The Religious Method

[seeking Christ]

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.

This also needs some address. Divine revelation, not being confined to a test tube nor quantifiable in a lab, can not be deemed as "accurate" or no. You're missing the side of the equation that is the hearer hearing God. All sorts of variables and potential for error exist there! Which is where old fashioned work comes in.

 

[Loudmouth]

This also needs some address. Divine revelation, not being confined to a test tube nor quantifiable in a lab, can not be deemed as "accurate" or no.

Divine revelation can be checked for accuracy just like any other claim. It doesn't matter if a potential HIV drug was derived through scientific research or by God beaming the answer into someone's head. Each is tested for accuracy in the same way by seeing if it actually cures HIV.

So we have billions of people who claim that God speaks to them, and yet not one whit of knowledge can be derived from this communication. Instead, the only knowledge we do gain is by using a method that does not include God.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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."

Since I never stated that "you can't know anything at all from Divine revelation", I think this portion of your post is a little off base. I have been quite careful in stating that knowledge acquired through divine revelation would be genuine knowledge, it's hard to prove to anyone else without doing some sort of objective text (i.e., science).

To illustrate this, I used the example of the HIV/AIDS-curing chemical. God beams down such knowledge into the head of Alice, and Alice claims to Bob that she knows how to cure HIV/AIDS. At this stage, Alice does indeed have the genuine knowledge of how to cure HIV/AIDS, but Bob has no idea whether she's telling the truth, she's delusional, she's lying, etc. But, once Bob's tests her claim, it turns out that her divinely revealed (religiously acquired) knowledge is true.
​

So, I've always fully accepted that one can receive genuine knowledge through divine revelation. The question asked by the OP, is whether we know of any such case.

Now, I'm aware that several theists have opined that God doesn't work that way, that divine revelation is never about things as mundane as cures for disease, etc. That's fine, I'm not disputing that, nor am I claiming otherwise. To reiterate, I'm not interested in the reason why God hasn't beamed down such knowledge; I just want to know if he has or hasn't. His purpose and goal and reason and justification and so on for not doing this is irrelevant to the question of: has he, or hasn't he?

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?

The Creationist side would claim the opposite, that a young Earth it's the right and proper and Godly truth espoused in the Bible, that both the Bible and the historical body of Christians (and Jews) have always asserted in a young Earth, that the Bible teaches six days of Creation and not 4.5 billion, etc.

From an outsider's perspective, it seems that every position can be supported or rejected with Biblical backing. The Creationists say Genesis is literal and thus supports YEC, the evolutionists say it's allegorical, etc.

This also needs some address. Divine revelation, not being confined to a test tube nor quantifiable in a lab, can not be deemed as "accurate" or no. You're missing the side of the equation that is the hearer hearing God. All sorts of variables and potential for error exist there! Which is where old fashioned work comes in.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Again, again, again, I'm not saying divine revelation never happens, or that if it happens it has to be testable by science, or anything else. Again, all I'm asking is if God has ever through any means sent knowledge to us mortals about (say_ how to cure a disease or (say) forewarning of an earthquake.

Again, I'm not dictating anything about divine revelation. I'm not saying that revelation must be testable by science, I'm not saying that. Not.

However, if (if, if, if, hypothetically if) a person claims that God has given them knowledge of how to cure HIV/AIDS, then that is testable by science. That claim! No other! That particular claim! And we can indeed go out and test whether their alleged cure works or not. If it works, we can only surmise that they have indeed been given such knowledge by God. That is a test of divine revelation. To clarify: I'm not saying that that's always the case, I'm not saying all instance of divine revelation work that way, I'm not saying that all instances of God revealing information to people is testable.

I don't know how much more explicit I can make that point :/

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?

Not really; you still seem to be working under the misapprehension that I'm dictating what divine revelation must be for, or what miracles must be for.

I'm not saying that divine revelation always (or ever) reveals testable knowledge. I'm quite aware of the fact that, to my knowledge, God has never deigned to beam down knowledge that cures for diseases, or to forewarn us of upcoming natural disasters. I don't know why you think I think revelation has to be for science, or has to be testable by science.

