Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

ok. so were no strangers to people claiming that science and so and so relegious scriptures are actually in agreement and then going on to pick verses of scripture and giving their personal interpretation which seems to agree with an historical event or the latest scientific discovery etc etc, and then claiming "see, this was mentioned in the *insert name of scripture here" before it was ever discovered. {done by many christian science institues and more recently by the new daawah and so called muslim relegious scholars, among many}

ofcourse one can make the general case that they are all interpretations of flexible source material made to FIT IN with current knowledge. but that never seems to dampen the enthusiasm of the beleivers.

MY problem with such claims is this. IF, SAID CLAIMS ARE REALLY TRUE, and the bible or the quran or the tanakh really DID mention such historical or sceintific facts before they were known, then WHY did no christian or jew or muslim, MAKE the discovery of such facts before science cud or before the historic event happened? THAT wud be positive evidence wudnt it? if they REALLY are mentioned in the scripture and not part of flexible interpretation then why didnt the beleiver make the correct claims instead of scientists or historians who only know of the event after it happens?

has there infact been ANY case of true accurate historical prediction or scientific discovery by beleivers using the scriptures?????? {im not pointing towards scientist who WERE relegious and discovered stuff, im talking about those who USED scripture to discover stuff}. why is it infact that people who DID look at scriptures to try and answer questions about the world end/ed up making most of the wrong claims, everything from the earth is flat to the universe revolving around the earth and the myriad of people predicting the end of the world and being wrong.

it is very similar to the way more of the ridiculous conspiracy thories emerge where events are forced to fit into a scenario only AFTER they emerge.

basically, this is the question any1 making such claims has to answer, to prove that, theirs' isnt a relegion of gaps.

bump. {dont avoid my thread or ill slit your throats as you sleep}

- mary cherry

People never make true predictions before it happens. True predictions are only discovered when it can be verified they are true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction

How dare you phrase a criticism of religion in a consise and polite manner?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How dare you phrase a criticism of religion in a consise and polite manner?

Ya, I found that shocking too.

Shakya beat me to mentioning postdiction. But yeah, that's essentially it. If prophecies (religious or otherwise) were actually predictive, instead of reactive to modern findings, they'd be taken more seriously. Because it's easy to mince words, reinterpret meanings, etc. to find what you're looking for. Lawyers, religious leaders, half-baked conspiracy theorists and the like have been doing it for centuries.

Also, sometimes religions cheat. According to our best empirical research, we're in a deterministic universe. That doesn't mean we necessarily are, but it's a current best guess based on evidence. Christianity's idea of free will is in opposition to that. Buddhism, for a contrary example, is in accordance with determinism. But to say that Buddhism was "right" about it is misleading....each one had a 50% chance. One of that has to be right.

I've had that particular point reiterated to me to defend Buddhism once, and it's a weak one. Lots of other similarly "weak" predictions can likely be found in many religions, making them technically true, but not necessarily because of any divine inspiration. So some religious and prophetic predictions are legitimately true. But it doesn't make the sources reliable unless we can find that it remains true for a large number of facts and issues.

It's also how some aspects of religion still exist. New testament and whatnot. A 7-day creation could be stomached by an uneducated world, for example. But reinterpret for science and VOILA!, a "true" creation metaphor.

care to elaborate on the deterministic aspect of christianity and buddhism?


or people still thinking interms of 24hour days when there was obviously no sun

^then why was the timeframe referred to as "days"? btw is god subject to time?

Originally posted by Sado22
care to elaborate on the deterministic aspect of christianity and buddhism?

Sure. Buddhist philosophy believes in determinism. Christian doctrine does not. You might be able to find exceptions to this in obscure sects of either one, but it will remain true for the vast majority. Sorry to disappoint, but it can't really be broken down more than that.

srug

Originally posted by Sado22
or people still thinking interms of 24hour days when there was obviously no sun

My point exactly. Myths are palatable as facts to those who can't understand them fully. But once that threshold of knowledge is crossed, they need to be reinterpreted as myths or metaphors.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^then why was the timeframe referred to as "days"?

