Science-Religion. Which wins?

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

I finally understand what the point of your argument is Mosby Marion. While I still disagree, I understand what you are trying to say.

</p>

<p>This makes be happy :).</p>

[justtotalk]

<p>^Your point was clear and valid from the start =).</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

The keyword is “unquestionable”. I may make assertions about what I believe to be the intent of God and the meaning of certain passages, but I recognize the fact that I may be wrong.

</p>

<p>My question is, “Why make them in the first place?” But that takes us off on a tangent, so I will merely pose it rhetorically.</p>

<p>It is also irrelevant as to whether they are made at all. Furthermore, most institutional religions do not actually believe that many things “for sure.” The deposit of faith is not completely known, nor is it claimed to be. On the other hand, we live our life by what we think is correct. That thought aspect can be omitted entirely when speaking to an outside observer.</p>

<p>So, I still don’t understand the problem with an institution claiming that it knows the will of God, unless you reject that authority in the first place, in which case it is not the institution that you dislike, but the approach of the people in it.</p>

<p>

I think that institutional religion tends to be bad, but if a particular case of it isn’t bad, then it isn’t bad!

</p>

<p>Again, statements like this are vacuous. There is nothing in your posts that specify institutional religion at all. You might as well say, “religious beliefs that disagree with fine” are bad because that is really the problem you have with institutional religion. You claim that it tends to take authority into its own hands, which is only a problem if you don’t actually believe it has that authority. This is not a discussion about institutional religion anymore, it’s simply you stating that you don’t agree with any religion that is institutional because you yourself are not part of an institutional religion.</p>

<p>

The key difference is between whether the person asserts that they are right regardless of the Bible, and whether their followers are expected to think for themselves or simply accept the conclusions of their leaders.

</p>

<p>Regardless of the Bible? You are typing on a computer. Is that in a Bible? Are you talking about direct contradiction? And why are you proving my point? Let me succinctly state it again:</p>

<p>“You do not have a problem with institutional religion in theory; you merely disagree with it, in the same way you disagree with any other religious belief that is not your own.”</p>

<p>Everything that you have said points to one statement. Here, for example, you take the supremacy and uniqueness of the Bible for granted, which is fine, but obviously discounts anything that an institution does in the name of divine authority. It is not the institution aspect that is bothersome; it is the divine authority aspect, something not limited to or particular to institutional religion.</p>

<p>

And if the result of a study agrees with the predictions of a model, then that adds credibility to the model. That is how science works: we test models by comparing actual results with predicted results.

</p>

<p>So what model supports the idea that Christianity is the true religion? Happiness as one is obviously one to be dismissed as irrelevant.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ Let me make this simple:</p>

<p>1: I believe it is bad when a person takes their doctrine from an authority without understanding the Biblical support for this doctrine.</p>

<p>2: I believe that this is more likely to happen when the Church is organized in a rigid hierarchy with authoritative leaders than when it is organized as a community of fellow believers.</p>

<p>3: I also believe that the Bible does not support the idea of a divinely inspired Clergy with authority to make rulings on the will of God. (See the “Who is Paul, who is Apollos” verse I quoted)</p>

<p>For these reasons I do not think it is wise for the Church to organize itself in such a fashion. I do not think it is wrong, but I do think it makes wrong things more likely to occur.</p>

<p>So yes, I have certain beliefs about what is right and wrong in Christian doctrine. I also believe that these wrong things are more likely to occur in an institutional Church than otherwise.</p>

<p>Since I consider it a good thing to prevent these wrong things from happening, I support the path which leads to the lowest likelihood, in my mind, of them happening.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

So what model supports the idea that Christianity is the true religion? Happiness as one is obviously one to be dismissed as irrelevant.

</p>

<p>I was just giving an example of how models are tested. I don’t even know if Christians tend to be happier.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Everything that you have said points to one statement. Here, for example, you take the supremacy and uniqueness of the Bible for granted, which is fine, but obviously discounts anything that an institution does in the name of divine authority. It is not the institution aspect that is bothersome; it is the divine authority aspect, something not limited to or particular to institutional religion.

</p>

<p>This is true. I do not have a problem with institutional religion in theory, but I believe that in practice it often leads to abuses which I do have a problem with.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

1: I believe it is bad when a person takes their doctrine from an authority without understanding the Biblical support for this doctrine.

</p>

<p>Fine. This applies to anyone who listens to anyone else without understanding, not specifically institutional Christianity. And, of course, the reality of the belief is not dependent on understanding, but I will accept the categorization of uninformed correctness as “bad.”</p>

<p>

2: I believe that this is more likely to happen when the Church is organized in a rigid hierarchy with authoritative leaders than when it is organized as a community of fellow believers.

</p>

<p>I have not yet seen an institution that matches that description, but fine. Note that this becomes a question of which you value more (in a possible scenario) – forming your own incorrect beliefs or listening to but not fully understanding the correct ones.</p>

<p>

3: I also believe that the Bible does not support the idea of a divinely inspired Clergy with authority to make rulings on the will of God. (See the “Who is Paul, who is Apollos” verse I quoted)

</p>

<p>See, this is actually the statement that comes first. Everything else is irrelevant. If you believed that there were Biblical support for an institutional Church, then obviously the fact that it appears authoritarian to the grossly misinformed is unimportant. What matters is that it is correct, much like the Bible is correct, but viewed as nothing but popular mythology to those who reject it on a basic level.</p>

<p>

So yes, I have certain beliefs about what is right and wrong in Christian doctrine. I also believe that these wrong things are more likely to occur in an institutional Church than otherwise.</p>

<p>Since I consider it a good thing to prevent these wrong things from happening, I support the path which leads to the lowest likelihood, in my mind, of them happening.

