Misuse of "Scripture"

[_Roger Morrison]

JAK, back again--early... You said:

Roger stated:
When I proceed to eat it is with amazement of, and gratitude for, the process that is about to begin of the transfer of energy that sustains me... Like "WOW!!"

What you don’t mention seems of greater significance than what you do.

Poverty Levels in the US

Hunger and World Poverty

Global

The Threat of Global Poverty

RM: You are correct from other than my own sense of self gratification from self indulgence in what i'm lucky to have that too many others don't. As the stats you site indicate. While the information is not new to me, it is good to reminded of it often. Clicking those links effectively did that. My letter is ready to send to the PM of Canada re my country's commitment to the UN .7% pledge to address these horrendous areas of disparity. When our NA efforts are compared to those Euro countries that have met their commitments we have no bragging rights of NA's generosity...

Maybe reading a summary of those incriminating figures as an ''opening-prayer" in lieu of "The Lords Prayer" might be more effective than the usual, "...and please bless those who are less fortunate..." that often ends food-blessings at meal times...

And an excerpt:
Today, more than half the world's population lives on less than $2 per day, and almost 1.1 billion people live in extreme poverty, defined as less than $1 per day. The costs of global poverty are multiple. Poverty prevents poor countries from devoting sufficient resources to detect and contain deadly disease. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), low- and middle-income countries suffer 90 percent of the world's disease burden but account for only 11 percent of its health care spending. Poverty also dramatically increases the risk of civil conflict. A recent study by the UK's Department for International Development showed that a country at $250 GDP per capita has on average a 15 percent risk of internal conflict over five years, while a country at $5,000 per capita has a risk of less than 1 percent. War zones provide ideal operational environs for international outlaws.

Thanks for your effort and input here... Warm regards, Roger

[_JAK]

Hi Roger,

Let me preface, I'm away from home with an unfamiliar system. But I saw your comments and am making a much too hasty reply.

JAK previously:
If you’re speaking to one who is clearly immersed in a religious doctrine, I think any reference using the word god or God is problematic without a stated intention. In addition, most who adhere to a religious mythology don’t describe it as compatible with science as you or I might understand it.

RM: Possibly problematic... However, I think the objections of such folks are more conditioned reflexs than a conscious dismissal of science as their benefactor.

JAK previously:
For example, there are people who say directly or indirectly that they accept science. Yet, as they claim belief in their religious views, they speak of “miracles” which, upon close look, deny science. You mentioned several examples to Richard which are Christian doctrine and which, if factual, render science false.

RM: I find it hard to imagine any belief "...rendering science false." :-) That folks believe in "miracles" is a 'teaching' or an 'indoctrination' that is difficult to be dissuaded of by 'reason'. Generally speaking they knee-jerk to a defensive stance and resist the suggestion of being wrong--a most natural human trait.

JAK
My sentence above: “You mentioned several examples to Richard which are part of Christian doctrine and which, if factual, render science false.

Most don’t actually regard science as false. However, if the miracles which they wish to claim, in fact occurred, such “happenings” would render science false or unreliable. If some supernatural entity could at will, and willy nilly divide a sea, raise people from the dead, etc., science would be unreliable/false. So while such people may not actually articulate the view that science is unreliable, they pray that it will be unreliable as they attempt to manipulate their God to intervene in natural law (science). Whether it’s “conditioned reflexes” or a conscious affirmation of religious doctrine may be murky.

JAK previously:
These same people use prayer with the intent to manipulate their God to “act” in ways favorable to them. It’s often very personal. But we see this in politicians who end speeches with: “God Bless America.” For example, We don’t hear a politician say God bless Iran or God bless Africa, etc. G.W. Bush has closed with: “May God continue to bless the United States of America.” So he and others are using God for political purpose. Who can speak up and challenge that speech conclusion who is an American? It curries favor with the religious right and identifies Bush with God and God with America.

RM: Too true. However, in reality it is a smoke screen behind which politicos do tricks to advance their agenda. A guise that I think is wearing a bit thin with thinking educated folks...not all educated folks are thinkers, some are simply 'rememberers'... And yes there are uneducated thinkers as well who just seem by nature to be smart... As evolution is slooowwww and education to the masses is a relatively new social advancement it will take time for its fruit to bear fruit to bear fruit>>>>>>>>>> But it is happening as the sites you listed indicate.

JAK
“...wearing a bit thin with thinking educate folks…” Perhaps with some educated folks. There appears to be a large number of people who like to put thinking aside in favor of wishful fantasy. But, the slow process does grind on. We may already have done or be doing irreversible damage to the environment before those educated folks apply available information to their behavior. The desire for power and wealth (likely the same thing) may transcend the intellectual honesty of recognizing when it’s already too late.

JAK previously:
In no respect is such reference intended to refer to “Universal truth.” Politicians and religious leaders don’t refer to God and intend what you may by “Universal truth.” They refer to the God entity within the context of their own narrow religious view.

