Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Religion as a self correcting force

Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 2:21:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Since the beginning or recorded history Religion has been changing, self correcting, improving, becoming more palatable to the masses.

I point to the Catholic Church, with is much different than the one that approved the Sacred Cannon of Biblical truth in the fourth century.
So many changes, with regard to church teaching on creation, divorce, priesthood, dietary restrictions, performance of the mass. Core values have not changed considerably, but the details have changed greatly.

Then there is the Protestant Reformation. Wow, what changes in the Catholic Church.
One nail from Luther and the Christian world changed dramatically. Not only the Bible, but the priesthood was now in the hands of the common people.
Self educated Bible scholars decided what was Biblical and what was church dogma, and disposed of the latter.
Purgatory no longer existed, infant baptism no longer valid. Papal authority non existent, Mass in German, not Latin.
Men devoted to Christ could marry.
Many, many changes, all improvement according to those who made them.
And then the splinter sects within Protestantism, not to mention major divergence with Jehovah"s Witnesses, and the Latter Day Saints. All of this based on an understanding of church doctrine. Teaching on church doctrine changed considerably.

All of this resulting in over 40,000 Christian denominations, each an improvement on the previous.
In the middle of that the Nation of Islam sprouted, correcting the false teachings of their cousins, the Christians.

In the other religions we see similar, although less dramatic.

Strong Atheists and strong religionists will disagree, I would expect.
They will each say it is not at all the same as with Science, and I would agree, different in so many ways, and yet, similar in many ways.
Both of those sides will see only the differences.
Disinterested observers will understand, and see the similarities.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 9:36:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So you are in with (is that the right term?) the Nation of Islam?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 10:35:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I disagree on self correcting. Sure maybe on some things.

But there are some things where religious beliefs had to give ground in the wake of modernity.

A scientific understanding of the world, human rights, , equality of the sexes, democracy, critical thinking, evidence and reason over dogma, free speech, etc etc
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 5:25:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is nothing self correcting about many religions like the Catholic Church and the nasty JW cult.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 6:36:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 9:36:38 PM, Skynet wrote:
So you are in with (is that the right term?) the Nation of Islam?

"in with" - I would not expect you would mean 'member in good standing', as you did not bring up any other religions I mentioned.
So, what did you mean? Beats me.

I first studied Islam in a comparative religion class in 1970 or so.
After that I read the Qu'ran, as a self study - it was the Koran back then.
I can't say I studied it, just read it. Very reminiscent of the OT Bible.
I had a different comparative religion class at a different university in 1975 or so, and covered the highlights again.
I am certainly no Islamic scholar, but my knowledge does seem to be head and shoulders above most of my friends, who only know about these recent extremist movements, and who do not even recognize them as extremists.
I also own several Cat Stevens albums.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 6:40:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 2:21:02 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Since the beginning or recorded history Religion has been changing, self correcting, improving, becoming more palatable to the masses.

I point to the Catholic Church, with is much different than the one that approved the Sacred Cannon of Biblical truth in the fourth century.
So many changes, with regard to church teaching on creation, divorce, priesthood, dietary restrictions, performance of the mass. Core values have not changed considerably, but the details have changed greatly.

Then there is the Protestant Reformation. Wow, what changes in the Catholic Church.
One nail from Luther and the Christian world changed dramatically. Not only the Bible, but the priesthood was now in the hands of the common people.
Self educated Bible scholars decided what was Biblical and what was church dogma, and disposed of the latter.
Purgatory no longer existed, infant baptism no longer valid. Papal authority non existent, Mass in German, not Latin.
Men devoted to Christ could marry.
Many, many changes, all improvement according to those who made them.
And then the splinter sects within Protestantism, not to mention major divergence with Jehovah"s Witnesses, and the Latter Day Saints. All of this based on an understanding of church doctrine. Teaching on church doctrine changed considerably.

All of this resulting in over 40,000 Christian denominations, each an improvement on the previous.
In the middle of that the Nation of Islam sprouted, correcting the false teachings of their cousins, the Christians.

In the other religions we see similar, although less dramatic.

Strong Atheists and strong religionists will disagree, I would expect.
They will each say it is not at all the same as with Science, and I would agree, different in so many ways, and yet, similar in many ways.
Both of those sides will see only the differences.
Disinterested observers will understand, and see the similarities.

