Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT)

Aaron wrote:

I know approximately how much they differ; my father is a Presbyterian
minister. You are correct that in most cases, Christian denominations
differ little in their interpretations of the bible. So, I suppose you
are saying that their interpretations are correct, and Muslims,
Catholics, Jews, etc. are incorrect?

> That's what I question.

Muslims do not "interpret" the gospels at all - they have their own separate texts and do not believe the gospels are true. Non-Christian Jews similarly do not "interpret" the gospels but simply don't believe in them. Catholic theology differs relatively little compared to protestantism these days (ie, in less important ways than many atheists would like to suggest), and yes I am indeed happy to say as a protestant that on the particular differences I am aware of the Catholics are incorrect, and I say that simply by being protestant.


It wasn't even my claim. Please try to aim your vehemence at those who
actually make the statement that upsets you.

My vehemence (more short tempered irritation, really) was directed at your
helping the other poster's attempt to twist my words - something I have
less patience for than perhaps I should, sorry. Your comment "sometimes a
clause within a sentence deserves a reply in and of itself" did seal your
knowing involvement in that one, though.


Uhhh, ok. Well, sometimes a clause within a sentence does deserve a
reply in and of itself. I was just stating a fact.

No you were diverting the argument onto an entirely different question as a distraction - giving a "principled" disagreement to something that was never part of the conversation. That's the sort of thing people do if they are after a long rambling bickering session rather than a rational conversation. I'm not - this thread is quite long enough already - so I'll simply not follow you there. (Though no you were not stating a fact, just your opinion that many academics disagree with).


The difference between major religions that use various portions of the
same gospel is the basis for my belief that they all are likely
misreading it, to some extent. Again, I challenge you to prove this is
not the case.


See earlier in this post.


If there is one scientific explanation for the universe back to 1
Planck time after the Big Bang, but many religious ones, I think it's
clear that the religious ones must be based on beliefs, not facts (as
we already knew).

Actually, there's more than one scientific explanation, and historically
there have been lots and lots and lots. As recently as 80 years ago, the
steady state theory was preferred, and it still has its proponents although
they are much fewer in number now. And now we have string theory and its
many variants competing with rather a few other theories to try to explain
bits of it. (And string theory was around in science for a very long time
before anybody came up with any kind of experiment that could test it)


Ok, you're discussing explanations intended to unify everything and
include that last 1 Planck time. I'm talking about explanations for
events beyond 1 Planck time.

Again incorrect. The theories mentioned were intended by their poposers to apply both before and after 1 Planck time (and in the steady state case, there was no "1 Planck time).


In other words, if I have to take 3 seconds on faith, or 15 billion
years on faith, I'm going for the 3 seconds.


More bad science - believing that an assertion that the currently-prevailing theory is definitely true is not an act of faith. Faith that the assumptions behind the theory hold (constants are constant, etc); faith that a better theory won't come along; faith that the discrepancies in the theory will be worked out; faith that the experiments that have been carried out were not flawed in an as-yet-unnoticed way. Experimental proof is not the same as mathematical proof. Faith that fully describing the physical rules that apply to physical data explains philosophically why those rules should be 'real' over any other. And above all - since you didn't carry the experiments out yourself, and no single person could repeat them all - faith that your physics teacher told it to you right.


I know how it actually happens. Scientific law, however, is declared in
a manner such as you describe.

"Scientific law"... something that is never declared except by poor high school physics teachers misrepresenting the process of science.


(And in any case, the dilemma of choice does not equate to all choices must
be wrong.)

But you cannot prove which one is correct.


Yawn. You cannot "prove" that your last birthday card from your late grandmother was not an ironic indication of her secret hatred for you.


This is the null
hypothesis to the statement that there is a religion that interprets
the gospel correctly, and you cannot disprove the null hypothesis, I
believe.

That's incorrect - indeed experimental design is normally based on
disproving a null hypothesis. (I don't think it's particularly relevant to
this conversation either.)


That's exactly what I said. You can't disprove the null hypothese HERE,
I believe. That's how you should have read that sentence.

That's how *I* should have read it even though it's not how *you* wrote it? Actually, while we're at it - would you care to prove that's the correct interpretation ;-)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A.O.F #10
    ... >> snip; and, two, quit trying to take things out of context. ... missionary pamphlet which stopped well short of discussion of doctrines ... of our tenth Article of Faith. ... and interpretations on the subjects. ...
    (soc.religion.mormon)
  • Re: If tomorrow our elected administration adopted your views....
    ... are just a lot of Baha'is who accept the Baha'i Writings, ... Both Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice use the ... Writings of the Faith. ... interpretations mixed with a lot of their own thinking which is found ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • Re: Guess the reasons
    ... about the pre-Flood climate and the causes of the Flood. ... but in the end we can only grasp them by faith. ... measurements and interpretations thereof. ... true, of infinite importance. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: political
    ... your faith, but it, itself, is not "faith". ... interpretations with one common unifying theme: ... same passage, there'd be a narrow variety of sermons. ... As to infants, earlier you argued that infants cannot have ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)