SPLIT: Reliability of historical religion

[Dameedna]

So, are we to substitute science fiction for and instead of defining anything that mankind can agree to that derives from reality (philosophy) and scripture (theology)?

Are we using our imagination? Quite possibly yes.

What is scripture , other than man-written ideas? Why would you trust scripture?

The world that accepts physics and biology PLUS something beyond just physics and biology has been around for a couple thousand years.

Ah but you see, the human world was ignorant for a very long time and much was put forth as an idea(hypothesis) about our reality. That is WHY the scientific method is so powerful. It embraces the unknown, and attempts to answer it in a way that does not “appease” humanity, but delivers truth to it regardless of what we want. It’s brutal. And it hurts.

Yes, I think that beliefs that are thousands of years old can be wrong. Do you disagree with the Australian aboriginals? Their faith system, is around 70,000 years old.

Please do not tell me that age, of a belief system creates a sense of verification for you. Even within the current large world religions, Hindu, is by far the oldest, and buddahism is next.

At but 4% - 5% of the world population, “atheism” would seem to have been not very well received. (Of course, the rest of the world might just consist of morons )

You might want to check those figures, there are around 800 million athiests and agnostics.

But that doesn’t really matter. The amount of people who believe something, has absolutely no relfection on reality. I think, our history can actually show this. We were ignorant, we thought…The earth was flat.

A few humans…decided to put something higher than themselves, they called it truth and they developed a method, to derive that truth.

I have accepted a proper and correct “concept of infinity”. You haven’t. (Once again, PLEASE, document or retract your assertions.) It seems you really don’t understand what it means, OR, you’re just simply being argumentative and, thus, uncharitable.

If you accept an infitite being, then you accept an infite possibility. there is no reason why the “infinite possbility” has to be your God.

Does that make sense?

It could simply be…the universe in one form or another. Infinity, is indescribable.

But, you’re wrong. God is NO “simple answer”. God is an answer that is as complex as science, if not more so. Like “science”, even within its own ranks there is plenty of disagreement.

Yeah, God actully is a simple answer. It’s the “We don’t know” …“but we hope for this” type of human answer. It is an attempt to answer complex questions, without effort for most people.

And yes theologians disagree. But do they really say “I don’t know he exists at all?” Yeah, they do…but they can’t teach that in an offical capactity. Doubt…is not allowed apparently.

Again: where and when have I said, or used, these hypotheses? Document or retract. Another example of argumentativeness?

God is a Hypothesis. We exist. We do not know how we got here. A Hyptothesis(and idea) was put forward that it is a greater being, and has certain qualities.

That’s a hypothesis, and it will remain so, until it is proven.

This is a philosophy forum. You cannot just make any assertion you wish and expect not to be challanged.

Oh really?

Enough said.

Cheers

 

[Dameedna]

Well, if you’d care to read a little history, theology, or philosophy, you might have learned that these seventeen or eighteen attributes (determinates) are the same traditional attributes that Christianity has derived and accepted from the books of scripture.

Scripture is nothing more than 500 writers writing about history, revelation, inspired literature, and occurances with Christ, covering a 1,000 year time frame, codified into one large volume we call the “Bible”. But, eh, throw it out - it’s meanless.

God bless,
JD

Okay, so scripture was written by humans.

um…okay?

 

[Dameedna]

As between Christianity and Islam, we know too much of Muhammed’s history to take him seriously as a real prophet of God.

In all honesty I think Islam is horribly misunderstood by muslims and christians alike. It is a rather deep and spiritual religion. I don’t agree with it entirely, but because I’m not tied to one religion or another, I think it gets a dreadful rap.

As between Catholicism and Protestant denominations, after much study I have concluded that the Catholic Church is where the fullness of truth subsides. Also, the whole sola fide and sola scriptura things never resonated with me.

Okay, fair enough. You aren’t alone in that

As between Catholicism and Mormonism, I am not into polytheism. Read too much Anselm, I guess.

Come now, modern day mormons do not support that.

I only know what Sister Mary What’s Her Name told me in 3rd grade: “God the Father loved the Son so much, and God the Son love the Father so much, that their love is so real that it exists as the third person of the Holy Ghost. And the Trinity just wanted to share this love so God created us.”

