What's the real measure of checking a Holy Book?

[dailogue is the best]

Peace to you all,

I just want to know the real measure of the reliability of your Holy Books. Is science a reliable measure for the accuracy of a holy book? What if a holy book contradicts science? Do people lose faith in their holy book if it goes against scientific facts?!

Another question poses itself then: is science a reliable measure in itself? or does science itself stands helpless in explaining things related to the "entity" of God and His characteristics?!!

Then, what is the real measure of the reliability of a Holy Book?! How can we reconcile with "doubt" ? Can experience with God take the place of science? Can the sweetness of connecting God be the real measure of the reliability of a Holy Book?



Your posts are welcomed in advance .

[GlorytoGod]

the measure of a holy book ?

well does it change peoples lives for the better, and does it produce good fruit.

[17th Angel]

Makes me wonder if this shouldn't be in the science forums?... Just the word science was used like.... lots there.

[dailogue is the best]

Originally Posted by GlorytoGod

the measure of a holy book ?

well does it change peoples lives for the better, and does it produce good fruit.

Fair enough, GlorytoGod.

The question now is: What would you do if scientific findings come in contardiction with what your Holy Book teaches? Would you lose confidence in your Holy Book? Or would you reconcile with this through the spiritual support your attachment to your Holy Book gives?

[dailogue is the best]

Originally Posted by Alex P

Makes me wonder if this shouldn't be in the science forums?... Just the word science was used like.... lots there.

Well, Alex. It has nothing to do with the science forums cz the essence is to ask what the measure of one's conviction in his/her Holy Book. Is it the scientific findings or the spiritual experience? In other words, how can one be fully sure of the reliability of his/her Holy Book. Is it through logic or through direct experience?!

Another important question: What would be the reaction of one if the scientific findings contradicts in clear way what his/her Holy Book teaches?!!

Or it is necessary to have both (logic and spirituality) for a complete, firm belief in the truthfullness of one's Holy Book?!

[GlorytoGod]

Originally Posted by dailogue is the best

Fair enough, GlorytoGod.

The question now is: What would you do if scientific findings come in contardiction with what your Holy Book teaches? Would you lose confidence in your Holy Book? Or would you reconcile with this through the spiritual support your attachment to your Holy Book gives?

to be honest much of what passes as science does not have that much credibility in my book (no pun intended), absolute belief in science takes faith and besides scientist are constantly contradicting each other.

so if science contradicts the Bible for example I am really not that fussed.

[dailogue is the best]

Originally Posted by GlorytoGod

to be honest much of what passes as science does not have that much credibility in my book (no pun intended), absolute belief in science takes faith and besides scientist are constantly contradicting each other.

so if science contradicts the Bible for example I am really not that fussed.

Well, shall I say that you reject reason and logic to preserve faith?

I think there are 3 situations towards one's Holy Book:

1- Spirituality alone
2- Logic and reason alone
3- both: logic and spirituality.

Actually, the motif behind writing this thread was my reading about Imam AlGhazali, one of the most outstanding Muslim scholars. Imam AlGhazali went through spiritual crisis, esp that in his time there were different groups claiming to have the whole truth and the right method of interpreting the Holy Books.

Imam AlGhazali didnt reject neither philosophy nor science for checking the accuracy of a Holy Book. Yet, in his criticizing to them, he showed that both cant get to the truth. Imam AlGhazali's crisis ended up by him in sufism. Imam AlGhzali found his long searched object in sufism (spirituality):

Al-Ghazali explained in his autobiography why he renounced his brilliant career and turned to Sufism. It was, he says, due to his realization that there was no way to certain knowledge or the conviction of revelatory truth except through Sufism. (This means that the traditional form of Islamic faith was in a very critical condition at the time.) This realization is possibly related to his criticism of Islamic philosophy. In fact, his refutation of philosophy is not a mere criticism from a certain (orthodox) theological viewpoint. First of all, his attitude towards philosophy was ambivalent; it was both an object and criticism and an object of learning (for example, logic and the natural sciences). He mastered philosophy and then criticized it in order to Islamicize it. The importance of his criticism lies in his philosophical demonstration that the philosophers’ metaphysical arguments cannot stand the test of reason. However, he was also forced to admit that the certainty, of revelatory truth, for which he was so desperately searching, cannot be obtained by reason. It was only later that he finally attained to that truth in the ecstatic state (fana’) of the Sufi. Through his own religious experience, he worked to revive the faith of Islam by reconstructing the religious sciences upon the basis of Sufsm, and to give a theoretical foundation to the latter under the influence of philosophy. Thus Sufism came to be generally recognized in the Islamic community. Though Islamic philosophy did not long survive al-Ghazali’s criticism, he contributed greatly to the subsequent philosophization of Islamic theology and Sufism.

Source: http://www.ghazali.org/articles/gz1.htm#3

[GlorytoGod]

Originally Posted by dailogue is the best

Well, shall I say that you reject reason and logic to preserve faith?

not really, because in terms of science we are constantly bombarded with conflicting information

[I, Brian]

Science if a constantly evolving set of ideas - the worldview we have from science today is very different from 50, 100, 500 years ago.

Ultimately, faith in a Holy Book will remain exactly that - faith.

