Science v. Religion

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE]

@Bryan Ekers

I think this stems from varying definitions of the word “meaning”

.
I agree

I see no indication Jesus had scientific inquiry in mind when he made that statement.

Me neither. You asked me to give you a Bible passage that was subject to refinement. I chose this one becuase I think the search for and commitment to the truth is something science and religion have in common. i.e. How our world really is. I recognize that it is not subject to refinement by a scientific standard.

It so happens that freedom of thought is useful (if not essential) for scientific inquiry, but that idea predates Jesus by a considerable margin, and numerous acts taken by the religion formed in Jesus’s name have stifled (and in some radical sects, still seek to stifle) free scientific inquiry.

Great. I agree. I am a big fan of Socrates and Buddha as well as Jesus.

It is sad but true that religions have used the image of spiritual leaders to justify horrible crimes. I don’t think that invalidates their teaching any more than the misuse of scientific discoveries invalidates science.

Well, “science” consists of more than just pharmacology.

Much like religion consists of more than Christianity

Psychology can also have the effect of treating anger, anxiety and depression. I don’t understand the point of the comparison.

Yeah…I’m still working on it.

Well, you’re wrong. I actually think and believe that suggesting scientific journals shouldn’t be trusted suggests that scientists are attempting to trick the public, and that strikes me as improbable.

I believe that you believe that. The problem is I NEVER suggested any such thing. It was your assumption of that suggestion that I find disingenuous.

I suppose I could entertain even more improbable ideas like alien intervention, but why should I? Can you suggest a viable alternative instead?

Since I made no such suggestion. I’ll leave this alone.

I’ll admit, though, that Socratic irony and disingenuousness are closer than I’d considered. If I may suggest a difference relevant to Great Debates, one uses Socratic irony as a means to draw out an opponents belief’s and expose the contraditions and lack of foundation within, while disingeniuty is stubbornly pretending to not understand an opponent’s point because doing so would compromise one’s own position.

Thanks. In rethinking my previous post I realized that I have an opportunity to learn something about constructing an arguement . I’m not familar with Socratic irony. I’ll look it up.

I’ve asked you to clarify your beliefs concerning the bible (i.e. which passages have been modified in the precess of spritual progress). As for skepticism not being necessary, have you found a flaw in my “person trapped on an island” thought experiment?

You assumed I believed certain things about the Bible and preceeded to argue from that point. I found your assumption to be illogocal based on the statement.It would save us both time and posts if you asked for clarification with a direct question instead of assuming something that was incorrect, which has been a reoccuring event. You seem to have assumed that my position was that skepticism was nessecary. As I already stated, that wasn’t my point. Are these assumptions part of Socratic irony?

People spend a lifetime trying to understand exactly what Jesus meant and how that relates to their lives. Passages such as the two I mentioned are being refined within the individuals who seek to understand them fully. As I said. I recognize this is not refinement in the scientific sense. I think it is the same in principle.

Emphasis added. Are hindered, not “sometimes hindered” or “often hindered” or “occasionally hindered”, but are hindered. When I said this was completely wrong, I believed it. After that, tomndebb pointed out the destructive competition that can occur in an academic setting. Having never worked in such a setting myself, this potential ego-driven hinderance to science had not occured to me. The way I see it now is that you were massively (not completely) wrong, but won’t admit it, while I was slightly wrong, and have.

Not to nit pick but could you explain your thinking here. I am curious. Since “are” was unqualified with either “occasionaly” or “often” it seems to me it was true in and of itself but perhaps not specific enough. If you then qualified it by saying religion is hindered more often than science I would agree. I was only saying that both areas are affected by those particular traits of humanity.
Here again I think your assumption of what I meant made clarification require several extra posts.

With this in mind, I’d prefer that you stop trying to equate spirituality and science, in the interest of accuracy. Science (by definition) can only measure things that can be measured in scientific terms.

Given the title of this thread it seems appropriate to make comparisions. Since my position is that science and religion are both the seaerch for truth I’ll have a hard time avoiding it. What alternatives do you suggest?

I’m not making you do anything. I acknowledge that “completely” was overstating my objection, but my objection still stands.

You are correct. That word was a poor choice. As for your objection, do you maintain that science is never hindered by Ego, money, or desires?
You statement about those same things being motivation to advance science is accurate. That doesn’t make my statement massively wrong. It is possible for both to be true.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Il gladly invite the opinions of third parties as to whether or not any of my assumptions have been without merit.

Getting back to specifics, can I get an example of “spiritual progress”? As I udnerstand it, and your interpretation may vary from mine, “progress” indicates an ability to accomplish or understand something that was earlier impossible or unclear. What, if any, spiritual tasks have progressed? If spiritual healing has progressed, is it now able to heal more people of a greater range of ailments? If so, should its effects not be apparant and unmistakable?

If 2000 years ago, a mustard seed’s worth of faith was sufficient to move a mountain, wouldn’t a mark of “progress” be the widespread use of similar or greater acts of faith?

Put simply, is there anything a 21st-century devout person can accomplish through faith that a similarly devout person who lived in 2000 BCE could not? Is an understanding of Jesus held by the 21st-century person more “progressive” in any tangible way than the understanding of Marduk held by his ancient ancestor?

