How did an old religion get it directionally right?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-01-2016, 01:26 AM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 01:02 AM)SNair Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 12:53 AM)jennybee Wrote:  My point wasn't that religion is bullshit. My point was that many cultures have various religious belief systems that are supported by or explained through myth. That's not a broad brush statement, it's a fact. With so many elaborate belief systems from various cultures, there are bound to be some that line up with modern scientific thinking in some way. This is simply due to the sheer numbers of beliefs and religion's elaborate nature.

Many cultures have elaborate myths, various religious practices, various gods and goddesses, various holy books, various ways of thinking. Given that, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that there could be some overlap or some *perceived* overlap with modern scientific thinking. You could technically find this type of overlap in any religion. There are people who feel this way about the Bible or the Koran and are quick to find passages to support how their ancient holy book has modern scientific aspects to it. In order to do this and line it up with modern science, you do need to take out the mythical aspects.

Anyway, that was my point Wink

Thanks for clarifying. I too would have dismissed it if it were just 1 claim on a topic that matched. Here we have three assertions on one topic that seem to match up. Again, I am totally open to the fact that it may be just coincidence, but then it would be one very good coincidence to get three aspects directionally correct.

Have you read any books that discuss the modern "scientific" findings in the Bible? I read several as a Christian and there were hundreds of *perceived* matches that these authors found between modern scientific thought and the writings in the Bible. The reason they found them: counting hits and not misses, pattern making, filtering out myth, and creating their own interpretation of passages (ones that differed significantly from the original author's intent).

I highly recommend David J. Hand's book, The Improbability Principle. Coincidences aren't as uncommon or statistically improbable as you may think. It's very possible to have the three direct hits you describe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 01:34 AM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
Because human imagination. If you don't think humans can be that imaginative, I don't know what's wrong with you.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 03:50 AM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 01:02 AM)SNair Wrote:  
(25-01-2016 12:53 AM)jennybee Wrote:  My point wasn't that religion is bullshit. My point was that many cultures have various religious belief systems that are supported by or explained through myth. That's not a broad brush statement, it's a fact. With so many elaborate belief systems from various cultures, there are bound to be some that line up with modern scientific thinking in some way. This is simply due to the sheer numbers of beliefs and religion's elaborate nature.

Many cultures have elaborate myths, various religious practices, various gods and goddesses, various holy books, various ways of thinking. Given that, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that there could be some overlap or some *perceived* overlap with modern scientific thinking. You could technically find this type of overlap in any religion. There are people who feel this way about the Bible or the Koran and are quick to find passages to support how their ancient holy book has modern scientific aspects to it. In order to do this and line it up with modern science, you do need to take out the mythical aspects.

Anyway, that was my point Wink

Thanks for clarifying. I too would have dismissed it if it were just 1 claim on a topic that matched. Here we have three assertions on one topic that seem to match up. Again, I am totally open to the fact that it may be just coincidence, but then it would be one very good coincidence to get three aspects directionally correct.

How did the ancients come up with these assertions? Did they do research? Did they show the evidence they gathered to arrive at these assertions?
I don't think they did. Sooooooo ya, it was just dumb luck.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 04:04 AM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
NOOOOOO they had secret mystical knowledge Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
25-01-2016, 04:31 AM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 01:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  ...
You are comparing some parts of a myth to some hypotheses of science.
This is precisely what Christian apologists do.

Aw c'mon now, credit where it's due ... christian apologists ain't got nothing on islamic 'science' scholars.

scholars Laughat

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 05:40 AM (This post was last modified: 25-01-2016 05:44 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(24-01-2016 05:50 PM)SNair Wrote:  
(24-01-2016 05:05 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Welcome to TTA.

My Answer: Sharp-shooter fallacy.

Big Grin

Thanks.

That's a blanket term to discard almost any perspective other the current scientific knowledge itself. This is because only the data from current scientific knowledge can match all the data from current scientific knowledge! Any other position will have some data that match and some data that don't. Unless we explain why/how the match occurred or articulate what the mismatches are, my question still stands.


Exploring perspectives are one thing, it's what makes creative fiction great. However only those backed up with evidence should be taken for serious consideration in reality. Either you have the evidence and data to back you up or you don't; and that's not the fault of being scientifically mined or having an evidence based epistemology, it's kind of the entire point. It's not a bug of being skeptically minded, it's the core feature.