So you were raised with it.

I am enthused about metaphysical inquiry because it lays a good foundation for theology. Once you get into it, you are left with the conclusion that this much must be true:

1. God exists. Theism is the only rational option.
2. There is a transcendent reality. Reality is more than the physcial universe. At a minimum, metaphysics makes a very good case for panentheism.
3. There are necessary truths.

I think Frank, all it does, is help you to re-affirm your faith.

If there was anything that a person could say, that would convince an actual athiest, then you’d have something.

I think, this is just what you like and helps you to make sense of it all.

You’ve been very patient and I thank you for that I really do!!

 

[JDaniel]

So, are we to substitute science fiction

I guess this leaves us nowhere: the slippery slope then is, “what man-written stuff can we trust?” EVER.

You say it’s “science”. I say it’s not. Science appears to change its mind daily - although we know that’s not true. (It only changes its mind monthly.) And, except for three laws from thermodynamics, everything else is “theory”. Also, remember, originally, there were only two, trusted laws. Gravity was added later and fairly recently. But, of course, all of this might be purely illusion - in fact, I’m sure of it, it is all illusion!

Ah but you see, the human world was ignorant for a very long time and much was put forth as an idea(hypothesis) about our reality. That is WHY the scientific method is so powerful. It embraces the unknown, and attempts to answer it in a way that does not “appease” humanity, but delivers truth to it regardless of what we want.

Dame, this is so silly. You place so much significance on the “scientific method”. And you confuse those parts of science that actually use the scientific method and those that are considered “theoretical” sciences.

Here, then, we have “theoretical science” vs “hypothetical religion”. Then you tell us that we are to ignore everything written before such and such a date, but, not anything written after that date. And, your reasoning for ignoring everything before such and such a date is that “man” wrote that earlier stuff.

Yes, I think that beliefs that are thousands of years old can be wrong. Do you disagree with the Australian aboriginals? Their faith system, is around 70,000 years old.

You’d better check your figures. Australian Aboriginals were once thought to be about 60,000 years old. That number has been reduced (due to carbon dating improvements) to 40,000 years. Furthermore, each tribe of aboriginals had its own set of deities. But, this is beside the point. The drawings of pre-historic peoples is not a Bible. Except at the loosest of levels, there was no uniformity of belief amongst them. And, at those loosest of levels, where thought could not have been much more than that of a wild dog, gods were conceptualized. However wrongly, “gods” WERE conceptualized. And, they were meaningful.

Please do not tell me that age, of a belief system creates a sense of verification for you. Even within the current large world religions, Hindu, is by far the oldest, and buddahism is next.

Buddahism is all but extinct. Due to practices we consider “immoral”. Hinduism is at least a religion that has “survival (flourishing)” as a major dynamic of it. I’d consider this clearly a participation in the natural Law.

You might want to check those figures, there are around 800 million athiests and agnostics.

And my numbers are correct so far as Adherents.com is concerned. There is a large difference between those who say “they don’t know if God exists”, and those who say that “He does NOT exist.” The numbers of “atheists” are put at 200 million to 240 million. “Agnostics” are the balance of them.

But that doesn’t really matter. The amount of people who believe something, has absolutely no relfection on reality.

Really? So, the same could be said for groups of people - such as scientist groups?

I think, our history can actually show this. We were ignorant, we thought…The earth was flat.

That we did. And, we once thought the use of leeches was beneficial to our health. How ignorant.

A few humans…decided to put something higher than themselves, they called it truth and they developed a method, to derive that truth.

That same “method” you postulate as the “scientific method”? The one you attribute to the theories of “strings”, “specific and general relativity”, “TOE”, etc.?

If you accept an infitite being, then you accept an infite possibility. there is no reason why the “infinite possbility” has to be your God.

Does that make sense?

Your logic is in error: that an “infinite being” is “possible” is not the same thing as the “possibility of infinity”.

JD

 

[JDaniel]

It could simply be…the universe in one form or another. Infinity, is indescribable.

