How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[ratiocinator]

Any conclusions we make about the world, by whatever method, are necessarily uncertain.

The statement that a scientific theory has been shown to be a good match to the way the world works is not uncertain. It is something that can be tested. You are using the products of those theories to post here and communicate people.

Empirical evidence and science, useful as they are, do not resolve fundamental questions about the nature of reality (or the reality of nature) without throwing up even more profound and bewildering questions.

But philosophy (alone) doesn't even get us as far as science in identifying regularities in the way things work. The mythology of religion gets us nowhere at all towards such conclusions.

 

[exchemist]

Perhaps, I should have made my point more clear.

Yes, certain ideas from philosophy are useful in many ways, but it can't, by itself, lead to conclusions about about the world as claimed. For that we need empirical evidence and science.

I can't disagree about that, but what the philosophy of science will tell us is that those conclusions are only provisional, based on models, and cannot be claimed with certainty to reflect reality accurately. It is useful to keep that in mind in some contexts, e.g. in dealing with QM. So maybe the job of philosophy is more to do with avoiding hubris than with gaining information, and in acting as a sort of quality control, or set of caveats, on what we take away from science.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The statement that a scientific theory has been shown to be a good match to the way the world works is not uncertain. It is something that can be tested. You are using the products of those theories to post here and communicate people.


But philosophy (alone) doesn't even get us as far as science in identifying regularities in the way things work. The mythology of religion gets us nowhere at all towards such conclusions.

Science enables us to develop technologies which manipulate nature, no one is denying that. If you consider that science provides the only tools by which to understand the world, your understanding will be limited - even by scientific standards, since you will be limiting yourself to a strictly utilitarian approach.

 

[ratiocinator]

I can't disagree about that, but what the philosophy of science will tell us is that those conclusions are only provisional, based on models, and cannot be claimed with certainty to reflect reality accurately.

Agree. The best we say is that a model matches reality to the extent we have been able to test it to date.

 

[ratiocinator]

If you consider that science provides the only tools by which to understand the world, your understanding will be limited - even by scientific standards, since you will be limiting yourself to a strictly utilitarian approach.

So what other approaches are you suggesting and what solid conclusions have been obtained from them?

 

[RestlessSoul]

So what other approaches are you suggesting and what solid conclusions have been obtained from them?

We humans have a variety of tools at our disposal when it comes to understanding the world, where we fit into it, and how we relate to it and to each other. Among these are intuition, imagination, inspiration and even revelation.

Conclusions should be drawn from observation and experience, but we should be wary of all conclusions, especially solid ones, since the word itself implies that a matter is settled; and history, including the history of science, tells us that the matter is seldom settled for long.

That said, here is a philosophical observation you can consider or discard as you see fit; it is best to avoid the sort of fundamentalist thinking which claims there is only one set of truths, and only one method of obtaining those truths.

 

[ratiocinator]

We humans have a variety of tools at our disposal when it comes to understanding the world, where we fit into it, and how we relate to it, and to each other. Among these are intuition, imagination, inspiration and even revelation.

Problems being:

• Intuition is provably flawed in many, many cases.
• Imagination and inspiration are necessary but not sufficient to obtain a conclusion.
• Those things claimed as 'revelation' are contradictory. Hence, at least most 'revelation' is wrong.

Conclusions should be drawn from observation and experience, but we should be wary of all conclusions, especially solid ones, since the word itself implies that a matter is settled; and history, including the history of science, tells us that the matter is seldom settled for long.

Of course we have to be aware that there will always be new evidence and the conclusions we have are provisional but surely that is better than not having any reliable basis for a conclusion at all?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Problems being:

• Intuition is provably flawed in many, many cases.
• Imagination and inspiration are necessary but not sufficient to obtain a conclusion.
• Those things claimed as 'revelation' are contradictory. Hence, at least most 'revelation' is wrong.

Of course we have to be aware that there will always be new evidence and the conclusions we have are provisional but surely that is better than not having any reliable basis for a conclusion at all?

Show me any human quality or behaviour that isn’t provably flawed in many many cases. As for intuition, the greatest of all teachers, experience, has taught me when to trust my own; though of course not unconditionally. More generally, I would point out that Einstein and Stephen Hawking were both intuitive thinkers.

