Where is the Truth really written?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The Word of God
Lyrics and melody © 1994 by Catherine Faber

From desert cliff and mountaintop we trace the wide design,
Strike-slip fault and overthrust and syn and anticline. . .
We gaze upon creation where erosion makes it known,
And count the countless aeons in the banding of the stone.
Odd, long-vanished creatures and their tracks & shells are found;
Where truth has left its sketches on the slate below the ground.
The patient stone can speak, if we but listen when it talks.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks.

There are those who name the stars, who watch the sky by night,
Seeking out the darkest place, to better see the light.
Long ago, when torture broke the remnant of his will,
Galileo recanted, but the Earth is moving still.
High above the mountaintops, where only distance bars,
The truth has left its footprints in the dust between the stars.
We may watch and study or may shudder and deny,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the sky.

By stem and root and branch we trace, by feather, fang and fur,
How the living things that are descend from things that were.
The moss, the kelp, the zebrafish, the very mice and flies,
These tiny, humble, wordless things---how shall they tell us lies?
We are kin to beasts; no other answer can we bring.
The truth has left its fingerprints on every living thing.
Remember, should you have to choose between them in the strife,
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote life.

And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade,
Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made,
Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand.
The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed,
The truth has left its living word for anyone to read.
So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled.
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The foregoing is something I've known and liked for quite some time, and no doubt others here know of it too.

But it seems to me it's something we need to think about from time to time. Where do you really go when you seek the truth about what really is? To words, written long ago, by humans of limited doubtless good and earnest will but limited knowledge -- or the "book" wherein everything really is written?

Many like to claim that the Bible contains what they really need to know, and almost everybody claims that their human-written scriptures are not to be changed by anyone, ever.

Yet science, which reads the reality of creation, in situ, as it were, openly admits that it will always be tentative, always open to revising itself when some new word or phrase of that book that is the world is discovered.

Which would you trust more?

 

[Brickjectivity]

The foregoing is something I've known and liked for quite some time, and no doubt others here know of it too.

But it seems to me it's something we need to think about from time to time. Where do you really go when you seek the truth about what really is? To words, written long ago, by humans of limited doubtless good and earnest will but limited knowledge -- or the "book" wherein everything really is written?

Many like to claim that the Bible contains what they really need to know, and almost everybody claims that their human-written scriptures are not to be changed by anyone, ever.

Yet science, which reads the reality of creation, in situ, as it were, openly admits that it will always be tentative, always open to revising itself when some new word or phrase of that book that is the world is discovered.

Which would you trust more?

Not everybody has a scientific education, and most people also go through most of their lives without having to choose sides on religion. I think most people go with the flow and don't press. For example a lot of people don't care if they don't understand which science claims are true and think of it as something that will all work itself out. I think most people don't have the training to view science in the way that I do.

Humans have the ability to shrug off questions. We can just ignore them. A lot of times that's half the battle in solving problems, so we have to do it a lot. For some of us the more we do it, the happier we are.

I have some scientific education combined with some history education, so I know what is science and not. I can spot really bad science in magazine headlines and films. I also have seen some of the research process just from being a student in a research university, so I have some sense of how the researchers discuss and compete, are funded, what they believe etc. I have an advantage which most people do not. Most people don't know anything about this first hand.

When the cold fusion frenzy came, I was skeptical and knew to wait and not start banging drums, but I had an advantage. I'm also an amateur programmer, so when the Y2K bug was trumpeted in the news I was skeptical. I didn't panic, but I had an advantage. When Dolly the sheep was cloned, I knew it was not impossible to be true, but I had an advantage. In all three situations a lot of people had to simply shrug. They didn't have my advantage.

 

[exchemist]

Not everybody has a scientific education, and most people also go through most of their lives without having to choose sides on religion. I think most people go with the flow and don't press. For example a lot of people don't care if they don't understand which science claims are true and think of it as something that will all work itself out. I think most people don't have the training to view science in the way that I do.

