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

[doppelganger]

See, and that's why this line hit me so hard. In this belief system Adam and Eve have to fall rather than fall as the result of disobedience. And it makes sense; reading Genesis, God's first commandment to them is to "Go forth and multiply," but they don't. Scripturally, they don't have their first child until after the fall. Immediately after, in fact lol.

Why do you think that is? Do you read that as a literal account of the first two humans? Or was it written to illustrate a point about the human experience? If the latter, what point? And were Adam and Eve (setting aside God's master plan) happier before or after "the Fall"?

 

[UntemperedSchism]

So you believe that God is falsifiable?

I believe that our ideas about him are utterly falsifiable. Scripture lasts because it's written by people who feel inspired, and that emotion carries through. I believe that sometimes they really are inspired, and sometimes they're nutters, just like every one else. Which makes a literal reading of scripture impossible.

 

[UntemperedSchism]

Why do you think that is? Do you read that as a literal account of the first two humans? Or was it written to illustrate a point about the human experience? If the latter, what point? And were Adam and Eve (setting aside God's master plan) happier before or after "the Fall"?

^^^^^

See above response.

 

[doppelganger]

^^^^^

See above response.

So what point is the story making? Why would someone write it? What message does it convey to you?

 

[Photonic]

I believe that our ideas about him are utterly falsifiable. Scripture lasts because it's written by people who feel inspired, and that emotion carries through. I believe that sometimes they really are inspired, and sometimes they're nutters, just like every one else. Which makes a literal reading of scripture impossible.

So you believe more in the authors of the particular scripture that caused you to change? Or simply the ideas surrounding this?

I'm really sorry for all the questions, but I have an intense curiosity for what causes people to think from a theistic viewpoint. (Actually I have an intense curiosity about damn near everything but let's do one thing at a time, haha)

None of this should be taken as insulting as I'm not commenting I'm simply "fact-finding."

 

[UntemperedSchism]

So what point is the story making? Why would someone write it? What message does it convey to you?

Right now, it conveys the idea that God is capable of making mistakes; that divine doesn't mean perfect and that the people who originally interpreted these stories were just as confused by them as I am.

Creation stories are a way of trying to understand why everything exists; in this case humanity couldn't exist without sin and God clearly wanted humanity to exist, therefore sin is less about evil and more about a necessary lack of connection to God upon which is predicated the existence of Man. Which kinda sorta, for now, answers the question of God's absence from our physical lives.

Sorta.

 

[UntemperedSchism]

So you believe more in the authors of the particular scripture that caused you to change? Or simply the ideas surrounding this?

I'm really sorry for all the questions, but I have an intense curiosity for what causes people to think from a theistic viewpoint. (Actually I have an intense curiosity about damn near everything but let's do one thing at a time, haha)

None of this should be taken as insulting as I'm not commenting I'm simply "fact-finding."

I believe that a person would have to be mad to write scripture, on purpose, that would anger the adherents of other faiths. So I believe in the concept of inspiration; that a person can touch things beyond them, through no attendant virtue, and bring back a nugget of truth. Then they bury it in their own context and egos and psychic baggage. Which makes the contemplation of scripture, trying to find the inspired bits, more important than the stories in scripture themselves.

And no insult assumed, I understand the curiosity.

 

[Photonic]

I believe that a person would have to be mad to write scripture, on purpose, that would anger the adherents of other faiths. So I believe in the concept of inspiration; that a person can touch things beyond them, through no attendant virtue, and bring back a nugget of truth. Then they bury it in their own context and egos and psychic baggage. Which makes the contemplation of scripture, trying to find the inspired bits, more important than the stories in scripture themselves.

And no insult assumed, I understand the curiosity.

So, at least to you, all scripture is false, but you postulate that divinity exists because they were inspired to do so in the first place?

Wouldn't the same thing apply to any author ever inspired to write something?

 

[UntemperedSchism]

So, at least to you, all scripture is false, but you postulate that divinity exists because they were inspired to do so in the first place?

Wouldn't the same thing apply to any author ever inspired to write something?

1. I think the phrase "all scripture is false," is over-reading a bit. Scripture contains truth and so it has value in the search for Truth. I have a doctrinal faith because that doctrine shapes my questions and attempts to understand God. But I don't believe that the earth is 8000 years old, because that would be absurd.

2. I don't think the same thing would apply. An author inspired to write something is getting a story out of their head (I know, I once wrote the first draft of a novel over 7 weeks and it felt like I was birthing a camel.) They have no guarantee that anyone else will ever read it, or like it or form any opinion of it.

A person writing scripture is doing so with the understanding that they are going to share it and, if they share it, they are opening themselves up to ridicule, ostracism and possibly death after being labeled an apostate. That's not really something someone commits to without really, really needing to. Which, to me, lends credence to the idea that what they've written is at least partially inspired.

 

[Skeptisch]

HAH! So that's what it feels like to be on this side of the argument. Listen, you're not wrong.

Thanks for your affirmation. However, why can’t you articulate your personal, internal experience?

How come this experience seems to override your need for (scientific) evidence and reason?

How can you say that everything you believed as an atheist still makes sense to you, logically, reasonably and with no reservation?

Could it be there is a certain amount of confusion within you now that was not there before you had your personal experience, the experience that you cannot articulate?

Do you think you make any reasonable sense at all?

 

[UntemperedSchism]

Thanks for your affirmation. However, why can’t you articulate your personal, internal experience?

How come this experience seems to override your need for (scientific) evidence and reason?

How can you say that everything you believed as an atheist still makes sense to you, logically, reasonably and with no reservation?

