The Religious Method

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Hi!

I have read these forums for a long time, and have always found you curiously interesting, w/ being sure of what I might say. Be honest: your OP wasn't sincere in the least, was it? Wasn't it a reaction to, or parody of, other (recent) goings on in the forum?

What makes you think he's not sincere? May I point out that it's not Christian charity to accuse people of lying without evidence.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

It is contradictory.

We are told that christian serves as a foundation for scientific discovery while scriptures are telling us that science will never be able to figure out certain mysteries. It would seem that scriptures contradict what christians are claiming.

They often do.

 

[Tomk80]

I was not aware that religion's role was to contribute to science. I always thought religion had a different focus, completely. Elsewhere, someone has mentioned something similar to your sentiment here, with regards to "the church." I think my same statement here pertains to that, equally as well.

Do you disagree?

I do not necessarily disagree. However, religion makes claim about objective reality. So there is a point where religion and science are going to come into each other's spheres. What do you do if, in that case, religion is wrong?

 

[Tomk80]

My post 63 gave some background. Ideas have foundations and roots. Christianity provided a major starting point absent from all surrounding cultures, for the development of science. Don't confuse origins (why people believed matter could be investigated) with processes (how that is done).

John
NZ

You have not demonstrated that the roots and foundations you alledge were actually responsible for the start of science. You have claimed it, but claiming and demonstrating are two different things.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hi!

I have read these forums for a long time, and have always found you curiously interesting, w/ being sure of what I might say. Be honest: your OP wasn't sincere in the least, was it? Wasn't it a reaction to, or parody of, other (recent) goings on in the forum?

It was absolutely honest, and had nothing to do with anything else going on in this or any other forum. The question came to me out of the blue (ironically enough), and I thought it'd be an interesting one for people to ponder over. If nothing else, an interesting discussion has come out of it.

But the question is genuine. For all the claims of knowledge being beamed into people's heads as a response to prayer, or God coming down and telling people this or that, or claims of being able to magically, spiritually, etc, predict earthquakes, famine, disease, etc - are any of these claims real? For all the claims of knowledge acquired through religious means (prayer, revelation, prophecy, etc), does such knowledge actually exist?

It's a serious question, and one to which the only answer seems to be a resounding "No".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Scripture is not a scientific handbook. That I accept and sometimes cringe at some statements made by Christians that suggest it is.

But we know about other things in by various means- historical, experiential, evidential - which we accept as valid. The scientific method is not a 'one size fits all' way of knowing, just the way we learn some things about our cosmos.

I would argue that historical, experiential, and especially evidential means of knowing about the world are scientific, insofar as they are methods of systematically deducing probabilistic knowledge about the world from known facts and observations, and thus stand apart from more supernatural means like oracular prophecy or divine revelation.

 

[seeking Christ]

Religion has a different focus. It focuses on defining norms of behaviour.

Is that a Buddhist perspective? (It is certainly not a Christian perspective)

 

[seeking Christ]

It is contradictory.

We are told that christian serves as a foundation for scientific discovery while scriptures are telling us that science will never be able to figure out certain mysteries. It would seem that scriptures contradict what christians are claiming.

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

 

[seeking Christ]

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? I'm not denying it happens, and I agree it's deplorable no matter who does it.

At least we agree in theory. No, I'm not going to go digging up dirt trying to prove a point - it goes directly against Christ's teachings

Perhaps you will take my mention, and make it a point to see it when it happens; and maybe even try to put a stop to it?

 

[seeking Christ]

I do not necessarily disagree. However, religion makes claim about objective reality. So there is a point where religion and science are going to come into each other's spheres. What do you do if, in that case, religion is wrong?

The only possible example of such a thing that comes to my mind is the instance of miracles, of which I've seen countless. The only conflict here is that science might claim it "can't happen." I can brush that off easily enough, since no scientific observation was made. It is then perfectly plausible that such things are yet far beyond our scientific comprehension.

Did you have any other examples of what you refer to in mind?

 

[Tomk80]

The only possible example of such a thing that comes to my mind is the instance of miracles, of which I've seen countless. The only conflict here is that science might claim it "can't happen." I can brush that off easily enough, since no scientific observation was made. It is then perfectly plausible that such things are yet far beyond our scientific comprehension.

Did you have any other examples of what you refer to in mind?

Heliocentricity, abiogenesis, evolution, big bang, mental diseases, etc etc.

All claims on which religions make statements on their validity or on their causation, which have generally been shown false.

 

[seeking Christ]

It was absolutely honest,

But the question is genuine.

Then thank you for an honest answer. Here I have posts #2 and 3 reproduced, which answer your question in full:

That is not the purpose of religion.

In other words have there been any scientific discoveries which did not involve using actual science?

Now to develop the premise of your OP further:

For all the claims of knowledge being beamed into people's heads as a response to prayer, or God coming down and telling people this or that

For all the claims of knowledge acquired through religious means (prayer, revelation, prophecy, etc), does such knowledge actually exist?

It's a serious question, and one to which the only answer seems to be a resounding "No".

Are you really completely unaware that all the early pioneers of science attributed their great discoveries to God Himself? I just don't see how that's possible. They credited Him with their ability to reason, motivating them to work, etc etc. Even Obama's controversial statement "you didn't build that," they honored God with the cumulative achievement of society, making their own work possible.