As a minor aside, this statement:

As for your objection, do you maintain that science is never hindered by Ego, money, or desires?

…is trying to force a false dichotomy.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]

Getting back to specifics, can I get an example of “spiritual progress”? As I udnerstand it, and your interpretation may vary from mine, “progress” indicates an ability to accomplish or understand something that was earlier impossible or unclear.

I accept this definition.

What, if any, spiritual tasks have progressed? If spiritual healing has progressed, is it now able to heal more people of a greater range of ailments? If so, should its effects not be apparant and unmistakable?

If 2000 years ago, a mustard seed’s worth of faith was sufficient to move a mountain, wouldn’t a mark of “progress” be the widespread use of similar or greater acts of faith?

These physical manifestations are an occurance within faith but not the goal. The goal is, generaly speaking , personnel growth through an understanding of how our world really is.
I’ve already stated that spiritual progress cannot be measured within scientific standards of measurement , but I’ll point out an example I think is valid.
Terrorist are useing some twisted view of their religion as an excuse to kill people.In the US the religous right are useing a couple of verses in the bible to support their bigotry against homosexuals, womens right to choose, and to push their beliefs onto others with the help of a “saved” president. Others on the spiritual path in both parts of the world have stepped up to say “THIS IS NOT MY RELIGION” . This forces an examination of belief and motive on both sides and aides in spiritual growth as well as the cause of peace and understanding among cultures. Compared to the Crusades and the Inquisition I see this as progress.

As a minor aside, this statement:
…is trying to force a false dichotomy.

I was trying to understand your thinking about me being massively wrong when I stated “The search for truth, scientific and spiritual are both hindered by pesky human traits like ego, money, subconscious desires, and stuff like that.”
I am completely wrong in that money is not a human trait but thats not the point is it?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@cosmosdan

These physical manifestations are an occurance within faith but not the goal. The goal is, generaly speaking , personnel growth through an understanding of how our world really is.

Are they occurances within the faith, though? Considering how many millions of “faithful” people live within a country to size of, say, the United States, I’d expect somebody to have moved a mountain, or similar feat, by now.

As a minor observation, how the world really is, is surely something that can be scientifically measured. I can see how faith can help one deal with how the world is run by humans.

I’ve already stated that spiritual progress cannot be measured within scientific standards of measurement , but I’ll point out an example I think is valid.
Terrorist are useing some twisted view of their religion as an excuse to kill people.In the US the religous right are useing a couple of verses in the bible to support their bigotry against homosexuals, womens right to choose, and to push their beliefs onto others with the help of a “saved” president. Others on the spiritual path in both parts of the world have stepped up to say “THIS IS NOT MY RELIGION” . This forces an examination of belief and motive on both sides and aides in spiritual growth as well as the cause of peace and understanding among cultures. Compared to the Crusades and the Inquisition I see this as progress.

Actually, I think that describes social progress more than spiritual progress. In the negative cases you describe (terrorists, bigotry, the pushing of beliefs), the resistance comes from not feeling the need for these beliefs. No useful (or scientifically measurable, if you prefer) purpose is served by crashing airplanes, denying gay marriage, forcing women to stay pregnant, etc. The actions of the terrorists aren’t even about religion; they’re about power and who will control certain societies in the Muslim world. Similarly (but far far far less violently, of course), the actions of some right-wing Americans are about the restoration (or stopping the perceived erosion) of their power. In both cases, religion offers a thin justification. The resitance comes from no longer accepting this justification, and this resistance is not solely a product of people saying “THIS IS NOT MY RELIGION”, in the sense that their religion has been perverted. The position is also held by people who feel religion itself is being misused.

It may be useful to have an “examination of belief” in these cases; perhaps finding and revealing passages in the Qu’ran that contradict the position of a violent radical Muslim in an attempt to make him change, but I doubt this works. The terrorist loves having life-and-death power over others, and is unlikely to allow himself to be argued out of it. Similarly, one can find passages in the New Testament preaching tolerance, and try to read them to a hard-cord religious-right American. It may help, but more likely the counter-evidence will be ignored or rationalized away because the American in the example feels he has a cause for righteous indignation and a moral imperative to control the lives of others for their own good and these are difficult things to give up.

The best form of progress that can result from this is that the radical beliefs die with the people who hold them and their children, raised in a more tolerant time, recognize the pointlessness of radical belief and shed them. The best end result I can see would be a society where spiritual beliefs either ceased to exist, or were kept firmly away from civil law and the operation of government.

I was trying to understand your thinking about me being massively wrong when I stated “The search for truth, scientific and spiritual are both hindered by pesky human traits like ego, money, subconscious desires, and stuff like that.”

My thinking was that the exact opposite of your statement was true where scientific inquiry was concerned. Ego, money and desires are major incentives and not hinderances. Later on, when tomndebb described destructive competition in some academic circles, I acknowledged my error and made a corrected statement. Rather than being completely wrong, your statement was massively (i.e. greatly but not entirely) wrong, and could be right in some limited circumstances.

The attempted false dichotomy (suggesting an opponent’s disagreement with one extreme indicates support for the opposite extreme, and if not, the opponent is indecisive) comes from this question of yours:

As for your objection, do you maintain that science is never hindered by Ego, money, or desires?

