The Religious Method

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

The entire heart of what Christianity is! "Injunctions to specific behaviors" = legalism, in Biblical terms. The works of the law save no one, and produce discouraged Christians that quit. We see examples of this all over these forums!

Further, the Bible makes no mention of what behavior might be "normal." It refers to sin as a sickness and/or disease, and to righteousness as a cured state. It would be quite a stretch to think of either as being in any way normal. (Neither can the cure or the curative process be seen as normal, from any Biblical perspective)

You may well be correct, that most other religions indeed focus on behavioral norms. (?)

So the ten commandments, communion, lists of sinful behavior- these mean nothing?

Christianity says to behave in certain ways. Some of them are specific: do not kill; some are vague; love god with all your heart.

Can you explain what you think I'm missing?

 

[Loudmouth]

Things are not what they seem - and life is contradictory. Have you really never noticed either?

If things are not what they seem then christian theology points to a non-rational universe, one that can not be studied by science. In fact, we see christians like dad and AV who directly argue for a creation where observations can not lead to valid conclusions through the scientific method. Time and again we see creationists argue that the scientific method just doesn't work, and it is because of their brand of christian theology that they make these claims.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

So the ten commandments, communion, lists of sinful behavior- these mean nothing?

Christianity says to behave in certain ways. Some of them are specific: do not kill; some are vague; love god with all your heart.

Can you explain what you think I'm missing?

So neither being sinful nor righteous is normal?

 

[seeking Christ]

I disagree. As I clarified on the first page (I may need to edit the OP), knowing something through science doesn't preclude it from being known through religion. If someone claimed that God revealed unto them the chemical that would cure HIV/AIDS, and then science verified that this hitherto unknown chemical does indeed cure HIV/AIDS, that would fall into both categories as religious and scientific knowledge.

Nope. The scientific knowledge would be scientific, not religious. I'm rather surprised to find you conflating the two

It's 'religious' knowledge because it was acquired through religious means - God genuinely did beam the knowledge into someone's head.

I can object to your phraseology til I'm blue in the face, but to use your parlance, every thought you've ever had was "beamed into your head." Not every thought had God as its source, just the good ones. Whether you acknowledge this or not. (Trying to discuss that issue either way, would first require knowing what those 3 letters mean, G-o-d)

It's 'scientific' knowledge because through science we have indeed shown that the chemical works.

The tricky part is that, before science has verified it (or if it can't verify it at all), it's imposible to know whether a claim regarding divine revelation is true or not.

Only if one insists on confusing science with religion, and that never ends well

In the HIV/AIDS example, though the claimaint really does have religious knowledge, we don't know it until scientific analysis confirms that the chemical works.

Chemicals are, by definition, pertaining to science rather than religion. "Religious knowledge," would have to be more akin to an AIDS victim being healed through prayer. Seen it many times. The former victim no longer being a victim would then be "knowledge," as the Bible uses the word; religious knowledge, if you like the phrase. If one wanted to think of that as being religion? Well ok, but that's not the usual connotation of the word in people I've met.

I'm not aware of any saint being gifted with the power of knowledge

It's a gift of the Holy Spirit called the word of knowledge. You would do well to learn what it does and does not do, as you are clearly confused on the subject. Like most things, scientific knowledge is gained by work. For your thread premise to gain traction, (interesting conversion notwithstanding) you'd need to understand God's purposes for revelation, which are not quite as you apparently imagine. And it's really not that hard! He wants us to know Him, which is synonymous with loving Him. And from that flows loving one another.

Please notice the distinction between this and your line of questioning so far.

(obviously the saint is either right or wrong, and we can tell if he's just lucky or not), and, if verified, would certainly satisfy the OP.

Has happened many times, just in my own experience. Can't think of a single time that has any bearing to any of your points in the OP, which is scientific in nature, and not pertaining to God.

To reiterate, knowledge acquired through religious means would almost certainly have to be verified by science for us to know whether it's genuine or not.

I have no way of knowing if I have sufficiently clarified for you why this is not the case? Science can in no way verify, nor quantify, anything God concerns Himself with: love, sin, righteousness, judgment, etc. Also please note that many forms of truth are recognized that do not depend on science in any way; judgment for example. Both our countries have courts that make decisions, independent of any science.

I'm interested in whether religion and its various rites and rituals and all the claims of knowledge revealed through prayer, divine revelation, prophecy, etc, are true; whether anyone really has acquired knowledge through religion.

Sir, may I suggest to you that a more productive line of questing would be what sorts of things have been acquired through Divine revelation? That may well turn up something that you ultimately find remarkably useful, for yourself.