Because, silly, "days" is clearly a subjective term, not meant to be taken literally. Take this into account, as well as the dozens of other parts of the story that need to be tweaked to be in accord with scientific knowledge, and divine creation makes perfect sense.

For clarification, I think we're on the same page here. The sarcasm was to make my point, which is exactly what you refer to in the opening post.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
btw is god subject to time?

I assume this is rhetorical. We'd first have to confirm God's existence, then have elaborate knowledge of his being to accurately answer this.

Originally posted by Digi
Sure. Buddhist philosophy believes in determinism. Christian doctrine does not. You might be able to find exceptions to this in obscure sects of either one, but it will remain true for the vast majority. Sorry to disappoint, but it can't really be broken down more than that.

srug


The hard law of cause and effect. Nothing happens by chance or design. Everything happens because of something else happened. If nothing happens, then nothing happens in response.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The hard law of cause and effect. Nothing happens by chance or design. Everything happens because of something else happened. If nothing happens, then nothing happens in response.
That is a form of determinism, that everything is a response to something else, thus everything happens in a set order.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That is a form of determinism, that everything is a response to something else, thus everything happens in a set order.

I was agreeing with Digi, however, time is an illusion. All cause and effect are simultaneous.

I'm not sure I was saying that time is an illusion, but I'm definitely a determinist. I only used it as an example to make another point, however. Hopefully we don't become too sidetracked with this line of thought.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was agreeing with Digi, however, time is an illusion. All cause and effect are simultaneous.
Based on what?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Based on what?

The idea that time is an illusion, or that cause and effect are simultaneous?

1. Cause and effect being simultaneous is from the Lotus Sutra.

2. Time is an illusion is the only way cause and effect could be simultaneous.

Now is the present, and the present never changes; it is eternal. Everything else in the universe changes from moment to moment, but the present does not change. In other words, the fundamental "now" is like a screen with reality projected onto it. Cause and effect is like the frame by frame pictures on the movie reel. We see the movie as it is projected onto the screen, but in reality the movie exists all at one time on the reel.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The idea that time is an illusion, or that cause and effect are simultaneous?

1. Cause and effect being simultaneous is from the Lotus Sutra.

2. Time is an illusion is the only way cause and effect could be simultaneous.

Now is the present, and the present never changes; it is eternal. Everything else in the universe changes from moment to moment, but the present does not change. In other words, the fundamental "now" is like a screen with reality projected onto it. Cause and effect is like the frame by frame pictures on the movie reel. We see the movie as it is projected onto the screen, but in reality the movie exists all at one time on the reel.
Why believe in the lotus sutra?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why believe in the lotus sutra?

I don't believe in the Lotus Sutra like a Christian would believe in the bible. I believe in the Lotus Sutra like you would believe in your math book.

The Lotus Sutra is a 3000 year old self help book. The book its self is difficult to read, and quoting from it is pointless. The Lotus Sutra is not written like books are today. The Lotus Sutra is meant to be read as an experience. However, the philosophy derived from the teaching works in my life.

But why do you take it's word on empirical things like time?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't believe in the Lotus Sutra like a Christian would believe in the bible. I believe in the Lotus Sutra like you would believe in your math book.

That it's based on repeatable objective facts and research?