"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" - I have to ask, where have I ever said any such thing? I'm absolutely baffled why you would think this, and I'd like to know why.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

It occurs to me, somewhat late in the thread, that we DO have examples of exactly what you're looking for: knowledge directly revealed to mankind. It's mostly historical, and in those instances where it can be tested it's either blatantly wrong or trivially right, but it's there: the Bible and the Q'uran.

Both purport to contain records of direct revelation from god.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It occurs to me, somewhat late in the thread, that we DO have examples of exactly what you're looking for: knowledge directly revealed to mankind. It's mostly historical, and in those instances where it can be tested it's either blatantly wrong or trivially right, but it's there: the Bible and the Q'uran.

Both purport to contain records of direct revelation from god.

That they do. But, are they? As I said, divine revelation may we among us, but there may be no way of knowing. A cure for HIV/AIDS is testable, hence why I'm using it as an example.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

That they do. But, are they? As I said, divine revelation may we among us, but there may be no way of knowing. A cure for HIV/AIDS is testable, hence why I'm using it as an example.

Well, we have no way to know if they are, and they certainly don't check out, scientifically. But we don't actually have many examples of "divine revelation" either, so there's not much material to go on.

 

[seeking Christ]

no post

 

[seeking Christ]

"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" - I have to ask, where have I ever said any such thing? I'm absolutely baffled why you would think this, and I'd like to know why.

Because in each instance you revert back to a situation pertaining to science, rather than the religious sphere. The proof you have before your eyes is the existence of this website, dedicated to the Name of Christ, and the existence of His Church, still here a couple thousand years later, despite all sorts of problems and hardship, all of which is confusing. This states that people can indeed follow Him, each according to their own conscience and efforts.

That's testable, and exactly what you've asked for. The only problem here is the answer comes in a form you're not expecting. God is like that!

That they do. But, are they? As I said, divine revelation may we among us, but there may be no way of knowing. A cure for HIV/AIDS is testable, hence why I'm using it as an example.

I know a man who routinely ships treatment for AIDS to S Africa, at a cost of less than $1.00 per dose. You may be aware that "cocktails" considered medically effective are normally rather expensive, and aren't really considered a cure at all. The hope is to extend life, and improve the quality of life before they die from AIDS. The cheaper solution has proven to work better, both short and long term. Now how could you possibly exclude Divine revelation from this development? Or for that matter, how could you exclude it from the costlier, more standard treatment? Or any other advancement in any of the sciences?

I think what we need here is a definition of terms. Quite often I have seen Christians chastised that they need to learn the meaning of the scientific words they're attempting to use, and often that has been accurate. Why doesn't this pertain to your own use of words like God and Divine?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Because in each instance you revert back to a situation pertaining to science, rather than the religious sphere.

Naturally: claims to knowledge that have passed scientific verification is knowledge that other people can confirm is indeed 'from God'. If you claim that God told you an earthquake is going to hit his house tomorrow morning, we can test that claim (if nothing else, by observing whether or not the predicted earthquake hits). That is religiously acquired knowledge that we can test, and therefore confirm (or at least strongly support) is from God.

However, there are, of course, other things that God could deign to beam into people's heads. He could whisper something comforting to a grieving widow, or encourage charitable works, or sing along with a gospel choir. While no actual knowledge has been revealed, this might be the way God communicates.

God might instead deign to reveal knowledge, but knowledge that is untestable - "Yes, your wife is cheating on you", "Yes, there is a Heaven, and no, your grandfather isn't there", etc. Such a thing would indeed be a genuine example of religiously acquired knowledge.

The problem, as far as the OP's request is concerned, is that neither two forms are actually testable. Why is that important? Well, if you're going to claim X is an instance of religiously acquired knowledge (which it may well be), we need something more than your word before we can know if it is, indeed, genuine knowledge acquired through genuinely religious means.

For example, suppose Pat Robertson was told by God that a terrorist attack was going to hit in 2007. Suppose 2008, 2009, 2010 roll by. Suppose God then tells Pat Robertson that God had made it so that no attack would occur, because of the prayers of the faithful. In this particular hypothetical, God really does tell Pat this, and he really is planning a terrorist attack, and he really is assuaged by the prayers of the faithful.

But, how do we, the people who aren't either God or Pat Robertson, tell whether the claim is genuine or just the ramblings of a mad man?

