Truth and Religion

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

That is a positive statement of how the world is. It is no different that there is a god.
So with only evidence show that it is the best. Not that you accept it, because that is subjective. Show that it is so for the world, that the world is natural and that science is the best explanation.
Or admit that it is nothing but your subjective opinion and a belief without evidence.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Er no, not quite. @Vouthon is our resident expert on Catholic doctrine, whereas I am a bit semi-detached and not 100% reliable. However my understanding is that for the older, pre-Reformation churches, including the Catholic church - and actually the Anglicans too - there are not one but two sources of authentic doctrinal authority. One is scripture - which nobody says was written by the church. The other is the "sacred tradition" carried down in the Apostolic succession of the clergy, who are all ordained through a sacrament of the church in a supposedly unbroken chain going back to Christ's Apostles. This gives the bishops of the church spiritual authority to explain and reinterpret doctrine as the centuries pass, to keep it relevant and understandable to the faithful.

So in a way these churches believe in a "live" faith, in which the original scripture from 2000 years ago is supplemented by God still guiding the bishops of the church today towards clearer understanding.

 

[Quintessence]

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"

I think that in the West there's a bit of a problem with assuming that religion is primarily about beliefs, and by extension, truth. That is not how religion has operated historically, and if we really look at how religion works in people's day to day lives it is often not how it works today either. Religion is more a matter of who you are (identity), what you belong to (relationships), and what you do (practice). Put another way, it is in large part a cultural identity. That's not to say beliefs/truths aren't important at all, but it casts light on why someone would belong to a tradition in the absence of that.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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?

I find basic fundamental teachings should Not change, would Not be updated.
For example:
Belief about the soul would Not change.
Belief about who Jesus is would Not change.
Belief about the condition of the dead would Not change.

 

[Altfish]

That is a positive statement of how the world is. It is no different that there is a god.
So with only evidence show that it is the best. Not that you accept it, because that is subjective. Show that it is so for the world, that the world is natural and that science is the best explanation.
Or admit that it is nothing but your subjective opinion and a belief without evidence.

What are you on about?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What are you on about?

Is it a fact with evidence of the natural world, that science is the best explanation of the natural world?

 

[Augustus]

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?

Most, even the dogmatic ones, seem to allow room for human error in interpretation.

Revising beliefs generally isn't the theological problem many assume it is.

 

[Altfish]

Is it a fact with evidence of the natural world, that science is the best explanation of the natural world?

Yes

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes

Then present the evidence.

 

[metis]

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?

Not necessarily as there's a general belief in what's called "on-going revelation".

Gotta go.

 

[pearl]

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.

My answer is also oversimplified. There existed a worshiping church prior to the writing of NT scripture. Much of the NT is a reflection of the practice of these Christian communities. Not until decades later was anything penned. From these early writings the Church formed the Canon. So in that sense, the NT is the product of the Church.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Er no, not quite. @Vouthon is our resident expert on Catholic doctrine, whereas I am a bit semi-detached and not 100% reliable. However my understanding is that for the older, pre-Reformation churches, including the Catholic church - and actually the Anglicans too - there are not one but two sources of authentic doctrinal authority. One is scripture - which nobody says was written by the church. The other is the "sacred tradition" carried down in the Apostolic succession of the clergy, who are all ordained through a sacrament of the church in a supposedly unbroken chain going back to Christ's Apostles. This gives the bishops of the church spiritual authority to explain and reinterpret doctrine as the centuries pass, to keep it relevant and understandable to the faithful.

So in a way these churches believe in a "live" faith, in which the original scripture from 2000 years ago is supplemented by God still guiding the bishops of the church today towards clearer understanding.