When those stories were created, we were not fundamentally different as a species than we are now. The people who created those stories had the fundamental ability to learn and understand just as we do now, they just didn't have access to the same information we do. Therefore if there really were cosmic powers in charge of everything and cared enough to let us in on how it all works, they could just explain it; and they wouldn't need to hide everything in parables, allegory, and metaphors. If people needed to be educated enough to better understand the abstract of a accurate explanation, those same cosmic beings should also be capable of doing that.


Therefore the assumption that such stories are in fact encoded with secret meanings that only happen to line up with modern scientific theories after we already put the work into it ourselves and can only see the supposed pattern in hindsight? That's requires even more unfounded assumptions than my example above, because now you also need to assume a reason for them to hide everything instead of just being truthful. I mean, really? They know how reality really works and they care enough to share that with us, but they can't represent it accurately? Not only that, but then the typically given excuse is that those ancient people were too scientifically ignorant to understand, it is somehow seen as a justifiable excuse instead of being rightly seen as the biggest plot hole ever.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
25-01-2016, 06:05 AM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(24-01-2016 04:08 PM)SNair Wrote:  Here is one modern day scientific hypothesis of how everything could have come from nothing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo. Essentially, the theory states that a disturbance in the space time fabric of some sort causes energy fluctuations and that in turn starts a cascade of events where energy is converted from one form to another (i.e. material world).

Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma), one of world’s oldest religion has had the following concepts of creation:

1. In the beginning, there was total silence (i.e. nothingness) and the universe was created (i.e. by Brahman = Universal consciousness) with the sound OHM (i.e. frequency = fluctuations in space time fabric). Theosophists like myself argue that this is in harmony with modern much more specific and detailed scientific discoveries.

2. Cyclical Universe in Hinduism: The birth and death process is endless. The universe is created and in time it will cease to exist and in its place another one is created and this cycle of birth and death is endless. Again, I argue that this is in harmony with modern scientific theory that the expanding universe with at some point start to contract and the whole Big Bang may repeat itself.

3. Multiverse: There are multiple universes in simultaneous existence. Though there are modern day scientific theories, I don’t think we can conclusively assert this to be the case. Nevertheless Hinduism (Sanatan Dharma) is firm in this point of view.

My Question: For a religion that is well over 3000 years old, from all the possible explanations and descriptions they could have developed for the creation and nature of the universe, why did they develop this one?

So how would Hindu myth NOT agree with science? Can you point to specific parts where Hindu myth is wrong?

You'll gain excellent insight into your own biases if you can honestly answer this.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like TheInquisition's post
25-01-2016, 07:09 AM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(25-01-2016 01:02 AM)SNair Wrote:  I too would have dismissed it if it were just 1 claim on a topic that matched. Here we have three assertions on one topic that seem to match up. Again, I am totally open to the fact that it may be just coincidence, but then it would be one very good coincidence to get three aspects directionally correct.

Ancient people were not stupid, just ignorant. They had vivid imagination and vast experience with everyday life including the cyclical nature of the seasons and the movements of the sun, moon, and stars. They saw things being born and dying. They were curious and had a lot of time to kill sitting around the campfires so they made up stories to tell and wove these concepts into their tales.

The things you are matching up are extremely broad statements. The universe either came into existence or always existed; it is either a one-time thing or a cyclical thing; it is either unique or one of many; etc. I do not understand why it seems so amazing to you that some of the ancient stories seem to be mappable to current scientific thought in some very general ways. As others have noted, the details show that they didn't know, they were just making up a story.

By the way "directionally correct" is a meaningless phrase.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
25-01-2016, 09:38 AM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
(24-01-2016 04:08 PM)SNair Wrote:  My Question: For a religion that is well over 3000 years old, from all the possible explanations and descriptions they could have developed for the creation and nature of the universe, why did they develop this one?

This:
(24-01-2016 05:05 PM)DLJ Wrote:  My Answer: Sharp-shooter fallacy.

Take a look at all the other religions that got it wrong. And even with Hinduism "getting it right", it only did so in the most vague way, that is subject to interpretation. This is similar to how Islam "explained evolution".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-01-2016, 09:56 AM
RE: How did an old religion get it directionally right?
SNAir,
Please provide specific quotations from your sacred writings that back up your assertions. Need chapter and verse, please.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: