Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Theists. Does this do anything to your consciousness?
I direct this question more to literalists and fundamentals who read the Bible literally. Others of course are welcome to comment.
Let me point out that I think of the Bible as a book of wisdom that it is a consolidation of many of the older religions of that day and is a good book to help us seek God by analyzing the old myths. If read literally, the reader will miss out on the rather wonderful thinking stimulated by it and miss the purpose that the book was put together point to. I do not disrespect it but have little respect for literal readers for that reason. They end up idol worshiping a book of myths.
It is interesting to note that both of these prominent scholars came from fundamentalist religions before their research, as well as the scholars they quote, changed their overall views.
They, like myself do not want to dissuade the search for God but only want to point out that God may be bigger than the pigeon hole/Bible that theist have put him in. As a religionist, to me, God is big enough to be everyone’s God. Not just a chosen few. Theists should like this notion because then, God, if real, remains now, as in the beginning, master of all and not just master of some.
Regards
DL
Last edited by Greatest I am; 08-10-2011 at 01:44 PM..
Theists. Does this do anything to you consciousness?
They, like myself do not want to dissuade the search for God but only want to point out that God may be bigger than the pigeon hole/Bible that theist have put him in. As a religionist, to me, God is big enough to be everyone’s God. Not just a chosen few. Theists should like this notion because then, God, if real, remains now, as in the beginning, master of all and not just master of some.
Regards
DL
Good to know you are only anri-christian, not anti-God.
But two things you should know. Dawkins is fiercy anti-thiestic and he "had an Anglican upbringing" according to Wiki. The Anglican church is hardly a fundie church.
That religion is different than science is not surprising and that's all Dawkins deal really says. Well that and that he doesn't understand religion except in a superficial way. Neither is really surprising of him. Although I guess I should add it's not even really true of science. There have been scientific theories that were widely accepted in France, but not Britain or vice verse. And Lamarck remained accepted in the Communist nations when the non-Communist ones had long abandoned him. And some religions are dispersed in fairly wide patterns like Baha'i.
The other is over an hour long and I'm not willing to invest that much time at this moment.
And that's the real difference between science and religion. Science will eventually weed out false beliefs current in some 18th century academic circles when better information came across and nonsense like the racial beliefs of the Nazis or the genetic theories of the Stalinists fell with the regimes that made them obligatory dogma.
Religion, while actually imperceptible adapting to the findings of science refused to recognize that almost all of its claims, dogma and tenets do not have any evidential support whatsoever.
Theists. Does this do anything to your consciousness?
I direct this question more to literalists and fundamentals who read the Bible literally. Others of course are welcome to comment.
Let me point out that I think of the Bible as a book of wisdom that it is a consolidation of many of the older religions of that day and is a good book to help us seek God by analyzing the old myths. If read literally, the reader will miss out on the rather wonderful thinking stimulated by it and miss the purpose that the book was put together point to. I do not disrespect it but have little respect for literal readers for that reason. They end up idol worshiping a book of myths.
It is interesting to note that both of these prominent scholars came from fundamentalist religions before their research, as well as the scholars they quote, changed their overall views.
They, like myself do not want to dissuade the search for God but only want to point out that God may be bigger than the pigeon hole/Bible that theist have put him in. As a religionist, to me, God is big enough to be everyone’s God. Not just a chosen few. Theists should like this notion because then, God, if real, remains now, as in the beginning, master of all and not just master of some.
Regards
DL
Precisely what is it you mean when you use the term "literalist?"
From my understanding, to take things literally would be to interpret poetry as poetry, symbolism as symbolism, metaphor as metaphor, historical narrative as historical narrative etc.
...isn't this the way all literature is to be understood?
I would guess that the real problem some folks have is with the various controversies/conflicts over certain portions of scripture (hermeneutics) and really has nothing whatsoever to do with being a "literalist"...whatever that means.
Precisely what is it you mean when you use the term "literalist?"
From my understanding, to take things literally would be to interpret poetry as poetry, symbolism as symbolism, metaphor as metaphor, historical narrative as historical narrative etc.
...isn't this the way all literature is to be understood?
I would guess that the real problem some folks have is with the various controversies/conflicts over certain portions of scripture (hermeneutics) and really has nothing whatsoever to do with being a "literalist"...whatever that means.
If you believe in Jesus then your are reading the Bible literally and giving a book of myths historicity.
And that's the real difference between science and religion. Science will eventually weed out false beliefs current in some 18th century academic circles when better information came across and nonsense like the racial beliefs of the Nazis or the genetic theories of the Stalinists fell with the regimes that made them obligatory dogma.
And then it will weed out the false beliefs it replaces those with and then it will weed out that. Maybe. Some of this is a bit "on faith", that through a method humans can overcome their perception limitations or biases, but anyway in none of that does it necessarily get to a fully accurate description of reality or society or good or whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Religion, while actually imperceptible adapting to the findings of science refused to recognize that almost all of its claims, dogma and tenets do not have any evidential support whatsoever.
You don't consider the evidence sufficient or inarguable, that isn't the same as it not existing at all. I would almost say if there is no God or supernatural than humans are so unreliable we'll have to wait for aliens to come down to figure out what's really going on.
Granted there's the idea that humans are only unreliable like that because they're not properly trained in logic and empiricism. That when they are they can show any experience they have as being naturalistic and never divinely influenced. And I guess that's a kind of answer, but I don't think I'd buy it. For one it's speculative. We don't know if those experiences in the past would have all been show to be naturalistic in nature if everyone had been Isaac Asimov or Carl Sagan. For another I think it's pressing logic and empiricism farther then they're designed to go. They're basically tools so it's like trying to make a toolkit be your whole universe. Lastly if I'm going to believe in some method that makes people more reliable as my "One True Faith, no other methods need supplement" I don't see a reason to pick one quite so narrow and unsatisfying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
