Believe It or Not

[Native]

Perhaps the only real truth is personal truth - the universe according to the individual observing it. After all, it is this truth alone which truly guides us.

In Comparative Religion and Mythology one can find lots of similarities when reading the numerous cultural Stories of Creation. Doesn´t this speak of a story bigger than an individual truth?

 

[taykair]

In Comparative Religion and Mythology one can find lots of similarities when reading the numerous cultural Stories of Creation. Doesn´t this speak of a story bigger than an individual truth?

It could. It could also be (because we humans think much more alike than we think we do) nothing more than a big pile of individual truths masquerading as "The Truth".

 

[sayak83]

This was my fault because I did not make it clear that I was talking about judging truth, not morality. (Even so, it's awfully hard to separate those two little boogers when they get intertwined.)

I prefer the word evaluation when talking about truth estimations and judging when talking about moral judgements.
Evaluating truth claims of other communities depends on your motivation, curiosity levels etc.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That is, indeed, a problem. However, that's not really what my focus was. I expect there to be conflict between religious and scientific viewpoints. I even expect there to be conflicts within each of those communities. (We are talking about communities of humans, right? Conflict seems to be in our DNA.) However, I was not really concerned with that so much as with whose standards should be used to determine the truth of a particular statement.

It doesn't make sense to me to apply scientific standards to things that defy science.

 

[taykair]

I prefer the word evaluation when talking about truth estimations and judging when talking about moral judgements.
Evaluating truth claims of other communities depends on your motivation, curiosity levels etc.

I can live with that. "Judging" does sound awfully judgmental, doesn't it? Yeah, I agree. I like "evaluate" better.

(That reminds me: I really need to get a good thesaurus.)

 

[taykair]

It doesn't make sense to me to apply scientific standards to things that defy science.

I have to say that it doesn't make much sense to me either. However, for some, a particular world-view becomes "the measure of all things". Whether those things lie outside the purview of that world-view or not seems to make little difference to them.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
In Comparative Religion and Mythology one can find lots of similarities when reading the numerous cultural Stories of Creation. Doesn´t this speak of a story bigger than an individual truth?

It could. It could also be (because we humans think much more alike than we think we do) nothing more than a big pile of individual truths masquerading as "The Truth".

Most ancient cultural Creation Stories contains for instants a telling about the Sun and Moon. The human knowledge of these celestial objects could pile up as both an individual and collective truth which hardly cannot be a masquerade, can it?

- My point is that ancient stories of creation are build up by concrete human collective knowledge of the cosmos and sometime these stories are more logical than modern cosmological science can provide.

 

[taykair]

Native said: ↑
In Comparative Religion and Mythology one can find lots of similarities when reading the numerous cultural Stories of Creation. Doesn´t this speak of a story bigger than an individual truth?

Most ancient cultural Creation Stories contains for instants a telling about the Sun and Moon. The human knowledge of these celestial objects could pile up as both an individual and collective truth which hardly cannot be a masquerade, can it?

- My point is that ancient stories of creation are build up by concrete human collective knowledge of the cosmos and sometime these stories are more logical than modern cosmological science can provide.

I understand what you're saying. However, I don't believe, in this case, that the whole (collective truth) is greater than the sum of its parts (individual truths). That's what I meant by a masquerade. When you put all these stories together, do you get The Story? No. You get a collection of (perhaps similar, perhaps not) stories.

Then again, I have often been accused of not seeing "the big picture".

As for mythological cosmology being more logical than scientific cosmology, I'm not so sure. Although it is true that the stories themselves have their own internal logic, which can sometimes only be understood when one understands the culture which produced them, many of them fail when objectively (oh, that word!) tested and observed.

 

[Faithofchristian]

"The difference between your belief in your religion and my belief in science is that science would be true whether I believed in it or not."

I've seen this statement made again and again whenever a religious person states that scientific thought is nothing more than a matter of mere belief. It isn't, of course. The laws and principles discovered though scientific inquiry would still hold true despite our acceptance or disbelief in them.

However, according to the religious person's world-view, could not the same be said for a belief in religious matters? That is to say: Is the existence of a religious truth dependent upon our belief in it? Doesn't the theist believe, for example, that God exists whether he believes in God or not?

