Holy texts should be respected by scholars

[S.A.M.]

Didn't think so.


Why can't you evaluate it? It's the result of neurochemical processes, so why not? And I believe it exists because:

1) It's defined as "an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation"

2) I have this sensation sometimes

3) So by definition, it exists as defined.

Right?

A sensation? can I feel your "sensation" too? Is it the same as mine?

How can we tell?

 

[superluminal]

A sensation? can I feel your "sensation" too? Is it the same as mine?

How can we tell?

Wow... Ummm... Whew! I won't even begin to tell you how that reads... Tingly. Yes. That's all I will say.

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

To take up the scriptures and submit them to a rationalistic test of scientific validity, which determins the factual basis for each statement, is shallow.

That cannot be true where the statements are being presented as fact.

God chose mortal and fallible men to write down the holy scriptures.

Not accurate. This is only an unsubstantiated claim.

Given the limited scientific knowledge of the early times, the writings of these ancients should not be considered worthless, for it was not their intent to write concerning the scientific facts, but to write on cosmogonic realities that are reflected in the microcosm of each human life.

This is nonsense. Science is about the discovery of knowledge, of what is true and what is false. Either these ancients wrote truthful statements or they wrote fiction. Either way a modern scientific investigation is entirely relevant and independent of whether they understood modern science or not.

The innocence of their form, such as saying "God walked with man in the evening" is also meant to speak to the human heart.

The heart is a blood pump – what does your statement mean? You mean – an appeal to the emotions rather than the intellect, right?

Much of the scriptures is also poetry. When was the last time that a poem was put under scientific scrutiny? Poetry and symbol is the language of Myth. These things speak to that mystical part of the human experience which is non-verbal.

That’s fine providing the intent is not to convey any type of factual truth.

Myths also are true, not in the factual sense, but in the way that they speak to Man's divinity and humanity.

How can something be true in a non-factual sense?

The Word of God is living, it still shapes humanity, it is creative.

From an objective perspective the essential elements remain fantasy since they lack that factual quality that can be revealed through scientific evaluation.

The word has real power.

This is true; it can evoke strong emotions, incite wars and intolerance, as well as encourage love, compassion, and generosity; but then so can many good novels. A truthful basis is not necessary for these things.

Christ's word is effective as the divine transformative act. indeed, God's word demands that we make a decision, to either reject or accept, for it can never leave us indifferent.

Clearly not so for those that see no truth in the claims.

 

[superluminal]

Ok. Now that I've regained my... composure ... I understand what you're saying. I suppose all you can go on is an educated guess that since we're all incredibly similar in brain structure, that it would be very suprising if your experience of self-awareness was not essentially the same as mine.

 

[S.A.M.]

Wow... Ummm... Whew! I won't even begin to tell you how that reads... Tingly. Yes. That's all I will say.

You are way too h***y, buster!!!

 

[superluminal]

You are way too h***y, buster!!!

Tell me about it.

 

[S.A.M.]

Tell me about it.

Hello? I just did! :m: ?

 

[superluminal]

It was rhetorical! You know?

 

[charles cure]

Spam notwithstanding, Lawdog makes a good point, one echoed by Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time:

We shall take the simpleminded view that a theory is just a model of the universe, or a restricted part of it, and a set of rules that relate quantities in the model to observations that we make. It exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality (whatever that might mean). A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations.

\this same exact statement could apply to the concept of "truth" itself. by that logic, the truth must be relatively shallow as well. in fact, the whole universe would lack depth.

 

[TW Scott]

Science is about Fact, if you want Truth go down the hall to Philosophy.

 

[baumgarten]

\this same exact statement could apply to the concept of "truth" itself. by that logic, the truth must be relatively shallow as well. in fact, the whole universe would lack depth.

What is "truth," and how does this statement apply to it?

 

[wsionynw]

God chose mortal and fallible men to write down the holy scriptures. He prefers to use non-miraculous natural means if possible.

Assuming God exists, how do you know what 'he' prefers?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

You're talking about mythology here. If you mix mythology and theology and take all of it literally, then you will have obvious conflicts with what science tells us. But this is not the only way to look at religion.