"days" was actually referred to as "ayaam" which means "long period of time".
also, you didn't answer the question: why are we even thinking 24hours when there was no sun?

as for god being subject to time: personally, no. for him to be the first cause, the beginning, the end and eternal as he says he is i don't think so.


i agree wholeheartedly. god's a very personal thing and a metaphor in itself. no two people, even in the same religion, think of god the same way. god can't be known so we create his "metaphor" based on our thinking capabilities and what we consider as good things (that's why you have some people believing in a strict god and others in a "chilled" one). creating this metaphor is fine but its when a select group of people decide whats the right one and the wrong one is when shit hits the fan.

more often that not, religious problem start because what was obviously supposed to be a metaphor is taken for a fact.


okay so the basic difference is that while vedic cultures allow for an infinite series of chains and events, judeo-christian religions shoot themselves in the foot by saying that god is the original cause of this series of cause and effect...am i right?

also, if there really were infinite chains of causes/effects then how has the present moment come about? wouldn't infinite mean that this present moment wouldn't come about?

and lastly, even if there's rigid cause/effect, does it neccessarily have to be deterministic in nature? to me, personally, the idea of cause and effect is altogether uneffected by there being a higher purpose in it all. the whole chain itself is all there is.

personally i never really could explain nunc stans.
present is the only truth there, past is a shadow and the future is a mystery....okay, i get that bit. time is an illusion...okay, i get that too.

but then i get rattled when you add the two together: if present is the only truth and time is an illusion, then all the bad things from the past are still around right?

Originally posted by Sado22
and lastly, even if there's rigid cause/effect, does it neccessarily have to be deterministic in nature? to me, personally, the idea of cause and effect is altogether uneffected by there being a higher purpose in it all. the whole chain itself is all there is.

Well now you're just arguing something different. You can have determinism and God (with God being what determines what happens) but you cannot have determinism and free will.

Originally posted by Sado22
more often that not, religious problem start because what was obviously supposed to be a metaphor is taken for a fact.

Ergo, most organized religions. Couldn't agree more.

Originally posted by Sado22
okay so the basic difference is that while vedic cultures allow for an infinite series of chains and events, judeo-christian religions shoot themselves in the foot by saying that god is the original cause of this series of cause and effect...am i right?

Not quite. Christian concepts of free will allow for human "choice" within the universe that is not predetermined. So it's not just at the universe's inception.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well now you're just arguing something different. You can have determinism and God (with God being what determines what happens) but you cannot have determinism and free will.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But why do you take it's word on empirical things like time?

The simultaneous of cause and effect agrees with things I have read in theoretical physics about time.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That it's based on repeatable objective facts and research?

The Lotus Sutra is not a math book, and that was not the point I was getting to. The Lotus Sutra is one of the highest teachings of Buddha. Some people have said it was the king of sutras (sutra = teaching). The philosophy based on the Lotus Sutra is one that works.

Originally posted by Sado22
more often that not, religious problem start because what was obviously supposed to be a metaphor is taken for a fact.

Religion should stop trying to do empirical science's job.

true, but lets not forget that religion precedes science. religion was the intellectual baby talk for our underdeveloped brains.

This thread asks a good question. Personally, I think if scientific facts are foretold in scripture and later accidently discovered by a secular scientists, that that would legitimize what the scripture says more than if a believer went on a scientific journey only to prove his belief.

For example: the expansion of the universe wasn't discovered by science until the 20th Century, and most Muslims believe the following verse mentions it: And the Heavens; We have built them with power and verily We are expanding them. -The Koran 51:47. So if the Koran really mentions a scientific fact that wasn't discovered for 1,300 years it seems to give more points to its reliablity than if some Muslim extremist had set out with a telescope and then published his findings in the name of God.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
This thread asks a good question. Personally, I think if scientific facts are foretold in scripture and later accidently discovered by a secular scientists, that that would legitimize what the scripture says more than if a believer went on a scientific journey only to prove his belief.

For example: the expansion of the universe wasn't discovered by science until the 20th Century, and most Muslims believe the following verse mentions it: And the Heavens; We have built them with power and verily We are expanding them. -The Koran 51:47. So if the Koran really mentions a scientific fact that wasn't discovered for 1,300 years it seems to give more points to its reliablity than if some Muslim extremist had set out with a telescope and then published his findings in the name of God.