You have repeated this same concept many times within these fora, which shows that you still have not thought out what “infinite” means. In fact, your sciences have verified the definition of it. Others, who postulate “infinities” are doing exactly that, “postulating”. They are making hypothetical statements on the basis of a poor, or non-existant, definition of “infinite”.

To say, “infinity in one form or another” is absurd and is analogous to saying, “Dame Edna, in one form or another”. If “Dame Edna” alters form, no one - including you - would have any idea who you were.

You confuse the concept of “infinite” with the concept of “transfinite”. “Transfinites” are numbers too big to count by current methods and computers, that are, nonetheless, absolutely and completely, “FINITE”! In quantum math, that which is incorrectly called an “infinity” is nothing more than that which is tending towards infinity. It is not infinite yet, as at any point in its march towards infinite essence, it is merely finite.

But, you’re wrong. God is NO “simple answer”. God is an answer that is as complex as science, if not more so. Like “science”, even within its own ranks there is plenty of disagreement.

Yeah, God actully is a simple answer. It’s the “We don’t know” …“but we hope for this” type of human answer. It is an attempt to answer complex questions, without effort for most people.

Again, Edna, this is such a silly statement. If you have been reading the posts herein, you would have no choice but to get the clear picture that the vast majority, if not all, of the posters went through “atheism” and came out the other side. You say it was choice dictated by the need of people to make their lives less of an effort". That’s absurd.

In my “atheist” daze, I mean, days, I looked to science to deliver the goods. But, as a scientist, I discovered that it did not. In fact, science made no proclamations whatsoever concerning religion. Some scientists made their own personal proclamations, but, science did not.

Then, I looked to “scientists” to deliver. They did not. I met (and have read) many scientists who were “lazy thinkers”: These always seemed to be the non-theists. By “lazy thinkers” I mean, they did not spend a minute’s time contemplating God. Likewise, I met (and have read) scientists who were “industrious thinkers”. They, unlike their bretheren in travail, contemplated everything. It was in this group that I found most of the “believers”.

I have discussed this observance with friends and relatives and most seemed to agree with the stated observance.

And yes theologians disagree. But do they really say “I don’t know he exists at all?” Yeah, they do…but they can’t teach that in an offical capactity. Doubt…is not allowed apparently.

Edna. Look. Do you re-read what you write? Why on earth would a highly-paid-theologian remain a highly-paid-theologian if he/she “doubted” the existence of God? Unsupportable nonsense.

God is a Hypothesis. We exist. We do not know how we got here. A Hyptothesis(and idea) was put forward that it is a greater being, and has certain qualities.

Not quite. A logic was put forth that included, as part of its premises, the “revealed attributes of God”. Each one of these attributes was its superlative. We were given a choice between two, and only two, “premises”. Twenty-one revealed attributes - revealed by men writing “history”, as their primary intent, and not for accounts of a deity purposes, reported as was made known to them by oral, written and directly viewed accounts - and you want me to put more validity in what? Your “written word”?

That’s a hypothesis, and it will remain so, until it is proven.

I’d put it another way. I’d say, as in law, the outcome of an action (in court) is generally the result of a preponderance of irrefutable evidence. Now, there may be people on the jury that don’t believe there is any such thing as “evidence” and, consequently, are unwilling to conclude anything. These people can (and usually are the) cause of mistrials.

In the present case, there is a preponderance of evidence but you refuse to believe it is evidence because the evidences do not conform to your aberrated (no insult to your person) definition of
“evidence”.

In accounting, there is a statement of commanding verisimilitude. It is worded thusly, “generally accepted accounting practices.” Were it not for this statement, the majority of people, relying on the statements of finance produced by an accountant, would never have any acceptance whatsoever. But, I would be willing to bet that the numbers of people who would rely on the financial statements would be on the order of the people who consider themselves “believers”. Thus I refute your assertion that the numbers of people who believe something is irrelevant.

Merry Christmas and
God Bless,
JD

 

[Dameedna]

Hi Dame,

You are very welcome.

I enjoy conversing with you on these very deep subjects.

But aren’t you more impressed with my arguments now that you know I am really not little Frankie Schnobbel but Captain Metaphysics, Super Hero?

