samuel Benjamin Harris, the American philosopher, neuroscientist, author, and podcast host, indeed has an intriguing academic background. Let's delve into his educational journey:

1. Undergraduate Degree in Philosophy:
- Harris obtained his Bachelor of Arts (BA) from Stanford University. His major was in philosophy.
- While it might seem unconventional for a future neuroscientist, philosophy provides a strong foundation in critical thinking, logic, and ethics. These skills are valuable in any field, including neuroscience.

2. PhD in Neuroscience:
- After completing his undergraduate studies, Harris pursued a PhD in neuroscience at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).
- His doctoral research likely involved studying brain function, neural networks, and related topics.
- Although he didn't follow the traditional path of a biology or anatomy background, his philosophical training likely influenced his approach to neuroscience.

3. Interdisciplinary Approach:
- Harris's unique combination of philosophy and neuroscience allows him to explore questions at the intersection of these fields.
- His work spans rationality, ethics, free will, meditation, and spirituality, demonstrating how diverse perspectives can enrich scientific inquiry.

4. Critique and Debate:
- Harris's ability to engage in debates with prominent figures on topics like religion, God, and ethics reflects his interdisciplinary background.
- Rather than adhering strictly to one discipline, he draws from both philosophy and neuroscience to address complex issues.

In summary, while Harris's academic journey may not fit the conventional mold, his blend of philosophy and neuroscience has contributed to his thought-provoking work. It highlights the value of interdisciplinary thinking and the potential for unique insights when combining seemingly disparate fields [1].

Source: Conversation with Copilot, 8/2/2024
(1) Sam Harris - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris.
(2) Sam Harris | Facts & Values. https://www.samharris.org/blog/facts-values-clarifying-the-moral-landscape.
(3) ‪Sam Harris‬ - ‪Google Scholar‬. https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Vuynz1sAAAAJ.

Patrick:
Can you look up and report to me the current standard educational track for a PhD candidate in neuroscience at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)?

Copilot:
Certainly! The Neuroscience Graduate Program at UCLA offers a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree in neuroscience [1]. Here are the key details:

1. Admission Requirements:
- General application process for all UCLA Graduate Programs.
- Application deadline: December 1, 2023.
- GRE (General exam) is not required.
- Letters of Recommendation: 3.
- Recommended preparation includes mathematics (calculus), general chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, physics, and basic biology (including molecular and cell biology) [1].

2. Program Structure:
- The program is interdepartmental, providing an integrated curriculum across disciplines.
- Students benefit from UCLA's extensive neuroscience research, making it a hub for cutting-edge studies [1].

3. Contact Information:
- Address: 1506 Gonda Center, Box 951761, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1761.
- Phone: (310) 206-4407.
- Email: neurophd@mednet.ucla.edu.
- Website: [Neuroscience at UCLA](https://neuroscience.ucla.edu/graduate-program) [1].

In summary, UCLA's Neuroscience Ph.D. program combines interdisciplinary perspectives, emphasizing both neuroscience and related fields to prepare students for advanced research and inquiry [1].

Source: Conversation with Copilot, 8/2/2024
(1) Neuroscience | UCLA Graduate Programs. https://grad.ucla.edu/programs/david-geffen-school-of-medicine/neuroscience/.
(2) Admissions Requirements for the Graduate Major in Neuroscience. https://grad.ucla.edu/requirements/?app=admission&major=004F.
(3) Neurobiology | UCLA Graduate Programs. https://grad.ucla.edu/programs/david-geffen-school-of-medicine/neurobiology/.
(4) Neuroscience PhD - University of California, Los Angeles. https://catalog.registrar.ucla.edu/major/2021/NeurosciencePhD.
(5) Graduate Program | UCLA NSIDP. https://neuroscience.ucla.edu/graduate-program.

--- Well, that's certainly a lot closer to what I'd have expected for course studies prior to entering a PhD program in neuroscience, but it takes all kinds. I wonder how many of those recommended advanced science and math subjects would be required for an undergraduate (BA) philosophy degree? Nevertheless...I do want to make clear that I hold the study of philosophy in high regard for scientists.