Sorry, but that is postdiction. The word expanding can mean more then one thing in the verse.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry, but that is postdiction. The word expanding can mean more then one thing in the verse.

The original Arabic word is masood, meaning "expanding" or "stretching". So what do you think "Stretching the Heavens" means?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The original Arabic word is masood, meaning "expanding" or "stretching". So what do you think "Stretching the Heavens" means?

It could mean a lot of things. They could have even been right. But that does not mean that they understood the significance of that fact and how is applies to our knowledge about the expanding universe. You are jumping a chasm.

well, its curious how people generally insist that bible and quran be taken literally when they says "six days of creation" but insist on other interpretations when they come across things that are in line with scientific discovery. its saying 'stretching/expanding the universe and now everyone wants it to mean something else? sure it could mean something else, but why the double standards? why are we assuming that six days cannot mean anything else but six days but insist that "it is i who built this universe with power and it is i who am expanding it" could mean other things?

not refering to you directly, shakya-god-how-do-you-pronounce-this, but speaking generally.

Originally posted by Sado22
...

not refering to you directly, shakya-god-how-do-you-pronounce-this, but speaking generally.

Shakyamuni

(Pronunciation: "SHAHK-yah-moo-nee" The Historical Buddha, who lived in the 6th Century B.C.

Then add son.

SHAHK-yah-moo-nee-son

i thought his name was Siddhartha
and you didn't respond to my question.

Originally posted by Sado22
i thought his name was Siddhartha
and you didn't respond to my question.

It's just like the pope:

The man has a real name: Joseph Ratzinger
He has a ceremonial name: Benedict XVI
and we call him the pope

Siddhartha is his real name
Shakyamuni is his ceremonial name
and we call him Buddha

You asked me a question?

Originally posted by Sado22
well, its curious how people generally insist that bible and quran be taken literally when they says "six days of creation" but insist on other interpretations when they come across things that are in line with scientific discovery. its saying 'stretching/expanding the universe and now everyone wants it to mean something else? sure it could mean something else, but why the double standards? why are we assuming that six days cannot mean anything else but six days but insist that "it is i who built this universe with power and it is i who am expanding it" could mean other things?...

Is this the question? Why do people have double standards? Is that what you are asking me?

yup.

Originally posted by Sado22
yup.

I have no idea. Why do people have a double standard?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
This thread asks a good question. Personally, I think if scientific facts are foretold in scripture and later accidently discovered by a secular scientists, that that would legitimize what the scripture says more than if a believer went on a scientific journey only to prove his belief.

For example: the expansion of the universe wasn't discovered by science until the 20th Century, and most Muslims believe the following verse mentions it: And the Heavens; We have built them with power and verily We are expanding them. -The Koran 51:47. So if the Koran really mentions a scientific fact that wasn't discovered for 1,300 years it seems to give more points to its reliablity than if some Muslim extremist had set out with a telescope and then published his findings in the name of God.

Kind of what others have been saying. To crop a line from the Koran that is relatively ambiguous and certainly not rigid in its meaning or intent, then try to assert that it foretells a scientific fact, is a bit silly. Like I said earlier, say enough stuff, especially non-specific stuff that could be seen as scientific, and some of it will be true. It's inevitable, and similar examples could be found from multiple religious texts. But it doesn't mean that the line is divinely inspired religio-science. It just means that statistical probability is what we think it is.

The universe is expanding
The universe is contracting
The universe is static
The earth is the center of the universe
The earth is not the center of the universe
The universe is deterministic
"" not deterministic

At least 3 of those statements have to be true. And most religions have something to say about at least one of those topics. They have, at worst, a 1/3 of being right. Not exactly the longest odds.

well, okay, that was stupid on my part.
why insist on there being more than one interpretation of the "universe is expanding" line but insist on there being only one for the "6 day universe"?

i've already explained the hebrew origins of the bible, the translation cockups and the fact that there was no sun at the time so how could it be 24-hour day anyway.