Why ty.

I’m actually impressed that you have chosen to enter into this dialogue in a way that is completely non-combative and that you are honest about your arguments and were you come from and that it is not just a place of blind faith.

It’s hard to do

 

[Dameedna]

I guess this leaves us nowhere: the slippery slope then is, “what man-written stuff can we trust?” EVER.

We can’t ever trust any man written stuff, that claims to be fact without some way of verifying it.

You say it’s “science”. I say it’s not. Science appears to change its mind daily - although we know that’s not true. (It only changes its mind monthly.) And, except for three laws from thermodynamics, everything else is “theory”. Also, remember, originally, there were only two, trusted laws. Gravity was added later and fairly recently. But, of course, all of this might be purely illusion - in fact, I’m sure of it, it is all illusion!

Scientists do not change their minds monthly. You are being subjected to media hype. Scientists are usually very cautious in making any claim.

The reason we trust scientific conclusions, is not because they are simply made. It is because they are verified by not ONE scientist using his own methods and revelations, but by many.

There is a method, that is used and will be used by every experiment. If you think to not use the method as a scientist you WILL be exposed because others will duplicate your efforts.The scientific community is brutal by nature. They will do everything under the sun to disprove a theory, because they want any discovery they find to be THE Truth.

I trust the scientific method, when it is followed.

I trust the scientific community, because as a whole they will follow the rules of their method, and oust out any liars and fools(eventually). They as a whole submit to truth due to their methods, not belief. It is their “thang”.

Religion, has no such tool or global community that has the same ability to verify a claim.

Hence many religions, and no way to combat them once belief in an idea has kicked in. There is no verification procedure that would convince people they are wrong.

You’d better check your figures. Australian Aboriginals were once thought to be about 60,000 years old. That number has been reduced (due to carbon dating improvements) to 40,000 years.

errr…okay.

Furthermore, each tribe of aboriginals had its own set of deities. But, this is beside the point.

Why is it beside the point? Every tribe in the middle east had their own set of Dieties, the Jews were one of them. The point, is people throughout the world, had their beliefs.

They were tribal beliefs. That is “Actually” The point.

No one belief is more valid than another. Why do you choose one tribe over another(Jewish tribal history, over aboriginal tribal history?)

The drawings of pre-historic peoples is not a Bible.

No. It’s stories told by people, who were sharing their views on reality and how they came into existance and what their purpose was and what they believed the spiritual world taught them.

So, they didn’t call it a bible.

The bible, is stories told by people, who were sharing their views on reality and how they came into existance and what their purpose was and what they believed the spiritual world taught them.

Are we haggling over one word?

What form of communication should people have used, before you would consider their views of worth?

Except at the loosest of levels, there was no uniformity of belief amongst them.

No uniformity of belief, existed in the middle east during the writing of the Torah. Each tribe had their own belief. Those that were willing to die for their belief and more importantly kill others who disagreed to maintain their belief…well they survived. Their belief exists today and their history is quite brutal and often inspiring. Many other belief systems that are much older than Judaism, also exist. They have survived as well.

Look at the end of the day I could create an even more lenthy post.

Believe what you want but pretty much everything you come up with, is easily refuted. You just believe, and you go looking for things to support it.

It’s a matter of faith. Not reason or rational thinking.

 

[JDaniel]

We can’t ever trust any man written stuff, that claims to be fact without some way of verifying it.

I’m glad you brought this up. There is a “law” (in a loose sense of that word) the name of which I can’t remember now, that says that the “world” is the ultimate test of veracity for the historian. IOW, if a historian writes a history book, and publishes it, the book is now on the world’s “stage”. If the tome consists of non-factuality, incorrectnesses, and outright lies, it will be found out and debunked.

The “Bible” is such a book of history, and has been on the world’s stage now for about 1,500 years, in either oral or written form. To most of us it has survived. Over 50% of the world’s population believes and follows it. And, 30 + %, who follow their own sets of belief, have not been compelled to debunk it.

“Verification”, for the historian, is the world stage. And, the Bible seems to have done pretty well.

Scientists do not change their minds monthly. You are being subjected to media hype. Scientists are usually very cautious in making any claim.