I am sketchy on it as well. (I grew up Catholic) What you say sounds about right, especially your last sentence regarding the "live" church. I have spoken to someone on the forum, I can't remember who, but the idea we spoke about then is that scripture was written by the faithful, therefore the faithful and the tradition still has the authority to set doctrine. When I mentioned church, I didn't mean the catholic church, but the church at the time, which was the pretty much the congregation.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I think that in the West there's a bit of a problem with assuming that religion is primarily about beliefs, and by extension, truth. That is not how religion has operated historically, and if we really look at how religion works in people's day to day lives it is often not how it works today either. Religion is more a matter of who you are (identity), what you belong to (relationships), and what you do (practice). Put another way, it is in large part a cultural identity. That's not to say beliefs/truths aren't important at all, but it casts light on why someone would belong to a tradition in the absence of that.

Yes, the west does have a problem comprehending other religions, as the beliefs aren't necessarily about truth. As you say, identity, relationships and practice have a lot to do with it. But they go so much deeper than that as well. "Mythology" was used to unite nations in conquest, reflect the societal structure people lived in as well as to solve the concerns of people through story. People today care less about truth but more about the beliefs of the religion they belong to, which they see as truth because they belief.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I find basic fundamental teachings should Not change, would Not be updated.
For example:
Belief about the soul would Not change.
Belief about who Jesus is would Not change.
Belief about the condition of the dead would Not change.

My OP isn't about the changing of believes in and of themselves, but the claim of the religion to have "the truth" when changing beliefs in the future would mean that they were teaching falsehoods before that, therefore they weren't teaching "the truth". I agree with @Quintessence that a religion saying it has truth (plural) is acceptable, as the religion would mean that it has some truth, but also beliefs that can be updated.

I agree with you that fundamental teachings shouldn't change. But added to that, I would say that beliefs that affect the real world and people's lives shouldn't change, such as stuff like what medical procedures adherents can use, and divine organisational structure, as the former would be toying with people's well being and the latter would mean that at some point the group was lead by the wrong people which is an obvious problem.

I would also think that the religion would say that followers must follow the fundamentals in order to belong to the religion but then not expect them to follow teachings that are subject to change and that there would be an acceptable variation in what people believe within the group.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Most, even the dogmatic ones, seem to allow room for human error in interpretation.

Revising beliefs generally isn't the theological problem many assume it is.

Which is fine. But then should they say that they teach "the" truth?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Not necessarily as there's a general belief in what's called "on-going revelation".

Gotta go.

Could that religion then be said to have "the" truth?

By the way, what is the Catholic Churches stance on how doctrine is formed? I was speaking to @exchemist about it in another post.

 

[Samael_Khan]

My answer is also oversimplified. There existed a worshiping church prior to the writing of NT scripture. Much of the NT is a reflection of the practice of these Christian communities. Not until decades later was anything penned. From these early writings the Church formed the Canon. So in that sense, the NT is the product of the Church.

Yes! That is what I remember! So would revelation through the church then supercede the scriptures?

 

[Augustus]

Which is fine. But then should they say that they teach "the" truth?

'The Truth' tends to relate to some unfalsifiable theological principle.

Am not going to defend the fundies though who talk about Jesus and the dinosaurs or whatnot though.

 

[metis]

Could that religion then be said to have "the" truth?

I prefer to use "truths" than just "truth" since no religion has a monopoly on Truth.

Also, the applications of Truth may be variable, thus a one-size-fits-all approach is not an option.

By the way, what is the Catholic Churches stance on how doctrine is formed? I was speaking to @exchemist about it in another post.

Largely through both the scriptures and tradition, and with the latter it's early Church tradition and also on-going tradition. For example, Paul taught the new appointees of the Church to follow the traditions that the Twelve had taught them, which the Church did through its early years prior to even the writing of Christian scripture.

 

[Augustus]

There existed a worshiping church prior to the writing of NT scripture. Much of the NT is a reflection of the practice of these Christian communities. Not until decades later was anything penned. From these early writings the Church formed the Canon. So in that sense, the NT is the product of the Church.

Also worth noting that the NT texts were written long before they were considered scripture. They weren't written as scripture, they only became scripture after years of being used as part of a living tradition.