RM: Possibly... But, "what is 'their intention," might well be asked. From a strictly pragmatically negative point, with the exception of initiators who might be altruistic, the 'following-leaders' will go with the new-current; that's where their rewards will be secured. Referring to the God entity is the smart thing for them to do. As long as it's popular. Trend propells more than we might want to admit. Peer influence. Not all bad stuff. Leads to smoke-free-zones and anti-poverty advocates...

JAK

Good result by accident or for unreasoned conclusion may just as easily result in “bad stuff” as good stuff.

JAK previously:
Therefore, I think it misleading to use the term as you might use it. In virtually everyone’s mind, God has a connotation different from “Universal truth.” But I accept your intent by use of quotation marks. I’m skeptical that other readers (absent the careful explanation you have given) would comprehend that.

RM: Could it as well be considered "leading"? By that I mean from an old paradigm to a new one? Which I think is the objective: To change from biblical misinformed influence on the human mosaic to rational enlightened approachs to awareness of service to Humanity being more important than serving an imagined Deity. The challenge is how best to do that?

JAK
Maybe to question 1. However, if it’s deceptive, it becomes a trick and carries with it a down side in that regard. If the “challenge” is “how best…,” I’m skeptical in the longer run, deception is “best.” Those who are religious pundits are likely to be so until they die. Any transition of the sort to which you allude are likely to be generational or within a same time frame are likely to be linked to educational levels of those involved.

RM
JAK, you might have immediate objections to me referencing the teachings of Jesus, the philosopher, not the divine. In his teachings he consistantly admonished his hearers to be friends with ALL; to not make enemies; work to establish peace, provide for the needy--as you do; share, not hoard, resources, etc >>>>>>> I resectfully suggest within the two conflicting camps, generalized as "Believers" vs "Non-believers" we might share more "beliefs" than traditionally realized.

JAK
You have multiple doctrines in your comments. I don’t object, however, would recognize that the “believers” are by no means of one view. There is little that one can do that won’t make “enemies” of someone or some group which has different purposes. “Peace” is not beneficial to the industrial-military complex presently for example. And providing for the needy is not universally embraced by “believers.” Even in persons who may agree on the providing for the needy, there is disagreement on how that should be done or the degree to which it should be done, etc.

RM
So, it is in our common ground that seeds can be planted to bear good fruit. I don't think that ground is discovered in battles. I think consistant exposure softens resistance to contrary opinins. This was a point made in your ref to "proprinquicity" (sp?) if I recall correctly??? By association of "God" with Universal Truth--over time the connection will first be understood--then in more time be accepted as a norm. There after terminology will be of no-matter-of-importance as energies join to remedy the challenges you so correctly bring to attention. Thank You for doing so... Truth will eventually prevail.

JAK
“Believers” don’t agree on “good fruit.” “Consistent exposure” is a method of mind-control in most contexts. Its benefit or lack thereof is subjective judgment. Enormous linkage to God or to religious dogma precludes any transfer to “Universal Truth.” “Terminology” will continue to be of importance in context. The evolution of language and discovery is not going to be terminated as your statement appears to suggest. At no time are we likely to have agreement on universal truth as a singular.
RM:
At times like this I wish I keyed at more than 20 words a minute...LOL!! I gotta run, and will probably not get back to this for several days. Warm regards, Roger

JAK
At present, I’m responding to you on a computer with which I am unfamiliar with a writing program unlike the one I have used previously. As a result, this may have come through far different than it appears on my screen. So my apologies for all the mistakes and misunderstanding that may be the case in my hasty reply.

You’re a thoughtful communicator.
JAK

[_richardMdBorn]

JAK
My sentence above: “You mentioned several examples to Richard which are part of Christian doctrine and which, if factual, render science false.

Most don’t actually regard science as false. However, if the miracles which they wish to claim, in fact occurred, such “happenings” would render science false or unreliable. If some supernatural entity could at will, and willy nilly divide a sea, raise people from the dead, etc., science would be unreliable/false. So while such people may not actually articulate the view that science is unreliable, they pray that it will be unreliable as they attempt to manipulate their God to intervene in natural law (science). Whether it’s “conditioned reflexes” or a conscious affirmation of religious doctrine may be murky.

Is Newtonian Mechanics false? It doesn't work for high speeds or subatomic particles, but for most everyday measurements it suffices. Thus, it's pretty accurate for velocities which are low compared to the speed of light. Why can't miracles be considered in a similar manner. God intervenes sometimes in the world, but normally the laws of nature apply?

Note that relativistic effects are important for GPS. NTS-2 carried atomic clocks which were less than one percent different from the result predicted by relativity theory.

[_JAK]

JAK
My sentence above: “You mentioned several examples to Richard which are part of Christian doctrine and which, if factual, render science false.

