5 ms·

Not all religious people see sacred texts as infallible or perfect. The same "context-specific and region-specific and time-specific" criticism could be said f

Not all religious people see sacred texts as infallible or perfect. The same "context-specific and region-specific and time-specific" criticism could be said for science, statistics, and academics. Both scripture and science are done by humans, but that doesn't mean there isn't truth in both of them.

dqv 5y ago
> Not all religious people see sacred texts as infallible or perfect. That’s true, but some do. >The same "context-specific and region-specific and time-specific" criticism could be said for science, statistics, and academics. I think we can both agree that science and religion are not on equal footing in terms of self-correction. Science goes back and forth in a matter of years to verify observations. In religion you can easily step over the line into blasphemy even when simply asking a question. >Both scripture and science are done by humans, but that doesn't mean there isn't truth in both of them. I don’t disagree. My concern is apparent truth derived from misinterpretation.
- mistermann 5y ago
  > That’s true, but some do. Rarely mentioned (and often avoided during discussion, on this topic or others) is the epistemically sound, quantitative (percentage) of people who "see" "sacred texts as infallible or perfect", something which is not measurable (but rarely realized as such, as far as I can tell). > I think we can both agree that science and religion are not on equal footing in terms of self-correction. True, but I often wonder if the persuasiveness (with respect to one's model of reality) of individual data points like this is significantly greater than their actual importance (and therefore misleading). > Science goes back and forth in a matter of years to verify observations. Within the physical/materialistic realm, but often not noticed is when science [implicitly] makes statements that cross over into the metaphysical realm, which is the territory religion tends to deal with - these (admittedly perhaps not all that frequent) seem to not get a lot of attention from the scientific community/enthusiasts (to be fair, understandably so considering their beliefs). And if one is to draw their attention to it, they tend to react (purely coincidentally, of course) in a way not all that unlike stereotypical religious people when you criticize their model. > In religion you can easily step over the line into blasphemy even when simply asking a question. So too with science, if one is to (for example) ask whether metaphysics might possibly deserve a seat at the adult table at Thanksgiving dinner. > My concern is apparent truth derived from misinterpretation. Have you focused your critical analysis at science to the same degree[1] as you have at religion? (And if you have not, would you necessarily know?) [1] magnitude and quality, taking into consideration bias, perception, intuitive skills, etc As I see it (from a high level): - all models are wrong - some models are useful - some things that are models are not realized/perceived as such (ie: reality) - (almost) all human beings (including genuinely logical & intelligent ones) have strong emotional reactions to criticism of their models, or the discussion of metaphysical matters beyond a certain depth And as a consequence, hilarity/tragedy ensues, potentially indefinitely.

dqv 5y ago

> Not all religious people see sacred texts as infallible or perfect. That’s true, but some do. >The same "context-specific and region-specific and time-specific" criticism could be said for science, statistics, and academics. I think we can both agree that science and religion are not on equal footing in terms of self-correction. Science goes back and forth in a matter of years to verify observations. In religion you can easily step over the line into blasphemy even when simply asking a question. >Both scripture and science are done by humans, but that doesn't mean there isn't truth in both of them. I don’t disagree. My concern is apparent truth derived from misinterpretation.

mistermann 5y ago
> That’s true, but some do. Rarely mentioned (and often avoided during discussion, on this topic or others) is the epistemically sound, quantitative (percentage) of people who "see" "sacred texts as infallible or perfect", something which is not measurable (but rarely realized as such, as far as I can tell). > I think we can both agree that science and religion are not on equal footing in terms of self-correction. True, but I often wonder if the persuasiveness (with respect to one's model of reality) of individual data points like this is significantly greater than their actual importance (and therefore misleading). > Science goes back and forth in a matter of years to verify observations. Within the physical/materialistic realm, but often not noticed is when science [implicitly] makes statements that cross over into the metaphysical realm, which is the territory religion tends to deal with - these (admittedly perhaps not all that frequent) seem to not get a lot of attention from the scientific community/enthusiasts (to be fair, understandably so considering their beliefs). And if one is to draw their attention to it, they tend to react (purely coincidentally, of course) in a way not all that unlike stereotypical religious people when you criticize their model. > In religion you can easily step over the line into blasphemy even when simply asking a question. So too with science, if one is to (for example) ask whether metaphysics might possibly deserve a seat at the adult table at Thanksgiving dinner. > My concern is apparent truth derived from misinterpretation. Have you focused your critical analysis at science to the same degree[1] as you have at religion? (And if you have not, would you necessarily know?) [1] magnitude and quality, taking into consideration bias, perception, intuitive skills, etc As I see it (from a high level): - all models are wrong - some models are useful - some things that are models are not realized/perceived as such (ie: reality) - (almost) all human beings (including genuinely logical & intelligent ones) have strong emotional reactions to criticism of their models, or the discussion of metaphysical matters beyond a certain depth And as a consequence, hilarity/tragedy ensues, potentially indefinitely.