What tenant of religion gives it this property? Isn't it simply that Religious institutions are subject to public pressure and discourse? If religion has no tenant that inherently makes it "self correcting", then it is simply influenced by the public and does not posses this property itself. It is then society that corrects religion, not religion correcting religion.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 6:51:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/3/2015 10:35:01 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I disagree on self correcting. Sure maybe on some things.

I meant nothing else.
Even Scientists have not recognized and thus corrected all of errors of Science, and that is it's claim to fame.
Compare to religion it changes very quickly, but compared to reality, it wants to be sure if is correct, and sets a high bar.

But there are some things where religious beliefs had to give ground in the wake of modernity. :A scientific understanding of the world, human rights, , equality of the sexes, democracy, critical thinking, evidence and reason over dogma, free speech, etc etc

So we have some common ground on this issue.
Various sects, or splinter groups of sects, have taken generally accepted knowledge, and incorporated it into Biblical teaching. And of course, many others have resisted, long and hard.
Some have had many changes, some only a few, but all have had some.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 7:07:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 6:40:47 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/1/2015 2:21:02 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Since the beginning or recorded history Religion has been changing, self correcting, improving, becoming more palatable to the masses.

I point to the Catholic Church, with is much different than the one that approved the Sacred Cannon of Biblical truth in the fourth century.
So many changes, with regard to church teaching on creation, divorce, priesthood, dietary restrictions, performance of the mass. Core values have not changed considerably, but the details have changed greatly.

Then there is the Protestant Reformation. Wow, what changes in the Catholic Church.
One nail from Luther and the Christian world changed dramatically. Not only the Bible, but the priesthood was now in the hands of the common people.
Self educated Bible scholars decided what was Biblical and what was church dogma, and disposed of the latter.
Purgatory no longer existed, infant baptism no longer valid. Papal authority non existent, Mass in German, not Latin.
Men devoted to Christ could marry.
Many, many changes, all improvement according to those who made them.
And then the splinter sects within Protestantism, not to mention major divergence with Jehovah"s Witnesses, and the Latter Day Saints. All of this based on an understanding of church doctrine. Teaching on church doctrine changed considerably.

All of this resulting in over 40,000 Christian denominations, each an improvement on the previous.
In the middle of that the Nation of Islam sprouted, correcting the false teachings of their cousins, the Christians.

In the other religions we see similar, although less dramatic.

Strong Atheists and strong religionists will disagree, I would expect.
They will each say it is not at all the same as with Science, and I would agree, different in so many ways, and yet, similar in many ways.
Both of those sides will see only the differences.
Disinterested observers will understand, and see the similarities.

What tenant of religion gives it this property?

The tenant of Truth.
Let's cut to the chase. You disagree with my answer, I do not care, say what you want, I doubt that I will respond. You are too confused for me.

Isn't it simply that Religious institutions are subject to public pressure and discourse?

And Science is subject to peer pressure and discourse.
Guess what, the public is what the 'peers' are for religion.

If religion has no tenant that inherently makes it "self correcting", then it is simply influenced by the public and does not posses this property itself. It is then society that corrects religion, not religion correcting religion.

Science and religion have common goals, in some cases, certainly not all cases.
They want what is best for mankind.
They want Truth. A common property.
Guess what - they disagree on what this means.

There was a day when the Agents of Science wanted, and believed they had, Eternal Truth. They actually thought they held it in their hands - so how did that go ?
Not well.
They were deluded.
They had to back pedal very quickly very fast.
The had to change the whole game plan, a Revolution.

Even today many persons are in denial it ever happened.
Some deny the Scientists ever thought that, and some deny even today they do not offer Eternal Truth.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 7:12:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 5:25:18 AM, JJ50 wrote:
There is nothing self correcting about many religions like the Catholic Church and the nasty JW cult.

So the 99 Theses of Luther had no change?
When we with for burgers on Friday night my Catholic friends would check their watch, to see if midnight had passed, not today.
Catholic divorce in 1950 compared to today, world of difference.
Lots of (small) changes.