The whole of life is, from a human perspective, a process of revelation. For as long as we remain open to new ideas, experiences and insights, more will continue to be revealed. But once we allow prejudice, and our own rigid conception of what constitutes reason, to lock away imagination, we cease being able to learn anything of value.

 

[Koldo]

Do I know the actual proper interpretation? Are the authors available to ask? Which authorities do I turn to in order to "interpret" mythology when they have a multitude of interpretations and perspectives based on their own traditions?

Even if you don't know the proper interpretation, you know it is not the one you are espousing.

And why shouldn't I reinterpret a story that includes fantastical elements if it is personally inspiring to me?

Because interpreting is about figuring what someone else is saying. Not making up the meaning.

How is it a lie?

It doesn't represent the truth. Where have you pulled out that interpretation from if not from a personal black hole?

And finding that parallel has personal meaning and provides inspiration. Afterall, Judas Iscariot is a complex character that has different qualities depending on tradition.

And it is absolutely alright to find meaning in a parallel.

 

[Whateverist]

How can one be any kind of Christian and take any of it literally. For that matter how can anyone in any wisdom tradition approach any source of wisdom literally?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Even if you don't know the proper interpretation, you know it is not the one you are espousing.

Not necessarily. I may not adopt a mainstream interpretation, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect. But even if I thought it wasn't the proper interpretation and I enjoy my own in some way, I am absolutely free to do so. Artist interpretation is often subjective.

Because interpreting is about figuring what someone else is saying. Not making up the meaning.

Interpretation is also:

-"a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style"

Definition of INTERPRETATION

the act or the result of interpreting : explanation; a particular adaptation or version of a work, method, or style; a teaching technique that combines factual with stimulating explanatory information… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

-an explanation of the meaning of another's artistic or creative work; an elucidation

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

-the particular way in which something is understood or explained

interpretation noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

Definition of interpretation noun in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more.

www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com

Artistic expressions are often open to interpretation, and often not necessarily in line with the artist's purpose. That's not wrong, it's the subjective nature of art, which involves a myriad of factors, many of which are personal associations with symbols and other elements of art.

It doesn't represent the truth. Where have you pulled out that interpretation from if not from a personal black hole?

It's an interpretation based on the Biblical story of Eden and the Fall of Man, the symbolic nature of Christ on the Cross, and the symbolism of the Eucharist. Hardly from a black hole. That I make a mystical connection does not make it an incorrect interpretation. We're talking about Christian mythology here, which is rife with various interpretations due to the nature of the Bible and traditions that have developed over centuries.

And it is absolutely alright to find meaning in a parallel.

We agree!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God cannot be detected through the physical senses since God doesn't exist in the physical world.

Something making zero impact on our world is functionally nonexistent.

God can only be detected through the spiritual senses.

There are no spiritual senses. Spiritual understanding is generated by the brain and applied to other apprehension, not received.

If God exists and does not want to be detected He will not be detectable.

If a god exists, it is detectable. It wouldn't matter what it wanted.

You only have two choices, accept or reject the evidence that God has provided.

I reject the claims you and your messenger make about that evidence.

Very different than living in a Godless universe, just not what you want..

This god does nothing detectable. The universe operates automatically.

God is the un-created, the Creator of everything in existence. Humans are mere creatures, God's creation.... Humans are not on the same level as God so the same standards that apply to humans do not apply to God.

This still isn't justification for your double standard that exempts gods from moral analysis. These are differences, but no reason is given why they justify a double standard.

 

[F1fan]

Very different than living in a Godless universe, just not what you want..

What we observe doesn't suggest any gods at work. A natural process explains how the universe works. No one can even define what any such god is. What I want? I want to understand what is true about things.

That sounds like an assertion. Unless you can prove it it is a bald assertion.

Creationists are wrong. Science is correct. This is what the facts reveal.

I have no guesses and I have no facts. All I have are Revelations from God.

Since you have no facts you are guessing. And what you think are revelations from God are not fact-based, and since they are suppodely from a supernaural cause, it is rejected as unlikely. You need extraordinary evidence, and you don't even have much more than claims.

