Science and Religion

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

If there are none then how do you differentiate between politics and religion, as politics are obviously just an extended form of philosophy.

Actually I've often stated in these forums that politics and religion co-evolved and took a really long time to be differentiated!

I say that the distinction between philosophy and religion is simply one of how they are "most frequently" practiced, and I blame *both* when they stray into dogmatism. Philosophy is an extremely ill-defined term because it has been applied to so much over time. Religion has been--unfairly in my view--oft-times linked to organized groups that have evolved mechanisms *specifically designed* (see previous paragraph) to control their members.

If you want to use this particular definition for it, you're making enemies of your co-religionists (see the Religion vs. Religion thread).

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

(I won't call it unknowable, because that is a defeatest attitude and is fairly unscientific, wouldn't you agree?)...Instead what you really are asking is, "Why should I believe that anyone knows better than I do?"

That there are things that are *considered* unknowable is undeniable! The definition of "unknowable" you're using here is the *religious* one--that it *cannot* be known--rather than the scientific one--that it cannot currently be *shown* to be knowable, but might very well be sometime in the future! Thus the rest of your argument is just trying to belittle those who don't share your belief that there are other humans who have a franchise on the truth, who in fact have *no* special claim on the truth other than their say so.

If you want to believe in a religion that contains a bureaucratic organization that claims that has a devine right to "the truth," that's your business. But you've got no claim that such an organization is a *requirement* for defining a religious view or philosophy if you want to call it that. Even if you do, its a pretty simple matter to create one, just like one of my friends dad who created the "Church of Charlie" which worshiped the family dog as its prophet and savior.

Not even you senator,
Buffy

[cwes99_03]

First off Buffy, I don't appreciate having my viewpoints twisted. I do not try to belittle people. I try to identify truth. If people feel oppressed by the truth, then they themselves should do something about discovering truth instead of living in darkness.

What is unknowable? Many religions today will say that something is unknowable. What do they mean? They mean that an answer is not provided. They put themselves forth as an authority and say that no answer is provided. Thus when 5 year old Timmy asks his priest why God took his mother, and the priest responds that God works in mysterious ways and it is not for us to question, the priest is admitting two things. 1) he admits he doesn't have an answer (an authority on the Bible who can't answer a Bible based question) and 2) he is suggesting that the child not bother to look nor question his authority.
To me this is 1) biblically unacceptable 2) hypocritical and 3) a demonstration of an identifying mark of false religion. If the priest had simply answered, I don't know, but you should read the Bible to find out, I would at least respect the priests honesty in showing himself not to be an authority.

In reading the first 21 posts in the religion vs religion thread during my free time today, I find I have a lot in common with Southtown. That is I believe a truely rationaly person can come to an understanding by studying the scriptures. I differ from him in at least the following.

Originally Posted by Southtown from religion vs religion thread

In short, yes. It is possible for both to be right... in the sight of God. The essence of salvation by faith is that you don't have to be perfect. God is interested in sincerity. God is interested in the heart. And He is the only one who can know the reasons in a person's heart, anyway. (Proverbs 24:12) This is another reason why I'm conviced in the Gospel, because that sounds like a fair deal to me.

I'm afraid that the Bible does not leave such room. Further study will reveal the scriptures that show how Southtown has a start but an incomplete knowledge.

Likewise a young child says that an atom is the building block of all matter after learning it in a science class. Should you scold that young child and tell them they are completely wrong? No, instead you reveal to them the reasons why you believe they have an incomplete understanding, that there are smaller particles called quarks. If afterwards, the teacher comes to you and tells you that you are wrong and that the atom is the smallest particle and you should stop spreading forth lies, then you should scold the teacher and reveal them for the liar they are.

Likewise, when viewing a religion, (as opposed to a philosophy) you have an authority (a text) by which you can agree on. Thus two reasonable people looking at that authority can come to the same rational conclusion.