For JW, their big change was splitting off from the main body, and they are mere infants in the world of religion, still drinking mother's milk.
I believe some of the witnessing techniques have changed.
They are not special, they will change.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 7:26:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 2:21:02 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Since the beginning or recorded history Religion has been changing, self correcting, improving, becoming more palatable to the masses.

I point to the Catholic Church, with is much different than the one that approved the Sacred Cannon of Biblical truth in the fourth century.
So many changes, with regard to church teaching on creation, divorce, priesthood, dietary restrictions, performance of the mass. Core values have not changed considerably, but the details have changed greatly.

Then there is the Protestant Reformation. Wow, what changes in the Catholic Church.
One nail from Luther and the Christian world changed dramatically. Not only the Bible, but the priesthood was now in the hands of the common people.
Self educated Bible scholars decided what was Biblical and what was church dogma, and disposed of the latter.
Purgatory no longer existed, infant baptism no longer valid. Papal authority non existent, Mass in German, not Latin.
Men devoted to Christ could marry.
Many, many changes, all improvement according to those who made them.
And then the splinter sects within Protestantism, not to mention major divergence with Jehovah"s Witnesses, and the Latter Day Saints. All of this based on an understanding of church doctrine. Teaching on church doctrine changed considerably.

All of this resulting in over 40,000 Christian denominations, each an improvement on the previous.
In the middle of that the Nation of Islam sprouted, correcting the false teachings of their cousins, the Christians.

In the other religions we see similar, although less dramatic.

Strong Atheists and strong religionists will disagree, I would expect.
They will each say it is not at all the same as with Science, and I would agree, different in so many ways, and yet, similar in many ways.
Both of those sides will see only the differences.
Disinterested observers will understand, and see the similarities.

Oh how I wish that were right, religion is far from self correcting.

But as for science v religion, I see no incompatibility with them and am of the opinion that the only ones who do are those who want to.

To me, and those like me, all I see when I watch science programs, as I do regularly, is that science is slowly but surely revealing more and more abut how God did what he did.

I just wish it wasn't only a minority of scientists who could see that, and who include God in their calculations.

Fortunately there are a growing number, slowly growing, who actually believe that the bible is 100% true and accurate.

Of course that is partly because, unlike the majority of people they read things like Genesis 1 properly and with thought, and doing so they find that the limited information it does provide is 100% accurate..

Science is like Algebra.

If you leave the most important part out of the equation you will always get the wrong answer.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 8:41:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 7:26:51 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/1/2015 2:21:02 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Since the beginning or recorded history Religion has been changing, self correcting, improving, becoming more palatable to the masses.

I point to the Catholic Church, with is much different than the one that approved the Sacred Cannon of Biblical truth in the fourth century.
So many changes, with regard to church teaching on creation, divorce, priesthood, dietary restrictions, performance of the mass. Core values have not changed considerably, but the details have changed greatly.

Then there is the Protestant Reformation. Wow, what changes in the Catholic Church.
One nail from Luther and the Christian world changed dramatically. Not only the Bible, but the priesthood was now in the hands of the common people.
Self educated Bible scholars decided what was Biblical and what was church dogma, and disposed of the latter.
Purgatory no longer existed, infant baptism no longer valid. Papal authority non existent, Mass in German, not Latin.
Men devoted to Christ could marry.
Many, many changes, all improvement according to those who made them.
And then the splinter sects within Protestantism, not to mention major divergence with Jehovah"s Witnesses, and the Latter Day Saints. All of this based on an understanding of church doctrine. Teaching on church doctrine changed considerably.

All of this resulting in over 40,000 Christian denominations, each an improvement on the previous.
In the middle of that the Nation of Islam sprouted, correcting the false teachings of their cousins, the Christians.

In the other religions we see similar, although less dramatic.

Strong Atheists and strong religionists will disagree, I would expect.
They will each say it is not at all the same as with Science, and I would agree, different in so many ways, and yet, similar in many ways.
Both of those sides will see only the differences.
Disinterested observers will understand, and see the similarities.

Oh how I wish that were right, religion is far from self correcting.

But as for science v religion, I see no incompatibility with them and am of the opinion that the only ones who do are those who want to.

To me, and those like me, all I see when I watch science programs, as I do regularly, is that science is slowly but surely revealing more and more abut how God did what he did.