Most don’t actually regard science as false. However, if the miracles which they wish to claim, in fact occurred, such “happenings” would render science false or unreliable. If some supernatural entity could at will, and willy nilly divide a sea, raise people from the dead, etc., science would be unreliable/false. So while such people may not actually articulate the view that science is unreliable, they pray that it will be unreliable as they attempt to manipulate their God to intervene in natural law (science). Whether it’s “conditioned reflexes” or a conscious affirmation of religious doctrine may be murky.

Is Newtonian Mechanics false? It doesn't work for high speeds or subatomic particles, but for most everyday measurements it suffices. Thus, it's pretty accurate for velocities which are low compared to the speed of light. Why can't miracles be considered in a similar manner. God intervenes sometimes in the world, but normally the laws of nature apply?

Note that relativistic effects are important for GPS. NTS-2 carried atomic clocks which were less than one percent different from the result predicted by relativity theory.

Hi Richard,

In response to your comment, let me make a few points.

Of primary significance is this:
No evidence for gods or for God has been established.

Your question:
God intervenes sometimes in the world, but normally the laws of nature apply?

It’s not a question, it’s a claim. The question mark at the end should be a period.

And, you demonstrate my earlier analysis. If one leaps to the unreasoned conclusion: “God intervenes sometimes...,” one then necessarily renders science unreliable. A key word here is “sometimes.” When is that? It’s willy nilly whenever some God pundit wants to make a claim.

Example: People pray for a result. If it happens, they claim, God answered my prayer. Anecdotally, an acquaintance believing she had cancer prayed that God would make it non-cancer. It was non-cancer. She claimed God did it. Others, however make the same prayer with the opposite result. It’s cancer.

God is irrelevant. No evidence has established God. However, much has been established in medical science. Medical science knows cancer when it sees it. There are treatments. They, too, are medical science. God is irrelevant.

Further, just how can such a God claim be tested or evaluated? It’s a subjective assertion by God myth-makers.

To state that “normally the laws of nature apply” is weasel language. What’s “normally”? It’s whatever some God-maker wants to make up (such as you imply that you make up).

Hence, under your claim, neither God nor science can be relied upon.

We have ample reliable evidence for science. We have no evidence for any of the multiple God claims.

Therefore, your statement/question is ill-conceived. Further, it comes out of religious dogma, not out of science.

Most prayers (regardless of the religion) are attempts to manipulate an invented God.

The God of Islam is multiple as well. And the invented gods of Christianity are so numerous as to be incalculable. As a result, we have more than 1,000 groups which call themselves Christian but which have different notions of just what Christian means. Otherwise, there would be Christian unity. But we know that Christians compete in “The Battle for God” (a book title by Karen Armstrong).

Classical Mechanics is sufficiently complex as to be reviewed in this and other analysis. (WikipediA)

Accumulation of scientific knowledge is far-reaching. No well-informed person of science would contend that there is no more to be discovered. Science builds on previously accumulated information. Scientific Method relies on skeptical review.

God claims short-circuit skeptical review in favor of irrational leap to myth conclusion. Such conclusion is unreasoned, undocumented, and unreliable.

Richard stated:
Why can't miracles be considered in a similar manner.

“Miracles” are claims absent evidence. They vary from claimant to claimant. Such claims are dissimilar to the accumulation of information and application of that information based on reason (science).

Miracle claims are a leap to conclusion generally inherently linked to ancient religious myths.

JAK

[_ozemc]

That assumes that I’m following your posts. Now that I have some time, I've read through all of them on this thread and I don't see anything new. It's a standard argument against miracles. You don't think that Luke wrote the stories until long after the events and hence is unreliable. Let us assume that Jesus was crucified in 33 AD. Would you believe in an account written by Luke in 34 AD?

Just to throw my .02 in here.

Yes, I would tend to believe an account closer to the actual event in question.

I try to put a lot of this stuff into my own sense of how I would be.

For instance, if Luke was written some 20 years after the fact, I try to think of how I would be able to recount conversations and the exact sequences of events of something that long ago in my life.

Sorry, I can't do it. Oh, maybe I can recount the events themselves, but not the exact way it happened, and definitely not words like "Hey, Jim, what time do you want to leave?" or the exact place in the event those words occured.

I daresay that Luke, being human as well, could not either.

I have a hard time remembering what I said last week! :-)

(Just ask my wife!)

So, to answer the question at hand, I don't place much credence in a so-called first person account for something that happened over two decades ago, that was written almost 2000 years ago.

Now that calls into play many more questions about whether it is truly what was written.

Thanks.

[_richardMdBorn]

Hi JAK,

I don't think you answered these two comments of mine (if you did, please repost your response).

Richard You don't think that Luke wrote the stories until long after the events and hence is unreliable. Let us assume that Jesus was crucified in 33 AD. Would you believe in an account written by Luke in 34 AD?

JAK If the case for miracles (supernatural suspension of natural law) could be made, it would negate science. That is, if a whimsical God could over-write physics (examples Roger gave you), science would be unreliable. However, it is claim of miracles which is unreliable.

Richard That is an interpretation of science which Newton would not recognize. Where does your authority to pronounce what is and is not science come from?