The Faith & Religion mega Thread

A recently published book (Magisteria by Nicholas Spencer) pointed out that all the apparent Science/Religion clashes turn out to centre on one of two issues:

1) What is authority, who has it, who is allowed to challenge it (and on what basis), and how (if at all) can it be adjusted to take account of new discoveries?

2) What is Man, what is human nature, and who gets to decide?

All the archetypal science/religion clashes (heliocentricity, evolution, psychoanalysis) have centred on one or other of these questions. As far as everything else is concerned, science and religion have never had much difficulty in rubbing along with each other.

Originally Posted by enorbet Philosophy is aligned a bit more with Hypothesis, dealing with conclusions that seem reasonable but have yet to weathered serious falsification. It is further complicated by not having a stringent set of rules instead allowing for premises not yet in evidence. A philosopher can produce interesting platforms that don't even have 1 Sigma odds.

"Philosophy Of Science" is intentionally a bit different, because it applies a "philosophical" perspective to "science," and to the scientific process. But also, attempting to apply some rigor. The "scientific process" is attempting to examine itself. Recognizing, implicitly, that "certainty" is not possible here. (And, "that is precisely the point.")

There are a great many areas where "experiment-based 'science'" simply cannot go [yet], and other areas where our "experiments" are uncertain. In these "gray areas," it pays to look at where one might be going, and how. As I said, "thinking about thinking." This being a very worthy thing to think about. Are your necessarily-speculative processes as intellectually sound as you can make them? "Why or why not?"

Originally Posted by enorbet one ancient book, and especially one originally written in a language nobody has spoken in context in a over a thousand years.

The Bible is multiple books and letters, written by multiple authors, using several languages, at least one of which is not extinct.

Mrmazda, have you ever tried to read anything in Middle or Old English? The reason I included "in context" is that language changes greatly in just a few hundred years and this is in denotation, let alone connotation. That Latin is still spoken in places doesn't mean a modern Latin speaker would easily converse with a citizen of Rome. Everything evolves. Aside from that obstacle, how many authors and interpreters are involved is part of the problem or their wouldn't be hundreds of differing sects within Christianity, all pointing to the the same singular book as the source, and each claiming theirs is The One True Way.

Originally Posted by enorbet Mrmazda, have you ever tried to read anything in Middle or Old English?

Like the Gutenberg Bible? Not very much. Writings of early 17th century American pioneers and settlers can be a tough read too, including much written by the writers of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence in the middle to late 18th century.

***

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSfX90Lk-Rs
The first 10 minutes will probably mislead as to nature of the bulk of the content, or why I pasted this URL. When I see things like this I am amply bolstered in completely dismissing Enorbet's repeated disgorging of the same so-called scientific disproofs and proofs. I don't watch on Youtube. This URL was a search result after watching same title all the way through via Clash of Minds on Roku.

Originally Posted by mrmazda Like the Gutenberg Bible? Not very much.

I've not seen a Gutenberg Bible but it is my understanding they were printed in Latin, so no. I'm talking about publications like Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales" in Middle English just prior to 1400 AD, which is like learning a whole new language but pales in comparison to learning Old English or Anglo-Saxon prevalent between 500 AD and 1066. It is totally unrecognizable to anyone schooled in Modern English.

Originally Posted by mrmazda Writings of early 17th century American pioneers and settlers can be a tough read too, including much written by the writers of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence in the middle to late 18th century.

I don't find publications written by scholarly individuals in the 1700's what would become the USA to be difficult at all... quaint sometimes by modern standards, but fully understandable even by English speaking countrymen other than US Americans. That is not the point. The point is that when written language was first invented and for a little over a millennial after, exact translation was far more difficult than later, after the invention of the printing press since language became more standardized. For the first millennia, and certainly before, language was extremely colloquial. In modern times, we have accents and local meaning that can make understanding somewhat difficult for outsiders, but that is as nothing compared to the diversity that existed before. There commonly wasn't even agreement on vowels and consonants in written languages.

The earliest written documentation of what would be called "The Bible" is only barely understood by scholars in the field and they rarely agree on much including the interpretation of single words or what in print is one word as opposed to another. This is not at all trivial.