I just wish it wasn't only a minority of scientists who could see that, and who include God in their calculations.

Fortunately there are a growing number, slowly growing, who actually believe that the bible is 100% true and accurate.

Of course that is partly because, unlike the majority of people they read things like Genesis 1 properly and with thought, and doing so they find that the limited information it does provide is 100% accurate..

Science is like Algebra.

If you leave the most important part out of the equation you will always get the wrong answer.

You are behind the times. Science is actually proving the events and characters in the bible do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. Science is not like algebra. It is based on proving a hypothesis by applying the scientific method to establish it as a fact.
When you start with a wrong premise like religion does, it cannot self correct. The entire premise is wrong and should be rejected. So religion is not a self correcting force.
What is a self correcting force is knowledge. As our knowledge increases our ignorance and superstitions are replace with scientific facts.
Modern church theology is one such example.
http://www.modernchurch.org.uk...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 9:35:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Religions never self-corrects. It is forced to correct when society at large will no longer accept its dogma and rules. Religion constantly strives to maintain the status quo and has often persecuted and even killed those who would challenge it. Any thought that religion seeks truth, particularly those Abrahamic monotheistic ones, is on shaky ground at best.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 10:14:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 9:35:03 AM, dhardage wrote:
Religions never self-corrects. It is forced to correct when society at large will no longer accept its dogma and rules. Religion constantly strives to maintain the status quo and has often persecuted and even killed those who would challenge it. Any thought that religion seeks truth, particularly those Abrahamic monotheistic ones, is on shaky ground at best.

Society at large should not be allowed to affect religious teachings, if society at large doesn't agree with them then it is society at large that is wrong.

This especially applies to the truth faith. God doesn't change, if society moves away from his principles then it is society that needs to move back.

Why should man tell God what is right when God knows better?

If you aren't worshipping the true God you are wasting your time, and may as well just make the best of what little life you have left, since you will get no more.

Only the true God, Jehovah, can give you more.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 10:23:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 10:14:51 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/4/2015 9:35:03 AM, dhardage wrote:
Religions never self-corrects. It is forced to correct when society at large will no longer accept its dogma and rules. Religion constantly strives to maintain the status quo and has often persecuted and even killed those who would challenge it. Any thought that religion seeks truth, particularly those Abrahamic monotheistic ones, is on shaky ground at best.

Society at large should not be allowed to affect religious teachings, if society at large doesn't agree with them then it is society at large that is wrong.

This especially applies to the truth faith. God doesn't change, if society moves away from his principles then it is society that needs to move back.

Why should man tell God what is right when God knows better?

If you aren't worshipping the true God you are wasting your time, and may as well just make the best of what little life you have left, since you will get no more.

Only the true God, Jehovah, can give you more.

Case in point.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 1:51:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 7:07:04 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/4/2015 6:40:47 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/1/2015 2:21:02 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Since the beginning or recorded history Religion has been changing, self correcting, improving, becoming more palatable to the masses.

I point to the Catholic Church, with is much different than the one that approved the Sacred Cannon of Biblical truth in the fourth century.
So many changes, with regard to church teaching on creation, divorce, priesthood, dietary restrictions, performance of the mass. Core values have not changed considerably, but the details have changed greatly.

Then there is the Protestant Reformation. Wow, what changes in the Catholic Church.
One nail from Luther and the Christian world changed dramatically. Not only the Bible, but the priesthood was now in the hands of the common people.
Self educated Bible scholars decided what was Biblical and what was church dogma, and disposed of the latter.
Purgatory no longer existed, infant baptism no longer valid. Papal authority non existent, Mass in German, not Latin.
Men devoted to Christ could marry.
Many, many changes, all improvement according to those who made them.
And then the splinter sects within Protestantism, not to mention major divergence with Jehovah"s Witnesses, and the Latter Day Saints. All of this based on an understanding of church doctrine. Teaching on church doctrine changed considerably.

All of this resulting in over 40,000 Christian denominations, each an improvement on the previous.
In the middle of that the Nation of Islam sprouted, correcting the false teachings of their cousins, the Christians.

In the other religions we see similar, although less dramatic.

