[Just thinking]

Quote from: Zer0 on 23-09-2021, 19:10:05

    Only when We Admit We do Not know a thing...does the Opportunity for Seeking arises.


Words of wisdom from a flying instructor: "After 100 hours, you know everything. After 1000 hours, you realise that you don't know everything. After 10,000 hours you know that you never will know everything." It's a good summary as 100 - 300 hours is known among accident investigators as the Death Zone.

And there's the difference: with religion you can make it up as you go along, because every religious prediction begins with "God willing...." so cannot be falsified by experiment, so you know everything right from the start. Intellectually, it's just one long Death Zone.

We can find truth in science and we can find truth in the holy scriptures they may be more closely related than you think. Even truth itself relies on faith.

[Bored chemist]

we can find truth in the holy scriptures

Only by accident.

[Bored chemist]

when We Admit We do Not know a thing...

We are doing science, rather than religion which never admits to any lack of knowledge.

[Just thinking]

    we can find truth in the holy scriptures

Only by accident.

I must say I don't understand but that is just me not comprehending. What I can say is that only faith is the strength and heart of any belief. I have much trust in science as it has kept me alive to this day but faith will keep me going into the future.

[alancalverd]

Belief: acceptance of a hypothesis in the absence of evidence

Faith: acceptance of a hypothesis in spite of the evidence

Science: temporary acceptance of a hypothesis that explains what you have seen and has not yet been disproved by evidence

[Bored chemist]

I must say I don't understand but that is just me not comprehending.

If there is truth in scripture it's not because it is scripture.
If I write any "story" then if enough people read it, then someone will say "Oh that happened to me".
But that doesn't mean I can tell the future.
It's just a coincidence; an accident of fate.

[Just thinking]

f there is truth in scripture it's not because it is scripture.
If I write any "story" then if enough people read it, then someone will say "Oh that happened to me".
But that doesn't mean I can tell the future.
It's just a coincidence; an accident of fate.

That a good point, it's like when an event takes place like an earthquake always someone says I dreamed of that well what about all the earthquake dreams that never came true.

[Bored chemist]

Also the Bible (as an example) tells you things that are true like "thou shalt not kill", but anyone who isn't an idiot already worked that out.
There are no "truths" in the scripture that were not already known before the scripture was written.

[hamdani yusuf]

Belief: acceptance of a hypothesis

There's justified believe, if it's supported by evidence. Otherwise, it's unjustified believe.
Knowledge is defined as justified true belief. Hence it's a subset of belief.

[alancalverd]

There are no "truths" in the scripture that were not already known before the scripture was written.

Isn't that a bit of a tautology, and equally applicable to any written statement?

[Just thinking]

but anyone who isn't an idiot already worked that out.

That's where the big problem comes in there are idiots in the world that can't seem to work it out.

[hamdani yusuf]

Also the Bible (as an example) tells you things that are true like "thou shalt not kill", but anyone who isn't an idiot already worked that out.
There are no "truths" in the scripture that were not already known before the scripture was written.

People usually distinguish between descriptive claims and prescriptive claims. Your example falls into prescriptive category. The value is usually right or wrong, instead of true or false.

[Bored chemist]

Also the Bible (as an example) tells you things that are true like "thou shalt not kill", but anyone who isn't an idiot already worked that out.
There are no "truths" in the scripture that were not already known before the scripture was written.

People usually distinguish between descriptive claims and prescriptive claims. Your example falls into prescriptive category. The value is usually right or wrong, instead of true or false.

It remains the case that the Bible does not tell you anything that was not known to the people who wrote it.
(and it tells you many things that are false).

[Bored chemist]

but anyone who isn't an idiot already worked that out.

That's where the big problem comes in there are idiots in the world that can't seem to work it out.

If they don't understand that then it isn't religion that they are short of; what they lack is compassion. A book won't help that.

[hamdani yusuf]

There are no "truths" in the scripture that were not already known before the scripture was written.

Isn't that a bit of a tautology, and equally applicable to any written statement?

Prior to Keppler, nobody knew that planets orbit the sun in elliptical trajectories.

[Bored chemist]

There are no "truths" in the scripture that were not already known before the scripture was written.

Isn't that a bit of a tautology, and equally applicable to any written statement?

Yes and no.
If I say " I know by divine intervention that the pope will die next Tuesday" then I'm making a testable prediction- it is a "truth that is not yet known".
If I say" I know that he will die sometime", then I'm not telling you anything.

The point is that you don't really learn anything from the Bible.

[alancalverd]

Prior to Keppler, nobody knew that planets orbit the sun in elliptical trajectories.

I think it was known but not well quantified or understood before Kepler. But that is beside the point. The fact is that you have to know something before you can write it down, because the brain guides the hand. Mostly.

[Bored chemist]

The fact is that you have to know something before you can write it down, because the brain guides the hand. Mostly.

"Mostly" is the issue here.
The authors of the Bible wrote lots of stuff that was not known.
Stuff like the creation of the universe 6000 years ago in 7 days.
That wasn't "known", it was made up.

[hamdani yusuf]

I think it was known but not well quantified or understood before Kepler. But that is beside the point. The fact is that you have to know something before you can write it down, because the brain guides the hand. Mostly.

Previously, people thought that planets move in epicycles according to Ptolemaic system.
We can write something that's false, even absurd, which doesn't meet the requirements for a knowledge.

[Bored chemist]

We can write something that's false, even absurd, which doesn't meet the requirements for a knowledge.

And the Bible, for example, did this a lot.
In particular, it contradicts itself about 400 times.

Yet religion is "defended" using scripture like that, while science is defended using facts.

The question which forms the title of this thread has already been answered.
No science is not a religion and the OP was wrong (and possibly trolling) to say it was defended like one.