 

[seeking Christ]

So the ten commandments, communion, lists of sinful behavior- these mean nothing?

Christianity says to behave in certain ways. Some of them are specific: do not kill; some are vague; love god with all your heart.

Can you explain what you think I'm missing?

Sorry. Previously I mentioned that you are misrepresenting Christianity as being legalism. I should have contrasted that to Grace, in the same post. In your portrayal here, you are not accounting for Grace, and that is what you're missing. That is the heart of the Gospel I was referring to

Btw - in no way could loving God with all our heart, or a conscious partaking of Communion, be considered normal in today's world!

 

[seeking Christ]

If things are not what they seem then christian theology points to a non-rational universe, one that can not be studied by science.

I fail to see your if then statement as having any merit.

Time and again we see creationists argue that the scientific method just doesn't work, and it is because of their brand of christian theology that they make these claims.

I am not aware of how creationism could make any such claim. Perhaps I should count my blessings?

 

[seeking Christ]

So neither being sinful nor righteous is normal?

I speak purely from a Christian perspective here, and I will affirm that is correct. (for our species) Does Buddhism perceive either of these as being normal?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's 'scientific' knowledge because through science we have indeed shown that the chemical works.

Indeed. But how did we know to test that particular chemical? Religion. Thus, the knowledge was religiously acquired. It was through a religious method - revelation, prayer, casting bones, etc - that that specific chemical was rooted out. Science can verify it, of course, but it is through religion that that chemical (out of the countless trillions of potential chemicals) was unearthed.

Again, the knowledge of the chemical originates through religious means, and is verified by scientific means. No matter what we do with the knowledge, no matter whether we verify it with science or voodoo, the fact remains that it originated into the sphere of human conciousness by a religious method.

The OP asks specifically for instance of knowledge that have originated in that fashion. I don't care to play semantic games, DiGiSteeLes.

Only if one insists on confusing science with religion, and that never ends well

Confusing the two? No. But Gould was wrong when he stated that the two were non-overlapping magesteria. Right or wrong, religion and science overlap on issues like the age of the Earth, the origin of life, how to cure disease, etc. Right or wrong, it is indeed a religious argument that the Earth is a mere 6000 years old, and a scientific argument that it's 4.5 billion years old.

Chemicals are, by definition, pertaining to science rather than religion.

Irrelevant. The knowledge came about through religious means - divine revelation. If your claim is that such knowledge would never actually exist, then fine, you join the ranks of those who answer the OP with a resounding "No". But if such knowledge was acquired in that particular way, then it is religiously-acquired knowledge.

"Religious knowledge," would have to be more akin to an AIDS victim being healed through prayer. Seen it many times. The former victim no longer being a victim would then be "knowledge," as the Bible uses the word; religious knowledge, if you like the phrase. If one wanted to think of that as being religion? Well ok, but that's not the usual connotation of the word in people I've met.

Trying to pin down definitions of words like 'religion', 'God', or 'miracle', is like trying to knit with water. That's why I specifically referred to knowledge acquired by religious means, and gave several examples of what I meant by that. Again, I'm not interesting in wordplay.

It's a gift of the Holy Spirit called the word of knowledge. You would do well to learn what it does and does not do, as you are clearly confused on the subject. Like most things, scientific knowledge is gained by work. For your thread premise to gain traction, (interesting conversion notwithstanding) you'd need to understand God's purposes for revelation, which are not quite as you apparently imagine. And it's really not that hard! He wants us to know Him, which is synonymous with loving Him. And from that flows loving one another.

Please notice the distinction between this and your line of questioning so far.

I am under no illusions as to the alleged purpose of things like prayer and revelation. However, I am also aware that there are those who claim to have recieved knowledge about things like future natural disasters and how to cure diseases.

You seem to misunderstand my position. I'm not saying that revelation can or should or does reveal such testable knowledge as cures for diseases. I'm simply asking whether it has. If the answer is 'no', I don't care if the reason is "No, because that's not what revelation is for".

Has happened many times, just in my own experience. Can't think of a single time that has any bearing to any of your points in the OP, which is scientific in nature, and not pertaining to God.

If the information is beamed into the person's head by God, that means it pertains to God, that means it was knowledge acquired through a religious channel (as opposed to, say, the usual scientific process).

I have no way of knowing if I have sufficiently clarified for you why this is not the case? Science can in no way verify, nor quantify, anything God concerns Himself with: love, sin, righteousness, judgment, etc. Also please note that many forms of truth are recognized that do not depend on science in any way; judgment for example. Both our countries have courts that make decisions, independent of any science.

The existence of forensic science begs to differ. As well, scientific fields as far apart as psychology and applied mathematics influence how courts process evidence. A salient example is that of Meadow's Law: Roy Meadow famously said about cot death that, "One is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder unless there is proof to the contrary". It is through science and mathematics that we know this to be utterly untrue, and it is because of science and mathematics that the precept of Meadow's Law was successfully abolished.

Sir, may I suggest to you that a more productive line of questing would be what sorts of things have been acquired through Divine revelation? That may well turn up something that you ultimately find remarkably useful, for yourself.

Doubtful. This thread is to see whether any of the claims of acquiring knowledge through religious means (claims which include divine revelation, prayer, and angelic visitations) are true.

I'm not interesting in wheedling excuses about how that's not what religion is for, or how that's not what divine revelation is about. Take your objections up with those who make such claims, for it is not I who makes them.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

You're referring to Greek texts, from 200 - 599 A.D? How could they possibly be "Greek, not Christian?"

Because I'm NOT referring to Greek texts from that period. I'm referring to 5th through 3rd BCE texts, many preserved by the Islamic Caliphate.

Rilke's Granddaughter - what you originally said was:

It was only in the 12th century (?) with Bacon that the scientific method got started; and things didn't really take off until the RE-introduction of Greek texts and the appraisal of Islamic works.

As I pointed out already, Christian Hellenistic philosophy dates back as early as the mid-2th century AD. Indeed some specific types of Greek philosophy (such as Stoicism) are mentioned in the Bible itself, such as in Acts 17:18.

So even if you were referring to a different set of texts, it's clear that Greek philosphy was being debated in Christianity long before Islam even existed.

----------------------------------------------------

I fail to see the cases you refer to. None of the posters I see here do that EXCEPT the Christians. Do you have some good examples of atheists or non-Christians telling Christians what they believe?

Gladly:

(To notedstrangeperson) Are you a cannibal? If not, you're not a Christian. Precisely what you're doing.

(To seeking christ) May I point out that it's not Christian charity to accuse people of lying without evidence.

-------------------------------------------------------

The whole point of this thread is whether the claims of knowledge acquired through divine revelation, or angelic message, or oracular prophecy, or occult divination, etc, are actually true or not. That some scientists (particularly in centuries gone by) were motivated by their religious faith, is irrelevant.

I may be going slightly off-topic here, but would ideas on morality count as "knowledge"?

Your post made me wonder whether all things we consider to be "true" are actually testable, and morality is may be one of those cases where it isn't. I frequently hear other users (particularly atheists) say that science may tell us how things work, but it cannot tell us now we should choose to use them - for example, the "natural fallacy" rebuttal usually comes up whenever a creationist claims that the theory of evolution is morally repugnant.

Personally I can think of quite a few cases where my opinion on how moral / immoral something is doesn't always match what the evidence says.

 

[Johnnz]

Doubtful. This thread is to see whether any of the claims of acquiring knowledge through religious means (claims which include divine revelation, prayer, and angelic visitations) are true.

How do you verify that there was a WW2? Or what assurance you interact with another person that you accept some substance to the term 'friendship'?

John
NZ

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How do you verify that there was a WW2?

Because the multitude of events that took place left measurable traces that persist into the present (not least of which are those people who lived through it).

Or what assurance you interact with another person that you accept some substance to the term 'friendship'?

I don't know what, "what assurance you interact with", means; I think you may have missed a word or dropped a tense. Are you asking how I know my friends are my friends? If so, the simple answer is: the evidence.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I may be going slightly off-topic here, but would ideas on morality count as "knowledge"?

That's a rather deep philosophical question, isn't it If there's some objective moral code floating around in the vastness of space, then I suppose the answer is 'yes'. If morality is relative or subjective or an evolved reflex or similar, then it's like asking if one's opinion on the best flavour of ice-cream counts as 'knowledge'.

For the record, it's tutti-fruity.

Your post made me wonder whether all things we consider to be "true" are actually testable, and morality is may be one of those cases where it isn't. I frequently hear other users (particularly atheists) say that science may tell us how things work, but it cannot tell us now we should choose to use them - for example, the "natural fallacy" rebuttal usually comes up whenever a creationist claims that the theory of evolution is morally repugnant.

Personally I can think of quite a few cases where my opinion on how moral / immoral something is doesn't always match what the evidence says.

That's an interesting curve ball I wasn't expecting. When has evidence ever had a say on what's moral or not? I'm aware that a minority philosophers and scientists, notably Sam Harris, but not including myself, believe that we can deduce an objective morality through scientific means; are you referring to something like that?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Sorry. Previously I mentioned that you are misrepresenting Christianity as being legalism. I should have contrasted that to Grace, in the same post. In your portrayal here, you are not accounting for Grace, and that is what you're missing. That is the heart of the Gospel I was referring to

Btw - in no way could loving God with all our heart, or a conscious partaking of Communion, be considered normal in today's world!

So you claim Christianity says nothing about what righteous behavior consists of? Just says that bring sinful is abnormal. That being righteous is abnormal. Right.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Nope. The scientific knowledge would be scientific, not religious. I'm rather surprised to find you conflating the two

I can object to your phraseology til I'm blue in the face, but to use your parlance, every thought you've ever had was "beamed into your head." Not every thought had God as its source, just the good ones. Whether you acknowledge this or not. (Trying to discuss that issue either way, would first require knowing what those 3 letters mean, G-o-d)

It's 'scientific' knowledge because through science we have indeed shown that the chemical works.

Only if one insists on confusing science with religion, and that never ends well

Chemicals are, by definition, pertaining to science rather than religion. "Religious knowledge," would have to be more akin to an AIDS victim being healed through prayer. Seen it many times. The former victim no longer being a victim would then be "knowledge," as the Bible uses the word; religious knowledge, if you like the phrase. If one wanted to think of that as being religion? Well ok, but that's not the usual connotation of the word in people I've met.

It's a gift of the Holy Spirit called the word of knowledge. You would do well to learn what it does and does not do, as you are clearly confused on the subject. Like most things, scientific knowledge is gained by work. For your thread premise to gain traction, (interesting conversion notwithstanding) you'd need to understand God's purposes for revelation, which are not quite as you apparently imagine. And it's really not that hard! He wants us to know Him, which is synonymous with loving Him. And from that flows loving one another.

Please notice the distinction between this and your line of questioning so far.

Has happened many times, just in my own experience. Can't think of a single time that has any bearing to any of your points in the OP, which is scientific in nature, and not pertaining to God.

I have no way of knowing if I have sufficiently clarified for you why this is not the case? Science can in no way verify, nor quantify, anything God concerns Himself with: love, sin, righteousness, judgment, etc. Also please note that many forms of truth are recognized that do not depend on science in any way; judgment for example. Both our countries have courts that make decisions, independent of any science.

Sir, may I suggest to you that a more productive line of questing would be what sorts of things have been acquired through Divine revelation? That may well turn up something that you ultimately find remarkably useful, for yourself.

You have actually witnessed people cured of HIV by prayer? Do you have actual evidence that they were cured?

 

[Loudmouth]

I fail to see your if then statement as having any merit.

Perhaps you could tell me why it does not have merit?

I am not aware of how creationism could make any such claim. Perhaps I should count my blessings?

AV argues that the Earth was created with the appearance of a fake history so that science is incapable of measuring the real age of the planet. Dad argues that the laws of physics were different in the past, but science is incapable of detecting this change. Time and again we see creationists arguing for a non-rational universe where the scientific method can not be used.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

That's an interesting curve ball I wasn't expecting. When has evidence ever had a say on what's moral or not? I'm aware that a minority philosophers and scientists, notably Sam Harris, but not including myself, believe that we can deduce an objective morality through scientific means; are you referring to something like that?

Yes, basically.

Also the best flavour is chocolate and everybody knows it.

 

[seeking Christ]

So you claim Christianity says nothing about what righteous behavior consists of? Just says that bring sinful is abnormal. That being righteous is abnormal. Right.

Previously you agreed that making a mockery of what Christians believe by intentionally mis-stating it was just as bad as when Christians do it to unbelievers, and then asserted that you've never seen it happen, and then asked for a quote.

There ya go

 

[AV1611VET]

AV argues that the Earth was created with the appearance of a fake history...

Link please, scientist? and while you're looking, qv please:

Embedded age is maturity without history.

Remember: the definition of embedded age is simply maturity without history.

I'll take questions on Embedded Age Creation:

1. Definition = maturity without history

Embedded age itself = maturity without history.

I had one guy once tell me how wrong I was to believe that embedded age is history with maturity and so on and so forth; and when I replied that embedded age is maturity without history, he proceeded to tell me I was still wrong.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Previously you agreed that making a mockery of what Christians believe by intentionally mis-stating it was just as bad as when Christians do it to unbelievers, and then asserted that you've never seen it happen, and then asked for a quote.

There ya go

I am trying to understand what you are saying: you have not been at all clear. I am trying to restate what you are saying in order to clarify my understanding.

How does a Christian now how to behave? How does a Christian know what is sinful?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

You have actually witnessed people cured of HIV by prayer? Do you have actual evidence that they were cured?

Bump.