The Bible and Science

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
The Tanager
Savant
Posts: 5755
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 218 times

The Bible and Science

Post #1

Post by The Tanager »

My intent here is more about general approaches to supposed scientific contributions in the Bible, not specific cases (although examples may be helpful to make one's points, of course). I'd love to know what approach you take when looking at the Bible and science. Which of these do you agree with and why?:

1. The Bible makes direct scientific claims so, when they conflict, either the Bible or our current scientific understanding is wrong (or both are).

2. The Bible is a completely metaphorical text, not making direct claims about physical reality

3. The Bible, is mainly concerned with X (teaching what is necessary for salvation or instructing us for next practical step in life of trust in God or whatever), and uses the linguistic and phenomenological understandings of the day to get that message across

4. Something else

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15264
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: The Bible and Science

Post #71

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #70]
First, why do we need to not rely on fixed eternal teachings?
This question doesn’t engage with my clarification request about how OGM could avoid institutional stagnation or echo chambers without these "fixed eternal teachings" (also unidentified). Instead, it seems to challenge the foundational premise of SGM’s approach to adaptable discernment.

Additionally, you do not address your focus on how OGM safeguards against institutional bias in ways that differ from the SGM’s internal discernment process.
Yes, IF it’s actually rooted in a relationship with God and reliance on God’s wisdom, rather than rejecting that.
This conditional stance appears to be an implicit critique that SGM’s flexibility could lead to subjective interpretations that diverge from divine wisdom, but it lacks explicit reasoning for this position.
Why would true understanding require re-evaluating norms if the truth has already been discovered?
This response doesn’t fully engage with my query about how evolving understanding might necessitate re-evaluating norms, particularly when new insights emerge. You seem to argue from a position that assumes the immutability of "truth that has already been discovered"(also unidentified), potentially dismissing SGM’s flexible approach without addressing why such flexibility could be beneficial or problematic.
The aim/goal we are talking about here is which model is truer/better; the models share that goal. The criteria must be towards that goal.
You are (unintentionally) equivocating. SGM emphasizes elements tailored to its goals, but not criteria. Criteria judges SGM and its elements against other models and their elements on which is truer/better.
This response reframes the purpose of criteria as needing to be universal to enable cross-model comparison, rather than exploring the validity of SGM’s position that each model may require context-specific criteria aligned with its unique goals. This difference highlights a possible philosophical divergence on whether truth and efficacy are best judged through universal or model-specific standards, but you don’t directly address this.
Jesus believed in and taught objective truths, including objective moral truths. Those include compassion, the need for personal growth, direct relationship with God, but not interpretive flexibility if you mean flexible as regards truth. To reject objective truths, a community responsible for passing those down, a community responsible for seeking the good of the world, things like that is to be at odds with Jesus’ message.
This response suggests that you believe SGM’s flexibility might undermine objective truths as you understand them (as yet unidentified). However, it doesn’t engage with the specific SGM point I raised: that interpretive flexibility can exist within a framework that respects core values like compassion and growth, allowing them to adapt as individual understanding deepens.

With the SGM, to divine GOD as divine reflects a practice where spirituality is alive, personal, and continually unfolding, guided by the insights and intuitions that each individual experiences in their relationship with GOD. This insight-driven approach highlights why SGM sees personal discovery as a primary, healthy, and essential path to spiritual growth.
Image

An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.


Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

User avatar
The Tanager
Savant
Posts: 5755
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: The Bible and Science

Post #72

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 12:03 pm
First, why do we need to not rely on fixed eternal teachings? Second, I already mentioned this is also done through God’s personal interactions with individuals, like you seem to be saying with SGM.
This question doesn’t engage with my clarification request about how OGM could avoid institutional stagnation or echo chambers without these "fixed eternal teachings" (also unidentified). Instead, it seems to challenge the foundational premise of SGM’s approach to adaptable discernment.

Additionally, you do not address your focus on how OGM safeguards against institutional bias in ways that differ from the SGM’s internal discernment process.
First, it does engage. It questions the validity of the question in the first place. If OGM only used “fixed eternal teachings” to avoid institutional stagnation and echo chambers, then why would that not be enough? I think it would be.

But, of course, I also said more. You left out the second part of my direct response.

Second, OGM asserts more than just “fixed eternal teachings” to avoid institutional stagnation and echo chambers. God also works through personal interactions with individuals both within the institution and outside of it to try to avoid stagnation and echo chambers.