Do tell.

That depends who you ask. An uncle of mine was a mystic and a healer, and he would surely cite his own experiences as supernatural phenomena. I'm fairly certain the house I used to live in was haunted by a poltergeist, whatever that might be. My family and circle of friends are full of accounts of hauntings and extrasensory perception. Being supernatural phenomena, of course, there would be no way to scientifically test for any of these. It's a matter of perspective.

If these things are really happening then I don't see why they would be beyond science. If these events aren't really happening then of course they are beyond science because there is nothing to observe / experiment with. It's interesting that you are experiencing 'supernatural' events throughout your life. I have yet to witness one; although, I have have quite a bit of fantastic experiences which were all hallucinatory... but really fuckin' cool.

Some people, myself included, don't need theology all that much. For others, however, it's a useful interpretation of their religious experiences - not necessarily even miracles or visitations by spirits, but more everyday things that we all experience, like love and awe.

Is there a way to interpret fantastic experiences without the 'supernatural', 'God', and all the negative behaviors that come with religion?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

So how would you use science to evaluate ethics?

You bet!

 

[baumgarten]

Do tell.

You can interpret it any way you want; that's why you have so many different kinds of religious people, ranging from stark raving fundamentalist lunatics to very kind, intelligent individuals. I can tell you right off the bat that Catholics do not believe that the Bible is intended to be interpreted literally. Most Catholics literally interpret their theology, but it is of course possible to interpret Catholic theology in other ways. Many, for example, consider heaven and hell to be states of mind rather than physical places where your soul goes when you die.

If these things are really happening then I don't see why they would be beyond science. If these events aren't really happening then of course they are beyond science because there is nothing to observe / experiment with. It's interesting that you are experiencing 'supernatural' events throughout your life. I have yet to witness one; although, I have have quite a bit of fantastic experiences which were all hallucinatory... but really fuckin' cool.

If something is supernatural, then it should appear to the scientific eye that there is nothing to study. It's a silly concept in its common usage, I think, but so many people use it that it merits discussing. Ghosts and the like may not be supernatural phenomena, but they are at least somewhat subjective. Some people are apparently more sensitive to them than others. My uncle saw them all the time; I have only encountered the unexplained a few times in my life, and many, as you, never have. Whether they are merely the hallucinations of hysterics or something else is difficult to say unless you have experienced them yourself, and even then it is easy to doubt. I heard breaking glass downstairs at night once, but nothing broken was to be found. Could that have been in my head? What about coming home to an empty house and finding the master bedroom and upstairs hallway full of recently sprayed perfume? What about lights and radios turning themselves on in sequence - one turns on in the middle of the night, you get up and turn it off, and then another one turns on - how can that be explained? It is easy to call the first a hallucination. The second and third are much more difficult to explain; science might be able to provide answers to these, but they may sound even more far-fetched than the conclusions of a superstitious person. To me, the question of who to believe depends not on the "truth" of their theories, but how well they work. Superstitions and theology both persist because they somehow agree with the experiences of people. When they are very old, it is an indicator that they work well.

Is there a way to interpret fantastic experiences without the 'supernatural', 'God', and all the negative behaviors that come with religion?

There certainly is. I think people believe what satisfies them. Newton believed that gravitational force was instantaneous action at a distance. While it has been shown that gravitational waves actually propagate at c, it is still practical in many cases to use Newton's formula F = GMm/r^2 today. The most "obvious" interpretation of this formula is Newton's, and indeed it works wherever the formula works. For a time, then, both this formula and interpretation were the final word on gravity, and everyone knew it was the truth. If you lived then, so would you. In the same way, were you to live under different circumstances, you might now "know" for certain who the One True God is. If history is any indicator, we are completely wrong about everything we think we know.

 

[wesmorris]

'Theology is highly interpretive and is largely concerned with the supernatural, by definition out of science's reach.'

I beg to differ.

What is currently considered "the supernatural" is currently beyond the reach of science. I contend that there is no such thing as "the supernatural" because by definition, all that is natural is natural. If there is some facet of the universe that is currently commonly viewed as "supernatural", I contend that it simply the natural that has not been integrated into science's "big picture" as of this time. I presume perhaps incorrectly that it will be integrated into it over time.

