Rome in transition

[juantoo3]

What is truth? What are you specifically intending with the word "truth?" There are so many truths it is impossible to guess which one you mean.

That post is 13 years old.
I don't think that theistic scholarship is the only factor in determining truth.

And yet still accurate and relevant. And since historic scholarship formed the major basis for this essay, I think the fundamental truth the essay highlights is not particularly theistic.

The Pharisees claimed that "they knew it all", as do many people throughout time.

So do many people even today. It seems to be especially common among those with a vested interest in promoting a religion.

In fact, the only religion I've heard/read/seen say anything remotely otherwise is Buddhism. And for purposes here I include Atheism as a religion, it is most certainly a Dawkian meme.

To wax philosophical for a moment, the reason you will not hear me state that I know it all is because it seals the mind. A closed mind cannot grasp, cannot learn new things, cannot see the forest for the trees.

Faith is a personal thing between ourselves and God. As Jesus, peace be with him, has said .. we need to make many sacrifices to serve God .. it is not about what we like and don't like .. it is about loving God more than ANYTHING .. including our own relatives and nation.

Agreed, but that path may wander in many different directions. A loving G-d clearly intended no other way, as evidenced by the magnificent creation all around us.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..since historic scholarship formed the major basis for this essay, I think the fundamental truth the essay highlights is not particularly theistic.

History plays a part in determining "the nature of the divine". Scriptures are part of history.
We all make our own conclusions from our studies .. and God knows why we say what we say.

Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief. It is taught as an academic discipline, typically in universities and seminaries.

Your 'essay' shows that it is unlikely that what the majority of Christians believe is correct.
I have no problem with that .. argumentum ad populum is fallacious.
i.e. a creed must be true because many or most people believe it

The same goes for ANY belief.

 

[juantoo3]

Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief. It is taught as an academic discipline, typically in universities and seminaries.

Perhaps, but I've always considered Theology a systematic study of scripture from a religious perspective, particularly if not exclusively from a Christian perspective. Hence why I asked what you meant by "truth."

I find it generally more pragmatic and functional to follow Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria." Typically, science addresses questions of "how?" and religion addresses questions of "why?," and trying to use one to address the other only results in talking past each other. That is the reason this discussion was built on the history board, not the religion board. But equally, using another religion to address the "science" (inasmuch as history can be) only reverts to talking past each other...therefore my question.

BTW, this thread would equate better with a history of religion (specifically Christianity) or anthropology of religion, both of which also taught in universities.

History plays a part in determining "the nature of the divine". Scriptures are part of history.

I am hoping the non-overlapping magisteria helps explain why I feel the need to clarify what you are getting at. From my perspective it appears you are attempting to use science to justify faith, and/or faith to justify science. It doesn't work, I've tried for years. It doesn't help that the subject at hand skirts between the two magisteria.

 

[RJM]

History plays a part in determining "the nature of the divine". Scriptures are part of history.
We all make our own conclusions from our studies .. and God knows why we say what we say.



Your 'essay' shows that it is unlikely that what the majority of Christians believe is correct.
I have no problem with that .. argumentum ad populum is fallacious.
i.e. a creed must be true because many or most people believe it

The same goes for ANY belief.

You have no pictures in your home, right? Only Arabic Quran scripts framed on the wall? Michaelangelo, Van Gogh, Carvaggio are rejected? Photography is rejected? Any representation of any animal or human form is rejected? Even pictures of flowers are rejected?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I find it generally more pragmatic and functional to follow Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria.

..in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences adopted a similar stance. Its publication Science and Creationism stated that "Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."

This sort of attitude stems from ignorance, imo.
Ignorance ON BOTH SIDES. Scientists see that many religious claims are proved scientifically wrong, and so-called "creationists" often have questionable creeds, understanding religion as a "literal God's word".
This gives the false impression that religion and science contradict each other.
They should not!

From my perspective it appears you are attempting to use science to justify faith, and/or faith to justify science. It doesn't work, I've tried for years.

Not at all. You might feel that a belief doesn't need justifying and a "gut choice" is acceptable, but I don't.
As I said recently in another thread, it is fine to believe something that is unlikely due to historical evidence, but we need a good reason for doing so. How are YOU suggesting a person can differentiate between truth and falsehood?

 

[muhammad_isa]

You have no pictures in your home, right? Only Arabic Quran scripts framed on the wall? Michaelangelo, Van Gogh, Carvaggio are rejected? Photography is rejected? Any representation of any animal or human form is rejected? Even pictures of flowers are rejected?

This has nothing to do with the subject.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the Qur'an saying that photography is rejected.

 

[juantoo3]

This gives the false impression that religion and science contradict each other.

With all due respect, I can only believe you misunderstand.

I will repeat for emphasis, but I don't know offhand how better to explain: Science answers "how" questions, Religion answers "why" questions. The questions are very different, and the outlooks of each are very different. The expectations of each are very different. And the foundations are very different.

Not at all. You might feel that a belief doesn't need justifying and a "gut choice" is acceptable, but I don't.
As I said recently in another thread, it is fine to believe something that is unlikely due to historical evidence, but we need a good reason for doing so. How are YOU suggesting a person can differentiate between truth and falsehood?

I honestly do not understand how you can reach that conclusion, presuming you have read my work. There's no purely "gut choice" in ANY of my beliefs, academic or spiritual.

And once again, I ask politely but firmly, what do YOU mean by "truth?" Until you give this one answer I've asked now 3 times, I cannot proceed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There's no purely "gut choice" in ANY of my beliefs, academic or spiritual..

I never said that there was. I said "we", as in one needs a good reason.
I'm not quite sure what your beliefs are .. your signature gives little away

And once again, I ask politely but firmly, what do YOU mean by "truth?" Until you give this one answer I've asked now 3 times, I cannot proceed.

I use it in the sense of "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality".
That God exists, is a given .. I know it can't be proved, but that is neither here nor there.

We can make conclusions on the probability of something being true. We are also able to
subjectively confirm the truth of something through experience.
i.e. the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

A person with knowledge can be agnostic, as can a person without knowledge have a strong faith.
"truth" is not about somebody's convictions .. it is universal.

 

[juantoo3]

I use it in the sense of "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality".
That God exists, is a given .. I know it can't be proved, but that is neither here nor there.

That would be axiomatic, in a self-contained religious sense, but certainly not truth in the scientific sense of knowledge of principles by observation and deduction. Which only serves to illustrate my point, Science and Religion answer very different questions.

My personal belief of G-d or in G-d is irrelevent. He cannot be proven, therefore cannot be invoked to establish scientific proof.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That would be axiomatic, in a self-contained religious sense, but certainly not truth in the scientific sense of knowledge of principles by observation and deduction.

That is dishonest.
We are not talking about the question of whether God exists.
We are talking about the question of a creed being likely to be correct or not.

Scientific facts are also about probability. That is why one minute scientists might say "butter is bad for you"
and another minute say that "butter is good for you".

My personal belief of G-d or in G-d is irrelevent.

I see. You just "enjoy" discussing.
Well, you should not get upset if somebody disagrees with you, in that case.

 

[juantoo3]

Who's upset? Not I.

We're discussing the history of Christianity.

I couldn't help but notice how upset some persons were when I requested a similar study of Islam.

But I'm not concerned about swaying your opinion one way or the other. You're not swaying mine.



PS, its actually brutally honest (warts and all).