Third, compared to SGM, it does everything SGM does and adds to that “fixed eternal teachings” as an additional safeguard that SGM doesn’t afford us. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily true; I’m just comparing the two.
William wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 12:03 pmThis conditional stance appears to be an implicit critique that SGM’s flexibility could lead to subjective interpretations that diverge from divine wisdom, but it lacks explicit reasoning for this position.
I didn’t think it was needed; it seems rather obvious to me. And it’s the same with OGMs. With free will, there is always a chance…in every single model…to move towards divine wisdom and to move away from it.
William wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 12:03 pmThis response doesn’t fully engage with my query about how evolving understanding might necessitate re-evaluating norms, particularly when new insights emerge. You seem to argue from a position that assumes the immutability of "truth that has already been discovered"(also unidentified), potentially dismissing SGM’s flexible approach without addressing why such flexibility could be beneficial or problematic.
First, it does engage. It questions the validity of the question in the first place. If OGM is correct and there are fixed eternal truths, then our personal evolving understanding would not require re-evaluating those fixed eternal norms. My model doesn’t need to navigate between co-creative learning and adherence to predetermined standards because (1) if it is true, we shouldn’t change those fixed truths and (2) if there is a need to change the norms, then the model is false.

Realize that I’m not assuming this is the case by saying that. I’m actually countering an assumption that evolving understanding does call for re-evaluating norms and calling for agnosticism until further evidence is presented one way or the other. If you want to pursue this line of reasoning, then provide evidence that evolving understanding (that aligns with divine wisdom) actually does require re-evaluating these norms.
William wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 12:03 pmThis response reframes the purpose of criteria as needing to be universal to enable cross-model comparison, rather than exploring the validity of SGM’s position that each model may require context-specific criteria aligned with its unique goals. This difference highlights a possible philosophical divergence on whether truth and efficacy are best judged through universal or model-specific standards, but you don’t directly address this.
I did directly address this. Yes, OGM says criteria to compare two models should be consistent and not just elements emphasized by the model itself.

SGM apparently says the criteria to compare two models should be inconsistent and be the elements of each model. That, logically, would lead to both models being equally true and no real comparison made.
William wrote: Thu Nov 07, 2024 12:03 pmThis response suggests that you believe SGM’s flexibility might undermine objective truths as you understand them (as yet unidentified). However, it doesn’t engage with the specific SGM point I raised: that interpretive flexibility can exist within a framework that respects core values like compassion and growth, allowing them to adapt as individual understanding deepens.

With the SGM, to divine GOD as divine reflects a practice where spirituality is alive, personal, and continually unfolding, guided by the insights and intuitions that each individual experiences in their relationship with GOD. This insight-driven approach highlights why SGM sees personal discovery as a primary, healthy, and essential path to spiritual growth.
Okay, I didn’t understand that to be your point. I think this is a very good thing. I think my OGM has this. Do you think it doesn’t? If not, why not?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15264
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: The Bible and Science

Post #73

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #72]

1. Echo Chambers and Institutional Bias
You assert that fixed teachings and divine interaction suffice to prevent stagnation and echo chambers, but my critique goes deeper. Specifically, how does OGM avoid the risk of institutionalized bias or the rigid application of fixed teachings that can ossify over time? SGM directly addresses this by rooting discernment within the individual’s relationship with GOD, rather than relying solely on external structures or teachings.

Clarification from SGM: SGM emphasizes that morality is a co-creative process, evolving through an ongoing relationship with GOD. External inputs, including cultural norms and institutional teachings, are subjectively filtered by individuals. This provides adaptability and safeguards against the risks of rigid institutional dogma (Point 2, Subjective Moral Authority and Internal Moral Framework). (SOURCE)

Follow-Up Question: How does OGM address the possibility that institutions or communities might misapply fixed teachings or suppress evolving insights from individuals? If divine interaction is the safeguard, how does OGM ensure individuals can discern this interaction free from institutional influence?

2. Evolving Understanding and Reevaluating Norms
You challenge my suggestion that evolving understanding might necessitate re-evaluating norms by asserting that fixed truths, if correct, do not need reinterpretation. However, SGM holds that evolving contexts and deepened insights often reveal nuances in moral truths that require adaptability.

Clarification from SGM: SGM views morality as dynamic, shaped through co-creation with GOD (Point 1, Co-Creation with GOD and Evolving Moral Truths). For example, historical atrocities like slavery were once accepted by many, yet evolving understanding led to their rejection. This demonstrates that even truths understood as "eternal" may require new applications or interpretations as moral understanding deepens. (SOURCE)

Follow-Up Question: How does OGM address the possibility of deeper insights necessitating reinterpretation or reapplication of norms? For instance, could evolving understanding within OGM lead to new perspectives on the application of fixed truths? If not, why not?

3. Flexibility and Safeguards in SGM
You critique SGM’s flexibility as risking subjective deviation but do not fully address its internal safeguards. SGM operates within a framework of core values—such as compassion, forgiveness, and personal growth—that ensure flexibility remains aligned with divine principles.

