Where did you get that from?

[firedragon]

Universal was a bit hyperbolic... but the concept remains the same.

I understand.

See, even with the scientific method, and with peer review and the scientific establishment, there are different interpretations. And the orthodox or the hardliners might reject other views from other scientists who dont adhere to the orthodox.

Its the same with interpretation of religious Scripture. Absolutely the same.

Some atheists even argue against religion with similar sentiments. For example, in this very forum, there many atheists who argue that the orthodox interpretation is "this", and you are "different", so you are false, I am right. That is appealing to crowd.

And when a fringe opinion in science is presented to some atheists they respond with the same argument. "That is fringe, this is orthodox, so you are wrong".

Absolutely the same.

Also you should know that just like the scientific method, there are established methods in interpretation of scripture. Its the same.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I understand.

See, even with the scientific method, and with peer review and the scientific establishment, there are different interpretations. And the orthodox or the hardliners might reject other views from other scientists who dont adhere to the orthodox.

Its the same with interpretation of religious Scripture. Absolutely the same.

Some atheists even argue against religion with similar sentiments. For example, in this very forum, there many atheists who argue that the orthodox interpretation is "this", and you are "different", so you are false, I am right. That is appealing to crowd.

And when a fringe opinion in science is presented to some atheists they respond with the same argument. "That is fringe, this is orthodox, so you are wrong".

Absolutely the same.

Also you should know that just like the scientific method, there are established methods in interpretation of scripture. Its the same.

It's not even CLOSE to the same. There aren't hundreds of different scientific methods... there's one. When it comes to germ theory there are NOT thousands of different scientific sects all arguing about how to interpret the theory. I was wrong to say there was UNIVERSAL consensus in science because there are ALWAYS fringe opinions, but when it comes to established theories it is VIRTUALLY universal. And when an established theory is challenged with new evidence there may be those in the establishment who fight against it, but with the good old scientific method if the new evidence is valid, the new theory will eventually become ALMOST universally accepted. Nothing like that can be said about religion.

As for religions having a 'method' for interpreting scriptures, each religion has their OWN method for interpreting their OWN scriptures. Science has a single method EVERYONE uses and use it to investigate the SAME evidence. That's why scientific findings are ALMOST universal. With every religion using a DIFFERENT method and investigating DIFFERENT evidence they NEVER come close to reaching anything like a universal consensus. If I'm wrong please do tell me what this 'religious method' is that can be used on any religion's scripture and 98% of all religious people will agree with the conclusions. If you can't then this religious method is nothing at all like the scientific method. There may be minor similarities, but to claim they're absolutely the same is ridiculous.

 

[firedragon]

It's not even CLOSE to the same. There aren't hundreds of different scientific methods

Haha. I think you completely missed the whole point of the post.

That happens.

 

[firedragon]

As for religions having a 'method' for interpreting scriptures, each religion has their OWN method for interpreting their OWN scriptures.

What are these methods? Please give me a list of methods for me to just learn about it.

Thanks

 

[Tiberius]

This is a question i got in a religious discussion, and it made me think.

How do scientists get much of their know knowledge before they are finished at University?

Do they not get examples and material from other scientists who studied the field before them?
Or do each scientist suddenly have their understanding of all the scientific material they need to understand what they see in front of them?

Why is it different when a spiritual person say.

It is written in the scriptures or through my teacher i have gained this understanding.

How is it different than any scientist learing his/her field?

What is learned in a science class can be tested and repeated by anyone, and they will get the same result (to within a specified margin of error).

This does not happen with religion.

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is a question i got in a religious discussion, and it made me think.

How do scientists get much of their know knowledge before they are finished at University?

Do they not get examples and material from other scientists who studied the field before them?
Or do each scientist suddenly have their understanding of all the scientific material they need to understand what they see in front of them?

Why is it different when a spiritual person say.

It is written in the scriptures or through my teacher i have gained this understanding.

How is it different than any scientist learing his/her field?

I think a true scientist or a true religionist both independently investigate truth using their own mind, eyes and ears. To blindly follow others, what happens to us if they are wrong? We both fall into the ditch.

To accept anything blindly whether religious or scientific can bring great harm upon us.
If a science or belief is of benefit to humanity then it is true religion or true science.

But things like terrorism and the atom bomb are science and religion gone astray.