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
Reading for understanding. Should you?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Reading for understanding. Should you?
Post #1
Last edited by nobspeople on Tue Mar 23, 2021 2:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
- 1213
- Savant
- Posts: 11476
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 327 times
- Been thanked: 374 times
Re: Reading for understanding. Should you?
Post #11Because I don’t believe there is anything useful.nobspeople wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:49 pm ...
And if you think he's reasonable, why should you NOT read his book?
...
And about modern scientists generally, in my experience they have fancy theories, but when one looks closer, there is no meaningful content that could be used for example in situation where someone asks logical proof or real evidence.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: Reading for understanding. Should you?
Post #12Ah, the virtues of faith. Belief in the unseen. How can you possibly know that there is nothing useful if you haven't read the book? Close the eyes and close the mind. Or should that be the other way around?1213 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 4:55 pmBecause I don’t believe there is anything useful.nobspeople wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:49 pm ...
And if you think he's reasonable, why should you NOT read his book?
...
That seems far more applicable to the Bible rather than scientists. If you look closely you can actually see the meaningful content of those fancy theories all around you.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: Reading for understanding. Should you?
Post #14Your diversionary tactic is noted. If you are unable to answer the question honestly then just say so, or don't bother replying.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- Diagoras
- Guru
- Posts: 1392
- Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
- Has thanked: 170 times
- Been thanked: 579 times
Re: Reading for understanding. Should you?
Post #15[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]
A theist might argue that the Bible is the definitive work on God and therefore any other book might be subject to error (not being divinely inspired). Setting aside for a moment the logical fallacy of circular reasoning involved, there’s the fact that not all bibles are exactly the same. So-called apocryphal books exist as canon in some Christian denominations but not in others. Therefore if a Christian seeks out a non-denominational text, is he or she reading ‘another’ book in this context?
Religions (as far as I know) generally have one ‘holy book’ from which their adherents can draw ‘all knowledge’ of their particular deity. But religions are unique in this regard. Any other field of knowledge doesn’t possess the luxury of having one definitive text for someone to read and then declare “I understand all of geology” (or whatever). A core principle of science is that it’s always open to revision in the light of new, more compelling evidence.
I would argue that the answer to the OP depends on whether the hypothetical reader wishes to either test or confirm their faith in their god. Asking themselves and answering that question honestly then determines whether they should read about god from a non-biblical source or not.
An intriguing question for debate, and perhaps one that’s not quite as simplistic as it might at first appear.Should believers read other books <i.e. other than their bible> about God?
A theist might argue that the Bible is the definitive work on God and therefore any other book might be subject to error (not being divinely inspired). Setting aside for a moment the logical fallacy of circular reasoning involved, there’s the fact that not all bibles are exactly the same. So-called apocryphal books exist as canon in some Christian denominations but not in others. Therefore if a Christian seeks out a non-denominational text, is he or she reading ‘another’ book in this context?
Religions (as far as I know) generally have one ‘holy book’ from which their adherents can draw ‘all knowledge’ of their particular deity. But religions are unique in this regard. Any other field of knowledge doesn’t possess the luxury of having one definitive text for someone to read and then declare “I understand all of geology” (or whatever). A core principle of science is that it’s always open to revision in the light of new, more compelling evidence.
I would argue that the answer to the OP depends on whether the hypothetical reader wishes to either test or confirm their faith in their god. Asking themselves and answering that question honestly then determines whether they should read about god from a non-biblical source or not.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Reading for understanding. Should you?
Post #161213 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 4:55 pmBecause I don’t believe there is anything useful.nobspeople wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:49 pm ...
And if you think he's reasonable, why should you NOT read his book?
...You don't know that without first looking into them.
There's more to theories in science. Seeing only theories I find to be short sighted. Science does little to nothing with context, as that's highly individualized. But to each their own. I suspect you'd disregard your computer and the internet you're using in view of the 'context' then?And about modern scientists generally, in my experience they have fancy theories, but when one looks closer, there is no meaningful content that could be used for example in situation where someone asks logical proof or real evidence.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
- 1213
- Savant
- Posts: 11476
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 327 times
- Been thanked: 374 times
Re: Reading for understanding. Should you?
Post #17I have no problem with real science, that can demonstrate that something works. And luckily it is not even always necessary to know why something works, if it just works. Like for example that things fall certain way, can be tested and seen, even if one doesn’t know what causes it.nobspeople wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:51 am I suspect you'd disregard your computer and the internet you're using in view of the 'context' then?
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Reading for understanding. Should you?
Post #18So 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?1213 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:25 pmI have no problem with real science, that can demonstrate that something works. And luckily it is not even always necessary to know why something works, if it just works. Like for example that things fall certain way, can be tested and seen, even if one doesn’t know what causes it.nobspeople wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:51 am I suspect you'd disregard your computer and the internet you're using in view of the 'context' then?
That's fine if so, just want to verify I understand
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
- 1213
- Savant
- Posts: 11476
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 327 times
- Been thanked: 374 times
Re: Reading for understanding. Should you?
Post #19I don’t accept as true fact scientific claims that can’t be proven/tested and seen that they really are true.nobspeople wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:02 pm 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?...
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Reading for understanding. Should you?
Post #20Can you give examples of such things?1213 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:21 amI don’t accept as true fact scientific claims that can’t be proven/tested and seen that they really are true.nobspeople wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:02 pm 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?...
Have a great, potentially godless, day!