Clarification from SGM: Flexibility in SGM is not unbounded. It operates within a moral framework co-created with GOD (Point 6, Unity, Interconnectedness, and Inclusivity) and emphasizes internal moral alignment rather than institutional authority (Point 2). These safeguards help individuals navigate complex situations without compromising divine alignment.
(SOURCE)

Follow-Up Question: Why do you believe that SGM’s flexibility undermines objective truths if it operates within a framework of core values and divine alignment? Could you address whether SGM’s adaptability allows for a more nuanced application of divine truths in diverse contexts?

Comparison Request: If OGM incorporates personal discovery as you claim, what additional safeguards does it offer that SGM does not? How do these safeguards ensure personal discovery remains aligned with divine wisdom while allowing individuals the freedom to grow spiritually?

4. Universal vs. Model-Specific Criteria
You defend universal criteria for evaluating models, arguing they provide a consistent standard for comparison. However, this does not address my argument that universal criteria might unfairly disadvantage SGM, which prioritizes adaptability and context-specific discernment.

Clarification from SGM: SGM’s context-specific criteria reflect its emphasis on inclusivity and the subjectivity of human experience (Point 6). For example, morality evolves as societal contexts change, and criteria for evaluating truth must account for this adaptability.
(SOURCE)

Follow-Up Question: Why do you assume universal criteria are inherently better for comparing models? Could you address whether universal standards might overlook the strengths of models like SGM that emphasize context and adaptability?

Specific Engagement Request: Could you explain how OGM accounts for the possibility that some models require context-specific evaluation to capture their unique goals and strengths?

Closing Thoughts
Your responses have provided valuable clarity on OGM’s principles, but the gaps in engaging with the safeguards and strengths of SGM leave the comparative analysis incomplete. Specifically:

You have not addressed how OGM operationally avoids institutional stagnation or echo chambers beyond appealing to fixed truths and divine interaction.

You have not fully engaged with SGM’s view that evolving understanding requires flexibility to adapt norms to new contexts.

You have not acknowledged how SGM’s framework of core values acts as a safeguard against the risks of subjective deviation.

You have not addressed the potential limitations of universal criteria in evaluating models with context-specific strengths.

I invite you to engage more deeply with these points, as they are central to understanding how SGM functions and why its flexibility and adaptability are vital for fostering spiritual growth.
Image

An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.


Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

User avatar
The Tanager
Savant
Posts: 5755
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: The Bible and Science

Post #74

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2024 12:07 pmYou assert that fixed teachings and divine interaction suffice to prevent stagnation and echo chambers, but my critique goes deeper. Specifically, how does OGM avoid the risk of institutionalized bias or the rigid application of fixed teachings that can ossify over time? SGM directly addresses this by rooting discernment within the individual’s relationship with GOD, rather than relying solely on external structures or teachings.
I did not assert that fixed teachings and divine interaction suffice to prevent stagnation and echo chambers. You can’t prevent those things if free will exists and we both have asserted it does. But fixed teachings and the divine through personal interaction, as well as the community living those things out around us, do teach and work against stagnation, echo chambers, the risk of institutionalized bias, and the rigid application of fixed teachings.

Are you saying SGM works in only one of these 3 things (external structures of humans, external teachings, the individual’s relationship with GOD) or that OGM only does 2? OGM says all 3, so if SGM says 1 of 3, OGM relies on more safeguards than SGM.
William wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2024 12:07 pmHow does OGM address the possibility that institutions or communities might misapply fixed teachings or suppress evolving insights from individuals? If divine interaction is the safeguard, how does OGM ensure individuals can discern this interaction free from institutional influence?
OGM has all 3 things to try and safeguard against misapplying fixed teachings. How does SGM address the possibility that individuals might misperceive and misapply teachings from their personal encounters with what they believe is the divine?

OGM has all 3 things to guide individuals, institutions, and communities to safeguard against evolving insights from individuals being suppressed as well as safeguarding against devolving insights from individuals being embraced by those individuals. How does SGM safeguard against individuals misperceiving and misapplying their subjective experiences?
William wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2024 12:07 pmYou challenge my suggestion that evolving understanding might necessitate re-evaluating norms by asserting that fixed truths, if correct, do not need reinterpretation. However, SGM holds that evolving contexts and deepened insights often reveal nuances in moral truths that require adaptability.