Humans have the ability to shrug off questions. We can just ignore them. A lot of times that's half the battle in solving problems, so we have to do it a lot. For some of us the more we do it, the happier we are.

I have some scientific education combined with some history education, so I know what is science and not. I can spot really bad science in magazine headlines and films. I also have seen some of the research process just from being a student in a research university, so I have some sense of how the researchers discuss and compete, are funded, what they believe etc. I have an advantage which most people do not. Most people don't know anything about this first hand.

When the cold fusion frenzy came, I was skeptical and knew to wait and not start banging drums, but I had an advantage. I'm also an amateur programmer, so when the Y2K bug was trumpeted in the news I was skeptical. I didn't panic, but I had an advantage. When Dolly the sheep was cloned, I knew it was not impossible to be true, but I had an advantage. In all three situations a lot of people had to simply shrug. They didn't have my advantage.

Spot-on. Most people don't worry about all this stuff. Religion is primarily a guide to living one's life, rather than an exercise in metaphysics, and that is what matters to them.

 

[exchemist]

The foregoing is something I've known and liked for quite some time, and no doubt others here know of it too.

But it seems to me it's something we need to think about from time to time. Where do you really go when you seek the truth about what really is? To words, written long ago, by humans of limited doubtless good and earnest will but limited knowledge -- or the "book" wherein everything really is written?

Many like to claim that the Bible contains what they really need to know, and almost everybody claims that their human-written scriptures are not to be changed by anyone, ever.

Yet science, which reads the reality of creation, in situ, as it were, openly admits that it will always be tentative, always open to revising itself when some new word or phrase of that book that is the world is discovered.

Which would you trust more?

Trust in what respect?

Since religion and science address different questions, I don't really see that a preference for one over the other arises.

As for "truth", I'll go with Pontius Pilate.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not everybody has a scientific education, and most people also go through most of their lives without having to choose sides on religion. I think most people go with the flow and don't press. For example a lot of people don't care if they don't understand which science claims are true and think of it as something that will all work itself out. I think most people don't have the training to view science in the way that I do.

Humans have the ability to shrug off questions. We can just ignore them. A lot of times that's half the battle in solving problems, so we have to do it a lot. For some of us the more we do it, the happier we are.

I have some scientific education combined with some history education, so I know what is science and not. I can spot really bad science in magazine headlines and films. I also have seen some of the research process just from being a student in a research university, so I have some sense of how the researchers discuss and compete, are funded, what they believe etc. I have an advantage which most people do not. Most people don't know anything about this first hand.

When the cold fusion frenzy came, I was skeptical and knew to wait and not start banging drums, but I had an advantage. I'm also an amateur programmer, so when the Y2K bug was trumpeted in the news I was skeptical. I didn't panic, but I had an advantage. When Dolly the sheep was cloned, I knew it was not impossible to be true, but I had an advantage. In all three situations a lot of people had to simply shrug. They didn't have my advantage.

But many don't just "shrug it off, " do they? I mean, how much effort is still being expended on trashing evolution and getting "Intelligent Design" taught in schools?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Spot-on. Most people don't worry about all this stuff. Religion is primarily a guide to living one's life, rather than an exercise in metaphysics, and that is what matters to them.

So in your opinion religion isn't used as a guide to pushing others on how THEY ought to live THEIR lives?

 

[Brickjectivity]

But many don't just "shrug it off, " do they? I mean, how much effort is still being expended on trashing evolution and getting "Intelligent Design" taught in schools?

Too much!

By-the-way when the news headlines claimed that a particle accelerator might create a black hole on Earth, I was not entirely sure what to think. Particle Physics was not something I knew much about. I knew it was probably just entertainment paraded as news, making noise; but I didn't actually know whether a particle accelerator could start a black hole on Earth. I couldn't answer that question. It was a strange moment for me.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I dont think any religion og any science can claim to hold the absolutt truth, part of it yes, but no spiritual teacher or scientist has seen the absolutt pure truth because there is so man layers to realize. But in religious practice/spiritual practice one can gain the truth similar to our teacher.
In science they can find truth. But it will take a very very long time.