Never? Obviously not, since I made my earlier self-correction.

[Lilairen]

@Bryan Ekers

It may be useful to have an “examination of belief” in these cases; perhaps finding and revealing passages in the Qu’ran that contradict the position of a violent radical Muslim in an attempt to make him change, but I doubt this works. The terrorist loves having life-and-death power over others, and is unlikely to allow himself to be argued out of it.

Actually, this is being used as a counter-terrorist technique in Yemen, and it’s apparently working. I consider it a small gem of a victory in the war against ignorance: removing ignorance worked.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Lilairen

Actually, this is being used as a counter-terrorist technique in Yemen, and it’s apparently working. I consider it a small gem of a victory in the war against ignorance: removing ignorance worked.

That a very interesting link, and thank you, though I wouldn’t call it spiritual progress simply becuase the pasages promoting peace have always been in the Qu’ran. It’s not like they were recently added or discovered, and the message of “don’t kill people” doesn’t strike me as being progressive so much as obvious.

The article also mentions closing down extremist Islamic schools, and I’ll bet taking steps to prevent the hatred from being formed is ultimately more effective than trying to argue someone out of it later.

[Lilairen]

@Bryan Ekers

That a very interesting link, and thank you, though I wouldn’t call it spiritual progress simply becuase the pasages promoting peace have always been in the Qu’ran. It’s not like they were recently added or discovered, and the message of “don’t kill people” doesn’t strike me as being progressive so much as obvious.

The article also mentions closing down extremist Islamic schools, and I’ll bet taking steps to prevent the hatred from being formed is ultimately more effective than trying to argue someone out of it later.

I think the other critical bit is that they’re giving the people they “convert” some vocational training so they have skills that they can get jobs with – I get the impression that a lot of the kids who get sucked up by terrorist organisations don’t have much in the way of saleable skills, which limits their options.

I do think that the typical Muslim terrorist foot-troop type truly does wish to follow the things put forth in the Qur’an, which is why those passages that have always been there are effective for getting them to give up terrorism. (I don’t believe the same of the leaders of those organisations, who are more likely to be literate in the Arabic of the Qur’an for one thing.)

[cosmosdan]

@Bryan Ekers

Are they occurances within the faith, though? Considering how many millions of “faithful” people live within a country to size of, say, the United States, I’d expect somebody to have moved a mountain, or similar feat, by now.

To expect that you’d have to have some way of gauging how much faith " the size of a mustard seed’ is There is no such way. It’s like trying to figure out what percentage of all knowable things we now know. There’s no way to do it.
You are also asking for such a feat to be done in way that can ve verified by science. There are lots of claims of miraculous healings. There’s no way to measure whether these healings are the product of faith.

As a minor observation, how the world really is, is surely something that can be scientifically measured. I can see how faith can help one deal with how the world is run by humans.

Not so surely. There are lots of things we can measure now that were previously unknown and/or unmeaureable. They were always a part of how the world really is.

Actually, I think that describes social progress more than spiritual progress.

Considering how many millions of “faithful” people live within a country the size of the United States, it makes sense that spiritual progress and social progress would effect each other.

The actions of the terrorists aren’t even about religion; they’re about power and who will control certain societies in the Muslim world. Similarly (but far far far less violently, of course), the actions of some right-wing Americans are about the restoration (or stopping the perceived erosion) of their power. In both cases, religion offers a thin justification. The resitance comes from no longer accepting this justification, and this resistance is not solely a product of people saying “THIS IS NOT MY RELIGION”, in the sense that their religion has been perverted. The position is also held by people who feel religion itself is being misused.

I agree with Lilairen that in the case of the leaders it may well be about power money and control, for Christians and Muslims alike. For the rank and file members I think they hold a deep conviction that their beliefs are the will of God. What their subconscious motives might be I can’t say.
No doubt there are non believers in the mix. The subject was specificly progress within the faithful.

It may be useful to have an “examination of belief” in these cases; perhaps finding and revealing passages in the Qu’ran that contradict the position of a violent radical Muslim in an attempt to make him change, but I doubt this works.

Interesting link huh? Thanks Lilairen.

The terrorist loves having life-and-death power over others, and is unlikely to allow himself to be argued out of it. Similarly, one can find passages in the New Testament preaching tolerance, and try to read them to a hard-cord religious-right American. It may help, but more likely the counter-evidence will be ignored or rationalized away because the American in the example feels he has a cause for righteous indignation and a moral imperative to control the lives of others for their own good and these are difficult things to give up.

If you look at the history of the Christian church you can see progress. There was a time when people were killed or imprisoned for owning a bible. Look at the other events I mentioned. Religous zealots killing non believers for decades.
I acknowledge that other factors are an influence but what we’re talking about is believers challenging other believers and causeing a change in belief. Thats progress.

The best form of progress that can result from this is that the radical beliefs die with the people who hold them and their children, raised in a more tolerant time, recognize the pointlessness of radical belief and shed them. The best end result I can see would be a society where spiritual beliefs either ceased to exist, or were kept firmly away from civil law and the operation of government.

Thats your opinion. If God is {no proof either way}then the cessation of spiritual beliefs would hardly be progress. I do support the seperation of church and state.