Clarification from SGM: SGM views morality as dynamic, shaped through co-creation with GOD (Point 1, Co-Creation with GOD and Evolving Moral Truths). For example, historical atrocities like slavery were once accepted by many, yet evolving understanding led to their rejection. This demonstrates that even truths understood as "eternal" may require new applications or interpretations as moral understanding deepens.
This isn’t a nuance in moral truth, it’s a change in human moral opinions, which OGM equally accounts for. OGM teaches us to consistently read the texts, to learn from them, to apply that wisdom to new situations and to challenge old situations to make sure both (a) other cultural principles and biases and (2) personal desires and biases, haven’t messed up our interpretations and applications.

You also seem to be equivocating on “truth” here. The fixed truth that chattel slavery is bad has always been the case. What isn’t fixed is that humans didn’t always align their thoughts and behaviors with that fixed truth. This isn’t nuancing truth; it’s nuancing opinions about what is truth.

But now, more people do see chattel slavery as bad. And they do so, historically, largely because of Christians who believe in an OGM and the institutions and communities created by those Christians that have affected the whole of society including those of other OGM persuasions, those of SGM models, and secularists.
William wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2024 12:07 pmYou critique SGM’s flexibility as risking subjective deviation but do not fully address its internal safeguards. SGM operates within a framework of core values—such as compassion, forgiveness, and personal growth—that ensure flexibility remains aligned with divine principles.

Clarification from SGM: Flexibility in SGM is not unbounded. It operates within a moral framework co-created with GOD (Point 6, Unity, Interconnectedness, and Inclusivity) and emphasizes internal moral alignment rather than institutional authority (Point 2). These safeguards help individuals navigate complex situations without compromising divine alignment.
What is the difference between this “framework of core values” and the fixed moral truths in an OGM? It looks identical. Both are frameworks of fixed moral goods.

Also, we can think we are co-creating with GOD, but what if we misperceive that? You agree we have free will and can go against divine principles. We can go against the core values such as compassion, forgiveness, personal growth. So, in SGM, if an individual goes against the only safeguard the model provides to ensure against immoral actions, there is nothing stopping us. In OGM, we have 2 more safeguards: the wider community around us that pursues relationship with God and the fixed wisdom from previous communities that pursued relationship with God.
William wrote: Fri Nov 08, 2024 12:07 pmYou defend universal criteria for evaluating models, arguing they provide a consistent standard for comparison. However, this does not address my argument that universal criteria might unfairly disadvantage SGM, which prioritizes adaptability and context-specific discernment.

Clarification from SGM: SGM’s context-specific criteria reflect its emphasis on inclusivity and the subjectivity of human experience (Point 6). For example, morality evolves as societal contexts change, and criteria for evaluating truth must account for this adaptability.
One must use criteria that doesn’t unfairly disadvantage any model. The criteria I mentioned: explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, degree of ad-hocness, concordance with accepted beliefs, and comparative superiority do not disadvantage SGMs over OGMs.

To use criteria like “degree of inclusivity” or “degree of emphasis on subjective experiences” or “degree of emphasis on communal safeguards” or “amount of fixed teachings” are all very bad criteria that seem to be “context-specific”.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15264
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: The Bible and Science

Post #75

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #74]

I see there are areas where you’ve mischaracterized my argument.
When I discuss co-creation with GOD in SGM, I am not reducing it to "opinion changes," as you implied. Co-creation refers to the dynamic and relational process in which individuals actively align with divined values through their subjective relationship with GOD. This is distinct from mere opinion shifts, as it involves deliberate spiritual engagement and the conscious refinement of moral understanding.
Additionally, your characterization of SGM safeguards as analogous to fixed truths within OGM misses the mark. While SGM operates within a framework of divined principles such as compassion and unity, these are not rigid or externalized. Instead, they are co-created, evolving through individual alignment with GOD. This contrasts with OGM’s institutional safeguards, which rely on fixed teachings that risk ossification.
________________________________________
Reiterate Risks in OGM:
You assert that OGM’s three safeguards—fixed teachings, divine interaction, and community—are sufficient to prevent misapplication or bias. However, your response does not address the critique that institutional safeguards themselves can become sources of bias and suppression. History has shown that institutions can resist or suppress evolving insights, prioritizing preservation of the status quo over moral growth.
For example, while OGM-inspired Christians played a role in the abolition of slavery, it was often individuals stepping outside institutional norms who drove change. SGM, by contrast, minimizes the risk of institutional stagnation by emphasizing adaptability and the individual’s direct relationship with GOD.
________________________________________
Challenge Historical Assertions:
You credit OGM-inspired Christians with leading the abolition of slavery, which is partially true, but this narrative oversimplifies history. Many abolitionists acted not because of rigid adherence to institutional teachings but by stepping outside cultural norms of their time. This moral progress can be attributed to individuals realigning with divined values, often in tension with institutional Christianity.
Furthermore, the abolition movement was not exclusively OGM-driven. Secular thinkers and individuals from diverse spiritual perspectives also contributed significantly. This broader context highlights the importance of adaptability and inclusivity in fostering moral growth, principles at the heart of SGM.
________________________________________
Defend Context-Specific Evaluation:
You argue that universal criteria, such as explanatory power and scope, are inherently fair for evaluating models, but this overlooks the unique strengths of SGM. Models like SGM, which prioritize inclusivity and adaptability, require context-specific criteria to account for their emphasis on subjective experiences and evolving moral frameworks.
For example, assessing SGM through criteria like "degree of inclusivity" or "emphasis on subjective discernment" is not "bad" or biased, as you suggest, but aligns with SGM’s foundational principles. Evaluating models on their own terms ensures a fairer comparison of their respective strengths and weaknesses.
________________________________________
Closing Remarks:
In summary, while OGM relies on institutional and communal safeguards, SGM addresses risks of bias and stagnation through its emphasis on adaptability, co-creation, and inclusivity. Moral growth often requires stepping beyond fixed frameworks, and SGM uniquely empowers individuals to engage in this dynamic process through their direct relationship with GOD. I invite you to engage further with these distinctions to provide a more complete comparison of our models.
Image