 

[exchemist]

So in your opinion religion isn't used as a guide to pushing others on how THEY ought to live THEIR lives?

Eh? Your question was whether we trust science more than religion, as if they compete to offer comparable alternative versions of "truth". And I'm saying I don't believe they try to do that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Too much!

By-the-way when the news headlines claimed that a particle accelerator might create a black hole on Earth, I was not entirely sure what to think. Particle Physics was not something I knew much about. I knew it was probably just entertainment paraded as news, making noise; but I didn't actually know whether a particle accelerator could start a black hole on Earth. I couldn't answer that question. It was a strange moment for me.

Well, the vast majority of us are exactly the same position you are. I read the denials of any possible danger from all the scientists commissioned to review the matter, but I don't have the necessary level of understanding to make a lot of sense out of it.

However, I also can't help but note that the "Standard Model" of Quantum Mechanics is pretty much the most thoroughly tested and documented models in science, and thus I have a tendency to lean towards trusting. Just a tendency, mind you. Can't make all the worry completely go away.

 

[Sunstone]

Which would you trust more?

The question, "Where is the truth written?", and its related questions in this thread, confuse me.

Science deals mainly in facts, while religion's relevance to most people seems to lie chiefly in its values. Facts vs. values.

Typically, philosophers draw a sharp distinction between fact and value, along with closely related distinctions, that have the effect of making comparisons between facts and values like comparing saddles and banjos, moon rockets and divas, apples and oranges.

Those distinctions are almost 300 years old. They have withstood a lot of trials, a lot of challenges to them. They have been seriously tested more often than the Theory of Evolution, one of the most well-established theories in science. They are still standing after nearly three centuries of debate.

I don't think any of us are going to overturn them in this thread.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Typically, philosophers draw a sharp distinction between fact and value, along with closely related distinctions, that have the effect of making comparisons between facts and values like comparing saddles and banjos, moon rockets and divas, apples and oranges.

Those distinctions are almost 300 years old. They have withstood a lot of trials, a lot of challenges to them. They have been seriously tested more often than the Theory of Evolution, one of the most well-established theories in science. They are still standing after nearly three centuries of debate.

I don't think any of us are going to overturn them in this thread.

Or how about comparing "my values" to "your values," which I mean in the missionary sense. How many cultures have been eradicated by those who think that their culture, their beliefs and their values are more important, or better, or more correct than someone else's?

This group has a mythology and scripture, that group has a mythology and scripture, and they're not all alike. Where does one go to find means of comparison, so that one can be sure that one is not taking away something of real value, and replacing it with something of less value?

This becomes even more important, in my view, when we are talking about individual people -- for example homosexuals. I would like you to remember that for 80% of my life, just loving the people that I have was ILLEGAL, punishable by law. In many places around the world, it is still punishable by death! And to a very large extent, this is the result of religion.

OKAY! That last sentence is bait for sure. I accept, you see that religion is the result of mankind's search for answers to the unanswerable, the perplexing problems of what it's all about, who are we, where are we going, how should we live. Philosophy is about that, too.

But there are two very real problems that I see, where religion itself is concerned: first, while philosophy is open to change based on new information, religion largely is not. Religion all too often posits what it deems to be "eternal truths." Catholicism is still having a really hard time with this: they want to be nicer to gays, but "eternal truth" says that because they are "objectively disordered" they'll just have to be celibate.Too bad you want love, but unless you can "do it" correctly, you're not eligible.

And second, that we human beings -- whether we like to admit it or not -- are a part of the natural world, and depend upon it utterly. And that means, again like it or not, that we are in many ways also subject matter for the study of science. Science is, and I maintain this totally, the best means of understanding the "natural world" (not the "spiritual world," if such a thing even exists). And thus, when the study of us shows that our values are in contradiction to the natural world, then it is our values that have to change.