Strong Atheists and strong religionists will disagree, I would expect.
They will each say it is not at all the same as with Science, and I would agree, different in so many ways, and yet, similar in many ways.
Both of those sides will see only the differences.
Disinterested observers will understand, and see the similarities.

What tenant of religion gives it this property?

The tenant of Truth.
Let's cut to the chase. You disagree with my answer, I do not care, say what you want, I doubt that I will respond. You are too confused for me.


Isn't it simply that Religious institutions are subject to public pressure and discourse?

And Science is subject to peer pressure and discourse.
Guess what, the public is what the 'peers' are for religion.


This isn't a discussion about science, you are side stepping the argument.

If religion has no tenant that inherently makes it "self correcting", then it is simply influenced by the public and does not posses this property itself. It is then society that corrects religion, not religion correcting religion.

Science and religion have common goals, in some cases, certainly not all cases.
They want what is best for mankind.
They want Truth. A common property.
Guess what - they disagree on what this means.


Again, you provide no evidence that religion has innate tenants that allow it to self correct.

There was a day when the Agents of Science wanted, and believed they had, Eternal Truth. They actually thought they held it in their hands - so how did that go ?
Not well.
They were deluded.
They had to back pedal very quickly very fast.
The had to change the whole game plan, a Revolution.


You are grandstanding and not addressing the issue.

Even today many persons are in denial it ever happened.
Some deny the Scientists ever thought that, and some deny even today they do not offer Eternal Truth.

You still fail to provide any meaningful evidence to support your point. You have not provided a single shred of evidence that would suggest religion has self correcting properties based on its texts or traditions.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 2:37:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 10:14:51 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/4/2015 9:35:03 AM, dhardage wrote:
Religions never self-corrects. It is forced to correct when society at large will no longer accept its dogma and rules. Religion constantly strives to maintain the status quo and has often persecuted and even killed those who would challenge it. Any thought that religion seeks truth, particularly those Abrahamic monotheistic ones, is on shaky ground at best.

Society at large should not be allowed to affect religious teachings, if society at large doesn't agree with them then it is society at large that is wrong.

This especially applies to the truth faith. God doesn't change, if society moves away from his principles then it is society that needs to move back.

Why should man tell God what is right when God knows better?

If you aren't worshipping the true God you are wasting your time, and may as well just make the best of what little life you have left, since you will get no more.

Only the true God, Jehovah, can give you more.

You would like to believe only you know the truth because it came from God. You have been wrong on so many issues and your mood swings are so erratic that God should put you in isolation to live alone with animals. I believe God did just that.

Is religion a self correcting force? Most members who see what you go through daily might be convinced it is.
How religion keeps you busy so you are not a threat to anyone.

Here is your busy schedule dealing with:

Feelings of sadness, emptiness or unhappiness
Angry outbursts, irritability or frustration, even over small matters
Loss of interest or pleasure in normal activities, such as sex
Sleep disturbances, including insomnia or sleeping too much
Tiredness and lack of energy, so that even small tasks take extra effort
Changes in appetite " often reduced appetite and weight loss, but increased cravings for food and weight gain in some people
Anxiety, agitation or restlessness " for example, excessive worrying, pacing, hand-wringing or an inability to sit still
Slowed thinking, speaking or body movements
Feelings of worthlessness or guilt, fixating on past failures or blaming yourself for things that are not your responsibility
Trouble thinking, concentrating, making decisions and remembering things
Frequent thoughts of death, suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts or suicide
Unexplained physical problems, such as back pain or headaches
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 11:45:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 6:51:25 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/3/2015 10:35:01 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I disagree on self correcting. Sure maybe on some things.

I meant nothing else.
Even Scientists have not recognized and thus corrected all of errors of Science, and that is it's claim to fame.
Compare to religion it changes very quickly, but compared to reality, it wants to be sure if is correct, and sets a high bar.


But there are some things where religious beliefs had to give ground in the wake of modernity. :A scientific understanding of the world, human rights, , equality of the sexes, democracy, critical thinking, evidence and reason over dogma, free speech, etc etc


So we have some common ground on this issue.
Various sects, or splinter groups of sects, have taken generally accepted knowledge, and incorporated it into Biblical teaching. And of course, many others have resisted, long and hard.
Some have had many changes, some only a few, but all have had some.