An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.


Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

User avatar
The Tanager
Savant
Posts: 5755
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: The Bible and Science

Post #76

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2024 1:38 pmI see there are areas where you’ve mischaracterized my argument.
When I discuss co-creation with GOD in SGM, I am not reducing it to "opinion changes," as you implied.
If it's not about humans changing their moral opinions to align to GOD's moral knowledge, then that means that "abuse is bad" once was not true. Is that what you are saying?
William wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2024 1:38 pmAdditionally, your characterization of SGM safeguards as analogous to fixed truths within OGM misses the mark. While SGM operates within a framework of divined principles such as compassion and unity, these are not rigid or externalized. Instead, they are co-created, evolving through individual alignment with GOD. This contrasts with OGM’s institutional safeguards, which rely on fixed teachings that risk ossification.
You need to explain this better. What does it mean for SGM to have a principle of compassion that is not rigid? The level of compassion applied to a situation changes? It’s not applying full compassion every time? In one situation it is full compassion, in another one need only take half compassion into account?
William wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2024 1:38 pmYou assert that OGM’s three safeguards—fixed teachings, divine interaction, and community—are sufficient to prevent misapplication or bias.
Any one of these, by itself, is sufficient to prevent misapplication or bias. My point is that having all 3 is a better safeguard against it than having 1 or 2. You have seemed to say SGM is better when it only has 1 of these safeguards.
William wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2024 1:38 pmHowever, your response does not address the critique that institutional safeguards themselves can become sources of bias and suppression. History has shown that institutions can resist or suppress evolving insights, prioritizing preservation of the status quo over moral growth.
I have addressed this. Yes, it CAN become, but doesn’t have to. That’s true of all safeguards in all of our models.

Your responses have not addressed my critique that your subjective safeguard itself (the individual’s perceived relationship with GOD) can become a source of bias and suppression. History has shown that individuals, perceiving a relationship with God, can resist or suppress something like "abuse is bad", prioritizing self-centered desires over moral growth.
William wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2024 1:38 pmFor example, while OGM-inspired Christians played a role in the abolition of slavery, it was often individuals stepping outside institutional norms who drove change.
Yes, because of their OGM.
William wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2024 1:38 pmYou credit OGM-inspired Christians with leading the abolition of slavery, which is partially true, but this narrative oversimplifies history. Many abolitionists acted not because of rigid adherence to institutional teachings but by stepping outside cultural norms of their time. This moral progress can be attributed to individuals realigning with divined values, often in tension with institutional Christianity.
Yes, because of their Christian OGM. That is why they stepped outside the cultural norms of their time and broke from the institutions that were misinterpreting and misapplying the Biblical principles because of their cultural norms and self-centered desires.
William wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2024 1:38 pmFurthermore, the abolition movement was not exclusively OGM-driven. Secular thinkers and individuals from diverse spiritual perspectives also contributed significantly. This broader context highlights the importance of adaptability and inclusivity in fostering moral growth, principles at the heart of SGM.
I didn’t say it was exclusively OGM individuals. But even a large part of the secular thinkers and individuals thought the way they did because of the Christian principles built into their culture that they divorced from their Christian foundations. They were cultural Christians to an extent, as a fact of history.
William wrote: Sat Nov 09, 2024 1:38 pmYou argue that universal criteria, such as explanatory power and scope, are inherently fair for evaluating models, but this overlooks the unique strengths of SGM. Models like SGM, which prioritize inclusivity and adaptability, require context-specific criteria to account for their emphasis on subjective experiences and evolving moral frameworks.
For example, assessing SGM through criteria like "degree of inclusivity" or "emphasis on subjective discernment" is not "bad" or biased, as you suggest, but aligns with SGM’s foundational principles. Evaluating models on their own terms ensures a fairer comparison of their respective strengths and weaknesses.
Explanatory power and scope does not, in any way, overlook the unique strengths of SGM. Explanatory scope asks how much of the data does the model explain. If SGM says inclusivity, adaptability, subjective experiences, changing moral frameworks explains all the data, then it will score well if that is correct.

