Differences between research reports and religious scriptures?

[Aupmanyav]

No, they are quite profound discoveries, those more subtle, less obvious best ways about more complex questions and challenges of life.

Basic rules of society exist even in animals.And Homo sapiens were adhering to them even before they became fully human. The bones of a Neanderthal showed that he was an old man. He was surviving because his companions cared for him and fed him. It is your view that Jesus words were profound in any way, and not mine. Check Zoroaster's words. They re more profound that those of Jesus. Most probably, they were copied from there if not from Hammurabi.

Talk of God after you provide some tangible proof of this entity's existence and that of souls.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What motivates these academics to support issues like social justice? If they had no compassion, idealism or 'love' I doubt they'd bother with such issues.

Science isn't feel-good psychology. Science discovers and explains facts. What we do with the facts, or how they make us feel is irrelevant.
How would love fit into a mathematical equation or the minerological analysis of a rock?

One would love the author of math and the creator of rocks, and adhere to His loving Word, and then would not color their science with innumerable errors and gross assumptions.

 

[Valjean]

One would love the author of math and the creator of rocks, and adhere to His loving Word, and then would not color their science with innumerable errors and gross assumptions.

Whether or not you loved an author or creator, the facts would be the same.
What are these errors and assumptions you mentioned? Science frowns on assumptions, and actively seeks out and corrects errors.

 

[halbhh]

Check Zoroaster's words. They re more profound that those of Jesus.

Which ones?

I just looked at these:
TOP 25 QUOTES BY ZOROASTER | A-Z Quotes

They most all simply say the same things Jesus does, or for a few what his disciples later conveyed, or prophets speaking earlier, which Jesus knew.

But Jesus does use other wordings of course. Jesus usually chooses to speak in a more holistic way that opens the mind simultaneously along with just delivering the idea, so that one gets more than only the surface instruction, I've found.

But, do you have something in particular? Some other thing from Zoroaster in mind than these? I do think God sent prophets to other peoples.

So, far, your only error here seems to be an unfamiliarity with more of what Jesus said. So that you wrongly guessed he said less than he did, it appears.

 

[Shad]

- Imagining any aim or purpose behind anything that happens is is stigmatized in the sciences.

This is a deception promoted by Creationists. Look at any sciences involving animals. Ant and bees for example create and doing things for a purpose thus for an aim. The ant hill and bee hive for example. Creationists create this falsehood as they can not convince others preconceived ideas are correct and supported by the evidence presented. So they strawman to cover up for the rejection of their arguments by creating a conspiracy theory.

- Maybe as a consequence of that, research reports mostly use mechanistic models and metaphors, and sometimes get tangled up in trying to explain how things could happen randomly and accidentally.

Hardly.

- There usually isn’t any doubt about who are the authors of a research report, although actually there have been false claims sometimes.

That is trust in the system be it of merit or just accepting the authority of a source. However unlike bronze and iron age text we can often contact authors directly to check.

- Research reports are mostly about what happens, and how it happens, as a result of what happens before that. Religious scriptures are mostly about how to live our lives, to bring out the best possibilities in people, in society and in the world around us.

A lot of people are hesitant to make conclusion about morality from science.

Religious scripture is often ignores when the moral norms of a society changes. After all we, in the West, are not stoning people for adultery anymore are we? Killing birds for their blood for purification?

It seems ironic to me for people to imagine the universe as being like a machine,

You are confusing a machine with determinism.

and at the same time scoff at people for imagining that it was created by someone with some purpose in mind.

No people scoff at Creationists as the Creationists can not make their case then make posts like this.

 

[Jim]

Now I’m wondering what religious scriptures have in common, that sets them apart from other writings, because in some ways they are very different from each other. For example, some of the origin stories are very different from others. They all contain ideas about how to live our lives, but there are other writings besides religious scriptures that do the same. Most religious scriptures have been endorsed by the rulers of empires some time in their histories, but does that apply to all religious scriptures? What do religious scriptures have in common, that sets them apart from others? One possible answer is that they are all the sacred writings of religions, which pushes the question back to what do religious networks have in common, that sets them apart from others?

 

[Jim]

Ok. With metaphors everything goes, I guess.

ciao

- viole

@Aupmanyav helped me realize that I need to give up using that word in public discussions, and find some better way to say what I mean.

 

[Jim]

If anyone would like to try to understand what I was actually thinking, let me know, and I’ll try to explain it better. I see that some things I’ve said have been confused and confusing.

 

[Jim]

Now I think that to answer my question, I need to answer the question, what do religious scriptures have in common, that sets them apart from other writings? One possible answer to that is that they have been cherished and preserved by religions. Now I’m wondering, how did it happen that some allegiance networks came to be called “religions” and others not? My first thought is that there might be a cultural bias in calling some networks “religions” and not others.

 

[PruePhillip]

Science has observed things popping into existence from nothing. Things can exist in two places at once. Things can move from one place to another without traversing any intervening distance. things can influence each other at great distances, faster than the speed of light. The universe does not make sense from a Newtonian viewpoint. Our minds can't comprehend it -- but science can.
?????????? -- explain.
That doesn't follow.
Why do you think creation requires a reason? Physics is physics; no purpose, no reason, no magic.

Science will consider magic or a creator as soon as evidence of one or the other is found.

Re Things popping in and out of existence.
It's interesting that you can chart the course of electrons
around an atom taking an erratic course - the electron is
"hitting" these virtual particles which appear and vanish.
But these particles are part of our universe - they are a
part of the fabric of space.

We can speak of God creating things - but these ought
to be TWO CLASSES of "things." Creationists take offense
at evolution, et, but Genesis says God commanded the
seas to bring forth life. And God brings the rain - but the
ancient Israelites were better at predicting the weather
from natural phenomena than you or me are. But the
emergence of the universe is another matter as there is
no cause and effect, no physical laws, no reason for it
happening.