Anything above and beyond that authority (unless otherwise proven to be an extension of that authority) is purely human philosophy. Some people believe that the Apocryphal works are an extension to what is currently considered Bible cannon. There are rational reasons why they are not included as part of the cannon, and that again can be discussed, and two rational people can come to the same rational conclusion. I have no qualms with saying that someone who doesn't come to the same rational conclusion is wrong. There are rights and wrongs.
How will we know which is right and which is wrong? Only time will tell. A rational person will constantly keep searching for added truth, deeper understanding. As a child keeps on searching for new food to nourish them, they begin with milk, advance to soft foods and keep advancing with new flavors and textures by which they train their palate. Likewise, a rational religious person realizes that they do not know all (because of imperfection) and will continue to learn.
There are however some pretty hard standards by which a rational person can be defined. They hinge on having an accurate text only. An accurate text can be scientifically determined.
Thus a Christian (or a Jew) who believes in reincarnation, is neither a Christian nor a Jew. They are a philosopher.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Anyway, Boer and a couple of others have often pointed out their lack of knowledge on the multitudes of religions, and their sheer hatred for them.

I cannot recall any instance where I, or any other member here, have professed any sort of 'hatred' for any one particular religion. I do frown upon ignorance, though. The fact that the two might be related, is none of my doing.

'Sheer'? That's a bit harsh... but it still won't put any rods on the Emperor's naked ass.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

I'm afraid that the Bible does not leave such room. Further study will reveal the scriptures that show how Southtown has a start but an incomplete knowledge.

Flagitious.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

First off Buffy, I don't appreciate having my viewpoints twisted. I do not try to belittle people. I try to identify truth. If people feel oppressed by the truth, then they themselves should do something about discovering truth instead of living in darkness.

You're right. I absolutely see that that no one can possibly be offended by that viewpoint. Its the truth, right?

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Likewise, when viewing a religion, (as opposed to a philosophy) you have an authority (a text) by which you can agree on. Thus two reasonable people looking at that authority can come to the same rational conclusion

"Can?" Sure. But "do"? Always? Seems like you missed the point of the Religion vs. Religion thread is that its quite clear that two different people can have different and equally justifiable interpretations of a scripture, even if they agree that it is God-given. If it were indeed the case that there is only one "rational" way to interpret scripture, then there would not be so many different beliefs all based on the same book...unless....

Here I go twisting again, but you're basically saying that if there are two opinions, then one of them is wrong. You do this quite pejoratively here by saying that South has "incomplete knowledge" because he has a different interpretation, and therefore is "wrong." I find his knowledge and *understanding* of the scriptures unbelievably complete and well-thought out, and I don't see any rational justification for this statement: I do not see any "truth" in it.

This of course leads us to the problem that there needs to be an available arbitrator of such doctrinal disputes:

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Anything above and beyond that authority (unless otherwise proven to be an extension of that authority) is purely human philosophy. Some people believe that the Apocryphal works are an extension to what is currently considered Bible cannon. There are rational reasons why they are not included as part of the cannon, and that again can be discussed, and two rational people can come to the same rational conclusion. I have no qualms with saying that someone who doesn't come to the same rational conclusion is wrong.

We know you don't have any qualms about it. The problem here is who made you the official arbiter of truth?

I personally love Jubilees. I find it inspiring. Who are you to say that making it a part of the scripture I choose to find inspiration in is "wrong?"

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

How will we know which is right and which is wrong? Only time will tell.

But in the meantime, we have to put up with people who insist that they already know what's right. What fun!

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

An accurate text can be scientifically determined.

And thus, according to scientific study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, any insistence on leaving Jubilees out of the canon is wrong, right?

Trust yourself to do the things that only you know best,
Buffy

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Likewise a young child says that an atom is the building block of all matter after learning it in a science class. Should you scold that young child and tell them they are completely wrong? No, instead you reveal to them the reasons why you believe they have an incomplete understanding, that there are smaller particles called quarks. If afterwards, the teacher comes to you and tells you that you are wrong and that the atom is the smallest particle and you should stop spreading forth lies, then you should scold the teacher and reveal them for the liar they are.

Is this an argument? It sounds like you're agreeing with me and don't know it.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Likewise, when viewing a religion, (as opposed to a philosophy) you have an authority (a text) by which you can agree on. Thus two reasonable people looking at that authority can come to the same rational conclusion.