Rather than being completely wrong, your statement was massively (i.e. greatly but not entirely) wrong, and could be right in some limited circumstances.
The attempted false dichotomy (suggesting an opponent’s disagreement with one extreme indicates support for the opposite extreme, and if not, the opponent is indecisive) comes from this question of yours:

My question was illogical given your previous statement. I was trying to understand your comments concerning my use of the word are. To me if these two statements are true.

“Science is ocassionaly hinderd by ego etc.” and
“The spiritual quest is often hindered by ego etc.” then the statement

'The search for truth, scientific and spiritual are both hindered by pesky human traits like ego, money, subconscious desires, and stuff like that."is also true. My statement didn’t imply they were hindered equally or in the same way. I’m not suggesting you said or believe those two statements. It’s just an example. I’m just trying to understand where I was massively wrong.

[Scott_Plaid]

@cosmosdan

To expect that you’d have to have some way of gauging how much faith " the size of a mustard seed’ is There is no such way. It’s like trying to figure out what percentage of all knowable things we now know. There’s no way to do it.

I believe that Bryan was semi-referring to my posts with that. Allow me to respond. It may be impossible to test for faith normally, but in my example, the poor kid would be nothing but faith. Thus, he would have fulfilled the requirement of “a mustard seed”, due to my horrible overkill. As to miraculous healing being impossible to prove by scientific means, I don’t see why.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@cosmosdan

To expect that you’d have to have some way of gauging how much faith " the size of a mustard seed’ is There is no such way. It’s like trying to figure out what percentage of all knowable things we now know. There’s no way to do it.

Then why did you quote the passage in the first place, if the meaning is that cryptic? Why introduce evidence that you yourself don’t fully understand?

You are also asking for such a feat to be done in way that can ve verified by science. There are lots of claims of miraculous healings. There’s no way to measure whether these healings are the product of faith.

Well, if a clinic of spiritual healers was set up and various strictly-controlled studies were done, I daresay some evidence could be found, or at least strong indications.

Not so surely. There are lots of things we can measure now that were previously unknown and/or unmeaureable. They were always a part of how the world really is.

The distinction I’m trying to make, though, is that if the goal is to gain “an understanding of how our world really is”, the scientific approach and empirical evidence are the best tools. If one wants to learn how to form, influence, undermine and manipulate human societies, the less objective “spiritual” approach (or even a study of basic psychology or marketing) is a better tool.

Considering how many millions of “faithful” people live within a country the size of the United States, it makes sense that spiritual progress and social progress would effect each other.

You’re begging the question; assuming spiritual progress before its existence has been demonstrated.

I agree with Lilairen that in the case of the leaders it may well be about power money and control, for Christians and Muslims alike. For the rank and file members I think they hold a deep conviction that their beliefs are the will of God. What their subconscious motives might be I can’t say.

I don’t even have to delve into the subconscious to make a few semi-educated guesses. There are a number of mundane reasons a person could turn into a terorrist/murderer. One of the most powerful is the approval of authority, as in the famous Mirgram experiment. If a leader repeatedly says that murder is justified, even positive, it isn’t surprising that a follower will act on that lesson becuase the approval removes or mitigates the follower’s personal responsibility.

No doubt there are non believers in the mix. The subject was specificly progress within the faithful.

Well, specifically, can you define what “progress within the faithful” actually means? Do, for example, modern Christians have a better understanding or closer relationship with God than their premedeival counterparts? The progress you have described is the discarding of prejudices and practices that are no longer necessary. How is this spiritual progress? If anything, it represents an abandonment of what was considered spiritually significant in times past.

If you look at the history of the Christian church you can see progress. There was a time when people were killed or imprisoned for owning a bible. Look at the other events I mentioned. Religous zealots killing non believers for decades.

Zealots have been killing nonbelievers for centuries, but it’s only in relatively recent years that “zealot” has been expanded to cover anyone who acts violently or excessively in the name of some cause (were the Crusaders considered zealots in their time?) As for preople being killed for owning a bible, I’m not familiar with this practice. If it happened, isn’t it just a display of the Church enforcing its power rather than a spiritual practice we have now progressed beyond?

Isn’t it more likely that the advent of democratic governments, personal literacy, increased productivity and a general easing of the struggle for survival has made going to war (for any reason) simply less desirable? Riding off to free the Holy Land from the infidels (and gather lots of loot in the progress) now seems pointless when the loot can be gathered through the relatively painless use of legal trade.

(yeah yeah yeah, Iraq war notwithstanding. Different discussion.)

To me if these two statements are true.

“Science is ocassionaly hinderd by ego etc.” and
“The spiritual quest is often hindered by ego etc.” then the statement

'The search for truth, scientific and spiritual are both hindered by pesky human traits like ego, money, subconscious desires, and stuff like that."is also true.

The first two statements contain qualifiers (“occasionally” and “often”) while the third does not.

I’m just trying to understand where I was massively wrong.

The factors you describe as hinderances to science are, massively more often, incentives to it. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one, as we’re into the third repetition.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE]

@Bryan Ekers

Then why did you quote the passage in the first place, if the meaning is that cryptic? Why introduce evidence that you yourself don’t fully understand?