Of course he does. The theist does not "will" God into existence by believing in God any more than scientific truth is "willed" into existence through the efforts of its adherents. These truths, if they exist at all, are not invented but rather discovered. Could it be possible that both scientific truth and religious truth both exist, and do so despite however we may feel about them?

This is the point in the argument where the scientist says, "No, because there is evidence for science, but not for religion." But what kind of evidence are we talking about?

True enough, there is a scientific method by which scientific truth is verified. Nobody (I hope) would argue that that a scientific theory would have to not only pass such a rigorous scientific testing, but also pass some kind of religious test in order to be called truth. (Well, Mr. Scientist, your theory of X is really quite nice, and you've nailed the science part. But, I'm sorry to say, you've failed to prove it according to religious standards, so I'm afraid we can't call it true.)

Rather silly, right?

Think about it from another angle, though. (Well, Mr. Religionist, your belief in X is really quite nice, and you've nailed the religious part. But, I'm sorry to say, you've failed to prove it according to scientific standards, so I'm afraid we can't call it true.)

Why do many feel that this isn't just as silly? If science if true regardless of what religion has to say about it, then why can't religion be true without the imprimatur of science?

Perhaps the only real truth is personal truth - the universe according to the individual observing it. After all, it is this truth alone which truly guides us.

First you would have to show as to where it is written in the word of God, that I have to prove my faith according to science ?

Just because you say, that doesn't mean I have to prove anything of my faith.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Just because you say, that doesn't mean I have to prove anything of my faith.

1 Peter 3:15

 

[taykair]

First you would have to show as to where it is written in the word of God, that I have to prove my faith according to science ?

Just because you say, that doesn't mean I have to prove anything of my faith.

I don't believe you have to prove your faith scientifically. In fact, I don't believe you have to prove it according to anyone's standards, except for your own.

And, for the record, I am not an authority on anything, and nobody needs to prove anything to me. If you've proven it sufficiently for yourself, and if it works for you, then I think that's great.

 

[Faithofchristian]

1 Peter 3:15

Are you kidding me, seeing you have no idea what 1 Peter 3:15 is saying, it's saying to give an answer to every man that ask me of the hope that is in me.

Therefore you never ask me about the hope that is in me.

It does not say to prove my faith or anything else
Only to give an answer of the hope that is within me, which you never ask about the hope that is within me.

Nice try, but try again

 

[taykair]

1 Peter 3:15

Wow! I guess it is written.

No problem, though. God may require you to answer, but I won't.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you kidding me, seeing you have no idea what 1 Peter 3:15 is saying, it's saying to give an answer to every man that ask me of the hope that is in me.

It means you always have to provide the reasons for your belief when asked.

It does not say to prove my faith or anything else
Only to give an answer of the hope that is within me, which you never ask about the hope that is within me.

Nice try, but try again

You seriously need to read the Bible.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Wow! I guess it is written.

No problem, though. God may require you to answer, but I won't.

That's probably the less frustrating approach in this instance, I'm afraid.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I don't believe you have to prove your faith scientifically. In fact, I don't believe you have to prove it according to anyone's standards, except for your own.

And, for the record, I am not an authority on anything, and nobody needs to prove anything to me. If you've proven it sufficiently for yourself, and if it works for you, then I think that's great.

That's absolutely True.

 

[Faithofchristian]

It means you always have to provide the reasons for your belief when asked.


You seriously need to read the Bible.

Look 1 Peter 3:15 said nothing belief. Only about the Hope, As to where or how you get belief out of Hope, is anyone's guess.

 

[taykair]

That's probably the less frustrating approach in this instance, I'm afraid.

Yes, but take some of the letters from frustration and what do you get? F U N !

 

[taykair]

That's absolutely True.

I just knew, if I kept at it long enough, I'd stumble across a Truth...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Look 1 Peter 3:15 said nothing belief. Only about the Hope, As to where or how you get belief out of Hope, is anyone's guess.

It pretty obviously means "the hope produced BY YOUR BELIEF". This isn't me ruminating on some vague wording, it is the widely accepted and understood meaning of the passage.