Is religious writing a suitable subject for discussion at scienceforums?

[CraigD]

Is religious writing a suitable subject for discussion at scienceforums?

 

There’s been considerable recent discussion of the appropriateness of religious documents, such as the Holy Bible, as subject matter sources for discussions within this forum. Opinions range from those expressed dduckwessel in Biblical evidence that birds came 'from water'., which suggest that there are specific rules for reading religious documents in a formal, scientific manner, to rebuttals of such claims, like those of Fishteacher73, in 4054.

 

The central debate over the relationship between Relegion and science is long and old, and has produced libraries of thoughtful writing from people holding many different positions. While it’s unlikely to come to an world-shaking conclusion here, scienceforums embraces an interesting and dynamic community of “x-theists” (mono-theists, pan-theists, a-thiests, etc.), who surely can provide valuable insight into both the larger debate (Relegion vs. Science = LD), and the smaller one (Is religious writing a suitable subject for discussion at scienceforums? = SD).

 

Here is a by-no-means exhaustive list of some popular relevant positions, along with my interpretation of them:

• Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA). Proposed by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould around 1997, but arguably going back for centuries in theological writings, this position holds that Science and Relegion, properly understood, can never be in serious conflict. It answers the LD “what debate?”, the SD “No, Relegion should not be discussed scientifically.”
   
  
• Bible codes. Popularised by Michael Drosnin in a 1997 Bestselling book, this position holds that religious documents, specifically the first five books of the Bible, when written in Hebrew, contains extraordinary and undiscovered information encoded there in ancient times by a high intelligence, most likely God. This position is controversial and extensively rebutted. It answers the LD “Relegion can be an alternative to Science”, the SD “Yes, religious documents are a treasure trove of scientific knowledge.”
   
  
• Practical moral theory. This position is, I believe, the most popular among all human beings. It holds that religious documents are practical guides to human and social behavior, possibly scientific, possibly not. Like the population that embraces this position, it encompasses so many sub-positions that it provides no single answer to either the LD or the SD

Several posts several threads have recommended moving the discussion to its own thread, so here one is. Have at it.

[rockytriton]

no

[sanctus]

Well yes, it is a suitable subject to discuss at scienceforums. This because how can we say that it is non-science or science if we don't analyze it? I don't believe in any principe which says something like "it's religious therefore non-scientific", rather I believe in a principe like "it's from religious writings/backgrounds and claims to be scientific therefore we have to see if it is really scientific".

 

And sometimes parabolas of divine intervention can be interpreted scientifically, for example the ten plagues of egypt...

[saidevo]

Well yes, it is a suitable subject to discuss at scienceforums. This because how can we say that it is non-science or science if we don't analyze it? I don't believe in any principe which says something like "it's religious therefore non-scientific", rather I believe in a principe like "it's from religious writings/backgrounds and claims to be scientific therefore we have to see if it is really scientific".

 

And sometimes parabolas of divine intervention can be interpreted scientifically, for example the ten plagues of egypt...

 

The origins of science can be traced to religious faiths. When every other subject including language and literature and philosophy is included in science forums why not religious writings? Writings on comparative religion can definitely be included in science forums.

 

Regards,

saidevo

[rockytriton]

I'm sure there are plenty of bible study forums on the 'net. Let's keep the self-righteous bible thumping out of the science forums. It sure seems like a waste of database space and CPU to keep this kind of stuff here.

[Theophilus]

Is religious writing a suitable subject for discussion at scienceforums?

 

There’s been considerable recent discussion of the appropriateness of religious documents, such as the Holy Bible, as subject matter sources for discussions within this forum. Opinions range from those expressed dduckwessel in Biblical evidence that birds came 'from water'., which suggest that there are specific rules for reading religious documents in a formal, scientific manner, to rebuttals of such claims, like those of Fishteacher73, in 4054.

