The Religious Method

[seeking Christ]

how did we know to test that particular chemical? Religion. Thus, the knowledge was religiously acquired.

What chemical are you referring to? For the life of me, I can't think of a single instance where this might pertain. Your point seems bizarre

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.

Historical and Biblical Christianity make no such statement. You're creating a conflict where there is none.

I'm not interesting in wordplay.

I am under no illusions as to the alleged purpose of things like prayer and revelation.

I don't care if the reason is "No, because that's not what revelation is for".


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've seen Dad and AV1611 post quite a lot of unreasonable things, and your position here is every bit as unreasonable. I wish I could think of a good scientific analogy to show you just how ridiculous you're being. I think the curveballs notedstrangeperson threw you in the last few posts go in that direction ...

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.

Just because courts do indeed utilize scientific information by no means indicates that they cannot make a decision without it, which they do on a regular basis. That is what I stated.

 

[seeking Christ]

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

I'll try:

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

That's what you wrote. Both conditions exist. It is ancient wisdom that things are not as they seem, and they're not. Science confirms this, often. How many times have incorrect conclusions been drawn from correct data? Statisticians do this all the time. And yet we know the Universe can indeed be studied by science, we just can't go making fool conclusions based on whatever seems correct at first. Therefore your statement had no merit. Isn't explaining this a tautology?

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.

Yeah, I've long got a chuckle out of such twilight zone ideology, but surely you know none of that even counts as creationism, let alone historical or Biblical Christianity?

 

[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.

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?

I cannot count the first post of yours I'm quoting here as an honest attempt to re-state what I said, since it is 100% foreign to anything I have ever said or even thought. And knowing what is sinful, or how to behave, are merely distractions to the point you raised. (Incidentally the answer to those questions is made clear in Scripture: by the Holy Spirit. John 16:7-8)

 

[Johnnz]

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'.

So, child sex abuse, genocide and rape are merely matters of opinion, subjective values?

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?

OK. Tell us about your morality. What does it believe and why should we accept it?

John
NZ

 

[gipsy]

What knowledge has been ascertained as a result of wholly religious methodology?

This excludes science motivated by religion (e.g., a scientist who discovers a cure for HIV/AIDS via wholly natural, scientific methods, but does so out of Christian charity), and such knowledge has to be something we actually know within all reasonable doubt (e.g., the existence of atoms), not religious notions yet to be verified (e.g., reincarnation, angels, hell) or falsely predicted (e.g., claims akin to those found in horoscopes).

If I remember correctly (and if it's not only an urban myth) , Niels Bohr claimed to have gotten his idea for the atomic model in a dream ... would that count?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I cannot count the first post of yours I'm quoting here as an honest attempt to re-state what I said, since it is 100% foreign to anything I have ever said or even thought. And knowing what is sinful, or how to behave, are merely distractions to the point you raised. (Incidentally the answer to those questions is made clear in Scripture: by the Holy Spirit. John 16:7-8)

But I am asking you. Are you saying that there is no way to predict what a Christian is going to find moral or sinful? That it's simply a question of how they are prompted by the holy spirit? If that is so, then how do we tell when someone is behaving in a christian fashion? If a man murders ten children because the holy spirit prompted him to (according to him), do we accept that as moral?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

If I remember correctly (and if it's not only an urban myth) , Niels Bohr claimed to have gotten his idea for the atomic model in a dream ... would that count?

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this was revelation; merely an intuition based on work he was already doing.

 

[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?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I cannot count the first post of yours I'm quoting here as an honest attempt to re-state what I said, since it is 100% foreign to anything I have ever said or even thought. And knowing what is sinful, or how to behave, are merely distractions to the point you raised. (Incidentally the answer to those questions is made clear in Scripture: by the Holy Spirit. John 16:7-8)

Here is what I said:

Originally Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter
So neither being sinful nor righteous is normal?

You replied:

I speak purely from a Christian perspective here, and I will affirm that is correct. (for our species)

So being sinful is abnormal, and being righteous is abnormal. That's what you agreed to. What am I missing?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Rilke's Granddaughter - what you originally said was:

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 was pointing out that your understanding of the intellectual history of science is inaccurate. Nowhere did I reference Christian Hellenistic philosophy. I said the Greek texts that were reintroduced to Christian culture in the 12th century.

Originally Posted by seeking_christ
You're referring to Greek texts, from 200 - 599 A.D? How could they possibly be "Greek, not Christian?"
Originally Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter
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:

Originally Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter
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.

Now on to another point where you are being fundamentally dishonest.
Here is my original question:

Originally Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter
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?

You replied:

Gladly:

Originally Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter
(To notedstrangeperson) Are you a cannibal? If not, you're not a Christian. Precisely what you're doing.

This is not an honest claim on your part. I was deliberately pointing out to you what you appear to be doing to non-Christians (me, at any rate). I even pointed out "Precisely what you're doing."