Maybe it's on this last point that I have such a hard time in discussion with people of religion -- that I accept that first and foremost, human beings are animals, and part of and interdependent with the natural world. While those who were told by God to "subdue it," and that the most important thing about them is an "immortal soul" nobody can ever demonstrate, can't get that.

 

[dad]

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.

God wrote the bible through humans and changed the world a lot since it was made, and will change it again actually. To think that one could know God by the current world and nature better than by His eternal word is unbelief.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God wrote the bible through humans and changed the world a lot since it was made, and will change it again actually. To think that one could know God by the current world and nature better than by His eternal word is unbelief.

Out of curiosity, who wrote all the other religious texts this world has ever seen? Here's just a short list:

Baha'i (The Seven Valleys and The Four Valleys)
Buddhism (Tipitaka)
Hinduism (The Vedas and The Upanishads)
Islam (The Quran and The Hadiths)
Jainism (The Agamas)
Judaism (The Tanakh and The Talmud)
Shintoism (Kojiki)
Sikhism (Guru Granth Sahib)
Taoism (Dao De Jing)
Wicca (The Book of Shadows)
Zoroastrianism (The Avesta)

Please note: I've left out thousands (ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, African, Tibetan) of scriptures from history. But the question remains: were they all written by God through humans, or only some of them? And how do you, a human, tell the difference?

 

[dad]

Out of curiosity, who wrote all the other religious texts this world has ever seen? Here's just a short list:

Baha'i (The Seven Valleys and The Four Valleys)
Buddhism (Tipitaka)
Hinduism (The Vedas and The Upanishads)
Islam (The Quran and The Hadiths)
Jainism (The Agamas)
Judaism (The Tanakh and The Talmud)
Shintoism (Kojiki)
Sikhism (Guru Granth Sahib)
Taoism (Dao De Jing)
Wicca (The Book of Shadows)
Zoroastrianism (The Avesta)

Simple...not God.

Please note: I've left out thousands (ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, African, Tibetan) of scriptures from history. But the question remains: were they all written by God through humans, or only some of them? And how do you, a human, tell the difference?

Only one.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

To think that one could know God by the current world and nature better than by His eternal word is unbelief.

I look out my window, high above Toronto, and see for a long way. I see lake, sky, forests, people, buildings, birds, clouds. I see smoke rising from giant stacks. And using my knowledge, looking underneath those things, I see much, much more besides. And I know -- if there really is a "god," then there it is. And to say that there is some unchangeable "eternal word" that could surpass that knowledge I believe to be a silly, childish notion.

To tell me that I should look to that "eternal word" that tells me to cure snake bite with idols, and to kill my neighbours and their children in order to take their land away from them, and that David's misdeed results in a week-long painful death for his BABY, without so much as being given a name, is to tell me what I should really think about this "god," and I say unto you -- it ain't much.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Simple...not God.

Only one.

You didn't answer my most important question: How do you know?

 

[dad]

I look out my window, high above Toronto, and see for a long way. I see lake, sky, forests, people, buildings, birds, clouds. I see smoke rising from giant stacks. And using my knowledge, looking underneath those things, I see much, much more besides. And I know -- if there really is a "god," then there it is. And to say that there is some unchangeable "eternal word" that could surpass that knowledge I believe to be a silly, childish notion.

Long after Toronto is rubble and grown over, Scripture will still be here.

To tell me that I should look to that "eternal word" that tells me to cure snake bite with idols, and to kill my neighbours and their children in order to take their land away from them, and that David's misdeed results in a week-long painful death for his BABY, without so much as being given a name, is to tell me what I should really think about this "god," and I say unto you -- it ain't much.

Ah, a gripe list against God. That explains the outlook.

 

[dad]

You didn't answer my most important question: How do you know?

I know the Author.