***

Originally Posted by mrmazda https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSfX90Lk-Rs The first 10 minutes will probably mislead as to nature of the bulk of the content, or why I pasted this URL. When I see things like this I am amply bolstered in completely dismissing Enorbet's repeated disgorging of the same so-called scientific disproofs and proofs. I don't watch on Youtube. This URL was a search result after watching same title all the way through via Clash of Minds on Roku.

I'm afraid I can't grasp why you would post that link to me, especially while in the same breath "dismissing Enorbet's repeated disgorging of the same so-called scientific disproofs and proofs". First there are no scientific proofs, only Mathematical proofs, and neither depend on any belief system. They depend on evidence, objective, repeatable, falsifiable data. In the first few seconds the speaker states that "Jesus is coming soon. You believe that don't you?" setting the tone as one of blind faith belief systems since there exists no objective evidence that anyone can come back from the dead nor that anything supernatural ever existed or can exist.

Apparently, you and I barely speak the same language. You don't understand Science and I don't understand Faith. What little I do grasp, I reject as unreliable, based on the track record. You reject Logic and Science despite the track record apparently because you think it contradicts what you hold sacred based on your interpretation of an ancient collection of writings that has undergone numerous translations, not to mention disparate points of view that appear in the Christian Bible.

For example Paul and John could easily be a part of a totally different Bible individually. This is likely due to one speaking to a Gentile audience while the other speaking to a mainly Jewish audience. It's hard to misinterpret Aristotle or Archimedes since their documents are from a singular point of view, while many even scholars find the Christian Bible somewhat "scattershot" which is yet one more reason, or host of them, that led to so very many sects differing interpretations.

Originally Posted by enorbet *** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSfX90Lk-Rs The first 10 minutes ... I'm afraid I can't grasp why you would post that link to me

It wasn't directed to you. You didn't start the thread. To you from me normally follows a quote of you. Otherwise, a post here from me is simply a thread post. You snuck in a quick response I didn't want to forget about, so I responded to that first, then dealt with why I returned to the thread when I did - to share that link, while its content was fresh in mind. Your reply suggests you didn't listen past the first 20-30 or so minutes, if that much. He was slow getting to the title's points.

Originally Posted by mrmazda It wasn't directed to you. You didn't start the thread. To you from me normally follows a quote of you. Otherwise, a post here from me is simply a thread post. You snuck in a quick response I didn't want to forget about, so I responded to that first, then dealt with why I returned to the thread when I did

https://youtu.be/vh1eCDotdSc?si=ufOCZPzOaqRKpNop&t=91

One of the most-interesting projects that I was ever involved in was with the Poet-in-Residence(!) at the University that I was then attending. He wanted to analyze spelling variations in different printed editions of Shakespearean sonnets. Fortunately, I was not the grad-student-schlep who had to enter all of those texts into the computer, but I was the person who wrote the (BASIC ...) programs to do the comparisons. (It was not a trivial undertaking, but he knew that I, the undergraduate, possessed the programming "chops" to do it.) I even got formal credit in the published academic work. (So, I guess I'm famous ...)

In those days, there were no "dictionaries." There was no "standard spelling." People wrote, and printed, what they heard. And that(!) meant that their texts captured their various regional dialects.

- - -

Of course you cannot fault "The Bible" for being a compilation. But you do need to be fully aware that its content was censored. Various "councils" decided which of the available texts were deemed to be "canonical," and which were not. As for me, I find such historical subjects to be – very, very humanly – "fascinating." This book that's in everybody's hands: what is its history, and what is its provenance? It really is an amazing tale. And, I'm not the slightest bit interested in "judgment."

It is an unquestionable fact that: "this one book" did, and still does, influence millions of people's lives, and faith. As very few books have ever done. Maybe there really is something "magical" about it . . .

Millions of lives are affected by Astrology columns in newspapers, too. Even US Presidents have consulted such "magical guidance". This despite the fact that all the constellations have moved into the next month since Astrology was invented. Curiouser and curiouser... but then no astrology chart I've ever heard of set out the rules for proper treatment of slaves.

