Truth and Religion

[Secret Chief]

Why are we comparing religion with science? They're two entirely different paradigms.

I enjoy comparing paradigms. (Presumably as do others, given we have a "Science and Religion" sub-forum).

 

[SalixIncendium]

The changes are regarding interpretation of Prophesy but more importantly understanding of what scriptures mean and how they affect followers in the real world.

Ah, then disregard what I said in post #4. I was thinking those that adapt to new objectively observable discoveries when I wrote that.

 

[Samael_Khan]

First of all, I don't think any major religion is continuously changing its beliefs, so the issue does not seem to arise. Unless you have examples in mind, perhaps?

Secondly, like others on this thread I always treat claims of truth with circumspection. Religions provide guidance to people, to help them live their lives in a state of equanimity, and they do this by focusing on certain principles or ideas that are helpful and contain certain kinds of truth.

But it's always best to keep one's distance from anyone who claims to possess "the truth", not least because all the religions says somewhat different things, so somebody must be at least a bit wrong!

Yeah, I am not referring to major religions. What I am speaking about is more relevant to minor upstart religions.

I agree with you with your post.

Just a question regarding Catholicism: From what I understand you guys say that scripture was written by the church and therefore the church is the authority and the scriptures themselves? I am definitely oversimplifying this.

 

[Secret Chief]

No, because it doesn't brag about knowing the truth. It just says it has the best current explanation - almost expecting it to be refined, revised and improved upon.

Yes, that's why I used the word "updating."

 

[Secret Chief]

There's probably something of a difference between a new observation and a new "revelation."

I agree. Revelations I can do without.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Ah, then disregard what I said in post #4. I was thinking those that adapt to new objectively observable discoveries when I wrote that.

Thing is, at least in the instances where they are adapting according to objectively observable discoveries they are adapting because reality contradicts what they believe. Therefore reality is the foundation of their changes, which I think is acceptable, but still they would admit that they weren't teaching truth. If their believes possibly are subject to change at all, then they shouldn't be saying that they have "the truth", as they do not know this.

 

[Altfish]

But it is not the best as with evidence. It is the best in your mind and nowhere else. So you in effect claim the truth, because it can't be that it is not the best.

I disagree; I claim nothing.
I accept science is the best explanation of the natural world, but I expect it to change.
Truth is best, you say. It is certainly better than lies - but what is 'Truth'? Science doesn't use that word, science never says it is true. Many people may believe it to be; but they may find it is not.

 

[Secret Chief]

doesn't say that it has all the knowledge already.

I agree.

 

[stvdv]

If you join a religion because it says that it teaches the truth, but continuously updates or outright changes its official beliefs, is the religion then contradicting itself?

Also, if you join the religion because of its current beliefs, but then those beliefs change, is it logical for them to accuse you of rejecting the truth if you leave because of the changes?

Religion does not own the Truth
Religion provides pointers how to get to the Truth

 

[Samael_Khan]

In my experience, the religions that are open to constant revision are not the ones that claim they teach "the truth." They are the ones that understand truth is plural, not singular, and are thus also very comfortable with supposed contradiction.



I guess? I'm not part of a religion that works like that - I'm in one of those traditions that perceives truths (plural) not truth (singular).

Funnily the one I am speaking about claims to be "the truth" and that they teach "the truth" but admit to constantly updating beliefs, sometimes important ones, without admitting that they have taught falsehood.

Your plural truth makes sense, because why would someone belong to a religion if it didn't teach at least a bit of truth?

Even I as an atheist belief that all religions teach "truth"

 

[Samael_Khan]

Religion does not own the Truth
Religion provides pointers how to get to the Truth

What if it is a religion that says that it alone has monopoly on absolute truth?

 

[SalixIncendium]

There's probably something of a difference between a new observation and a new "revelation."

Isn't a new observation a revelation by definition?

A new observation reveals something that was previously not observed, yes?

 

[Secret Chief]

I don't want to isolate a specific religion because I would rather deal with the implications of the statement which could apply to any group

I am not referring to major religions.

errrrr....are these consistent?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Isn't a new observation a revelation by definition?

A new observation reveals something that was previously not observed, yes?

I think the revelation he is speaking about is mystical or spiritual revelation as revealed by God. So there are religious people who say that they are speaking to God and that people should follow them without any observable proof.

{Edit: By saying "could apply to any group" I am saying that you can hold all groups to the standard but I have found that when holding groups to the standard, it is certain minor religions that have the problem, whereas the major religions tend not have that problem in the modern age.}

 

[stvdv]

What if it is a religion that says that it alone has monopoly on absolute truth?

My advice: Stay away, as far as possible, from such an arrogant religion, belittling others. Nothing good can ever come from it. For sure no Truth

 

[Samael_Khan]

errrrr....are these consistent?

There are major and minor religions often separated by how many adherents they have. So for instance, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc, would all be major religions. Religions like The People's Temple, Branch Davidians, Scientology, the pastor on the side of the road claiming to speak to God and saying God is a Chameleon, would be minor religions,

 

[Samael_Khan]

My advice: Stay away, as far as possible, from such an arrogant religion, belittling others. Nothing good can ever come from it. For sure no Truth

Agree with you there 100%.

 

[firedragon]

If you join a religion because it says that it teaches the truth, but continuously updates or outright changes its official beliefs, is the religion then contradicting itself?

Also, if you join the religion because of its current beliefs, but then those beliefs change, is it logical for them to accuse you of rejecting the truth if you leave because of the changes?

Changes through time is inevitable brother. With all religions. Also, changes through distance also is inevitable.

Dont confuse these things with "truth". Just aiming at honesty as much as you could is better. That way, truth is closer.

 

[Secret Chief]

There are major and minor religions often separated by how many adherents they have. So for instance, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc, would all be major religions. Religions like The People's Temple, Branch Davidians, Scientology, the pastor on the side of the road claiming to speak to God and saying God is a Chameleon, would be minor religions,

Yes ta, I agree on the split but I was not asking about that. You said you didn't want to specify any religion, but to discuss generally. Then subsequently you've said the topic was not in regard to major religions.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Changes through time is inevitable brother. With all religions. Also, changes through distance also is inevitable.

Dont confuse these things with "truth". Just aiming at honesty as much as you could is better. That way, truth is closer.

I like this post.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yes ta, I agree on the split but I was not asking about that. You said you didn't want to specify any religion, but to discuss generally. Then subsequently you've said the topic was not in regard to major religions.

That is a slip on my part. So thanks for pointing it out. But, we should just focus on the questions in the OP and which we can then apply to all.

Granted, I do have specific religions in mind but I just don't want to point them out. Less triggering of persecution complexes that way.