Every instance of social progress has being resisted by some group claiming it's an unholy attack on the righteousness of the creator of heaven and earth God.

The trouble is, some of the things they resisted they could claim the bible is on their side.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 1:50:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 2:21:02 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
All of this resulting in over 40,000 Christian denominations, each an improvement on the previous.

WW, not to mock or provoke you, but I would have thought that any faith claiming absolute authority from revealed insight and shared scripture ought to converge doctrinally over time, not diverge? I mean, how can one faith claim absolute moral authority over man when man can't agree on what is being communicated, or what it actually means?

Does it strike you as odd then, that scientific theories converge over time? They split, converge, split, converge. Scientists have vigorous debates and robust differences, then they admit error and make up again. That's how science went from Newton to Einstein, Lamarck to Darwin, Dalton to Rutherford -- huge intellectual uphevals, as controversial as any doctrinal schism in any religion on earth -- but all settling down again within decades, and all without a pogrom, war or genocide.

As religions never seem to do.

Why do you think that is?

Has it something to do with the ability of science to recognise ignorance and admit error?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2015 5:30:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/4/2015 1:51:38 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/4/2015 7:07:04 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/4/2015 6:40:47 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/1/2015 2:21:02 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Since the beginning or recorded history Religion has been changing, self correcting, improving, becoming more palatable to the masses.

I point to the Catholic Church, with is much different than the one that approved the Sacred Cannon of Biblical truth in the fourth century.
So many changes, with regard to church teaching on creation, divorce, priesthood, dietary restrictions, performance of the mass. Core values have not changed considerably, but the details have changed greatly.

Then there is the Protestant Reformation. Wow, what changes in the Catholic Church.
One nail from Luther and the Christian world changed dramatically. Not only the Bible, but the priesthood was now in the hands of the common people.
Self educated Bible scholars decided what was Biblical and what was church dogma, and disposed of the latter.
Purgatory no longer existed, infant baptism no longer valid. Papal authority non existent, Mass in German, not Latin.
Men devoted to Christ could marry.
Many, many changes, all improvement according to those who made them.
And then the splinter sects within Protestantism, not to mention major divergence with Jehovah"s Witnesses, and the Latter Day Saints. All of this based on an understanding of church doctrine. Teaching on church doctrine changed considerably.

All of this resulting in over 40,000 Christian denominations, each an improvement on the previous.
In the middle of that the Nation of Islam sprouted, correcting the false teachings of their cousins, the Christians.

In the other religions we see similar, although less dramatic.

Strong Atheists and strong religionists will disagree, I would expect.
They will each say it is not at all the same as with Science, and I would agree, different in so many ways, and yet, similar in many ways.
Both of those sides will see only the differences.
Disinterested observers will understand, and see the similarities.

What tenant of religion gives it this property?

The tenant of Truth.
Let's cut to the chase. You disagree with my answer, I do not care, say what you want, I doubt that I will respond. You are too confused for me.


Isn't it simply that Religious institutions are subject to public pressure and discourse?

And Science is subject to peer pressure and discourse.
Guess what, the public is what the 'peers' are for religion.


This isn't a discussion about science, you are side stepping the argument.

If religion has no tenant that inherently makes it "self correcting", then it is simply influenced by the public and does not posses this property itself. It is then society that corrects religion, not religion correcting religion.

Science and religion have common goals, in some cases, certainly not all cases.
They want what is best for mankind.
They want Truth. A common property.
Guess what - they disagree on what this means.


Again, you provide no evidence that religion has innate tenants that allow it to self correct.

There was a day when the Agents of Science wanted, and believed they had, Eternal Truth. They actually thought they held it in their hands - so how did that go ?
Not well.
They were deluded.
They had to back pedal very quickly very fast.
The had to change the whole game plan, a Revolution.


You are grandstanding and not addressing the issue.


Even today many persons are in denial it ever happened.
Some deny the Scientists ever thought that, and some deny even today they do not offer Eternal Truth.

You still fail to provide any meaningful evidence to support your point. You have not provided a single shred of evidence that would suggest religion has self correcting properties based on its texts or traditions.