[nativeastral]

hello
infallibility of the 'sacred word' inevitably did lose credibility with the rise of western science ironically begun by believers trying to prove the rationality of the faith based religions; nature was still described as g#ds handiwork and science still operated under the 'divine' paradigm, and some would argue still does [ie the big bang and singularity].

this is evidenced by the paucity of church goers in western europe and the rise of secularism.

yet as 'the age of reason' spawned the reaction of romanticism and transcendentalism, and liberalism spawned fundamentalism, so scientific materialism is meeting the challenge of pan-psychists and others studying the enigma of consciousness. yin must eventually turn yang, and back again. neither scriptural writings nor scientific theories are absolute, are they?

it would not surprise me that most physicists and mathematicians dealing in the 'magic of numbers' have an inkling of something other than our usual sense of 'natural'.

religion has always been involved with metaphysics, science cannot help but be too despite early protestations to the contrary. A.N. whitehead, a process theologian in the 1920's worried how the evolving relationship between religion and science may determine the future of the human race [after WW1 before WW2, extreme materialism, consumerism and lack of love and stewardship of Gaia or 'mother earth'].

theism has been both a cloak and dagger of warfare no more or less than athiesim eg communism; it was about power over, justified belief in exclusivity of truth so called over the 'other' as 'other'. so reading holy books outwith the context that it was written and calling it fixed immutable truths which glorified killings of other humans is not holy in my book

[GlorytoGod]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Science if a constantly evolving set of ideas - the worldview we have from science today is very different from 50, 100, 500 years ago.

I think you are talking about good science, which I am all for, however not all science is good, bad science really sucks and there is a lot of it about !

Ultimately, faith in a Holy Book will remain exactly that - faith.

well faith and hopefully revelation, but its all purely subjective.

[Dream]

I see one hurtle is that first you have to be able to understand the book. There are passages in the Bible that some people (just some) will hold up as evidence of advanced scientific knowledge, however the meaning of the passages used is a matter of opinion. If the meaning of these passages is discussable, then they are not really useful for verifying advanced scientific knowledge. Nor are they any use for saying the Bible negated science. For example:

• Passages about diet
• Passages which mention heavenly bodies or time
• Passages about the shape or the earth, its position, or its creation

Were these verses absolutely understandable, definitely literally about Science, then they would be comparable with science and historical facts.

On the other hand, there are clearly understandable passages which do mention scientific facts and natural processes; however they do not prove supernaturally obtained scientific knowledge. Even if the knowledge had been advanced at the time it was written, it is now such plain knowledge that it is useless as a proof of supernatural origin. :

• Passages about seasons and/or weather
• Passages about Agriculture, crops
• Passages about dissection of animals
• Passages about medical procedures.

So we have Bible passages containing scientific facts which are clear and unambiguous, but which do not demonstrate advanced scientific knowledge. And on the other hand we have passages which could be about advanced scientific knowledge; except that it is not clear whether or not they are literal! As for me, I do not think the Bible is intended to use advanced scientific knowledge as a basis for proof of its own authenticity. I also don't believe in the hidden code thing that's going around.

[Dream]

By saying 'Hidden code thing' I'm not referring to the artist known in the forum as 'c0de'. 'Bible codes' are the popular secret, amazing, computer extraction of Bible codes. There is a popular fad out there among numerologists, who instead of reading will sometimes take a novel or holy book and choose random strings of letters, based upon whether or not they seem to spell something. When they do this with the Bible, these random strings are called 'Bible codes'. While some people dispute their randomness, I don't. What I dispute is the selection of the strings, which is what introduces non-random information into a random field of letters. You can disagree; but that was not the point of this paragraph, anyway. The point was to demonstrate that when I said "The hidden code thing that's going around" I definitely was not referring to 'c0de' a resident Islamic champion of chat with a cryptic computer hacker handle. I have also sneaked in a gripe about Bible codes, but that was incidental.

[BlaznFattyz]

Does it point to Christ as the Messiah, the Saviour, and God who loves you?

[Summia Rahmaan]

Hello! just want to share my thoughts about ths interesting post.

Is science a reliable measure for the accuracy of a holy book?

Science is not necessarily reliable measure, but it can be helpful in matching facts to Holy Scripture. I can explain this point by letting you have an info and want to know the fact behind this, you setted yourself to exploing and at last you found it true. So, your info was a statement which needs your explorations to aviod doubts.

What if a holy book contradicts science?

I believe it's human's unaccuracy towards finding facts.

Do people lose faith in their holy book if it goes against scientific facts?!

Many are not! but for those who just believe in science.

Another question poses itself then: is science a reliable measure in itself? or does science itself stands helpless in explaining things related to the "entity" of God and His characteristics?!!

It can be if someone is interested in Creations of Universe.

Then, what is the real measure of the reliability of a Holy Book?!

> unchangeable
> non contradictory within itself in statements
> ultimate in its predictions
> dragging towards real life, i mean not just fairy tails

How can we reconcile with "doubt" ?

Simply to explore the facts!

Can experience with God take the place of science? Can the sweetness of connecting God be the real measure of the reliability of a Holy Book?

All persons are not same in their thoughts so this point is risky I think. It can drive people to different directions...actually I'm in favor of unity of all mankind.

Live in peace...!