Originally posted by Sado22
well, okay, that was stupid on my part.
why insist on there being more than one interpretation of the "universe is expanding" line but insist on there being only one for the "6 day universe"?

i've already explained the hebrew origins of the bible, the translation cockups and the fact that there was no sun at the time so how could it be 24-hour day anyway.

Some people have a belief that they are very attached too. They have invested every last part of their self identity onto this belief. They then want to find everything they can to support their belief, and ignore all else. They do this because they have too much to loose.

so, not really a reply to anyone specifically, but on the topic of religion trying to use scientific findings to prove their truth:

Isn't this a little short sighted of the religious community? I mean, yes, scientific "fact" is becoming more refined as time goes on, and some things, at this point, it is fair to say will not be overturned by evidence, or at least, would require such revision in how we understand things that it is more likely that we actually have a valid model (not that we necessarily understand the exact mechanism, but this is getting really phil o sci) than that we are shooting in the dark. However, all of this must be qualified with the caveat that scientific fact is constantly changing.

So, lets even suggest that the Quran says the universe is expanding, in no uncertain terms. This is only evidenced by science so long as the empirical evidence suggests that the universe is expanding. Just because that is what we see now with observation (and, given the predictions that have come from it, it is highly unlikely that it is entirely incorrect) does not mean that it will always be scientific fact.

Like, the whole Galileo issue is almost exactly the same as this. Religions offer a different type of truth than science, and for that reason, imho, actually devalue themselves when they take a stand on empirical matters, largely because a) it can undermine the authority of their other dogma when the science changes and b) religious people are not really trained to have an intuitive understanding of empirical causality or the scientific method.

One of the recent Popes said something like "We shouldn't fear the results of science, for any inconsistencies between dogma and science are simply what is yet to be discovered". I don't believe a word of it, but that seems like a much more intellectually tenable position than trying to rework dogma and science to be complimentary.

religious people have as much on the stake when the science/religion debate starts...if not more because faith is more important to a lot of theists than life, respect and honor. yet, no one thinks of this when they are beating down on muslims and christians. our belief our faith is something we are attached to as well and we have as much to loose as anyone else.


you're right. Ken Wilber said that religion should never be used to prove sciene and vise versa because once the scientific fact falls, god falls with it.
but as long as science keeps discovering things, people who hold on to belief desperately will want it to in accord with religion. notice how i said "hold on to belief desperately". to me, science and religion are two distinct roads and operate differently. one is related to the phyiscal and the other to the metaphysical. the very basis of their existence are polar opposites: intellect for science and faith for religion. science may or may not disagree with religion, but people who insist on an accord between the two are actually missing the point imo. religion isn't about facts but of lving a good life. science isn't about lving a good life but facts. good theists know that and can live with even the most brutal of scientific facts because they know whats really the point in the quran or the bible.


true.

~Sado

Originally posted by inimalist
Like, the whole Galileo issue is almost exactly the same as this. Religions offer a different type of truth than science, and for that reason, imho, actually devalue themselves when they take a stand on empirical matters, largely because a) it can undermine the authority of their other dogma when the science changes and b) religious people are not really trained to have an intuitive understanding of empirical causality or the scientific method.

One of the recent Popes said something like "We shouldn't fear the results of science, for any inconsistencies between dogma and science are simply what is yet to be discovered". I don't believe a word of it, but that seems like a much more intellectually tenable position than trying to rework dogma and science to be complimentary.

Interesting take. Won't stop people from trying to correlate the two, however, but I'm sure you know that.

i think people pay more attention to my avatar/sig than my posts....

Originally posted by Sado22
i think people pay more attention to my avatar/sig than my posts....

And whose fault is that?

.....yeah, but its too good to take down

bump

Good to see you back. I had a feeling the forum needed a more aggressive touch.

yuy

Originally posted by King Kandy
But why do you take it's word on empirical things like time?

because no1 can stop him