Could it be there is a certain amount of confusion within you now that was not there before you had your personal experience, the experience that you cannot articulate?

Do you think you make any reasonable sense at all?

All good questions.

To be honest, I'm still trying to make sense of it for myself.

But yeah, this has caused confusion that wasn't there before; before I had certainty, now I have a juxtapostion of logic and faith. It's weird. I've admitted as much.

 

[Photonic]

1. I think the phrase "all scripture is false," is over-reading a bit. Scripture contains truth and so it has value in the search for Truth. I have a doctrinal faith because that doctrine shapes my questions and attempts to understand God. But I don't believe that the earth is 8000 years old, because that would be absurd.

2. I don't think the same thing would apply. An author inspired to write something is getting a story out of their head (I know, I once wrote the first draft of a novel over 7 weeks and it felt like I was birthing a camel.) They have no guarantee that anyone else will ever read it, or like it or form any opinion of it.

A person writing scripture is doing so with the understanding that they are going to share it and, if they share it, they are opening themselves up to ridicule, ostracism and possibly death after being labeled an apostate. That's not really something someone commits to without really, really needing to. Which, to me, lends credence to the idea that what they've written is at least partially inspired.

Sorry I should have rephrased, I meant literal reading of scripture.

What about those scientists who had the inspiration to go against the church and risk death (Darwin, Galileo, etc). Is their inspiration any less than those who write scripture?

 

[UntemperedSchism]

Sorry I should have rephrased, I meant literal reading of scripture.

What about those scientists who had the inspiration to go against the church and risk death (Darwin, Galileo, etc). Is their inspiration any less than those who write scripture?

Not at all. Darwin, having no foundational belief to support his claims, explored a theory that he knew would be unpopular at best, and he turned out to be correct. I see no reason why Origin of Species wouldn't be considered scripture.

If God is really God, then all of the universe is the Word of God. Not just some books written thousands of years ago. Everything is the result of some measure of inspiration.

Wow, that was pompous. Sorry, just the best way to express it. By my logic the phonebook could also be considered scripture

 

[Photonic]

Not at all. Darwin, having no foundational belief to support his claims, explored a theory that he knew would be unpopular at best, and he turned out to be correct. I see no reason why Origin of Species wouldn't be considered scripture.

If God is really God, then all of the universe is the Word of God. Not just some books written thousands of years ago. Everything is the result of some measure of inspiration.

Wow, that was pompous. Sorry, just the best way to express it. By my logic the phonebook could also be considered scripture

Then you could feasibly say you are more of a Deist really than a Christian.

 

[UntemperedSchism]

Then you could feasibly say you are more of a Deist really than a Christian.

In a way, that's how this started. But my faith has led me to Christ. When I say the entire universe is the Word of God, I'm not being naturalistic, I'm expressing creation as a concept within the terms we've been given. If the first act really was Speech (as in Let There Be Light), then words are the foundation of existence. Which, as a writer, I can totally get behind

This goes back to the idea of religious "truth" being in a state of quantum flux. When I examine scripture through the eye of my faith, it is true, insofar as it dictates what I do with that faith. When I examine the world through the eyes of science, scriptural descriptions are no longer true and have no place there. Both realities constantly exist within a believer; the trick is to temper your faith with your reason. After all, both are of God.

It's a mess that I've becoming increasingly comfortable accepting.

 

[Photonic]

In a way, that's how this started. But my faith has led me to Christ. When I say the entire universe is the Word of God, I'm not being naturalistic, I'm expressing creation as a concept within the terms we've been given. If the first act really was Speech (as in Let There Be Light), then words are the foundation of existence. Which, as a writer, I can totally get behind

This goes back to the idea of religious "truth" being in a state of quantum flux. When I examine scripture through the eye of my faith, it is true, insofar as it dictates what I do with that faith. When I examine the world through the eyes of science, scriptural descriptions are no longer true and have no place there. Both realities constantly exist within a believer; the trick is to temper your faith with your reason. After all, both are of God.

It's a mess that I've becoming increasingly comfortable accepting.

Do you apply this to life after death?

 

[Skeptisch]

To be honest, I'm still trying to make sense of it for myself.

It means nothing to be open to a proposition you don't understand.

 

[UntemperedSchism]

Do you apply this to life after death?

Heh. That's where the hope part of the equation comes in. True and untrue at the same time; when I die either my hopes will be confirmed, or reason will be. If the former, then I'll be happy; if the latter, there won't be an "I" to worry about it.

The afterlife as Schrodinger's cat is actually fairly apt.

 

[Photonic]

Heh. That's where the hope part of the equation comes in. True and untrue at the same time; when I die either my hopes will be confirmed, or reason will be. If the former, then I'll be happy; if the latter, there won't be an "I" to worry about it.

The afterlife as Schrodinger's cat is actually fairly apt.

Schrodinger made up that experiment because he thought the idea was hilarious.

I don't think he expected people to take it so seriously.

 

[UntemperedSchism]

It means nothing to be open to a proposition you don't understand.

First, no one gets to decide what has meaning for me, but me.

Second, there isn't a scientist on the planet, atheist, religious or somewhere in between, that would agree with that statement.

One of the things that I used to say to my religious friends was that Atheism was more intellectually honest because it's okay with not knowing the answers to every question. Atheism and science refuse to just put a place holder in for every question they don't understand. They explore and question until they do understand.

Why am I not supposed to apply the same mentality to faith, which is infinitely riper for confusion and has no scientific methodology with which to explore?

Why would that even bother you enough to try and tear it down?