 

[baumgarten]

'Theology is highly interpretive and is largely concerned with the supernatural, by definition out of science's reach.'

I beg to differ.

What is currently considered "the supernatural" is currently beyond the reach of science. I contend that there is no such thing as "the supernatural" because by definition, all that is natural is natural. If there is some facet of the universe that is currently commonly viewed as "supernatural", I contend that it simply the natural that has not been integrated into science's "big picture" as of this time. I presume perhaps incorrectly that it will be integrated into it over time.

I agree with you.

If the supernatural is beyond nature, and nature is that which science can study, then the supernatural is beyond that which science can study. But if science can suddenly study it, it isn't supernatural anymore. It's only a semantic distinction, which is why I don't put too much stock in the word.

On the other hand, there are qualitative aspects to life for which science is not the appropriate tool. You could call this "supernatural" as well. (Though that might be stretching it.)

 

[charles cure]

What is "truth," and how does this statement apply to it?

well, arguably a truth is a theory that is either proven or accepted pervasively. a "law" if you will. everything that can be said about a theory can also be said about the truth. what people believe to be truthful is just an accurate describer or predictor of the behavior of a model.

truth is subjective as truth requires belief. if you believe that a is true, then b must also be true...etc. scientific data does not necessarily work that way. if a can be proved, b might not also be proved under certain conditions, or may only be proved under extremely restrictive conditions. the problem lies with people - each scientific experiment that is conducted produces only situation-specific results; while these results may be applicable under other conditions, the experiment is not a supplier of information as to the ability of the premise to succeed or fail under any other conditions. people however, hear that an experiment has gotten a particular result and often assume that these results will be replicated across the board, thus holding the results up to a misinformed or unrealistic expectation. science is not a provider of truth, but rather a describer of what is possible under given conditions. that's not shallow, it is just necessarily limited.

 

[baumgarten]

well, arguably a truth is a theory that is either proven or accepted pervasively. a "law" if you will. everything that can be said about a theory can also be said about the truth. what people believe to be truthful is just an accurate describer or predictor of the behavior of a model.

truth is subjective as truth requires belief. if you believe that a is true, then b must also be true...etc. scientific data does not necessarily work that way. if a can be proved, b might not also be proved under certain conditions, or may only be proved under extremely restrictive conditions. the problem lies with people - each scientific experiment that is conducted produces only situation-specific results; while these results may be applicable under other conditions, the experiment is not a supplier of information as to the ability of the premise to succeed or fail under any other conditions. people however, hear that an experiment has gotten a particular result and often assume that these results will be replicated across the board, thus holding the results up to a misinformed or unrealistic expectation. science is not a provider of truth, but rather a describer of what is possible under given conditions. that's not shallow, it is just necessarily limited.

I put "shallow" in quotes because first, it is a very imprecise word to begin with, and second, I didn't mean it literally, whatever it means. You're right, limited is a much better word to describe it.

As well, by your definition of truth, it is quite similar to theory, and so it is not very surprising that the statement should apply to both of them. On the other hand, if we were discussing capital-T Truth, it would not be considered a working model but the absolute, irrefutable, final word on reality, very different from a theory or a truth with a lowercase t (which is really just a highly respected theory, in my opinion).

 

[charles cure]

I put "shallow" in quotes because first, it is a very imprecise word to begin with, and second, I didn't mean it literally, whatever it means. You're right, limited is a much better word to describe it.

As well, by your definition of truth, it is quite similar to theory, and so it is not very surprising that the statement should apply to both of them. On the other hand, if we were discussing capital-T Truth, it would not be considered a working model but the absolute, irrefutable, final word on reality, very different from a theory or a truth with a lowercase t (which is really just a highly respected theory, in my opinion).

there is no such thing as the capital T truth. in order for any universal truth to be established, there would have to be universal acceptance of its veracity or irrefutable evidence as to its applicability in all situations. i can say with confidence that you will never encounter such a thing.