We don't. Which is where scientific verification comes in. God may well talk to people, he may well reveal information to them, he may even reveal information like how to cure a particular disease. The problem is, we don't know if he does or not until we can test it.

And if we can't test it, you and I can never know if it's true or not. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say the recipient can't know either (perhaps it's just Satan whispering lies into their ear, eh?).

So the OP is asking if there are any examples of knowledge that has been acquired through some religious method (be it God directly informing the claimant, or the claimant praying for the knowledge, or the claimant reading the information through bird entrails, or what have you). But, such knowledge has to be known, as it were - there are innumerable claims to knowledge that has been acquired because (they claim) God gave it to them. But are any of these claims genuine? The only way to know is if they work, if they pass muster and scientific examination.

The proof you have before your eyes is the existence of this website, dedicated to the Name of Christ, and the existence of His Church, still here a couple thousand years later, despite all sorts of problems and hardship, all of which is confusing. This states that people can indeed follow Him, each according to their own conscience and efforts.

There are forums devoted to the followers of Islam, Buddhism, and even the deities of ancient Greece, Rome, and Egypt. All that proves is that people want to talk to other people.

That's testable, and exactly what you've asked for. The only problem here is the answer comes in a form you're not expecting.

I disagree that tenacity is evidence of veracity - that Christianity has existed for a long time, doesn't somehow make it true.

God is like that!

Hiding being statistical minutiae? Never doing more than what can be attributed to sheer chance? Yes, I've noticed. Part of what the OP is investigating is part of the larger query as to whether God actually does anything.

I know a man who routinely ships treatment for AIDS to S Africa, at a cost of less than $1.00 per dose. You may be aware that "cocktails" considered medically effective are normally rather expensive, and aren't really considered a cure at all. The hope is to extend life, and improve the quality of life before they die from AIDS. The cheaper solution has proven to work better, both short and long term. Now how could you possibly exclude Divine revelation from this development? Or for that matter, how could you exclude it from the costlier, more standard treatment? Or any other advancement in any of the sciences?

I can't, nor do I claim to be able to. If divine revelation is somehow involved, it's not involved in any way we can verify. Near as we can tell, God isn't involved. No part of it actually requires a deity to explain; the medicine developed wasn't magically made manifest in a church altar, it was painstakingly developed in a lab.

Again, God may have had a hand in it, he may have even interfered with someone's brain and coaxed them into discovering the medicines we now ship to Africa. But there's no way to verify that, so claiming that he did do that, when there's absolutely no evidence to corroborate it, is intellectually dishonest.

The OP asks for what it asks so that the thread doesn't get bogged down in pointless citations like "the Bible", or "all medicine ever!" - I'm looking for examples of where claims to religiously acquired knowledge have been verified. As there's no evidence of any actual interference by a deity, it's irrational to claim otherwise.

I think what we need here is a definition of terms. Quite often I have seen Christians chastised that they need to learn the meaning of the scientific words they're attempting to use, and often that has been accurate. Why doesn't this pertain to your own use of words like God and Divine?

You're putting the cart before the horse. I'm talking about whether there are any cases where people have acquired knowledge through some religious mechanism - deities poofing the information into a person's head, or speaking it to them vocally, or someone praying for the solutions to the Millennium problems having it poof into their minds, or someone casting bones or reading palms and receiving actual information about the future, or something similar.

The term 'divine revelation', in English parlance, refers to God speaking or bestowing information to a person. For instance, Muslim generally believe that God, through the angel Gabriel, spoke (or otherwise) the Qu'ran to Muhammed. That is an instance and a claim of divine revelation - information or knowledge revealed to a human by a deity. If this doesn't marry with your own personal vocabulary, fine, but don't let semantic distract you. What I mean by using the phrase is what I mean, not what you take it to mean.

 

[AV1611VET]

That they do. But, are they? As I said, divine revelation may we among us, but there may be no way of knowing. A cure for HIV/AIDS is testable, hence why I'm using it as an example.

You're not the type who thinks we should expect to use Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual, are you?

 

[seeking Christ]

are any of these claims genuine? The only way to know is if they work, if they pass muster and scientific examination.

No sir, it is not. You are pretending that the only knowledge is within the realm of physics. That simply isn't so.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

No sir, it is not. You are pretending that the only knowledge is within the realm of physics. That simply isn't so.

What knowledge lies outside the purview of science? And if we cannot confirm it, then it remains opinion. Why should we accept yours?

 

[AV1611VET]

What knowledge lies outside the purview of science?

What was Babe Ruth's lifetime batting average?

 

[seeking Christ]

No sir, it is not. You are pretending that the only knowledge is within the realm of physics. That simply isn't so.

For example, the OP stated that it is unknowable what has historically been taught about things like a 6,000 year old earth and other pet peeves he apparently has. I have heard the jokes about how a physicist views other (so-called) sciences, so I won't take up the argument that history is actually a science or not, but we have people who can trace their own family history back farther than the origin of the Church, and they will tell you the Bible never taught a 6,000 year old earth. Or 4,000 years at the time. This is knowable. The OP doesn't know it. This is knowledge, but not within the realm of physics.

If the OP will PM me his info, I will mail him this book:

http://www.amazon.com/God-According...57307914&sr=1-1&keywords=god+according+to+god

I think it will do him more good than I can, and with that I am unsubscribing. Again.

Cheers

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You're not the type who thinks we should expect to use Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual, are you?

No, nor do I expect the Bible to be a science textbook. But though I don't claim to be able to use the Bible as such, others do.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No sir, it is not. You are pretending that the only knowledge is within the realm of physics. That simply isn't so.

Then by all means, eludicate how we can verify if person X's claims of divinely revealed knowledge are real or not, when such knowledge is untestable.

If God tells X that there's going to be an earthquake at his house next year, that could well be completely true, but person Y doesn't know this. Person Y has no reason to believe X's claim - until it's verified. The most obvious way would be to wait for the alleged earthquake.

If God tells X how to cure HIV/AIDS, and X tells Y that God's revealed unto him the cure for HIV/AIDS, Y has no way to know if that claim is true or not except by actually testing the claim (namely, by seeing of the alleged cure does indeed cure HIV/AIDS).

If God tells X that there is indeed a Heaven, even if this is true and genuine knowledge, how does person Y know whether X is telling the truth, is delusion, or is lying? Indeed, how does X himself know whether he's delusional, being tricked (perhaps by Satan), etc? Without the ability to falsify the claim, he can't.

Quite why you think things must be restricted to physics I don't know.

For example, the OP stated that it is unknowable what has historically been taught about things like a 6,000 year old earth and other pet peeves he apparently has.

That, sir, is a lie.

I have heard the jokes about how a physicist views other (so-called) sciences, so I won't take up the argument that history is actually a science or not, but we have people who can trace their own family history back farther than the origin of the Church, and they will tell you the Bible never taught a 6,000 year old earth. Or 4,000 years at the time. This is knowable. The OP doesn't know it. This is knowledge, but not within the realm of physics.

Again, whoever mentioned physics?

If the OP will PM me his info, I will mail him this book:

http://www.amazon.com/God-According...57307914&sr=1-1&keywords=god+according+to+god

I'm not in the habit of giving out personal information, but thanks for the offer.

 

[loktai]

God (or "religion," as you guys would probably refer Him) created the hardware that is this universe.

If I read the OP right, it is akin to asking if Black & Decker ever built a single thing.

Yes they did, they build lots of tools and workbenches. Millions of them.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

What was Babe Ruth's lifetime batting average?

That was determined using observation, recording, checking etc. Which part of that isn't scientific?

 

[Greg1234]

I don't expect anything.

Then why did you wait on such a thing (without expecting it, of course) from theism?

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.

Since I don't believe in Godless, mindless animated matter, we'll have to agree to disagree on the feasibility of your atoms.

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).

You misunderstand.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then why did you wait on such a thing (without expecting it, of course) from theism?

Because it is theists who claim such things. My question is whether any such claims are actually true. For all the claims of God forewarning of earthquakes and terrorist attacks, have any actually come true?

I suspect the answer is no, but as always I'm open to being proven wrong.

Since I don't believe in Godless, mindless animated matter, we'll have to agree to disagree on the feasibility of your atoms.

... wait, are you serious? You don't believe atoms exist?

You misunderstand.

I misunderstand what, exactly?