Does Science have a better explanation on things compared to divine inspiration and revelation?

[jarofthoughts]

I think his religious views are a bit muddy.

While it's true he never formally left the Catholic Church (and they never excommunicated him), IIRC, he drew on the writings of Martin Luther as inspiration for much of his anti-semitism and dabbled in the occult.

True.
I wasn't looking to place him in the faithful Catholic camp.
I was looking to throw him out of the atheist camp, a card that is played WAY too often with no factual backing by some theists.

 

[ryanam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanam
Yes ,it really does.

(If we're stooping to this level of debate, I can carry on all day)

Sorry, but no. As for stooping, I was trying to be nice... give you a chance to catch up on the thread (and my position) and state your case with a touch less hysteria.

However, if you want to be hostile about it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanam
A terribly misguided approach, one which the religious would have you believe is true.

Science divorced from moral guidance gave us the Holocaust, just for starters. Once atheists got political power, they proved they're no wiser using it.

Quote:
How do science and religion not DIRECTLY clash? According to the bible, things have happened which we now KNOW are not possible, given the evidence we have.
Only if the reader is a strict Literalist. An interpretation which holds no more water in the theological field than the scientific.

Quote:
Children are being taught junk science at school (that the story of Noah's ark ACTUALLY occurred or that god controls weather systems) and not being given the access they need to scientific fact.
Where? Cite your source.

Quote:
To say that you can have science and religion on the same plate means that you're either a bad realist or a bad believer.
Egotistical wanking.

Quoting "Yes, it really does" isn't being nice, or allowing anyone to catch up with anything. It's degrading all of the previous posts you've made by displaying such contempt for actual fact.

Science divorced from moral guidance gave us the Holocaust, just for starters. Once atheists got political power, they proved they're no wiser using it.

Science gave you the Holocaust? Last time I checked it was the ROMAN CATHOLIC Nazi who made his entire regime into a pseudo-religion, depicting himself as god who was in fact responsible.

Only if the reader is a strict Literalist. An interpretation which holds no more water in the theological field than the scientific.

No. Not only if you're a strict literalist. It's fact. If you think that the bible holds more truth over actual observable fact, then I fear you will argue about what colour the sky is if you were so inclined.

Where? Cite your source.

I'm not going to link to the countless faith schools in existence. That's laziness on your part. Westboro Baptist church springs to mind though.

Egotistical wanking

No legitimate rebuttal resulting in an offensive outburst.

 

[Acim]

Why do people believe in divine revelation/ inspiration?

It is how all knowledge comes to us. More like through us. It reflects direct communication from (our) Source to (us) Creation. It is less hampered by symbolic interpretation and relations removed from reality.

I was a Christian so called for 20 something year, until I began questioning. I read and studied almost every religion I can come across, and those 'religious' 'spiritual' beliefs that are more "I find my own path" make lots of sense, because we can only learn from our own experience, therefore allowing room for growth.

Why should I trust 'someone else'' divine inspiration/revelation such as buddha (enlighten), mohammed, paul, matthew, moses compared to Science?

Remove the 'should' clause, and the answer tends to present itself. If the message coming through to you is seen as 'someone else's' it will be doubted, especially if seen as instruction to live by without opportunity to clarify. So, inevitably you will allow (or even choose) to teach the message and demonstrate both clarification and validity, or essentially ignore it, for time being. Meaning, it'll come to you again when ready, or may not return, as ultimately teaching perceived as 'someone else's' is not necessary to realize truth within you.

Spiritual truth (and experience) is mostly to all about self awareness, that you may return to state of 'know thyself.' For me, this generally equals 'know thyself as perfect love' and is how I reconcile (my) theistic ideas with spiritual awareness.

(True, and neutral) Science allows for all this. Yet popular variation of scientific study and application is about consciously increasing understanding and growing set of contextual facts around the perceived physical self. Its awareness is focussed on perpetuating a myth that routinely passes for hardcore rationalism. The myth is neither good nor bad when seen for what it is.

 

[UntemperedSchism]

Well, I think most people would bristle at their church or religion being called "illegitimate".

Refusing to claim legitimacy doesn't necessarily mean something is illegitimate lol. I'm saying the issue shouldn't even enter the equation; faith deals with things best classified in the realm of hope. Our hopes don't always have to have anything to do with concrete reality; they're hopes. Faith should just be hope elevated to optimistic belief.

So your religion doesn't inform your ideas of what is real at all?

That may make you unique.

To be honest, I have no idea what my religion is doing to me yet lol. My faith is new; I'm keeping an ongoing faith journal of sorts, to figure that issue out over time. What I do know is that, to me, my beliefs only change me, not the world.

 

[Skeptisch]

I do think the Holocaust was a case of science divorced from morality...

Or was it religion divorced from morality?

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
Steven Weinberg

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why do people believe in divine revelation/ inspiration?

Because people tend to believe things based more on how they feel about them, then the level of rational and logical support they have behind them. Emotion trumps rationality for most people, most of the time.

 

[doppelganger]

What I do know is that, to me, my beliefs only change me, not the world.

That seems like a healthy way to be a person of faith and still be able to be genuinely respectful of others.

With regard to "original sin" and other seemingly explicitly "religious" ideas, it's worth noting that almost all of these can be interpreted as expressing psychological truths in metaphorical form that do not necessarily depend on any superstitious thinking. Now, it's also the case that they rarely and almost never are interpreted that way by the official bodies of established religions (at least not in the Christian west), but the philosophical and psychological motifs that these stories can serve are not contrary to or incompatible with science, and may even be supportive of the open-mindedness, and release of the need for certainty and belief that ultimately leads to scientific "progress."