I quoted it in answer to a question from you, many posts ago. It was not one I posted when you asked for passages subject to refinement. Why would anyone introduce evidence that they don’t fully understand? It’s one step along the path to understanding.

Well, if a clinic of spiritual healers was set up and various strictly-controlled studies were done, I daresay some evidence could be found, or at least strong indications.

I think we’ve already dealt with this, or was that another thread?
Help me clarify what refinement is. In science you said that there was no final authority. I take that to mean that science accepts that there is much more to know and understand and what is accpted “knowledge” now may change as more is discovered. IS that close?

I hold the same true in the spiritual quest. There is much that is unknown. You might say that the spiritual quest is in the state that science was in before scientific standards became widely accepted. I maintain that that state, uncertain as it is, is a nessecary stage in the search for truth.
I know there are lots of religous people who embrace myth and tradition in the face of evidence to the contrary. They do not represent all spiritual seekers.

The distinction I’m trying to make, though, is that if the goal is to gain “an understanding of how our world really is”, the scientific approach and empirical evidence are the best tools.

That is your opinion. I certainly value the scientific approach in the quest for knowledge and undestanding. The spiritual quest is very personnel. It requires the individual to make a choice based on belief. If that individual understands that there is much more to discover and is committed to the search for understnding, then they will refine their beliefs as their search continues.

If one wants to learn how to form, influence, undermine and manipulate human societies, the less objective “spiritual” approach (or even a study of basic psychology or marketing) is a better tool.

You’d have a hard time coming up with scientific evidence to prove that statement. I acknowledge that psychology and sociology can also be an aid. The goal of the spiritual quest is not to control or manipulate human societes. {Yes I know it has been and is the goal of certain “spiritual” leaders} The goal as I see it is to grow as indiviuals and influence socieity into making better choices. This is done by beginning to see the consequences of our choices more clearly, and by helping the indiviual to take responsibility for his or her choices. Psychology and sociology are also helping in that area.
You seem to be suggesting that we’d be better off to abandon spiritual beliefs altogether and just rely on these fields of study. Thats your opinion. Looking at the world today I’d say there no more evidence to support that premise than you seem to find in mine.

You’re begging the question; assuming spiritual progress before its existence has been demonstrated.

I believe I gave you evidence which you preferred to see as social progress. Can you provide evidence that the things I mentioned are indeed social progress and not spiritual? Are you doing the same thing you accuse the religous of. Looking at the evidence and just calling it something else?
Let me clarify. If progress is made by an abandonment of any spiritual belief , which seems to be your suggestion, then I would call that evidence in your favor. The examples I gave were within the spiritual community. A refinement of those beliefs while maintaining faith in the spiritual journey. You could call the work of Gandhi and MLK social progress, but the fact that both these men were men of faith can also be evidence of the value of spiritual conviction.

I don’t even have to delve into the subconscious to make a few semi-educated guesses. There are a number of mundane reasons a person could turn into a terorrist/murderer. One of the most powerful is the approval of authority, as in the famous Mirgram experiment. If a leader repeatedly says that murder is justified, even positive, it isn’t surprising that a follower will act on that lesson becuase the approval removes or mitigates the follower’s personal responsibility.

I’ve already acknowledged the influence of conscious or subconscious motives. That doesn’t invalidate the influence of faith. I think the breakthrough comes when a believer finally understands that there is no earthbound authority {as you said} and accepts personnal responsibility and accountability for his beliefs and the choices made becuase of them.

Well, specifically, can you define what “progress within the faithful” actually means? Do, for example, modern Christians have a better understanding or closer relationship with God than their premedeival counterparts? The progress you have described is the discarding of prejudices and practices that are no longer necessary. How is this spiritual progress? If anything, it represents an abandonment of what was considered spiritually significant in times past.

I would define it as people of faith bringing about changes in our concept of God and what our realtionship with God actually is. Those changes in what the faithful believe results in different choices by the faithful which has an effect on society.
Christians don’t practice “Love thy neighbor” with perfection. Would you say there has been progress since the Inquisition ?
You make a valid an interesting point. It would be interesting to explore how much science and cultural changes have influenced religion and vice versa. I for one think science has been very valuble in helping to refine beliefs.

Isn’t it more likely that the advent of democratic governments, personal literacy, increased productivity and a general easing of the struggle for survival has made going to war (for any reason) simply less desirable? Riding off to free the Holy Land from the infidels (and gather lots of loot in the progress) now seems pointless when the loot can be gathered through the relatively painless use of legal trade.

(yeah yeah yeah, Iraq war notwithstanding. Different discussion.)

When science figures out how to control the consciences of our leaders then I will consider renounceing my faith. Of course there are many things that play a role in social changes. Faith is one of them. The truth of how our world really is exists within the spiritual and in other areas as well.

The first two statements contain qualifiers (“occasionally” and “often”) while the third does not.

Well yeah, thats actually my point. Since it has no qualifiers either way it is by itself a true statement. You seem to have assumed a qualification from me that wasn’t there. Hey!! De ja vu.
I agree to drop the issue.

[Scott_Plaid]

@cosmosdan

I think we’ve already dealt with this, or was that another thread?

Was it One true miracle I witnessed ?

