Reading for understanding. Should you?

[nobspeople]

Many believers may say the bible is the only book they need. That may be debatable, however, should believers read other books about God, or things about God?

Take, for example, The God Equation: The Quest for a Theory of Everything
https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-385-54274-6

Some say these types of books challenge the faith of the faithful. But that's a good thing. If you're faith is strong, it should hold up to such readings.
If it's not, and it causes you to change your mind, that's great, too.


Should believers in God read such things?

EDIT: Accidentally posted an Amazon add link - changed it to a different, non-selling link

[1213]

So you accept science that you, as someone who's not a scientist, understands OR science that works for you, not things you don't understand or challenge your belief?...

I don’t accept as true fact scientific claims that can’t be proven/tested and seen that they really are true.

Can you give examples of such things?

For example evolution theory.

[brunumb]

So you accept science that you, as someone who's not a scientist, understands OR science that works for you, not things you don't understand or challenge your belief?...

I don’t accept as true fact scientific claims that can’t be proven/tested and seen that they really are true.

On the other hand, you do accept the claims contained in the Bible which also "can’t be proven/tested and seen that they really are true". It's called bias.

[nobspeople]

So you accept science that you, as someone who's not a scientist, understands OR science that works for you, not things you don't understand or challenge your belief?...

I don’t accept as true fact scientific claims that can’t be proven/tested and seen that they really are true.

Can you give examples of such things?

For example evolution theory.

Your response speaks of the evolution THEORY, not fact. Over time, it's been shown to be more true than not.
Do you understand the chemical reaction of how your vehicle starts and moves - the mathematics behind it? Do you exactly understand how, once you reach about 55 MPH, the power that's needed to increase speed isn't as linear as it was up to about 55MPH?
Do you understand how your pecking on the keyboard is transmitted wirelessly to another on the other side of the planet?
I'm sure there's an almost limitless list of what you accept but don't understand. For all of us. That doesn't mean those things don't exist.
As brunumb said above, it's called bias based on what you want to accept. Which is fine, I suppose, so long as you admit to it.

[1213]

...On the other hand, you do accept the claims contained in the Bible which also "can’t be proven/tested and seen that they really are true". ..

For me, Bible is matter of belief. Are "scientific facts" for you also just matter of belief, or are they facts?

However, I think I have seen enough evidence to believe what the Bible tells. Also, Bible is mostly about what is good and righteous, I think that is actually a matter of understanding rather than matter of knowing. Or what evidence would you need to believe it is good to love others?

Also, in scientific matters, evidence is not necessary for me to believe it, if there is intelligent reasoning to support it. I can accept scientific claims, if the are not irrational and don't defy logic, reason and what can be seen in nature.

[Diagoras]

...On the other hand, you do accept the claims contained in the Bible which also "can’t be proven/tested and seen that they really are true". ..

For me, Bible is matter of belief. Are "scientific facts" for you also just matter of belief, or are they facts?

However, I think I have seen enough evidence to believe what the Bible tells. Also, Bible is mostly about what is good and righteous, I think that is actually a matter of understanding rather than matter of knowing. Or what evidence would you need to believe it is good to love others?

Also, in scientific matters, evidence is not necessary for me to believe it, if there is intelligent reasoning to support it. I can accept scientific claims, if the are not irrational and don't defy logic, reason and what can be seen in nature.

I’ve kept this quote, since I consider it to be very useful for explaining what a scientific naturalist means when he or she says they ‘believe something’. Apologies for not attributing the quote - I’ve lost the source.

The pragmatic reason to believe anything is true at all is to use that information to guide our actions. Sooner or later, the truth of a claim is measured by its power to inform our decisions under the expectation of predictable outcomes. Decisions based on true beliefs will manifest themselves in the form of experiences that were correctly anticipated. Decisions based on false beliefs will eventually fail in that goal.

A question for you: if the Bible is mostly about what is good and righteous, can you give some examples of the parts which aren’t?

I can accept scientific claims, if they are not irrational and don't defy logic, reason and what can be seen in nature.

How do you feel about the Special Theory of Relativity? Some would claim it ‘defies logic and reason’.

Declaring that you don’t need evidence to support a belief, only intelligent reasoning, unfortunately precludes you from being a scientist. The sole reason why science has been so spectacularly successful in every field is because there are people who demand the evidence. Ask yourself which Covid vaccine you’d rather receive: the one that had been through clinical trials involving 100,000 people over a year and had evidence of being 85% effective, or the one which has had no trials at all, but its inventor has reasoned intelligently that it will be 100% effective with no side-effects?