If the criteria in comparing SGM and OGM is “degree of inclusivity” and, by definition, SGM includes that while OGM doesn’t, then the criteria clearly begs the question in favor of SGM. Criteria cannot do that and be valid. Begging the question is irrational.

I didn't see or didn't understand your answers to these questions I've asked. Could you please provide them here?

(1) Can anything, in SGM, 100% prevent errors from happening?
(2) Can we misperceive our relationship with GOD or what GOD wants us to do?
(3) If so, how does SGM address the possibility that individuals might misperceive and misapply teachings from their personal encounters with what they believe is the divine?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15264
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: The Bible and Science

Post #77

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #76]

Co-Creation and "Opinion Changes".
Co-creation is about alignment with divinedd principles, not subjective whimsy. This includes recognizing eternal truths but refining understanding and application over time.

SGM’s Non-Rigid Principles.
I'm emphasizing adaptability to diverse contexts without undermining the principle’s core value, which contrasts with rigidity potentially leading to ossification in OGM.

Safeguards Against Misapplication or Bias.
I critique institutions’ historical resistance to evolving insights, suggesting that adaptability in SGM reduces risks of stagnation or suppression. You sidestepped the potential for rigidity in fixed teachings.



Abolition of Slavery.
I highlight tension between institutional norms and evolving moral insights, showing how SGM’s adaptability allows moral progress beyond institutional constraints.

Criteria for Evaluating Models.
Evaluating models based on their foundational principles ensures fair comparison. Universal criteria may overlook distinct strengths like adaptability and subjective discernment in SGM.

Unanswered Questions.
Response to Question (1):
While no moral model, including SGM or OGM, can claim to be 100% foolproof, this is irrelevant to the core of our discussion. My argument is not that SGM is immune to error but that it provides superior safeguards against misapplication, bias, and stagnation compared to OGM when evaluated against the 12 points we both identified.

For example:

SGM emphasizes adaptability and inclusivity, reducing risks of stagnation or suppression present in OGM’s fixed institutional safeguards.
SGM’s focus on individual alignment with divinedd principles allows for dynamic engagement with moral truth, whereas OGM risks ossification through reliance on static, institutional teachings.
The critique of perfection is a straw man—my point is that SGM scores better relatively, not absolutely. If you disagree, I invite you to address how OGM better satisfies the criteria we outlined.

Alignment with SGM 12 Points:
Point 1: Co-creation with GOD acknowledges the dynamic nature of morality and the evolving understanding of moral truths, inherently allowing for potential human error.
Point 3: Free will and human experience emphasize that human actions are distinct from divined will, accepting human fallibility.
Point 11: The distinction between co-creation and independent human actions supports that errors arise from misuse of free will, not a flaw in the SGM framework.
Conclusion: This question is addressed implicitly in the SGM points. The focus is not on eliminating errors entirely but on reducing risks through adaptability and alignment.

Question 2: Can individuals misperceive their relationship with GOD or divined will?
Yes, individuals can misperceive their relationship with GOD. However, SGM addresses this by fostering continual spiritual engagement and alignment, enabling individuals to refine their understanding dynamically rather than being confined by static safeguards.
Alignment with SGM 12 Points:
Point 9: GOD as an internal, subjective presence emphasizes personal discernment in maintaining alignment, which can be recalibrated over time.
Point 10: Experiences like NDEs and synchronicities are cited as ways GOD interacts to guide individuals, helping correct misperceptions and confirm alignment.
Point 2: The internal moral framework highlights the ongoing subjective process of filtering external inputs through one’s relationship with GOD, allowing for adjustments and corrections.
Conclusion: The potential for misperception is acknowledged in SGM, and the model’s adaptability and relational spirituality aim to address this dynamically.