</p>

<p>I understand what you’re saying.</p>

<p>But I’m not sure you understand what I’m saying. I could be wrong.</p>

<p>I’m saying that all of that presupposes a rejection of the authority of any institution. The Catholic Church, for example, is not merely an organization of Christians; it is an organization that claims succession since Peter and a foundation started by Christ himself. That’s the kind of authority they assert they have. If you accepted that authority, the rest of your arguments have no place. So what is really the issue here is that you don’t believe that any divine authority lies with an institution.</p>

<p>

I was just giving an example of how models are tested. I don’t even know if Christians tend to be happier.

</p>

<p>I’m saying that no model can test Christianity because it by definition exists outside of the realm of empirically observable phenomena, otherwise there would be no reason for faith at all.</p>

<p>

This is true. I do not have a problem with institutional religion in theory, but I believe that in practice it often leads to abuses which I do have a problem with.

</p>

<p>See above.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>Here is how I understand what you are saying:</p>

<p>You say that because I believe that nothing but the Bible is authoritative on religious matters, I naturally reject the claim of the clergy to have that authority. But since I assume the first true from the start, my choice to disbelieve the second is simply arbitrary.</p>

<p>Is this correct?</p>

<p>How I see my beliefs is basically:</p>

<p>I believe that the Bible has authority on religious matters.</p>

<p>Since I believe that the claim of the clergy to have this authority contradicts things stated in the Bible, I reject this claim.</p>

<p>As I understand it, in many cases I must choose between the authority of the Bible and the authority of the clergy. Choosing the clergy would seem nonsensical, since it is only by the Bible that the clergy claim their authority it the first place.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

I’m saying that no model can test Christianity because it by definition exists outside of the realm of empirically observable phenomena, otherwise there would be no reason for faith at all.

</p>

<p>No model can prove Christianity. To be able to test it requires only that it has some effect on the observeable world.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>^^I would surmise that Baelor sees the authority of the clergy as running parallel to that of the Bible.</p>

<p>Something you might be interested in reading, MM:
<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Tradition[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Tradition&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Seems that “the clergy derives its authority from the Bible” is not entirely correct. Yours is a position of Sola Scriptura, which is apparently a more Protestant tradition.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ Well, it’s fine to take that position, but if you also take the position that the Bible is inspired, and the Bible contradicts the first position, then IMHO there is a conflict.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>“In the theology of these churches, Sacred Scripture, is the written part of this larger tradition, recording (albeit sometimes through the work of individual authors) the community’s experience of God or more specifically of Jesus Christ. Hence the Bible must be interpreted within the context of Sacred Tradition and within the community of the church.”</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

You say that because I believe that nothing but the Bible is authoritative on religious matters, I naturally reject the claim of the clergy to have that authority. But since I assume the first true from the start, my choice to disbelieve the second is simply arbitrary.

</p>

<p>The first sentence is correct. I’m simply saying that there is nothing about institutional Christianity that you dislike to a greater degree than other forms of Christianity or any other religion that espouses views with which you disagree.</p>

<p>

I believe that the Bible has authority on religious matters.

</p>

<p>Right. That’s really all that’s the issue here, unless you want to claim that a divinely inspired institution is bad because people believe it without understanding it, which someone could do, perhaps not convincingly.</p>

<p>Sithis addressed the last point.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>So I guess we understand each other now.</p>

<p>I believe that when the teachings of the clergy conflict with the teachings of the Bible, the Bible wins.</p>

<p>I also believe that it is neccesary for every Christian to understand the Bible for him/her self. Otherwise the will have no way to know if the clergy are contradicting it or not.</p>

<p>My specific complaint against institutional religion is that it leads to people being followers of “the Pope” or “the Right Reverend Smith” or “John Calvin” rather than “Jesus Christ”.</p>

<p>Then, if “the Pope” or “the Right Reverend Smith” or whoever goes wrong, the whole Church goes wrong.</p>

<p>Institutional Religion, or at least the form of it which I oppose, believe that the last situation can’t happen. I believe history indicates otherwise.</p>

[Baelor]

<p>

I also believe that it is neccesary for every Christian to understand the Bible for him/her self. Otherwise the will have no way to know if the clergy are contradicting it or not.

</p>

<p>What I’m saying is that even noting this is irrelevant unless you are willing to make the argument that the clergy are divinely inspired yet at the same time intrinsically bad because people follow them without understanding. Otherwise it is superseded by statement 1 about priority of teaching in conflict.</p>

[Circular]

<p>What a long thread.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>Do we get an award?</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>We should. This is the most replied-to thread on HSL aside from the two random chit chat threads and three of the game threads.</p>

<p>And by post length/content we have them beat by light years.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

What I’m saying is that even noting this is irrelevant unless you are willing to make the argument that the clergy are divinely inspired yet at the same time intrinsically bad because people follow them without understanding. Otherwise it is superseded by statement 1 about priority of teaching in conflict.

</p>

<p>I do believe that it is bad for people to blindly follow the clergy, even if the clergy are right.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>Yet it is not bad for people to blindly follow Scripture?</p>