Why should people believe that all religious understanding is relative and that no one interpretation is absolute?

HANK

mike145k

hank most sane people worship god not Anthony Robbins

mike145k

ladies and gentleman here is a fine example of gargelyguk

fredg

Hi, Hank,
You really know how to come up with them, don't you.
God is the answer, in all things.
Best wishes, and Happy 4th of July, where it all started with Independence Day, the independence of Worship.
fredg

chrisl

Hey psi42--

Did you see this at CNN?

Harvard to explore origins of life

Here is the "scientific method" in action. Notice Professor David R. Liu's statement in the article:

"My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention." (Italics mine)

Maybe it was a slip of the tongue but it certainly is curious. Is Professor Liu perhaps over-confident? Do you think he intends to be open-minded and let the facts lead where they may, or will his "expectation" affect his methodology and analysis?

This highlights a critical flaw in the scientific method: it's never purely scientific. Consciously or not, personal prejudice, bias and pride are always involved. What outcome does someone--or a whole group of someones--want? How much do they want it, and how does this affect their research?

But I have little doubt that when the conclusions of this "research" are published, the scientific community--and those who put their faith in the integrity of the scientific method--will present them to the world as the latest "facts"!

Whose faith is the problem here?

Chris

psi42

There is no problem here. A key component of the scientific method is the creation of a hypothesis -- this is his hypothesis. He is hypothesizing about what might have occurred and then is going to devise an experiment (not necessary a "classic laboratory experiment") to help support or disprove this hypothesis.

I understand what you are saying, and you do have a point. However, this is not a flaw in the scientific method.

Ah... you are missing something here. Scientists do not have "faith" in the scientific method. Faith, put simply, is the sincere belief in something for which there is no proof or evidence. The scientific method has been used time and time again and has proved itself a useful tool over the past few centuries.

Those of the so-called "creation scientists" who, by faith alone, declare their allegiance to the dogma of a Judeo-Christian style religion, and then, in a hopeless mockery of science, try to "prove" the existence of God.


Now, on to the old stuff (which I seem to have forgotten to answer, my apologies ):

I see no reason why the omnipotent Creator described by Christianity would permit such things to exist.

Yes. But we could go on like this for hours ("If we are to accept there is a giant antique human-built refrigerator in orbit around Saturn, would it be possible that it might have an attached ice-cube dispensor and AM-FM radio?"). I'm sorry, but I can't see why this can be accepted on faith alone.

chrisl

I think that's a bit of a stretch. It doesn't sound so much like a hypothesis as it does presuming the final outcome of the research. I guess my point is, why presume anything? It makes more sense to say, "We are going to see if the evidence points to creation, spontaneous generation or some other explanation."

Instead, he has already ruled out one possible outcome. With that prejudicial mindset, how do you think he will interpret evidence?

That is not faith--that is credulity, which many "creationists" and so-called Christians suffer from. They are dogmatic about their interpretations and do not allow the Bible to speak for itself. Consider how the Bible describes faith:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen -- Hebrews 11:1 (NKJV)

You (and many professed Christians) may be suprised to learn that the Bible links faith to evidence. True scriptural faith is not blind and unreasoning. It comes from considering and weighing evidence. What evidence?

The entire physical world is evidence and so is the Bible. Together, they make a powerful case. The earth and the universe are filled with complex, interrelated systems that no reasonable persons would assume "just happened somehow." And the Bible contains logical explanations that match what we observe.

Mankind's explanations, on the other hand, require accepting staggeringly complicated scenarios, incomprehensible odds and endless new theories to explain problems with existing theories. Furthermore, they change with each passing century, or even decade! The Bible's explanations have withstood the test of time--for milennia. Why?

The simplest explanation is, because it's the truth.

I agree that such ones have no credibility. But again, they do not speak for the Bible. They disown it by their actions.

Do not fall victim to ad hominen prejudice. Just because these folks have no credibility and their logic is absurd does not necessarily mean that their conclusions are false. Remember that the world-changing issue of the existence of a creator is not determined by the character of such people.