It was a funny, silly! Or, a silly, funny. Anyway, a cursory look through Wikipedia and one quickly discovers, for example, regarding “string theory”:

"Like any other quantum theory of gravity, it is widely believed that testing the theory experimentally would be prohibitively expensive, requiring feats of engineering on a solar-system scale. Although some critics concede that string theory is falsifiable in principle, they maintain that it is unfalsifiable for the foreseeable future, and so should not be called science.

“String theory is of interest to many physicists because of the mathematical truths involved and because of the large number of forms that the theories can take.” - Wikipedia

And,

“Although string theory is an outgrowth of physics, some contend that string theory’s current untestable status means that it should be classified as more of a mathematical framework for building models as opposed to a physical theory[15]. For a theory to be physics, it must be corroborated empirically, through experiment or observation, but few avenues for such contact with experiment have been claimed.” - Wikipedia

I produce documentation for my assertions. You produce . . . more of your “words”.

The reason we trust scientific conclusions, is not because they are simply made. It is because they are verified by not ONE scientist using his own methods and revelations, but by many.

See above . . .

There is a method, that is used and will be used by every experiment. If you think to not use the method as a scientist you WILL be exposed because others will duplicate your efforts.The scientific community is brutal by nature. They will do everything under the sun to disprove a theory, because they want any discovery they find to be THE Truth.

Or, as has been the case on many occasions, they want it to be their own (scientific discovery).

I trust the scientific method, when it is followed.

Me too.

I trust the scientific community, because as a whole they will follow the rules of their method, and oust out any liars and fools(eventually). They as a whole submit to truth due to their methods, not belief. It is their “thang”.

I have been a scientist for most of my life. I have been intimately involved with the inner workings of it, in several branches. I put less significance on it overall than you do and you’re an “outsider” to it. That’s interesting.

Religion, has no such tool or global community that has the same ability to verify a claim.

But, it does. Look, there are about 4,200 “religions” on the planet. As you know, many people are “born” into their religions. Depending upon what part of the world they were born into, they may, or, may not, be able to “question”, in a serious, discursive manner, their beliefs. In other parts of the world, such as Russia and China, religion has been rather decisively discouraged by the respective States. Would you not agree that these forces motivate the affinity of many religious for their (mothers’, fathers’ sisters’ brothers’, cousins’, aunts’, and uncles’) particular belief-practice? Of course you do, no one disputes this.

IOW, those adherents that do not get to “see” Christianity, for example, never get to make a choice. Oddly enough, when they do get to see Christianity, they make choices and more often than not, they convert.

continued . . .

JD

 

[JDaniel]

Hence many religions, and no way to combat them once belief in an idea has kicked in. There is no verification procedure that would convince people they are wrong.

Well, that’s not necessarily true. Rates of conversion and growth might just be the tests necessary for “combat”.

Every tribe in the middle east had their own set of Dieties, the Jews were one of them. The point, is people throughout the world, had their beliefs.

True. But, ultimately, the real tests (in the genera of religion and history) are persistence of an idea, conversion rates and growth.

No one belief is more valid than another. Why do you choose one tribe over another(Jewish tribal history, over aboriginal tribal history?)

See immediately above. (Besides, we haven’t even argued “truths” religion by religion, as that would be unimportant to an atheist. Thus, I respect your sensitivity!)

The bible, is stories told by people, who were sharing their views on reality and how they came into existance and what their purpose was and what they believed the spiritual world taught them.

Edna, more argumentative assertions. In this regard, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

Are we haggling over one word?

(Sure! Isn’t this fun? You are a good and fun person to debate with. Boy, you sure don’t give up! Really, you’re a good test of one’s convictions.)

What form of communication should people have used, before you would consider their views of worth?

A form that would place their views on the world’s stage, rather than hidden in the dark recesses of caves. (I fully understand why they did that; I was merely emphasising the “world stage” idea.

No uniformity of belief, existed in the middle east during the writing of the Torah. Each tribe had their own belief. Those that were willing to die for their belief and more importantly kill others who disagreed to maintain their belief…well they survived. Their belief exists today and their history is quite brutal and often inspiring. Many other belief systems that are much older than Judaism, also exist. They have survived as well.