 

[UntemperedSchism]

That's seems like a healthy way to be a person of faith and still be able to be genuinely respectful of others.

I'm trying. :yes:

With regard to "original sin" and other seemingly explicitly "religious" ideas, it's worth noting that almost all of these can be interpreted as expressing psychological truths in metaphorical form that do not necessarily depend on any superstitious thinking.

See, that's almost too wishy washy for me (past me is frothing at the mouth and trying to choke the life out of me right now)

I believe that genuine belief is required to make faith meaningful. Doctrine and scripture give me a framework within which to explore the experience of faith; but I can only have that experience if I genuinely believe the doctrine I'm partaking of.

That being said, my beliefs aren't literal; I believe in the story of the Fall, not as a historical account, but as a kind of a landmark of my faith. It informs the way I ask the questions that feed my experience. If faith is about trying to develop an understanding of God, then scripture is my way of thinking in the same shoes as everyone else who's ever attempted the same; it's a gateway of sorts to the kind of thinking required.

Which is just another way of saying, whatever you believe, believe it fully. Belief elevates your thoughts and opens you to profundity. *All paths lead to God; the important thing is to find a path and take a step. God will do the rest.

The common thread here is that I make a distinction between what I belief and knowledge and have the critical thinking skills to never confuse them.

Whew, long winded.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That seems like a healthy way to be a person of faith and still be able to be genuinely respectful of others.

With regard to "original sin" and other seemingly explicitly "religious" ideas, it's worth noting that almost all of these can be interpreted as expressing psychological truths in metaphorical form that do not necessarily depend on any superstitious thinking.

Sure... people could do that. People could do lots of things.

Now, it's also the case that they rarely and almost never are interpreted that way by the official bodies of established religions (at least not in the Christian west), but the philosophical and psychological motifs that these stories can serve are not contrary to or incompatible with science, and may even be supportive of the open-mindedness, and release of the need for certainty and belief that ultimately leads to scientific "progress."

That's incorrect. The Catholic Church does hold to the position that monogenism is literally true. Believing in evolution is okay; believing in polygenism is not:

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.​

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]​

Humani Generis

And I think the next section is especially relevant to this conversation:

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church.

IOW, Pius XII acknowledged that science and their religion will come into conflict, and in these situations, he said that religion should prevail.

 

[doppelganger]

Jeff: I agree that the Catholic faith insists that its followers take it literally. I acknowledged as much above. And that's how believers take it. But it's not the only way.

 

[Photonic]

Because people tend to believe things based more on how they feel about them, then the level of rational and logical support they have behind them. Emotion trumps rationality for most people, most of the time.

Fact, absolute fact.

Proof: The President. (Not to get into a political debate, but I think most people in the US will get the reference)

 

[UntemperedSchism]

IOW, Pius XII acknowledged that science and their religion will come into conflict, and in these situations, he said that religion should prevail.

Heh. Rationally, I know that every time religion and science have come into conflict, religions has lost. Faithfully, that doesn't ultimately matter, if that conflict is rendered unnecessary. I'm thinking of a scenario in which religion is Schrodinger's Cat; both true and untrue simultaneously. For the faithful the tenets of faith are true, until they're not. When the rational mind is shining on them they're laughably false, when the prayerful mind is examining them, they're necessarily true.

Or something.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jeff: I agree that the Catholic faith insists that its followers take it literally. I acknowledged as much above. And that's how believers take it. But it's not the only way.

Wait - I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that they take them as metaphors. My mistake for trying to read on one cup of coffee.

 

[Photonic]

Heh. Rationally, I know that every time religion and science have come into conflict, religions has lost. Faithfully, that doesn't ultimately matter, if that conflict is rendered unnecessary. I'm thinking of a scenario in which religion is Schrodinger's Cat; both true and untrue simultaneously. For the faithful the tenets of faith are true, until they're not. When the rational mind is shining on them they're laughably false, when the prayerful mind is examining them, they're necessarily true.

Or something.

There is actually a phrase for that.

"God is in the Gaps."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is actually a phrase for that.

"God is in the Gaps."

I prefer "Tree Lobsters".

(You can't prove they don't exist!)

 

[UntemperedSchism]

There is actually a phrase for that.

"God is in the Gaps."

Nah...I know that's what I would have called it three months ago, but I'm not talking about God of the gaps. I'm not using God to answer questions but rather to ask them, without expecting answers. Belief is its own virtue, for me, with scripture and doctrine acting as a kind of springboard to a different kind of thought.

I know that sounds like tons of woo, but it works for me.

 

[Photonic]

Nah...I know that's what I would have called it three months ago, but I'm not talking about God of the gaps. I'm not using God to answer questions but rather to ask them, without expecting answers. Belief is its own virtue, for me, with scripture and doctrine acting as a kind of springboard to a different kind of thought.

I know that sounds like tons of woo, but it works for me.

If it works for you, than go for it. But try to avoid blind faith and deny facts in front of you like so many of those here do.

 

[UntemperedSchism]

If it works for you, than go for it. But try to avoid blind faith and deny facts in front of you like so many of those here do.

Lol.

Dude, I totally get it. I'm tempted to post some the articles I've written in defense of atheism and condemnation of faith here, just so people get how anti-theistic I was. Faith is a new thing to me, but it will never overwhelm my reason.

 

[Skeptisch]

I know that sounds like tons of woo, but it works for me.

Sounds a bit selfish, doesn’t it?

 

[Skeptisch]

Faith is a new thing to me, but it will never overwhelm my reason.

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”
RD