What is a religion.

[bhsmte]

Calling revelation a methodology is hilarious, it would imply an organized and systematic study of any given problem.

Please outline the methodology of religious revelation for me.

And folks tend to have wildly different revelations. How does one test who is right, or if any of them are correct?

 

[variant]

And folks tend to have wildly different revelations. How does one test who is right, or if any of them are correct?

Well if they had some sort of methodology they might be able to do that.

I'm waiting for the standard "proper" method to be pontificated here.

 

[lesliedellow]

Calling revelation a methodology is hilarious, it would imply an organized and systematic study of any given problem.

Please outline the methodology of religious revelation for me.

The difference between science and theology is that science gets its data set from empirical observation, and theology, or at least Christian theology, gets its data set from the Bible. Thereafter it is a matter of inference and deduction upon those data sets.

In science you would check the results of your inferences and deductions by going back to make some more observations. In theology you would check them for their consistency with the rest of Christian theology.

 

[Khalliqa]

what was the data set and method used to put the Bible together?

 

[lesliedellow]

what was the data set and method used to put the Bible together?

The biblical texts were the result of divine inspiration, with or without the human authors being conscious of that fact. The Bible emerged through a process of popular acclamation, but again with the oversight of the Holy Spirit. Towards the end of the second century we have Iraeneus listing a canon which was very close to our current New Testament canon. Later church councils rubber stamping the end result of that process.

 

[variant]

The difference between science and theology is that science gets its data set from empirical observation, and theology, or at least Christian theology, gets its data set from the Bible. Thereafter it is a matter of inference and deduction upon those data sets.

In science you would check the results of your inferences and deductions by going back to make some more observations. In theology you would check them for their consistency with the rest of Christian theology.

It would have to go further than that if you want to call "revelation" a methodology. As you state it it is just an appeal to the authority of the Bible.

If there is a "proper" methodology for revelation, it would mean that there must be a methodology for the revelations in the Bible as well.

I think your terminology is a bit haughty.

And, I don't think it works out quite that well considering that there are at present over 30 thousand differn't Christian sects, which means, even if I were being generous, it would still mean your "methodology" becomes a bit suspect.

 

[variant]

The biblical texts were the result of divine inspiration, with or without the human authors being conscious of that fact. The Bible emerged through a process of popular acclamation, but again with the oversight of the Holy Spirit. Towards the end of the second century we have Iraeneus listing a canon which was very close to our current New Testament canon. Later church councils rubber stamping the end result of that process.

And what is the "proper" methodology to decipher divine inspiration? And, can you do it without a circular argument (underlined)?

 

[lesliedellow]

And what is the "proper" methodology to decipher divine inspiration? And, can you do it without a circular argument (underlined)?

There is no circular argument there. Do you think that everything which comes out of the mouth of a Christian has to be an attempt to convince atheists? Christianity has its own internal logic, whether atheists believe it or not, and that internal logic includes the divine inspiration of scripture.

 

[variant]

There is no circular argument there. Do you think that everything which comes out of the mouth of a Christian has to be an attempt to convince atheists? Christianity has its own internal logic, whether atheists believe it or not, and that internal logic includes the divine inspiration of scripture.

It's circular logic, unless you got the idea that the Bible was divinely inspired from a source other than the Bible. Circular logic can be internally consistent and irrational at the same time.

I asked for what you called a methodology, which means we need a way to tell divinely inspired tales from non inspired ones.

"Because someone said so when crafting the Bible" isn't what I would call a "methodology" in any sense.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's circular logic, unless you got the idea that the Bible was divinely inspired from a source other than the Bible. Circular logic can be internally consistent and irrational at the same time.

I asked for what you called a methodology, which means we need a way to tell divinely inspired tales from non inspired ones.

"Because someone said so when crafting the Bible" isn't what I would call a "methodology" in any sense.

You are confusing the methodology of Christian theology with an entirely different question about why somebody should be a Christian in the first place.

 

[variant]

You are confusing the methodology of Christian theology with an entirely different question about why somebody should be a Christian in the first place.

No, I am sussing out what the methodology is.

So far you have reliance on an authoritative book that tells you it is divinely inspired, with no methodology for how to determine divine inspiration.

Would you call that a methodological or systematic means of sorting theological claims (religious revelation)? Because the Bible has theological claims (religious revelation) in it....