(You like that word, “brutal”, don’t you? :yup: )

Yeah . . . sort of “natural selection” and “evolution” processes.

Look at the end of the day I could create an even more lenthy post.

(Yeah, me too. But, if the word-limit counter didn’t prevent us, the mod might!)

Believe what you want but pretty much everything you come up with, is easily refuted. You just believe, and you go looking for things to support it.

Right back at ya. The difference is: the vast majority of the world parallels my reasoning - not yours.

It’s a matter of faith. Not reason or rational thinking.

True: there’s that for both of us.

Merry Christmas and
God bless,
JD

 

[JDaniel]

Hello, Dameedna:

While I would love to continue our discussion, would you mind starting another thread? I think we’re off-topic here.



Merry Christmas and
God bless,
JD

 

[Jean_Anthony]

abc

 

[AmbroseSJ]

An Atheist that “believes” there is no God, has got to have reasons. There are actually as many reasons to believe in God as not to believe in God. Such is the nature of the world and the universe. There are as many arguments for a God as against a God, based soley on natural observation.

But a non-dogmatic Atheist, that is truly open minded, would allow for the possibility of God, as there are many arguments for a God, and no proof there is none.

If that Atheist can expand his mind to that degree, using pure rationality, he might consider the possibility, that given the ambiguity of the universal evidence, God, himself being rational and intelligent, should have given some sort of revelation in order to tip the scales, for a rational being like man.

 

[JDaniel]

An Atheist that “believes” there is no God, has got to have reasons. There are actually as many reasons to believe in God as not to believe in God. Such is the nature of the world and the universe. There are as many arguments for a God as against a God, based soley on natural observation.

AmbroseSJ:

To some extent, I agree with your opening paragraph. Except, I view the atheistic form as though it was a Christmas tree: the primary proposition is an ornament at the top and all other arguments (which are not separate arguments after all) flow directly from the topmost ornament. IOW, there are no “branches”.

And, that topmost ornament is: “I can’t possibly know therefore YOU can’t possibly know”. The problem with this is that WE DO know. So, all that’s left is for us to be called, “liars”. However, they are careful to word that in such a way so as not to upset the sensibilities of our bretheren members and the forum moderator.

To be clear, there are some atheists that actually produce documented items for real debate, thus allowing for good, charitable give and take. The other’s single purpose is what I call “distractive argumentativeness”.

But a non-dogmatic Atheist, that is truly open minded, would allow for the possibility of God, as there are many arguments for a God, and no proof there is none.

If that Atheist can expand his mind to that degree, using pure rationality, he might consider the possibility, that given the ambiguity of the universal evidence, God, himself being rational and intelligent, should have given some sort of revelation in order to tip the scales, for a rational being like man.

I could not agree more.

Merry Christmas and
God bless,
JD

 

[Jerry_Parker]

I suppose that “the greatest concerivable being” for sectaries and even for real Protestants is “their individual free conscience”! For Christians of a truly Catholic mind (including the Eastern Orthodox), God is, indeed and in all matters, Ultimate.

I never cease to wonder at how so many Protestants and sectaries invoke tired arguments that Catholic theology is innovationist and hence that its supremely normative “historical religion” is somehow not “reliable”. The dissidents insist that various doctrines with which the Protestant denominations and sects disagree had their origin in such-or-such a pronouncement of the Church, conciliar or papal. No, such datable authoritative statements only codify what the Church long has believed at a time in which a particular matter comes into contention. The doctrines long had been held before the date of any such official pronouncement that reaffirms them.

However, for Catholics “historical religion” in the form of the holy deposit of faith is reliable and normative. The content of the Holy Christian Faith is not “up for grabs” or something to reject due to any one man’s individual preferences or insights. God is supreme, and His order is that of “The Greatest Conceivable Being”, not that which individual human conscience, perception, or preference ordains, presumptuously, to be binding for himself and for others!

I hope that I have not made these comments in the wrong part of the Forum, but they do seem pertinent to me, whether directly or only indirectly so.

Jerry Parker