Anyone considering the second option would be well advised to read this article to get an idea of how wrong ‘lack of evidence’ can be. What would Frances Kelsey (mentioned in the article) have felt if she’d relied solely on ‘intelligent reasoning’ and not acted as she did?

https://helix.northwestern.edu/article/ ... regulation

[brunumb]

However, I think I have seen enough evidence to believe what the Bible tells.

The Bible tells how to use pigeon blood and incantations to cure leprous houses. Have you seen evidence of that at work and do you accept the truth of it?

[Diagoras]

However, I think I have seen enough evidence to believe what the Bible tells.

The Bible tells how to use pigeon blood and incantations to cure leprous houses. Have you seen evidence of that at work and do you accept the truth of it?

Leviticus 14, to be precise.

Quite amusing to skim through some of the Bible commentary sites and compare justifications. For example, the cleansing ritual ends in a living bird being released. This can either symbolise the ‘uncleanliness’ of the leprosy being carried away with the bird, or else the same bird symbolises the health now gained by the leper - depends how you wish to interpret it.

[1213]

However, I think I have seen enough evidence to believe what the Bible tells.

The Bible tells how to use pigeon blood and incantations to cure leprous houses. Have you seen evidence of that at work and do you accept the truth of it?

I have not seen leprous houses so apparently it worked really well. But, I have not tested it, so it is just a matter of belief. Personally, I think that is not as important as for example the knowledge that Jews will be scattered and now are gathered back as it was told thousands of years ago, because it can be seen nowadays, which is why it is more meaningful for me.

[1213]

...
A question for you: if the Bible is mostly about what is good and righteous, can you give some examples of the parts which aren’t?

Maybe it is so that all parts of it teach about righteousness. But, for example when Bible tells about how person traveled to some place, like Paul, or lists of generations are not so much about righteousness.

How do you feel about the Special Theory of Relativity? Some would claim it ‘defies logic and reason’.

By what I know, it has nothing special. Everyone could know that things are relative. Maybe there is something that I don’t know about it, but the part that I know is reasonable. All though Nikola Tesla said about it:

“[Einstein’s theory of relativity is] a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king… its exponents are brilliant men, but they are meta-physicists rather than scientists.”
https://flatearthperspectives.wordpress ... ity-quote/

Because it is basically about relativity, the “underlying errors” doesn’t really prevent to use it in certain things. And I think that is relatively good for the theory. But that part of it is also very simple, not many would have done a number of it, because in a way it is very obvious that things are relative.

Declaring that you don’t need evidence to support a belief, only intelligent reasoning, unfortunately precludes you from being a scientist. The sole reason why science has been so spectacularly successful in every field is because there are people who demand the evidence. Ask yourself which Covid vaccine you’d rather receive: the one that had been through clinical trials involving 100,000 people over a year and had evidence of being 85% effective, or the one which has had no trials at all, but its inventor has reasoned intelligently that it will be 100% effective with no side-effects?

Actually, I would rather take a medicine that has perfect reasoning behind it than a medicine that has been tested and is only 85 % effective to a disease that is less than 99,7 % effective in killing people. Probably that kind of medicine (85 %) only increases the risk to die.

But, obviously it could be difficult to find that perfect reasoning. However, to me reasoning is always the best way. Sometimes it may be difficult and testing can be easier way, because then one doesn’t have to think so much. But I don’t think it is good to make guesses on people’s heath, unless they want it.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to 1213 in post #30]

Thanks for answering honestly. I realise from your response that our thinking on many issues appears to be very, very different. For example, you use the phrase “By what I know...” quite a bit, and that seems (to me) to go to the heart of this particular topic. I can’t immediately recall a time when you’ve expressed curiosity about scientific topics, and your response gives the impression that you’re comfortable with whatever level of understanding you’ve already gained, needing nothing further.

This is purely my opinion, however.

On the hypothetical ‘vaccine’ example, I suspect you may have misinterpreted part of my question. Your comments around the risks of death from both the virus and the vaccine (and “guesses on people’s health”) make me concerned that I chose a bad example to make my point. I’ll happily retract the question, though as I don’t think a diversion into vaccination safety is appropriate to this thread.