POSITIVE CLAIMS IN RELEGION vs INTERPRETIVE FLEXIBILITY
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
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.
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.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
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.
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
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.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 4th, 2009 06:02 PM