@not cosmosdan

When religion figures out how to control the consciences of our leaders then I will **consider **renounceing my atheism.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@cosmosdan

I think we’ve already dealt with this, or was that another thread? Help me clarify what refinement is. In science you said that there was no final authority. I take that to mean that science accepts that there is much more to know and understand and what is accpted “knowledge” now may change as more is discovered. IS that close?

Close enough, though putting quotes around “knowledge” is a bit odd.

I hold the same true in the spiritual quest. There is much that is unknown. You might say that the spiritual quest is in the state that science was in before scientific standards became widely accepted. I maintain that that state, uncertain as it is, is a nessecary stage in the search for truth.

That’s fine, but while science has made obvious strides, spirituality has not. Science is not is a state of total flux where any and all of it could be replaced overnight. By “no final authority”, I mean refinements could be added constantly, and periodically a major breakthrough could occur. This is deliberately not an easy process.

Spirutuality, however, can be radically altered at will. If a lifelong Christian abruptly decideds to convert to Judaism, there is no objective standard to measure if this is an improvement or not. There is no standard showing which path is closer to God. If a New Age purple-crystal proponent decides instead that orange crystals are superior, is there any means of evaluating the quality of that decision?

For that matter, a charismatic person could think up radical new spiritual ideas at any time and attract followers, who will abandon or alter their former spiritual beliefs accordingly. Is this progress or regression? Both, neither?

The spiritual quest is very personnel. It requires the individual to make a choice based on belief. If that individual understands that there is much more to discover and is committed to the search for understnding, then they will refine their beliefs as their search continues.

I think by “refine”, an individual will gradually settle into a pattern that is comfortable, discarding or ignoring contradictions. How the “progress” of this can be measured escapes me.

You’d have a hard time coming up with scientific evidence to prove that statement.

Prove that spirituality/psychology/marketing are more effective ways at influencing human societies than science? I just have to flip through any history book.

The goal of the spiritual quest is not to control or manipulate human societes. … The goal as I see it is to grow as indiviuals and influence socieity into making better choices.

You contradict yourself rather casually, there.

You seem to be suggesting that we’d be better off to abandon spiritual beliefs altogether and just rely on these fields of study. Thats your opinion. Looking at the world today I’d say there no more evidence to support that premise than you seem to find in mine.

Oh, I’ll go beyond suggesting it, I’ll flatly state that I believe humanity would be better off abandoning spiritual beliefs in fields where the scientific approach is provably better. If people want to analyze the meaning of life, or if there is a soul and what happenes after death and what predated the Big Bang and other “deep” questions unsolvable by science, let them. I strongly object, however, to the replacement of evolution by creationism or medicine by spiritual healing or critical thinking by fuzzy notions of undetectable energy fields and whatnot.

Can you provide evidence that the things I mentioned are indeed social progress and not spiritual?

Well, I personally define social progress as movement toward a state where individual freedoms are enshrined in an environment of peace, prosperity and order. The Western democracies have done pretty well in the last few centuries, helped along mightily by industrial advances that reduced grinding poverty and medical advances that have largely curbed disease. If any of this in any way could be described as having a “spiritual” element, I’d guess it was due to the diminishing influence of the Catholic Church and the not-unrelated spread of literacy.

Are you doing the same thing you accuse the religous of. Looking at the evidence and just calling it something else?

I don’t see where you’ve presented any evidence.

Let me clarify. If progress is made by an abandonment of any spiritual belief , which seems to be your suggestion

It’s not. Putting aside any hint of suggestion or implication, I’ll state as clearly as I can: progress is made when one theory is replaced with another, and the second produces better results. Simply abandoning a spiritual belief isn’t progress. Replacing a spiritual belief with a scientific one, if the scientific one is measurably better, is. One may believe that electrical storms happen at the whim of Thor, but if meteorology allows one to predict storms more accurately than praying at a Norse altar, then abandoning belief in Thor in favour of the study of meteorology represents progress.

[qoute]The examples I gave were within the spiritual community. A refinement of those beliefs while maintaining faith in the spiritual journey. You could call the work of Gandhi and MLK social progress, but the fact that both these men were men of faith can also be evidence of the value of spiritual conviction.
[/quote]

Irrelevant to explaining the concept of spirutual progress, and Ghandi and MLK used established spiritual beliefs as a means to resist oppression. Neither of them were particularly innovative within their faiths.

I’ve already acknowledged the influence of conscious or subconscious motives. That doesn’t invalidate the influence of faith. I think the breakthrough comes when a believer finally understands that there is no earthbound authority {as you said} and accepts personnal responsibility and accountability for his beliefs and the choices made becuase of them.

That’s not what I said. I said:

Science, by defininion, is a process that recognizes no final authorities.

This has no relevance to matters of faith or spirituality, which frequently claim the existence of ultimate authorities.

I would define it as people of faith bringing about changes in our concept of God and what our realtionship with God actually is. Those changes in what the faithful believe results in different choices by the faithful which has an effect on society.

I think you have it backwards. Changes in societies force changes in their religions, or those religions become irrelevant and are abandoned.

Christians don’t practice “Love thy neighbor” with perfection. Would you say there has been progress since the Inquisition ?

Yes, but for non-spiritual reasons I’ve already cited.

You seem to have assumed a qualification from me that wasn’t there. Hey!! De ja vu.