This "Palm Sunday," we read what actually caused Jesus to be arrested and crucified: what the Romans considered "insurrection" against their iron-fisted rule.

Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut from the fields. Those preceding him as well as those following kept crying out: “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is to come! Hosanna in the highest!”

He was presenting himself, and being recognized by the people, as a "returning King" of the line of David, who would surely enable them to cast off the chains of Roman rule. In a matter of days, the Romans captured him and put him to death, with a description of his offense above his head. "The Jews," I submit, had nothing to do with it. (The Romans did not regard the governments of subjugated peoples, except as useful idiots.)

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs [Jesus] was presenting himself, and being recognized by the people, as a "returning King" of the line of David, who would surely enable them to cast off the chains of Roman rule. In a matter of days, the Romans captured him and put him to death, with a description of his offense above his head. "The Jews," I submit, had nothing to do with it. (The Romans did not regard the governments of subjugated peoples, except as useful idiots.)

An excellent summary. The only Jews involved in this whole matter were the temple establishment, who had done very well for themselves financially by collaborating with the Roman occupation, and a (probably quite small) rent-a-mob that they provided for the occasion. Think Vichy! According to Luke btw the real Jewish people (including many mourning women) followed Jesus to the cross and stood beating their breasts in grief as he died.

A lot of confusion has arisen because the writer of the 4th gospel had the sloppy habit of using "the Jews" as a convenient shorthand for "the Jewish religious authorities" and not the Jewish people, whom he always calls "the people". Since all the Christians of his generation expected the world to end in their lifetime, he never considered how his narrative might be interpreted if it fell into the hands of an exclusively gentile church.

Happy Easter by the way!

I candidly expect that the Romans actually did what they were always wot to do. They even crucified "common thieves." Jesus had quite-visibly violated Roman law (as the Romans saw it), and nothing else mattered. He was an especial threat to them because of what he had just done. So, they did to him what they also did to every other "messiah."

In particular: "he was a Jew, not a Roman citizen." Contrast this with the utter consternation that "Paul" caused when he asserted that he was "a Roman citizen," and apparently could prove it. "Everything(!) changed."

I candidly believe that most of the Biblical account of his trial and execution is fabrication. It was written to finger "the Jews" as having rejected and killed "[the son of] their God." But, the Romans didn't care one whit about the "authorities," religious or otherwise, in their occupied territories: they would crucify them, too, if they didn't "toe the line." They didn't need to – and never would think to – involve the religious authorities in a case like this. They wouldn't have had the presiding officer – Pontious Pilate – appearing uncertain, asking questions of religion, negotiating with the religious locals, offering to release someone else to satiate the crowd (or caring at all about "the crowd"), or requesting intervention by his superior officer. None of that would have happened.

This would have been an entirely-perfunctory matter which would not have involved "Roman courts" at all. Because, if you were not provably "a Roman citizen," you weren't entitled to appear in such a place at all. They would simply arrest him and hold him until the next execution time-slot became available. (We know that it was a very full schedule. Crucifixions happened almost every day.)

It is difficult to imagine how cruel the Romans actually were, to those whom they had conquered. But the occupied people knew it extremely well.

Seventy years would pass before it became even worse for them, as the Romans finally destroyed their Temple.

Ample evidence about universal flood and Biblical truth exists.

Originally Posted by mrmazda Ample evidence about universal flood and Biblical truth exists.

I simply don't have any reason, or motivation, to engage [you] on this matter. May we be "ships that pass in the night."

As I've said before, I listen to the wisdom that talks about "sinning against [your] brother." In the relevant context, disagreements about "food offered to idols" was fairly threatening to tear a particular regional church community (in Corinth ...) apart. And the simple wisdom is that "sometimes, the right thing to do is to stop debating, or to stop doing even what [you] 'know' is 'right.'" If [you] try too hard to "win," [you] can actually do harm. I'm not going to do that.

Mark these words also: When I "express" my opinions, I am never(!) "judging" [yours]. I am not staking any claim nor defending any territory. I could be entirely wrong.

[you] = "impersonal 'you'"