 

The central debate over the relationship between Relegion and science is long and old, and has produced libraries of thoughtful writing from people holding many different positions. While it’s unlikely to come to an world-shaking conclusion here, scienceforums embraces an interesting and dynamic community of “x-theists” (mono-theists, pan-theists, a-thiests, etc.), who surely can provide valuable insight into both the larger debate (Relegion vs. Science = LD), and the smaller one (Is religious writing a suitable subject for discussion at scienceforums? = SD).

 

Here is a by-no-means exhaustive list of some popular relevant positions, along with my interpretation of them:

• Nonoverlapping Magisteria (NOMA). Proposed by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould around 1997, but arguably going back for centuries in theological writings, this position holds that Science and Relegion, properly understood, can never be in serious conflict. It answers the LD “what debate?”, the SD “No, Relegion should not be discussed scientifically.”
   
  
• Bible codes. Popularised by Michael Drosnin in a 1997 Bestselling book, this position holds that religious documents, specifically the first five books of the Bible, when written in Hebrew, contains extraordinary and undiscovered information encoded there in ancient times by a high intelligence, most likely God. This position is controversial and extensively rebutted. It answers the LD “Relegion can be an alternative to Science”, the SD “Yes, religious documents are a treasure trove of scientific knowledge.”
   
  
• Practical moral theory. This position is, I believe, the most popular among all human beings. It holds that religious documents are practical guides to human and social behavior, possibly scientific, possibly not. Like the population that embraces this position, it encompasses so many sub-positions that it provides no single answer to either the LD or the SD

Several posts several threads have recommended moving the discussion to its own thread, so here one is. Have at it.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. By "writings" do you mean the actual books. If you mean the contents, i.e., can the bible claims be tested scientifically, then we must first determine the adequacy/authority of science to undertake such a task.

If you mean can we discuss what the bible means, I would point out that there is already a science which deals with that, i.e., Theology, specifically the discipline of hermeneutics.

 

This last points out one of the problems we have with contemporary language. In ancient usage, the term science applied to all areas of knowledge. It has rather recently come to its more restricted usage, i.e., the "natural" sciences or physical sciences.

 

So, I suppose it is the nature of the discussion in which you wish to engage and whether the limits of this forum can be stretched to accommodate Theology as a science.

[sanctus]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. By "writings" do you mean the actual books. If you mean the contents, i.e., can the bible claims be tested scientifically, then we must first determine the adequacy/authority of science to undertake such a task.

 

 

There is a kind of paradox in your phrase, you ask "can the bibles claims be tested scientifically" which implies that science is able to undertake that task. But after you question it.

I mean whatever you can test scientifically is equivalent to say that science can do it.

 

Now, I agree with you in the sense that one can discuss if the result of a scientific analysis of a religious book are the right way to approach such a book.

[Boerseun]

Science discounting religion stirs up emotional responses from religious people.

 

However, religious science-oriented folks should understand this.

 

Religion is not testable, doesn't supply any repeatable experiments, can't be observed or dissected under a microscope, and is therefore not science. If I bump my head and lose consciousness, and the last thing I saw was the cup of coffee in my left hand, I might make the claim that carrying a cup of coffee (2 sugars, cream) in your left hand produces bruises on your forehead. This is testable, and can be shown by science to be a false hypothesis. The fact that it is falsifiable, testable, and repeatble in any lab, drags my accident into the realm of science. Doesn't matter how ludicrious the premise sounds at first. Science can bother itself with stuff like coffee mugs and bruised foreheads. Religion supplies none of the above.

 

But I think we should keep the theology forum alive, seeing as religion has a big impact on society. But then posters here should understand that religion is treated here objectively, from a sociological point of view. We should give equal weight to any religion under discussion here, and posters should understand that this isn't the place to even attempt missionary work. We're not interested in your beliefs as an individual - what should be discussed here is the technicalities of religion, its impact on society, etc. Don't try to convert an atheist to your point of view and then complain when a Muslim tries to convince you that Mohammed was right. There's no absolutes - and that's why science and religion shouldn't even attempt to play in the same league.