Well, no, I said the statement was massively (originally “completely”) incorrect because the necessary qualifier was missing.
You seem to assume that I seem to assume an awful lot.

[cosmosdan]

@Scott_plaid

Was it One true miracle I witnessed ?

No. It was a link to a website containing testimonies about spritual healing and Bruno Groning. We decided it was interesting but inconclusive. To me it’s interesting enough to warrent continued research. You admitted earlier concerning the medical field, that not all individuals react the same to medical treatment. That seems to be what you and others require of spiritual healing. Is that unreasonable?

Your twisting of my quote was amusing {maybe} My point is that there is a lot more to discover and areas where science has failed to provide the solutions. I acknowledge that religion hasn’t either. I think the issues are importent enough to warrent exploration in both areas. I appreciate it when science helps refine religous beliefs. As I’ve posted before. Both are a search for the truth.

As for your “child of perfect faith” example. It was to ridiculous to take seriously.

[Scott_Plaid]

@cosmosdan

No. It was a link to a website containing testimonies about spritual healing and Bruno Groning.

Than post it.

@cosmosdan

As for your “child of perfect faith” example. It was to ridiculous to take seriously.

I don’t see how. Jesus seems to be saying that others can do as he did, if they only have faith. It was probably easier to have faith then, when you had to take the way the world works on faith, and my example was a way to replicate such conditions. So give a real response to my example, if you please.

[cosmosdan]

@Bryan Ekers

Close enough, though putting quotes around “knowledge” is a bit odd.

That’s fine, but while science has made obvious strides, spirituality has not. Science is not is a state of total flux where any and all of it could be replaced overnight. By “no final authority”, I mean refinements could be added constantly, and periodically a major breakthrough could occur. This is deliberately not an easy process.

Spirutuality, however, can be radically altered at will. If a lifelong Christian abruptly decideds to convert to Judaism, there is no objective standard to measure if this is an improvement or not. There is no standard showing which path is closer to God. If a New Age purple-crystal proponent decides instead that orange crystals are superior, is there any means of evaluating the quality of that decision?

For that matter, a charismatic person could think up radical new spiritual ideas at any time and attract followers, who will abandon or alter their former spiritual beliefs accordingly. Is this progress or regression? Both, neither?

I think by “refine”, an individual will gradually settle into a pattern that is comfortable, discarding or ignoring contradictions. How the “progress” of this can be measured escapes me.

Prove that spirituality/psychology/marketing are more effective ways at influencing human societies than science? I just have to flip through any history book.

You contradict yourself rather casually, there.

Oh, I’ll go beyond suggesting it, I’ll flatly state that I believe humanity would be better off abandoning spiritual beliefs in fields where the scientific approach is provably better. If people want to analyze the meaning of life, or if there is a soul and what happenes after death and what predated the Big Bang and other “deep” questions unsolvable by science, let them. I strongly object, however, to the replacement of evolution by creationism or medicine by spiritual healing or critical thinking by fuzzy notions of undetectable energy fields and whatnot.

Well, I personally define social progress as movement toward a state where individual freedoms are enshrined in an environment of peace, prosperity and order. The Western democracies have done pretty well in the last few centuries, helped along mightily by industrial advances that reduced grinding poverty and medical advances that have largely curbed disease. If any of this in any way could be described as having a “spiritual” element, I’d guess it was due to the diminishing influence of the Catholic Church and the not-unrelated spread of literacy.

I don’t see where you’ve presented any evidence.

It’s not. Putting aside any hint of suggestion or implication, I’ll state as clearly as I can: progress is made when one theory is replaced with another, and the second produces better results. Simply abandoning a spiritual belief isn’t progress. Replacing a spiritual belief with a scientific one, if the scientific one is measurably better, is. One may believe that electrical storms happen at the whim of Thor, but if meteorology allows one to predict storms more accurately than praying at a Norse altar, then abandoning belief in Thor in favour of the study of meteorology represents progress.

[qoute]The examples I gave were within the spiritual community. A refinement of those beliefs while maintaining faith in the spiritual journey. You could call the work of Gandhi and MLK social progress, but the fact that both these men were men of faith can also be evidence of the value of spiritual conviction.

Irrelevant to explaining the concept of spirutual progress, and Ghandi and MLK used established spiritual beliefs as a means to resist oppression. Neither of them were particularly innovative within their faiths.

That’s not what I said. I said:
This has no relevance to matters of faith or spirituality, which frequently claim the existence of ultimate authorities.

I think you have it backwards. Changes in societies force changes in their religions, or those religions become irrelevant and are abandoned.

Yes, but for non-spiritual reasons I’ve already cited.

Well, no, I said the statement was massively (originally “completely”) incorrect because the necessary qualifier was missing.
You seem to assume that I seem to assume an awful lot.
[/QUOTE]

[cosmosdan]

I have no idea what happened or why that posted before I had composed a response. Wish I could delete it.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE]

@Scott_plaid

Than post it.

I don’t know how you folks do those cool links within on word.

http://www.bruno-groening.org/mwf/stellungnahmen.asp?lang=en

I hope that one works.

I don’t see how. Jesus seems to be saying that others can do as he did, if they only have faith. It was probably easier to have faith then, when you had to take the way the world works on faith, and my example was a way to replicate such conditions. So give a real response to my example, if you please.

