Holy texts should be respected by scholars

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.

God chose mortal and fallible men to write down the holy scriptures. He prefers to use non-miraculous natural means if possible. 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. The innocence of their form, such as saying "God walked with man in the evening" is also meant to speak to the human heart.

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.

Myths also are true, not in the factual sense, but in the way that they speak to Man's divinity and humanity. In scripture, we find not only Yawehistic poetry but also the incorporation of other near eastern myths, such as those of Canaan cult where the divinity is characterized in the storm thunder. This does not invalidate the truth that Israel was God's chosen people. Evidence of synthesis and syncretistism in a religion is no grounds for invalidation. God can use any vehical of inspiration he wishes, and that icludes the contribution of other peoples. These symbols do not identify God with thunder, they do not say "God is thunder" they say,"God speaks also through thunder"

The poetry of scripture must first be examined as a whole, looking at its beginning and end, with a view to its narrative meaning as well as its underlying realities. One must consider the point of view of the one speaking, for he represents the human condition. Thus the psalmist laments the errors of the Israelites in the desert, and is able to tell a human story in much greater depth than if he simply listed asuccession of facts about the bronze age.

The Word of God is living, it still shapes humanity, it is creative. The word has real power. It is covenental also in that it holy scriptures tell the story of salvation, indeed, the scriptures are deeply inbued with God's character. Whatdo find out about God? A character of faithfulness and patience who is ever remembering his beloved. Through myths as well as actual events the word reveals a prophetic God as protagonist, in this mythic and legendary reality God is the hero.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Spammer.

I knew eventually some theist would adapt to science by declaring truth as shallow.

So the claim that 'God' exists wasn't intended to be truth? Too bad those poor shmucks didn't know that. Could have save them a few crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings, bombings, etc.

A declaration that evidence of something being fiction does not make it fiction. Nice.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

See also the Wikipedia entry on theories.

Science does not represent the absolute truth. (And neither does anything else, in my opinion.) In this sense it is "shallow."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Science isn't supposed to represent truth. It is a process to discover, approximate, and speculate truth. Science discovered the existence of protons. That is truth. Science produced an equation where Energy is Mass x 186,38x mps ^ 2. That is an approximation of truth. Science predicts that the smallest component in reality might be a tiny vibrating string of exotic energy. That is a speculation of truth.

Considering that science has the best track record for discovering truth and it's probing the very foundations of reality and the human mind, I would have to say that it reaches both wide and deep (hardly shallow in the least). Simply put, it goes to places that theology can't touch and because of this, makes it an excellent tool for examining the claims of theology and comparing them against reality.

 

Yes.

Well, yes and no. While science is an excellent predictor of nature, what hard, falsifiable claims does theology make? Theology is highly interpretive and is largely concerned with the supernatural, by definition out of science's reach. That said, if your own theology conflicts with science, chances are that science will win if you put them to the test. Then again, I don't think a good theology ought to conflict with science.

 

Let's take christianity as an example. Adam and Eve are the parents of all humanity. Reality was created in a specific sequence over the course of seven days (or thousands of years). 'God' exists. 'Satan' exists. 'Heaven' exists. 'Hell' exists. 'Angels' exists. 'Demons' exist. Just for starters...

Most theology is highly interpretive and there is no known supernatural phenomenoa that exists.

Why even have theology at all? On the pro side it's the bullshit that binds people together and on the con side it's the bullshit that promotes death, ignorance, and suffering.

 

Lawdog! It's you! Where have you been?

 

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.

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.

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.

 

So how would you use science to evaluate ethics?

 

I tire of this statement. Nothing is out of sciences reach. And what is a "good" theology? If you're going to tell me that theology has all of these benefits for the "spiritual" wellbeing of the individual, why not just call it psychotherapy and be done with it? No. Theologies are just mass delusions propagated by the inertia of controlling overlords and the threat of eternal torture.

Goddamn terrorists.

 

Evolutionary psychology and biology have nice evaluations of the origins and application of ethics.

 

Not true. As an easy example, science simply disregards anything smaller than the Planck length; there is nothing preventing the existence of such an object, but it cannot be measured; it is "effectively" nonexistent. Another one: "qualia," as philosophers call them, or qualitative experiences (not their constituent physical processes).

Heh... don't ask me.

 

And consciousness?

 

Isn't it? Science is still limited by the knowledge and tools available. Its rather sweeping to presume nothing is out of its reach

 

when was the last time POEMS told you STONE bad children or a girl who aint a virgin when you marry her?
www.thewaronfaith.com/bible_quotes.htm

your god if it existed should be charged with genocide
www.evilbible.com

 

Quibbling. Science does not disregard anything smaller than the PL, it makes a certain claim that given our current physical understanding, a length smaller than the PL has no "meaning".

And "qualia" such as my experience of the color red, can certainly be explained by cognitive science as the self-referential (feedback) mechanisms of complex weighted neural networks. If that isn't satisfactory, tough cookies.

 

I consider it optimistic.

Look, science is nothing more than a technique that humans have developed to get a handle on the nature of the cosmos (that's rocks, stars, people, slugs, alpha-centaurians...). So far, it has proved to be the best way of gaining reliable information about it. When religion or some other technique can even remotely approach the explanatory power of science, regarding everything, then we'll talk. I'll have my people contact your people. We'll do lunch.

 

A fascinating branch of cognitive science with some interesting theories floating around. Is there some other method of investigation that is even working on a solid predictive model of consciousness? I must have missed it...

 

No there isn't; and you cannot see hear or evaluate it; so why believe it exists? Or doesn't it?

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

3) So by definition, it exists as defined.

Right?