In my brain you can't knock over domino 1 without an effect on domino 2

 

[bhsmte]

Well if they had some sort of methodology they might be able to do that.

I'm waiting for the standard "proper" method to be pontificated here.

You are confusing the methodology of Christian theology with an entirely different question about why somebody should be a Christian in the first place.

No, that is not happening. Referring back to the bible with no reliable method to substantiate claims and the endless interpretations, is clearly circular reasoning, based on unverifiable assumptions. This is why it is called faith.

 

[Khalliqa]

No, that is not happening. Referring back to the bible with no reliable method to substantiate claims and the endless interpretations, is clearly circular reasoning, based on unverifiable assumptions. This is why it is called faith.

IMO this is why while there are scientists who have faith, science thinking and practice is incompatible with faith.. Technological advances and scientific understandings do not come from the "methodology" (ooh boy) of faith.. A scientist can believe in god all he wants but he puts away faith based thinking and practice when he gets in the lab.. the process does not allow one to simply assert "god did it" or "the bible said" in the lab.. utilizing/analyzing statistical analysis.. utilizing logic.. etc..

Also, this is why I'm an advocate for mandatory critical thinking/statistical analysis interwoven throughout the curriculum.. At least when discussing topics - no matter one's faith - there would be a starting point of mutual reference.. even if there may remain stubbornness or blind spots.. at least you'll know a person's reluctance would not be the result of no exposure to the concept or training.

Otherwise it becomes difficult to have a discussion around analyzing one's methods of deriving understanding when they are unaware of, unable to recognize, or refuse to admit the circular logic in their reasoning.

 

[lesliedellow]

No, that is not happening. Referring back to the bible with no reliable method to substantiate claims and the endless interpretations, is clearly circular reasoning, based on unverifiable assumptions. This is why it is called faith.

As a mathematician, maybe I am used to presupposing the axioms of ZFC set theory, without confusing them with the methodologies used to build the rest of mathematics thereon.

 

[variant]

As a mathematician, maybe I am used to presupposing the axioms of ZFC set theory, without confusing them with the methodologies used to build the rest of mathematics thereon.

And now you've made another ridiculous comparison.

Seems to be how you roll.

It's no wonder you find theology and religion so appealing if you think "stuff that appears in the bible" is a lot like, rigorously derived mathematical theory.

Or, maybe, you're just used to overselling your viewpoints without being questioned too much?

Now there, THAT, is a definite usual component of religious thought.

 

[lesliedellow]

And now you've made another ridiculous comparison.

Seems to be how you roll.

It's no wonder you find theology and religion so appealing if you think "stuff that appears in the bible" is a lot like, rigorously derived mathematical theory.

There is nothing rigorously derived about axioms. By definition, they are taken as a given. The only thing required of them is that they be self consistent. In the case of theology, the Bible is the given, and from it the theologian extracts data for the construction of his theology.

 

[variant]

There is nothing rigorously derived about axioms. By definition, they are taken as a given. The only thing required of them is that they be self consistent. In the case of theology, the Bible is the given, and from it the theologian extracts data for the construction of his theology.

Well I was talking about set theory, but regardless, the passages of the Bible are not "taken as a given" because they are fairly obviously true (or unavoidable) like the axioms you would start with in mathematics, they are believed based upon faith.

You can treat them as you would axioms all you like, it's just that these two things are wildly differn't ideas.

 

[bhsmte]

As a mathematician, maybe I am used to presupposing the axioms of ZFC set theory, without confusing them with the methodologies used to build the rest of mathematics thereon.

Comparing math to a person's religious faith, is not a comparison i can take seriously.

 

[lesliedellow]

Well I was talking about set theory, but regardless, the passages of the Bible are not "taken as a given" because they are fairly obviously true (or unavoidable) like the axioms you would start with in mathematics, they are believed based upon faith.

That is not "fairly obviously true". It was a matter of contention for some time.

You can treat them as you would axioms all you like, it's just that these two things are wildly differEn't ideas.

In being the presuppositions upon which their respective disciplines are built, they differ not at all. However they ARE both distinct from the methodologies which are used to build upon those foundations.

 

[lesliedellow]

Comparing math to a person's religious faith, is not a comparison i can take seriously.

Take it any way you want.