So far, I have made no statement about what being Christian means, nor have I claimed that you are a liar for claiming to be a Christian, while you HAVE accused me of lying about being a Buddhist. (Based, I pointed out, on your ignorance of Buddhism.)

Your second example:

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

I see. So accusing people of lying without any evidence IS Christian Charity? Could you expound on that point? So you are saying that Christian charity means accusing others of dishonesty without evidential support?

Please try to stick to honest argument.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I was pointing out that your understanding of the intellectual history of science is inaccurate. Nowhere did I reference Christian Hellenistic philosophy. I said the Greek texts that were reintroduced to Christian culture in the 12th century.

What Greek texts are you specifically talking about? And why did those particular texts and philosophies contribute more to science than the ones mentioned in the Bible (Epicureanism and Stocism), or the ones examined by the Hellenistic church fathers (Aristotle)?

Perhaps if you gave a little more detail rather than being so vague you would actually get a straight answer.

You really didn't like being called on your ignorance of Buddhism and your lack of manners, did you?

I hardly think you're in a position to criticise others about ignorance and lack of manners. "People who live in glass houses" etc.

[EDIT] Hmm. I've just notice you edited that last part of your message ...

 

[Greg1234]

I don't, which is rather the point:

You missed the point. Why, in first place, would you expect theism to verify something that is Godless and inaccurate. And if the term "verify" is an indicator of accuracy, why would you use said term on something you just described as an atom?

Which premise of the OP do you disagree with?

The one that pits religious method against scientific method.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What chemical are you referring to? For the life of me, I can't think of a single instance where this might pertain. Your point seems bizarre

The chemical is the one we've been talking about, the one in the hypothetical

God beams into the head of some faithful parishioner, the knowledge of a chemical that cures HIV/AIDS. This knowledge is religious knowledge, as it is acquired through religious means (divine revelation) and not scientific means. Armed with this this new claim for a wonder-drug, scientists go out and test if this hitherto unknown chemical does what's claimed of it, and lo and behold it does cure HIV/AIDS. Thus, the knowledge is religiously acquired and verified by science; in other words, it's both religious knowledge and scientific knowledge.

This is an example of what the OP is looking for (though I'm quite certain that God hasn't deigned to give us something so useful, I will happily concede defeat if proven wrong) - knowledge that's acquired through religious channels (revelation, prayer, prophecy, oracles, bones, etc) instead of the usual scientific channels.

Historical and Biblical Christianity make no such statement. You're creating a conflict where there is none.

I'm creating a conflict? Do explain how I incited the religious right into sticking immovably to a literal interpretation of Genesis, writing up the Wedge Document, and pursuing the inane goal of pushing religion into science classrooms. Otherwise, don't accuse me of something so poisonous as pushing the Creationist agenda.

What I actually said was that, right or wrong, the argument for a young Earth is a religious one - it comes from a (correct or incorrect) reading of the Bible, or the Qu'ran, or the Torah.

I've seen Dad and AV1611 post quite a lot of unreasonable things, and your position here is every bit as unreasonable. I wish I could think of a good scientific analogy to show you just how ridiculous you're being. I think the curveballs notedstrangeperson threw you in the last few posts go in that direction ...

Unless you can actually explain why I'm ridiculous, I'm going to dismiss your remarks as inflammatory and move on. Remember, these are not my claims, these are the claims of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and other fringe religious zealots. These are the claims made by various theists that they have recieved knowledge from God through intense prayer, and that this knowledge of an earthquake that's coming in a particular place at a particular time, of how to cure HIV/AIDS, of the end of the world on 21/12/12, of an imminent terrorist attacks...

Again, these aren't my claims (any more than the evolution/Creationism debate is my doing ), these are the claims of your fellow theist. My question, quite simply, is if any instance of such alleged knowledge acquired through such religious means, has been vindicated.

If you think it's ridiculous to ask people to justify their claims, you have all your work ahead of you to explain why.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You missed the point. Why, in first place, would you expect theism to verify something that is Godless and inaccurate.

I don't expect anything. It is not I who claims that God beams down knowledge of earthquakes and cures for diseases, that honour falls to some of your fellow theists.

And if, per the claims of theists and not me (I can't believe this needs to be stressed), God beams down knowledge of a cure, you'd expect it to be accurate.

Please, go back and read the OP, you seem to have severely misunderstood it.

And if the term "verify" is an indicator of accuracy, why would you use said term on something you just described as an atom?

Because the atom has been verified. We are certain, to within all reasonable doubt, that atoms exist. Our understanding of their exact nature has been refined over the decades, but their existence is as settled as the shape of the Earth.

The one that pits religious method against scientific method.

Since no such premise exists, your objection is moot. I've explained at length, in the OP and elsewhere, how the knowledge talked about in the OP can be both religious and scientific: God, for example, could beam down knowledge of how to cure HIV/AIDS, and science is how we know that that knowledge actually works (and isn't the result of mental retardation).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If I remember correctly (and if it's not only an urban myth) , Niels Bohr claimed to have gotten his idea for the atomic model in a dream ... would that count?