Question 3: How does SGM address misperception and misapplication of divined teachings?
SGM mitigates risks of misperception through its emphasis on relational spirituality, community dialogue, and adaptability. By prioritizing alignment with core divinedd principles like compassion and unity, SGM provides a flexible yet principled framework for correcting errors.
Alignment with SGM 12 Points:
Point 6: Unity, interconnectedness, and inclusivity promote societal and personal evolution, fostering a collective approach to refining understanding and application of divined principles.
Point 4: Forgiveness and spiritual healing highlight the ability to realign with GOD’s values after missteps, reinforcing resilience and growth.
Point 12: The pre-birth agreement for human experience reflects an intentional design for growth and correction within the moral and spiritual journey.
Conclusion: SGM addresses misperception by providing mechanisms for continual refinement, adaptability, and alignment with overarching principles like compassion and unity.

_____________________
Image

An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.


Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

User avatar
The Tanager
Savant
Posts: 5755
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: The Bible and Science

Post #78

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2024 7:11 pmI critique institutions’ historical resistance to evolving insights, suggesting that adaptability in SGM reduces risks of stagnation or suppression. You sidestepped the potential for rigidity in fixed teachings.
No, I didn’t sidestep it. I said there was potential for it, but that there is always potential for corruption in anything that humans are involved in. I then said that OGM has three safeguards to help fight this corruption, while you speak of one safeguard for SGM to fight possible corruption.
William wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2024 7:11 pmEvaluating models based on their foundational principles ensures fair comparison. Universal criteria may overlook distinct strengths like adaptability and subjective discernment in SGM.
By “evaluating” do you mean comparing models against each other? If not, then we are once again not talking about the same thing. If so, then we certainly disagree on how to compare models.

How should we determine who is the best Italian football team in Italy? Is AS Roma the best Italian football team? Should we use an objective metric like wins, ties, and losses? Or should we judge them based on their foundational principles? They are a high pressure defending team, one of the best in Italian football. By your logic, they are a great team (and so is everyone else). The standings tell a different story.

Judging each one by their own foundational principles, to me, is either (1) a clear case of begging the question in favor of whichever model is used (which for you has been SGM) or (2) if we judge by each’s own foundational principles, then there is actually no comparison between models at all.
William wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2024 7:11 pmWhile no moral model, including SGM or OGM, can claim to be 100% foolproof, this is irrelevant to the core of our discussion. My argument is not that SGM is immune to error but that it provides superior safeguards against misapplication, bias, and stagnation compared to OGM when evaluated against the 12 points we both identified.



The critique of perfection is a straw man—my point is that SGM scores better relatively, not absolutely. If you disagree, I invite you to address how OGM better satisfies the criteria we outlined.
First, I didn’t critique it for not being perfect. I asked a question to make sure I was understanding you correctly, so that my response could be more accurate.

Second, we didn’t outline those criteria. They are not helpful criteria in comparing the models to see which is better. Coming up with 12 criteria that is SGM specific is clearly begging the question.

Third, SGM has one safeguard. OGM has that very same safeguard and then two extra ones. How in the world does that make SGM superior in safeguarding from error?
William wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2024 7:11 pmYes, individuals can misperceive their relationship with GOD. However, SGM addresses this by fostering continual spiritual engagement and alignment, enabling individuals to refine their understanding dynamically rather than being confined by static safeguards.
Thank you for clarifying that. So, to recap what it looks like:

(1) I’ve critiqued SGM’s one safeguard
(2) You’ve agreed that this safeguard can not work since it can be misperceived
(3) But argued that the safeguard itself guards against the safeguard not working

Step 3 is irrational. On the other hand, I’ve offered 2 additional safeguards that pick up the slack when this safeguard (shared by both SGM and OGM) is faulty.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15264
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: The Bible and Science

Post #79

Post by William »

[Replying to The Tanager in post #78]

On Acknowledging Potential for Rigidity:
I appreciate your clarification. My critique focused not on the mere acknowledgment of potential rigidity but on how OGM’s structure—due to its emphasis on fixed teachings—may inherently amplify this risk compared to SGM. While safeguards are critical, their effectiveness is contingent on adaptability and responsiveness to evolving moral contexts.

On Safeguards in SGM vs. OGM:
SGM does not rely on a single safeguard. Its adaptability stems from multiple mechanisms, such as:

Relational Spirituality: Dynamic engagement between individuals and divined principles, enabling personal discernment.
Community Dialogue: Collaborative correction through diverse perspectives.
Evolving Understanding: Recognition that truth remains fixed, but its application evolves with new insights and contexts.
These are framed within oneness because they are integrated rather than separate.

Thus, while OGM’s additional safeguards are notable, their reliance on institutional structures risks stagnation. SGM’s safeguards, by emphasizing flexibility, aim to mitigate this.

Reframing Evaluation: Comparing models by foundational principles does not equate to merely judging them by self-referential metrics. Rather, it involves assessing how well these principles address shared goals—such as moral clarity, adaptability, and alignment with divined truths. For example:

How does a model navigate historical shifts in morality (e.g., abolition of slavery)?
How effectively does it prevent misapplication or corruption over time?