Your example is about one definition of the word faith and in essence is brainwashing.
Jesus specificly says not to believe the teachings of men {or their attempts at brainwashing} but to seek your own communion with God. Jesus is indeed saying that others can do what he did, which was communion with God on a level inconceivable by most people. This kind of communion requires effort and a comiitment to the truth. He says we must be committed to the truth beyond tradition and what anyone says, including our friends, family, religous leaders, and non believers. The faith that Jesus speaks of is faith born of a personnel experience with the Holy Spirit, or the force, or field of energy. I don’t care what you call it.
MAtt 16 17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
This kinda eliminates your example doesn’t it?

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]

By “no final authority”, I mean refinements could be added constantly, and periodically a major breakthrough could occur. This is deliberately not an easy process.

The same holds true for the spritual journey.

For that matter, a charismatic person could think up radical new spiritual ideas at any time and attract followers, who will abandon or alter their former spiritual beliefs accordingly. Is this progress or regression? Both, neither?

This has happened fairly often. A bogus leader can stir the pot a little and bring traditional beliefs into question. Joseph Smith and Paul Twitchell are examples. Replaceing one falsehood for another is not progress, but causeing people to question traditional beliefs is part of the proccess.

I think by “refine”, an individual will gradually settle into a pattern that is comfortable, discarding or ignoring contradictions. How the “progress” of this can be measured escapes me.

I don’t call this progress either. Not everyone does it that way.

Prove that spirituality/psychology/marketing are more effective ways at influencing human societies than science? I just have to flip through any history book.

Thats correct. I misread your statement.

Oh, I’ll go beyond suggesting it, I’ll flatly state that I believe humanity would be better off abandoning spiritual beliefs in fields where the scientific approach is provably better.

Given your qualifier I agree.

I strongly object, however, to the replacement of evolution by creationism or medicine by spiritual healing or critical thinking by fuzzy notions of undetectable energy fields and whatnot.

I don’t think many want to replace medicine with spiritual healing. Fessie’s example was both working together to promote healing. I’ve stated before that I think spiritual truth is perfectly compatible with logic and reason. If there is a spirit or energy field there to help heal us physically, mentally, and emotionally, then it is worth exploreing. Neither the Big Bang theory or the story of Adam and Eve holds makes any difference to me. Neither does supposeing what happens after death, although that can be an entertaining subject.

Well, I personally define social progress as movement toward a state where individual freedoms are enshrined in an environment of peace, prosperity and order. The Western democracies have done pretty well in the last few centuries,

Our own country being the prime example???

I’d guess it was due to the diminishing influence of the Catholic Church and the not-unrelated spread of literacy.

That diminishing influence is due in large part to other believers and you’d have to thank religion at least in part for the spread of literacy.

It’s not. Putting aside any hint of suggestion or implication, I’ll state as clearly as I can: progress is made when one theory is replaced with another, and the second produces better results. Simply abandoning a spiritual belief isn’t progress. Replacing a spiritual belief with a scientific one, if the scientific one is measurably better, is.

Of these two beliefs, “God wants us to torture and kill non believers” and
“God doesn’t want us to do that” I would call the second one spitritual progress.
I grant you that some still believe the first one. We already had a post about progress away from that.

Irrelevant to explaining the concept of spirutual progress, and Ghandi and MLK used established spiritual beliefs as a means to resist oppression. Neither of them were particularly innovative within their faiths.

I don’t agree. Their innovation was in the application of spiritual beliefs. Causeing people to examine their beliefs and refine them in ways that results in real consequences in society is spiritual progress.
You’ve said there’s no way to measure spiritual progress. I don’t agree. Jesus gave us a simple way to measure. He called it fruits of the spirit. True faith and spiritual progress transforms us and has to change the way we live and treat others. Love, compassion, kindness and other areas where our culture needs healing. You could say it’s doing a lousy job and in a lot of ways I’d agree, but science, medicine, physcology, and philosophy, haven’t provided solutions either.

This has no relevance to matters of faith or spirituality, which frequently claim the existence of ultimate authorities.

Sorry for misquoting you.
It may not be common but it is not irrelevant.
I recognize that many people look to their leaders or some book for authority.
What Jesus taught is to not do that, and some poeple get it. Thats the comaprison I was trying to make. You said Science recognizes no person or body of work as the final authority.

I think you have it backwards. Changes in societies force changes in their religions, or those religions become irrelevant and are abandoned.

I’d want more evidence than just your opinion. I think they cause changes in each other. I mentioned two prime examples of men of faith who brought about changes in socieity. becuase of their beliefs.

You seem to assume that I seem to assume an awful lot.

LOL well, I’m not sure I’d call it an assumption. I have evidence , but lets not go there.

[Scott_Plaid]

I will give you an exploded version. Then maybe you’ll answer my questions, out of gratitude.

No, that didn’t work. This forum is too bug free. Let’s try something else.

[URU=http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran2.htm[/uru]Inerrancy: Is the Bible Infallable, Inerrant, Free of Error? [/URU]

to make it into a link with text, simply replace the words “URU” with “URL” the space between the title, and the “”, like so:

Inerrancy: Is the Bible Infallable, Inerrant, Free of Error?