Only if the dream were beamed down by God, or were whispered in his ear by angels, or were the result of prayer (etc). Something tells me that it wasn't

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

What Greek texts are you specifically talking about? And why did those particular texts and philosophies contribute more to science than the ones mentioned in the Bible (Epicureanism and Stocism), or the ones examined by the Hellenistic church fathers (Aristotle)?

Perhaps if you gave a little more detail rather than being so vague you would actually get a straight answer.

I hardly think you're in a position to criticise others about ignorance and lack of manners. "People who live in glass houses" etc.

[EDIT] Hmm. I've just notice you edited that last part of your message ...

I was trying to polite. I won't waste my time in the future. And I note you accept my point that you were dishonest. Thanks.

 

[Loudmouth]

Link please, scientist?

Each and every post you have made on the topic.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's what you wrote. Both conditions exist. It is ancient wisdom that things are not as they seem, and they're not. Science confirms this, often.

No, it doesn't. Science is used to determine how reality really is, not how we think it should be. Science does not confirm a non-rational universe that creationism requires.

How many times have incorrect conclusions been drawn from correct data?

How do you know that they are incorrect?

And yet we know the Universe can indeed be studied by science, we just can't go making fool conclusions based on whatever seems correct at first. Therefore your statement had no merit. Isn't explaining this a tautology?

Creationists claim that we can not use science to study universe. They claim that the act of creation is untestable. They claim that even if the evidence points to an old Earth that the Earth is still young. Their dogma is untouchable by any evidence. It is as anti-science as it gets.

Yeah, I've long got a chuckle out of such twilight zone ideology, but surely you know none of that even counts as creationism, let alone historical or Biblical Christianity?

It most certainly counts as creationism since it is the creationism put forward by creationists.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I was trying to polite. I won't waste my time in the future. And I note you accept my point that you were dishonest. Thanks.

If that's you trying to be polite I wouldn't want to see you trying to be rude. And you never did get around to specifying what particular Greek texts you were referring to. You claimed earlier that I was making assumptions, yet now when I ask you to clarify something, you run off.

 

[seeking Christ]

The chemical is the one we've been talking about, the one in the hypothetical

God beams into the head of some faithful parishioner, the knowledge of a chemical that cures HIV/AIDS. This knowledge is religious knowledge, as it is acquired through religious means (divine revelation) and not scientific means.

I don't feel that I'm very good at this, and should probably just go back to lurking. Before I do, I'll try one more idea I have, of how to explain this. I'll also point out that the other believers here, from a wide variety of backgrounds, have been saying much the same thing, each in a different way.

I appreciate you coining the phrase "the religious method." There actually is a method to approach God, but the thing is that is all its useful for. That's its purpose. That's its goal, and function; to enable anyone who wants to, to approach God so that they can be close to Him. That and nothing else. Rather than trying to make that compete head-to-head against the scientific method, let me point out that for that type of thing God expects us to actually work. If He were to take that role away from us, He would raise spoiled little brats for children, and He is a better Father than that.

Much of Scripture pertains to that one point.

Where you are going wrong, is with your statement that "you can't know anything at all from Divine revelation," or religious method, if you will. Maybe this thread can help you qualify that into an iron-clad statement that's actually true? But so far all I get from is that you don't want to play word games, when you, a very bright young man, are assertively stating and re-stating something that is patently false. It seems to me you would have to respect yourself more than that, and would prefer to rid yourself of such an error?

I'll kick you off with a rough draft, starter idea, that no doubt needs refinement: "Divine revelation will not grant knowledge that normally comes from hard work, be that via scientific method or otherwise."

I'm creating a conflict? Do explain how I incited the religious right into sticking immovably to a literal interpretation of Genesis, writing up the Wedge Document, and pursuing the inane goal of pushing religion into science classrooms. Otherwise, don't accuse me of something so poisonous as pushing the Creationist agenda.

Now I'm getting a better picture of what's going on here, thank you! I should have thought along these lines to begin with, as it is a common theme here. Sorry I missed it. I didn't see your OP reference the wedge document,
neither would I call any of these things "the religious right." I would call that an extreme faction, of recent origin. No way to connect it to historical nor Biblical Christianity. I hope you can see the difference?

My question, quite simply, is if any instance of such alleged knowledge acquired through such religious means, has been vindicated.

Yes. Specific gifts of the Holy Spirit do this: word of knowledge and prophecy being the most helpful among them. None of this is given for the purpose you seem to be asking for here, to somehow confine God to a test tube to try to control Him, as is necessary for experimentation. Therefore reciting any endless string of such incidents really isn't appropriate under these conditions. There would be some things for you to learn about what each gift's purpose is, and so far you seem unwilling to entertain any possibility that it could be anything other than the purpose of science.

Has any of that explanation been helpful?