When someone denies the Protestant Reformation ever took place, I just cannot take them seriously.
Sorry.
Many other examples as well.
The reason for the death of believers in one century (blasphemy, and others), loses it importance in the next.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2015 11:00:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/5/2015 5:30:30 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/4/2015 1:51:38 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/4/2015 7:07:04 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/4/2015 6:40:47 AM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 3/1/2015 2:21:02 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Since the beginning or recorded history Religion has been changing, self correcting, improving, becoming more palatable to the masses.

I point to the Catholic Church, with is much different than the one that approved the Sacred Cannon of Biblical truth in the fourth century.
So many changes, with regard to church teaching on creation, divorce, priesthood, dietary restrictions, performance of the mass. Core values have not changed considerably, but the details have changed greatly.

Then there is the Protestant Reformation. Wow, what changes in the Catholic Church.
One nail from Luther and the Christian world changed dramatically. Not only the Bible, but the priesthood was now in the hands of the common people.
Self educated Bible scholars decided what was Biblical and what was church dogma, and disposed of the latter.
Purgatory no longer existed, infant baptism no longer valid. Papal authority non existent, Mass in German, not Latin.
Men devoted to Christ could marry.
Many, many changes, all improvement according to those who made them.
And then the splinter sects within Protestantism, not to mention major divergence with Jehovah"s Witnesses, and the Latter Day Saints. All of this based on an understanding of church doctrine. Teaching on church doctrine changed considerably.

All of this resulting in over 40,000 Christian denominations, each an improvement on the previous.
In the middle of that the Nation of Islam sprouted, correcting the false teachings of their cousins, the Christians.

In the other religions we see similar, although less dramatic.

Strong Atheists and strong religionists will disagree, I would expect.
They will each say it is not at all the same as with Science, and I would agree, different in so many ways, and yet, similar in many ways.
Both of those sides will see only the differences.
Disinterested observers will understand, and see the similarities.

What tenant of religion gives it this property?

The tenant of Truth.
Let's cut to the chase. You disagree with my answer, I do not care, say what you want, I doubt that I will respond. You are too confused for me.


Isn't it simply that Religious institutions are subject to public pressure and discourse?

And Science is subject to peer pressure and discourse.
Guess what, the public is what the 'peers' are for religion.


This isn't a discussion about science, you are side stepping the argument.

If religion has no tenant that inherently makes it "self correcting", then it is simply influenced by the public and does not posses this property itself. It is then society that corrects religion, not religion correcting religion.

Science and religion have common goals, in some cases, certainly not all cases.
They want what is best for mankind.
They want Truth. A common property.
Guess what - they disagree on what this means.


Again, you provide no evidence that religion has innate tenants that allow it to self correct.

There was a day when the Agents of Science wanted, and believed they had, Eternal Truth. They actually thought they held it in their hands - so how did that go ?
Not well.
They were deluded.
They had to back pedal very quickly very fast.
The had to change the whole game plan, a Revolution.


You are grandstanding and not addressing the issue.


Even today many persons are in denial it ever happened.
Some deny the Scientists ever thought that, and some deny even today they do not offer Eternal Truth.

You still fail to provide any meaningful evidence to support your point. You have not provided a single shred of evidence that would suggest religion has self correcting properties based on its texts or traditions.

When someone denies the Protestant Reformation ever took place, I just cannot take them seriously.

I'm not denying it happened. I'm questioning that it was due to an innate property of religion that caused the reformation. I'm questioning your claim that religion itself has a mechanism for self correction. Simply looking at reformation doesn't constitute proof of such a mechanism. You have to actually point out what property of religion encourages such reformations.

I would argue that people have an innate distain for authoritative forms of government (I would also argue that religion is a form of government, especially in the early days). So the reformations are as much a product of religion as the French revolution was a product of the Monarchy. It doesn't mean the monarchy was self correcting, but rather the people were sick of being oppressed by an authority, just as the people were sick of being oppressed by the Catholic church.

Sorry.
Many other examples as well.
The reason for the death of believers in one century (blasphemy, and others), loses it importance in the next.

Again; is this a part of religion or simply a result of people being sick of these practices and rising up against the church. What property of religion encourages such reformations.