Before I resume lurking, let me just point out that you might consider that Divine revelation focuses on knowledge that is not primarily scientific in nature. Doesn't that seem plausible? The Bible specifically says that's how things work.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Is that a Buddhist perspective? (It is certainly not a Christian perspective)

Really? Christianity's consist of some ritual behavior (not universally practiced), and injunctions to specific behaviors. What am I missing?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

At least we agree in theory. No, I'm not going to go digging up dirt trying to prove a point - it goes directly against Christ's teachings

Perhaps you will take my mention, and make it a point to see it when it happens; and maybe even try to put a stop to it?

As you can see from this thread, I tried.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

The only possible example of such a thing that comes to my mind is the instance of miracles, of which I've seen countless. The only conflict here is that science might claim it "can't happen." I can brush that off easily enough, since no scientific observation was made. It is then perfectly plausible that such things are yet far beyond our scientific comprehension.

Did you have any other examples of what you refer to in mind?

It's also possible you didn't see a miracle. Examples?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Then thank you for an honest answer. Here I have posts #2 and 3 reproduced, which answer your question in full:

Now to develop the premise of your OP further:

Are you really completely unaware that all the early pioneers of science attributed their great discoveries to God Himself? I just don't see how that's possible. They credited Him with their ability to reason, motivating them to work, etc etc. Even Obama's controversial statement "you didn't build that," they honored God with the cumulative achievement of society, making their own work possible.

Before I resume lurking, let me just point out that you might consider that Divine revelation focuses on knowledge that is not primarily scientific in nature. Doesn't that seem plausible? The Bible specifically says that's how things work.

So your answer to his question is no.

 

[seeking Christ]

Heliocentricity, abiogenesis, evolution, big bang, mental diseases, etc etc.

All claims on which religions make statements on their validity or on their causation, which have generally been shown false.

I won't comment on religions, plural, as i don't know enough about every religion that's ever been to be able to do so. I certainly know more than enough about Christianity to point out that it makes no such assertions as you've stated here. Heliocentricity is not a Biblical statement, merely a misunderstanding of the text. Yes, it did fool the Roman Catholic sect for quite some time. Scripture makes no statement that contradicts abiogenesis in any way, and even the idea of common ascent is confirmed; just not in the way you might prefer. Same with big bang, and of course mental disorders are not mentioned, although we can witness them being treated fully in line with modern clinical psychology.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then thank you for an honest answer. Here I have posts #2 and 3 reproduced, which answer your question in full:

Notedstrangeperson was mistaken in her summary of the OP, and I corrected her in post #60. Strathos' remark, accurate or not, answers the OP with a 'no' - as has everyone else.

Now to develop the premise of your OP further:

Are you really completely unaware that all the early pioneers of science attributed their great discoveries to God Himself?

No, as evidenced by the fact that I specifically mentioned them in the OP. And to clarify, they didn't attribute their discoveries to God himself - they didn't claim that God literally beamed the knowledge into their heads, or poofed the theory into their laps. They gesticulated towards God as the creator of their ability to think rationally and logically, and thus were able to do science (or, at least, proto-science). And that's the point: the knowledge acquired by Newton was done through logic, reason, and empiricism. Even though he attributed his ability to do those things to God, it is still through those means (and not religious means like revelation or prophecy) that he expanded the human sphere of knowledge.

I just don't see how that's possible. They credited Him with their ability to reason, motivating them to work, etc etc. Even Obama's controversial statement "you didn't build that," they honored God with the cumulative achievement of society, making their own work possible.

Indeed; your objections are almost identical to those posed by Notedstrangeperson, so for fear of repeating myself I can only refer you to post #60 where I clarified the distinction between religious motivation and religious method (the latter being what the OP asks for).

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.

Before I resume lurking, let me just point out that you might consider that Divine revelation focuses on knowledge that is not primarily scientific in nature. Doesn't that seem plausible?

Naturally, and I've gone to lengths to acknowledge that possibility - I've never said divine revelations (or other religious acquisitions of knowledge) never happen, but that such knowledge is quite difficult to verify.

I've given several examples, including God using divine revelation to beam the knowledge of a cure for HIV/AIDS into the head of a layman (such knowledge being religiously-acquired knowledge), and then science being used to verify that the alleged cure does indeed work (making the knowledge both religiously-acquired and scientific).

The OP merely asks if such knowledge has ever been acquired through religious means. The theological implications of a deity who refuses to reveal the cure for disease and illness are for another thread altogether.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I won't comment on religions, plural, as i don't know enough about every religion that's ever been to be able to do so. I certainly know more than enough about Christianity to point out that it makes no such assertions as you've stated here. Heliocentricity is not a Biblical statement, merely a misunderstanding of the text. Yes, it did fool the Roman Catholic sect for quite some time. Scripture makes no statement that contradicts abiogenesis in any way, and even the idea of common ascent is confirmed; just not in the way you might prefer. Same with big bang, and of course mental disorders are not mentioned, although we can witness them being treated fully in line with modern clinical psychology.

So by picking and choosing which passages of scripture to read literally and which to read metaphorically, you can guarantee that your particular brand of Christianity doesn't conflict with science. But you don't speak for Christianity, you speak for your particular interpretation of it. Right?

 

[seeking Christ]

Really? Christianity's consist of some ritual behavior (not universally practiced), and injunctions to specific behaviors. What am I missing?

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. (?)