I disagree. People aren't perfect. Two imperfect people can be as sincerely rational as they know how and still not see eye to eye. God weighs the heart. (1 Samuel 16:7, Proverbs 24:12) Being sincere is more important that being right, me thinks.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

I have no qualms with saying that someone who doesn't come to the same rational conclusion is wrong. There are rights and wrongs.

No doubt there is an absolute truth. But, we must remember that people are precious, and that animosity is evil, even if it is invoked by someone who knows the truth. THAT, in my view, is the absolute truth.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Southtown

No doubt there is an absolute truth.
But, we must remember that people are precious, and that animosity is evil, even if it is invoked by someone who knows the truth.
THAT, in my view, is the absolute truth.

Little doubt there is a relative truth.
Not in a Hindu perspective, or Aztec, etcetera.
We have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Now back on to science and religion. This time my charge is against the Jews in Israel who in their position in government have interpreted the ancient texts so precisely as to make it law that any body/skeleton uncovered, no matter its age or origin, be immediately buried according to sacred methods and no araeological studies of it be allowed.

Wow! That's a 54 word sentence! Do not change one jot or jottle.

[cwes99_03]

Originally Posted by Buffy

If it were indeed the case that there is only one "rational" way to interpret scripture, then there would not be so many different beliefs all based on the same book...unless....

Unless what, Buffy? I welcome your full thought being finished.

Originally Posted by Southtown

Is this an argument? It sounds like you're agreeing with me and don't know it.

I disagree. People aren't perfect. Two imperfect people can be as sincerely rational as they know how and still not see eye to eye. God weighs the heart. (1 Samuel 16:7, Proverbs 24:12) Being sincere is more important that being right, me thinks.

Southtown, which is it? I know, it is obvious that we do not have 100% agreement with each other. What the others here do not understand is that I do not claim to have 100% knowledge on the subject. I believe that there are some things in the Bible that will not be fully understood until after Armageddon. After all, in 69 AD was the imminent destruction of Jerusalem fully understood?

However, I do know when I find an untruth being told. Whether it is intentional or not, I can not be an expert, as you have rightly stated, only God is the reader of hearts. However, I do believe the untruth either results from an incomplete study (sounds like a cunundrum because I already stated that 100% can't be known, and people believe complete to mean 100%, and rightly so) of the scriptures, or from a willful disavowal of some part of the scriptures.

Often there is some truth in the story of a person telling lies. Otherwise their lies are easily seen to be just that. Likewise, it takes a discerning person to hear the lie, find the truth in it, and expose the rest for a lie. Continue studying, Southtown. If you like, I will help you, or perhaps you will help me.

[cwes99_03]

I'm sorry I did not respond to this earlier.

Originally Posted by Buffy

Actually I've often stated in these forums that politics and religion co-evolved and took a really long time to be differentiated!

Thus you identify yourself as a philsopher. This statement shows you base all your knowledge off of a human theory/belief in evolution. This is the divider between religious and philosophical.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Unless what, Buffy? I welcome your full thought being finished.

Its in the paragraph following the ellipses, but to restate: ...unless you have some right to judge that your interpretation is the "true" one. You do this by saying that South's knowledge is incomplete. This is a great example of how conflicts occur between religions, and sets up the primary moral debate about the efficacy of religion: they all claim others are "false religions" based on the claim that only they have a true connection to God

This is useful for the evolutionary success of each sects power structure, and is enforced by saying that others are being led astray by Satan or whatever, but it sure results in some morally reprehensible behavior in the name of God.

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

Thus you identify yourself as a philsopher. This statement shows you base all your knowledge off of a human theory/belief in evolution. This is the divider between religious and philosophical.

I really don't know why you're hung up on this except to try to argue that religion is superior to philosophy. It seems to be based on that text you keep talking about, being a "definitive" statement on truth, but its not clear that that is important, in fact its easy to point out many "philosophies" that are based on bodies of work that are raised to the level of sacred by some over-zealous followers like Objectivism (Buffy ducks). The point being that the distinction between the two is quite gray, and subject to, well, Subjectivism.

You've also kind of skipped over the whole issue of people choosing different books, which merely seems like a similar activity to the "irrationality" of coming up with "wrong" interpretations of the contents thereof.

Again, who are you to say that either of these choices/decisions is "rational?"

Undecidable,
Buffy