Not likely at all since delusional people could never do what the Messengers did.

This is a claim, prove it. Show us the studies that reveal that delusional people can't invent fantastic stories.

What you 'believe' is most likely.

Since religious claims not only lack evidence, but are claiming a supernatural that is inconsistent with what we understand about the universe, we reject religious claims. IT's more likley that believers have adoted a se of ideas that look attractive to them for some reason, not because they are special and have an extra-sensory ability to detect truth.

 

[F1fan]

Oh that’s right, Atheists have special definitions.

Easy to say when the Urantia Book has a whole other set of stories about Jesus, God, and alien life forms from other planets. It's just another inconsistency among believers that atheists have to deal with. I suggest theists get together and decide what God is so we athesis only have to deal with one set of claims.

I come from my Heavenly Father. In him is life. The spark of life comes from life within God.

I'm sure you do. Too bad he won't make an appearance and only exists on ages of the UB.

 

[F1fan]

Nothing has hit me on my face.
Atheists do not believe in existence of any God and therefore, a messenger/manifestation from God is a non-starter.
Who is asking any God to guide them? Not the atheists.

I will admit to testing the claims of the religious adults around me as a child. I was sincere. I called out to God. I did what I was told to be a believer. Nothing happened.

I suspect one reason I became more and more skeptical as a kid was taking it seriously. I think others around me just went along with the herd and believed, but I tested the claims. It never became an issue where I didn't trrust those around me who told me that God does X and Jesus saves, I just concluded they were wrong somehow and made mistakes like anyone else. I was too young to understand all this, but that those around me made religious claims that I didn;t beliebve didn't shake my love and trust in them.

 

[F1fan]

Okay, what is the universe? Remember you are a critical thinker and skeptic, so you have to account for how you know, you know and not just claim you know, because you can think you know.

Your little tests, professor, are annoying. You ask basic 5th grade questions as if I will be stumped and shown to be a fool.

We can observe the following for knowing.
Person 1: I know the universe is natural.
Person 2: I know the universe is supernatural.

What follows from that is, if you accept the law of non-contradiction, that one of them don't know. So when you claim you know, you can't take for granted that you know, but you have to check. I.e. how do you know, that you know?

All any of us have to do is refer to experts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your little tests, professor, are annoying. You ask basic 5th grade questions as if I will be stumped and shown to be a fool.

All any of us have to do is refer to experts.

What is your expert reference for the bold one?
I need you to reference the actual hard natural science theory of annoying. If you can't I will conclude that you are not using scientific knowledge, but rather that you are expressing first person subjective emotions.
BTW what is the theory of being a fool. Please reference an expert or you are a fool.

 

[ratiocinator]

Show me any human quality or behaviour that isn’t provably flawed in many many cases.

Relying on a well tested scientific theory within the scope that it has been tested. This is the whole basis for technology. It works. It's also basically the extension of what we all do all the time in dealing with the real world. We have a wealth of experience that reveals regularities in the way things work, and we apply them all the time. We don't walk off tall buildings or cliffs, we don't put our hands in fires, etc., etc., etc...

 

[F1fan]

What is your expert reference for the bold one?
I need you to reference the actual hard natural science theory of annoying. If you can't I will conclude that you are not using scientific knowledge, but rather that you are expressing first person subjective emotions.
BTW what is the theory of being a fool. Please reference an expert or you are a fool.

You are the master of going off on irrelevant tangents. Gold medal.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Relying on a well tested scientific theory within the scope that it has been tested. This is the whole basis for technology. It works. It's also basically the extension of what we all do all the time in dealing with the real world. We have a wealth of experience that reveals regularities in the way things work, and we apply them all the time. We don't walk off tall buildings or cliffs, we don't put our hands in fires, etc., etc., etc...

Yeah, but that is not all of the everyday world. As for the real world, what is your objective evidence for the fact, that there is a real world?
As pr @F1fan you need an expert to know all that in your post. So what expert has given evidence for the fact, that there is a real world and all the rest? Can you site a peerreviewed article on all that including the real world.

In effect you 2 are claiming two different versions of knowledge, that contradiction each other, so one of you are claiming something which is false.