You keep qualifying all your statements with "Christianity or Judeo-Christians say..." I agree that what most of these groups believe and teach about the Bible is nonsense--even laughable. But you must understand there is a difference between what they say the Bible says, and what the Bible actually says.

Anyway, the Bible account shows that God temporarily permits suffering to exist so that the issue of rulership, or sovereignty, can be settled to mankind's eternal benefit.

The earth and mankind were at one time perfect with no suffering or death. Mankind would live forever in perfection if they stayed obedient to God's benevolent rulership. God even warned about the consequences of disobedience. But the Bible explains that there was a rebellion and mankind chose to reject God's rulership and rule themselves. (I'm guessing you recognize the account of the Garden of Eden--Genesis 1-3)

What would God do? Being all powerful, he could have just destroyed them all. But the Bible shows that God handled the matter like a caring father who permits an errant child to learn from his mistakes for his long-term benefit. He permitted the rebels to temporarily rule themselves, but he did not shield them from the consequences of their actions.

Keep in mind that the rebellion challenged the rightfulness of God's rulership, not his power. To settle that issue--the issue of sovereignty--all creation would need to see the results of mankind's rulership. Would it be better than God's rule? History and present world conditions provide the answer.

But it's also important to know that the Bible promises a permanent end to suffering in the near future and a restoration for the earth and mankind, even bringing the dead back to life. God's original purpose for the earth will be fulfilled. And until then, he teaches mankind through the Bible how to avoid many problems and find happiness and joy.

I could refer you to scriptures for all of this but I don't know if you care. I just wanted to defend the Bible to show it's not just a bunch of gobbledy-gook like many say. It does give reasons and explanations--and even evidence--to those who are sincere and open-minded.

Chris

eawoodall

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is your question is not about religion but about philosophy.
Rewording the question: what pivotal value would allow religious relativity?

religion has to do with belief of theology (worship).

philosophy has to do belief of physical science (reality).

certainly the belief structure of a group who practices and shares :
core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology, as a group as well as a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith can be considered in a religion, but the reasons they hold are a philosophy.

religion is scrupulous conformity (belief about who holds the power) .
philosophy is attitude toward reason to (or not) worship (belief about reality).

pivotal value is the core belief and logic of a person or group.
The reason people believe in a religion is philosophy.

Hope12

Hello Everyone,

We live in a world or syetem of injustices. People who recently suffered a loss of electricity in South Florida have been plagued now with a 400 dollar deposit added to their electric bills. We are doing our best here just to get back to "some kind of normal life." Why would FPL as well as the gas companies make more of a burden on us who are already burdened? By the way a gallon of gas in south Florida is not up to $3.69.

How many of these company owners charge these outrageous prices and then turn around a claim to be religious people? Where is the justice?

In my home town alone there are some who are disabled and given SSI checks of the sum of $375 dollars a month to live on. That amount of money is for their rent and food and electric. Then companies turn around and charge these people $400. deposit to keep their electric running. Many of these people are depended on their electricity to aid in their care of their health problems. What is this world coming to? The rich get richer and the poor get killed with the rich perosons greed.

What is the solution? Do you believe their will ever be a solution for such greed? I have a solution but I would love to hear yours, if you have one???

Take care,
Hope12

arcura

In religion a relativist thinks it is relative.
And absolutist thinks his/hers is absolute.
For the religious attitude of each they are personally right for their own spiritual needs.
I'm a former Lutheran and now a Catholic. I believe much of what both denominations teach. Therefore I am an absolutist in most of the teachings and a relativist in others.
You might say that with me it is relatively absolute.
Think on this....
If you think you can, or you think you can't, either way you are right."
It applies somewhat to the above.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

Morganite

[SIZE=3]
Having read this thread, I am surprised to find experts ranting at each other, but no one saying anything of substance. Is this the vagrant opinion board?

[/SIZE]

Morganite