 

[PruePhillip]

So cool how the religionist can always give themselves an out.

Not buying it.

Well, sorry but you HAVE TO BUY IT BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
(and is still happening.)
What you CAN say is, "I can't argue that it happened, but I can argue that
I want no part of it."

 

[PruePhillip]

Absolutely not so. You may as well say that cars run on carrot
juice and show how little you know of cars.

You shame yourself and do no credit to your "Faith"
by trying to support it with such garbage.

Actually, I suppose cars CAN run on carrot juice.
You would need a way to "split" the hydrogen and
oxygen in the juice. Unfortunately this would require
more energy that what you get back.

Again, the multiverse theory holds there is a singular
Big Bang, but instead of a single universe there were
many universes spawned. Or... these multiverses
spawned after the Big Bang.
There are no multl-Big Bangs.

 

[PruePhillip]

Argument from personal incredulity.
Reality makes no sense at all from our perspective. It's wildly bizarre and incomprehensible. The seemingly impossible happens all the time.
You're trying to fit it into a mold that makes sense to our little minds. We haven't been able to do that since 1905.

Certainly, many "impossible" things seem to happen.
When Voyager passed Saturn it found there were
"braided rings" and that seemed impossible. But
within a few hours scientists had figured out how
these could have emerged. Why? Because of the
physical laws of gravity. School kid stuff --->
force equals the gravity constant by the two
bodies over the square of the distance.

But for the creation of everything there was no
gravity, no time, no space, no physical laws and
not even numbers. Science says this nothingness
doesn't exist, but it's what the expanding universe
"pushes into"
Having this nothingness create time, rainbows
and butterflies is sheer magic - completely and
conceptually IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[Audie]

Actually, I suppose cars CAN run on carrot juice.
You would need a way to "split" the hydrogen and
oxygen in the juice. Unfortunately this would require
more energy that what you get back.

Again, the multiverse theory holds there is a singular
Big Bang, but instead of a single universe there were
many universes spawned. Or... these multiverses
spawned after the Big Bang.
There are no multl-Big Bangs.

Look, cars dont run on carrot juice.
So dont pertend they can or could.
Or run away from the purpose of
my mentioning it, with silliness.

As for big bang you are dead wrong,
you just made that up. Dont be so
tiresome or you will be posting to yourself.

 

[Audie]

Certainly, many "impossible" things seem to happen.
When Voyager passed Saturn it found there were
"braided rings" and that seemed impossible. But
within a few hours scientists had figured out how
these could have emerged. Why? Because of the
physical laws of gravity. School kid stuff --->
force equals the gravity constant by the two
bodies over the square of the distance.

But for the creation of everything there was no
gravity, no time, no space, no physical laws and
not even numbers. Science says this nothingness
doesn't exist, but it's what the expanding universe
"pushes into"
Having this nothingness create time, rainbows
and butterflies is sheer magic - completely and
conceptually IMPOSSIBLE.

You should quit making things up and pretending
you've a grasp of theoretical astrophysics. You do
not and you fool nobody.

 

[Aupmanyav]

They most all simply say the same things Jesus does, or for a few what his disciples later conveyed, or prophets speaking earlier, which Jesus knew.

That is what I was pointing at. Jesus and Mohammad did not say anything new or in later times Bahaullah too. These are simple rules of any society without which a society cannot survive. It is plain plagiarism. Only thing that they add is that I am the son of God or messenger or manifestation. Very egoistical.

 

[Valjean]

Re Things popping in and out of existence.
It's interesting that you can chart the course of electrons
around an atom taking an erratic course - the electron is
"hitting" these virtual particles which appear and vanish.
But these particles are part of our universe - they are a
part of the fabric of space.

Well sure. Particles, energy -- everything's part of our universe. I don't understand what your point is.

We can speak of God creating things - but these ought
to be TWO CLASSES of "things." Creationists take offense
at evolution, et, but Genesis says God commanded the
seas to bring forth life. And God brings the rain - but the
ancient Israelites were better at predicting the weather
from natural phenomena than you or me are. But the
emergence of the universe is another matter as there is
no cause and effect, no physical laws, no reason for it
happening.

The Bible posits a who, but not a how. It doesn't describe a mechanism.
Science has nothing to say about who. All science can do is investigate mechanism -- apples and oranges.

Weather prediction? Outdoor workers are always better aware of weather than those punching time cards, excepting meteorologists, of course.

No cause and effect? No physical laws? No reason? This remains to be seen. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean there must be a magical being behind it. There were lots of things we once attributed to magical intervention, which we now understand to be natural. Moreover, positing an intentional creator just moves the goal post. It explains nothing.

 

[PruePhillip]

That is what I was pointing at. Jesus and Mohammad did not say anything new or in later times Bahaullah too. These are simple rules of any society without which a society cannot survive. It is plain plagiarism. Only thing that they add is that I am the son of God or messenger or manifestation. Very egoistical.

I find it offensive when people put Jesus and Mohammed in the same
sense - as if they are the same people. Mohammed was a warlord and
a mass murderer.

 

[PruePhillip]

You should quit making things up and pretending
you've a grasp of theoretical astrophysics. You do
not and you fool nobody.

 

[PruePhillip]

Look, cars dont run on carrot juice.
So dont pertend they can or could.
Or run away from the purpose of
my mentioning it, with silliness.

As for big bang you are dead wrong,
you just made that up. Dont be so
tiresome or you will be posting to yourself.

Yes, cars can run on carrot juice, or, more specifically,
the water in the carrot juice. It's made of hydrogen and
oxygen - the same two ingredients which launched the
space shuttle.