Not all religions begin with a revelation from God (or whoever) to man; some are quite explicitly an attempt by man to investigate God (or whatever "the divine" is in terms of the religion concerned).
But the followers of those religions don't necessarily acknowledge that. Besides, any system of belief, even a philosophy that doesn't clearly define God, can be followed dogmatically. Its adherents are still capable of thinking 'our way is the right way, and everyone else is deluded'.
Kate's original statement doesn't apply if the followers acknowledge that they, and their faith's founders, and everyone in between, are/were imperfect and fallible human beings. If they recognise that their picture of God isn't necessarily better than anyone else's, it becomes just one of many appealing and useful models.
Light can act like a particle and it can act like a wave. The discoverers of these properties of light fought tooth-and-nail over which picture was correct. But modern physicists see the contradiction as the result of incomplete knowledge. In terms of practical applications, sometimes one picture is more useful than the other. We wouldn't have radio if we couldn't think of light as a wave; we wouldn't have digital cameras if we couldn't think of it as particles.
If we can accept such contradictions even where they apply to empirical knowledge, why can't we resolve it between systems of faith? I think most believers, like you, don't consider their beliefs to be infallible.
The people who give religion a bad name are the people who don't accept that their picture of God is incomplete or imperfect. (And it follows that a person that arrogant is naturally going to be the loudest and the one with the most media exposure, much to the chagrin of his more rational and humble brethren.)
"Kate's original statement doesn't apply if the followers acknowledge that they, and their faith's founders, and everyone in between, are/were imperfect and fallible human beings."
[SCRATCHES HEAD] I've lost track now... Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? =:o}
Kate's original statement doesn't apply if the followers acknowledge that they, and their faith's founders, and everyone in between, are/were imperfect and fallible human beings.
No no - they would be agreeing with my original statement.
Semantics? :D The statement doesn't apply to them because they're above and beyond the 'there can be only one!' stage. Their view isn't invalid because it includes room for error. (And unlike an empirically testable scientific theory, which can be shown to be wrong, that's about as valid as a religious theory can get-- 'we think it's this way, but you never know'.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-05-03 03:31 pm (UTC)But the followers of those religions don't necessarily acknowledge that. Besides, any system of belief, even a philosophy that doesn't clearly define God, can be followed dogmatically. Its adherents are still capable of thinking 'our way is the right way, and everyone else is deluded'.
Kate's original statement doesn't apply if the followers acknowledge that they, and their faith's founders, and everyone in between, are/were imperfect and fallible human beings. If they recognise that their picture of God isn't necessarily better than anyone else's, it becomes just one of many appealing and useful models.
Light can act like a particle and it can act like a wave. The discoverers of these properties of light fought tooth-and-nail over which picture was correct. But modern physicists see the contradiction as the result of incomplete knowledge. In terms of practical applications, sometimes one picture is more useful than the other. We wouldn't have radio if we couldn't think of light as a wave; we wouldn't have digital cameras if we couldn't think of it as particles.
If we can accept such contradictions even where they apply to empirical knowledge, why can't we resolve it between systems of faith? I think most believers, like you, don't consider their beliefs to be infallible.
The people who give religion a bad name are the people who don't accept that their picture of God is incomplete or imperfect. (And it follows that a person that arrogant is naturally going to be the loudest and the one with the most media exposure, much to the chagrin of his more rational and humble brethren.)
no subject
Date: 2005-05-03 03:53 pm (UTC)[SCRATCHES HEAD] I've lost track now... Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? =:o}
no subject
Date: 2005-05-03 04:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-03 04:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-03 11:39 pm (UTC)No no - they would be agreeing with my original statement.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 02:45 am (UTC)Semantics? :D The statement doesn't apply to them because they're above and beyond the 'there can be only one!' stage. Their view isn't invalid because it includes room for error. (And unlike an empirically testable scientific theory, which can be shown to be wrong, that's about as valid as a religious theory can get-- 'we think it's this way, but you never know'.)