[alexander]

would this be the wrong place to mention that i have many times now to a certain extent proven that bibical text can not be taken seriously for the main reason that it was written and edited by people, for a society that is 3000 years old?

 

And no, i think that discussion of the biblical scripture as if it is the absolute truth is propostorous, simply because, if you beleive that you are right, but cant prove yourself right or anyone else wrong, except for on the basis of a religious scripture, which someone proves to not be all that accurate and be quite plagiristic in nature, do you have a right to flame people for saying stuff that contradicts what you've come to beleive?

 

If someone says that roses are really not red, but some book says that roses are red, you have no real "proof" of your statement, but you say that the book piece was written for the reason that has nothing to do with science, therefore it can not be taken literaly, well are roses really red all of the sudden or are they not? (philosophically spealking not scientiffically)

[sanctus]

Religion is not testable, doesn't supply any repeatable experiments, can't be observed or dissected under a microscope, and is therefore not science.

 

Therefore following your definition archeology is also not science. One can deduce (eg a use of relict) something and say it is so because it is most plausible. Repeatable? Testabel?

 

So, I still say yes to the question in the thread title, because one can discuss scientifically if this miracles ffor example are scientifically possible or close to something possible. Yet it won't be testabel, generally at least. Just like archeology...

[CraigD]

Therefore following your definition archeology is also not science. One can deduce (eg a use of relict) something and say it is so because it is most plausible. Repeatable? Testabel?

Even though one can’t practically perform experiments that exactly reproduce the processes hypothesizes by archeology (eg: observe the earth from the beginning of the period in question to the present), one can still perform experiments to falsify these hypotheses (eg: I hypothesize that a species became extinct X years ago. I perform radiocarbon dating of many fossils of that species. If some date more recent than X years ago, my hypothesis is false)

So, I still say yes to the question in the thread title, because one can discuss scientifically if this miracles ffor example are scientifically possible or close to something possible. Yet it won't be testabel, generally at least. Just like archeology...

Hypotheses within the domain of Religion can be made and tested. For example, a hypothetical religious document claims (hypothesizes) that, if one eats pasta for 49 consecutive Sundays, angels of God will burn ones house to the ground within 1 year. I eat pasta for the proscribed period, and wait 1 year. If my house is not burned down, this hypothesis is false. A theory of what an angel is, or how it might burn down a house, is not required, just a definition of pasta, Sunday, and a burned-down house.

 

The reason it’s generally inappropriate to perform such experiments (other than it is discourteous to adherents of the hypothetical religion) is that neither the value of the religious document as a work of moral philosophy, nor our understanding of the Science of hours fires are increased by it. Although house fire Science suffers no harm, the document in question may provide measurable benefit to society by promoting virtuous behavior, that, due to the falsification of its claims, is lost. It is even possible to scientifically hypothesize and test claims of the document’s benefit to society in a way unrelated to testing the objective truth of specific claims within it.

 

Of the positions outlined in the threadstarter post, I subscribe to NOMA, and “Religion is practical moral theory”. Science and Religion are both of potential benefit to society, but how to use them to improve ones understanding of objective reality or practical morality – their magisteria – should be well understood.

 

To promote this understanding, I think religious writing is a suitable subject for discussion at scienceforums, but that we must be careful in these discussions not to misapply Religion to scientific subjects (eg: The Bible as an accurate estimator of the Earths age), or Science to religious ones (eg: ridiculing scientifically unsound writing in religious documents of proven social value).

 

Positive interaction between Science and Religion is possible. Deeply held religious beliefs can provide the emotional strength necessary to perform the hard work of science. A scientific approach can prove beneficial in determining how best to use religious thought to achieve desirable social goals. Understanding and compromise of the kind Gould describes and encourages under the heading of NOMA is, I believe, necessary for this positive interaction to continue and spread.

[Boerseun]

dduckwessel:

 

Science doesn't have all the answers, and doesn't pretend to have. However...

 

The Bible simply cannot be considered evidence for anything. When Moses came from the mount with the set of laws contained in the Ten Commandements, there wasn't any credible witnesses up on the mountain with him. They took his word for it. The rest of the Bible was written mostly in the same manner. No witnesses. The Burning Bush was a story retold and retold and eventually penned down. Jonah and the whale. Same issue. Retold, rehashed stories without any factual evidence, or at least credible witnesses.

 

Therefore, if the Bible was to be presented in a court of law as evidence, it would be thrown out, if only for the suspect information contained in its thousand-odd pages.

 

That can't be science, and it can't be accepted as evidence or an explanation for anything. The Creation myth contained in the first few pages of Genesis, is an adaption of Gilgamesh. It's not even original.

 

In the scientific field, not only is what you're researching important, but the most important thing (more important than anything else, considering) is the quality and integrity of your data. Without that, you're lost, and wasting your and your sponsors' time.

 

Data contained in the Bible is hearsay, subjective, non-confirmed, non-repeatable, and of suspect origins. It cannot count as science.

 

However, the effect that the Bible has on society can be studied, quantified, researched, and used in sociology. And that, in my opinion, is why we should allow the scientific, objective discussion of religious writings in a sociological context on these forums.

[alexander]

I just had a few thoughts on the topic again, so:

 

First of all, all claims that Bible seems to predict events tells absolutely nothing, it, just like Nostradamus's writing can be interpreted like 50 different ways, another example of such predictions and desciptions would be Jules Verne's work on submarines, literaly, literary arts present many things that seem to match real life events or creations that happen in the future, so you could almost dismiss it.

 

As to the Bible, there is a lot of similarity between it's creationist story and the stories that circulated around the region at the time; every city had their own, so go figure, wow this makes sense, hey and this does too, it sounds cool, lets put it in our "ultimate" myth (this would include things like there was nothing and then all of the sudden there was something created, some from there go to a garden, while others go to islands or lands)... Then they steal stories from other literary creations of the time and before, like the story of the flood is clearly a slightly edited version of one of the stories in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was by the way written about 3000 years before the first versions of the bible started appearing. Nor does the bible say that there is only one God, look at the beginning, when Abraham is visited by the spirit, the spirit does not state that he is the only god, he just asks A to only worship him and not the other gods, the being never says that there are no others, if you read closely, it is not till Moses crosses the channel and the second encounter with the being that it states that they are not even supposed to think that there are any more gods...

 

As to the repeatance of certain things throughout the gospels, first of all, there were over 80 gospels submitted to be included in the Bible, but most were not accepted by the Coucils of Nicea, and by the way, should i mention that at the same time, Rome was facing some minor religious dificulties with a pagan army and 1/2 christian crowd, Constantine was a great politician or rather business man, he needed to calm the crowd and not anger his armies. So where does all the symbological evidence that points to paganism come from? Why were the other gospels offered to be destroyed? And why do the newly discovered gospels differ so much from the ones in the bible? Want an example of major differences, how about the whole Mary thing? why do Gnostic gospels mention that Jesus used to commonly kiss Mary in the *, and the Bible ones make it seem like she was a prostitute, yet back to the Gnostic Gospels and the Dead Sea scrolls mention that Mary was really close to Jesus, that J trusted M more then most other of his close friends and followers?

[cwes99_03]

While I'm not familiar with all the books of the Apocrypha, my understanding of history says that they were not cannonized because they contained some inconsistencies with other books of the bible that were much older (the text itself was dated as older, not the date that it was written) and that the books of the Apocrypha never seem to be mentioned in other books of the cannonized Bible, thereby leading to some suspicion as to their nature.

 

In reading this thread, I find some people wanting to outlaw the discussion of religion from a scientific point of view, others saying that all religious books out there contradict themselves somewhere, or contain much teaching that can be refuted by science, or even those who want to explain all religious teachings as explained solely as something that can be some scientificly known natural phenomena.

 

Others say that regardless of what scientific evidence is presented religious people will not listen but choose to believe blindly in an unscientific idea, or will reinterpret the text to circumnavigate the scientific viewpoint.

 

My experience from my own study of religion is that many of your viewpoints are valid. Unfortunately, many are blind adherents to religious philosophy which is totally unsupported by any religious text or scientific finding.

 

My experience from my own study of science, and it's adherents, are that there are similarly a greater amount of people who are willing to believe scientists who seem to have an answer, or put forth answers that have not scientific basis themselves.

 

My point I guess would then be, a study of religious beliefs and religious texts (as they are not always coherent in modern religions) from a scientific standpoint is a topic for a science forum, as much as someone's new theory on kinetic energy, or evolution is.

 

Personally, I am a religious person, but I always test my beliefs against all my other beliefs and my scientific knowledge to see if they are in harmony. Doing so, only makes me believe more strongly in what I hold to be the truth, and I am always open for discussion of these points and new points (as I will compare them to my catalogue of knowledge.)

[alexander]

ok, so i will take the opposite stand, no matter how much i dont really want to do it...

 

The Bible was inspired by the same person who also created the universe.

 

and so were thousands of other volumes of books that you dont seem to beleive in, so then what?

 

Science studies what God created,

 

that is if you can prove that god created it, please be my guest, and you cant reference to the Bible because it was written by people....

 

so then science and the Bible are the same things, making science God's defender.

 

no, science is written based on observations, Bible is a creationist story to tell kids so they dont bug ya, big difference...

 

Bible-based religions are often at odds with science (who only study God's creation), therefore, it must be religion that is in error because nature cannot lie.

 

also this little thing about bible being written by people and have been changed over time, oh and it plagerises a whole load of writing previous to itself, as well as the whole story, very minor changes...

 

Granted science has made mistakes yes, but they are honest ones, yet religion often fails to bow the knee to validated scientific discoveries until the evidence is so overwhelming, they must readjust their thinking.

 

You forgot to mention that religion for over a thousand years set science back...

 

Science said there was a big bang which created the universe. If religious people knew the Bible they would have known ages ago that the Bible speaks of the big bang, but it was science who discovered it first and religion argued with them, only now coming around to this way of thinking because of the Biblical evidence.

 

Maybe its me missreading the bible, but please point to it....

[alexander]

Good question! But the thousands of other volumes don't have what I call 'the law of witnesses' which is the method God instituted for explaining his own words.

woopty doo, first of all you can not claim that god instituted anything, because you first need to prove that god exist, and second of all other volumes had way cooler stories then the Bible did, with different methods for explaining the word of god...

What if I could prove by this method that there is something really unusual about the Bible and no human being could possibly write this information as it is interpreted by the law of repetition?

Homer repeats Odyssius many times, that doesnt prove that Homer ever existed nor does it say that the book was written by someone superhuman. And you would have trouble doing that, if you do, you should also reference aginst Nostradamus and prove that that is made by a human first...

but you must put aside everything you have learned about the Bible, the law of witnesses is not anything like what has always been taught concerning the Bible

so now after 3000 years of the bible's existance it teaches yet another thing, thats awesome, err, not...

If you read it like you would a novel or textbook you will find oodles of contradictions, but if you put the puzzle together with the law of repeating, you will find amazing information.

i read it as a novel, but then applied the "law of don't blindfully beleive any 3000 year old book" on it, and man does it clear up the bible like you wouldnt beleive....

[IrishEyes]

Science said there was a big bang which created the universe. If religious people knew the Bible they would have known ages ago that the Bible speaks of the big bang, but it was science who discovered it first and religion argued with them, only now coming around to this way of thinking because of the Biblical evidence.

Maybe its me missreading the bible, but please point to it....

duck,

While I applaud your obvious passion on this subject, I'd also like to ask you to simply answer the questions posed, or reply with a very simple "No". alex has asked where in the Bible you find evidence of the Big Bang. With your repetition theory, I'm sure that you have several instances of the Big Bang being mentioned in the Bible, right?

Please feel free to share those instances where the Bible mentions, or even alludes to, the Big Bang. Please be sure to mention book, chapter and verse in your response.

Thanks! :)