Universal Metrics and Contextual Strengths: While universal criteria (e.g., safeguarding against error) are important, overlooking model-specific strengths—such as SGM’s adaptability and subjective discernment—risks unfairly prioritizing one model’s framework over another’s unique contributions.

Imagine evaluating a team not just by its wins but by its ability to adapt, innovate, and engage with its players and fans. In moral models, adaptability and engagement are vital alongside static metrics of “success.”

On Circularity: SGM’s relational spirituality does not rely on the safeguard correcting itself. Instead, it employs:
Diverse Feedback Mechanisms: Through community dialogue, personal discernment, and spiritual experiences, individuals can recalibrate their understanding dynamically.
Alignment with Core Principles: Missteps are corrected by realigning with overarching values like compassion and unity, ensuring that safeguards remain tethered to fixed truths rather than static institutions.
This distributed, multi-layered system reduces reliance on any single safeguard, fostering resilience and adaptability in addressing errors.

OGM’s Institutional Safeguards: While OGM’s additional safeguards may compensate for misperceptions, their static nature risks inhibiting the dynamic recalibration necessary for moral evolution. By contrast, SGM’s emphasis on relational adaptability allows for more responsive correction.

4. On Criteria for Comparison
You suggest that the 12 points I referenced are SGM-specific and therefore biased, making them unhelpful for evaluating both models.

The Role of Criteria: The 12 points reflect general principles that both SGM and OGM can address (e.g., alignment with divined truths, safeguards against error). While SGM inherently aligns with these principles, the points are not exclusive to it.
Invitation for Refinement: If these criteria seem skewed, I invite you to propose additional or alternative criteria that reflect OGM’s strengths and allow for a balanced comparison. Collaborative refinement of these metrics can ensure fairness.

(I am continually refining SGM points as more data makes that necessary.)

5. On Dynamic Engagement
You assert that SGM’s reliance on spiritual engagement is insufficient, as individuals can misperceive their relationship with God, resulting in a safeguard that cannot correct itself.


Acknowledging Human Fallibility: Both SGM and OGM recognize the risk of misperception. However, SGM’s dynamic approach ensures that misperceptions are addressed through ongoing interaction with divined principles, community input, and spiritual experiences.

Beyond Static Safeguards: Unlike OGM’s institutional safeguards, SGM’s relational spirituality actively evolves through personal and collective recalibration. This allows it to address misperceptions more flexibly, reducing the risk of systemic stagnation or suppression.

6. Conclusion: Strengths in Comparison
Your critique highlights the importance of safeguards and objective metrics in evaluating moral models. To continue this discussion constructively, I propose the following:

Suggestions.

Collaborative Criteria Development:

Let’s refine a set of shared criteria that evaluate adaptability, alignment, and resilience across both models.
Concrete Examples:
We can explore specific historical or doctrinal challenges (e.g., slavery, women’s rights) to test how each model addresses them in practice.
Dynamic vs. Static Safeguards:
Further discuss how relational spirituality and institutional safeguards compare in preventing misperception and stagnation.

________________________

1. Relational Spirituality
Dynamic Engagement: At the heart of SGM is an individual’s ongoing, personal relationship with the divine. This relationship is fluid, allowing for growth and adaptation based on both internal discernment and external experiences.

Integration with Oneness: Relational spirituality reflects oneness by affirming that each individual's connection with the divined is both unique and a part of a greater, unified whole. Discernment is personal yet aligned with universal truths.

2. Community Dialogue

Collaborative Correction:

SGM recognizes the value of diverse perspectives within communities. Collective dialogue fosters deeper understanding, addressing potential blind spots in individual discernment.
Integration with Oneness: Oneness is embodied through collaboration, where individuals work together as interconnected parts of a greater divine purpose. Diversity in viewpoints strengthens unity by allowing for collective wisdom to emerge.

3. Evolving Understanding

Fixed Truth, Fluid Application:

While divined principles remain immutable, their application evolves as humanity deepens its understanding and encounters new challenges. This adaptability allows SGM to remain relevant without compromising core values.

Integration with Oneness: The process of evolving understanding mirrors the dynamic interplay within the unified whole. Truths are consistent, but their expression adapts to maintain harmony across diverse contexts.

Framing Within Oneness
Rather than treating these elements as separate pillars, SGM integrates them into a unified approach grounded in oneness. This holistic perspective:

Bridges Individual and Collective: Personal discernment is enhanced through community dialogue, ensuring alignment with both individual growth and collective well-being.

Balances Constancy and Change: Fixed truths provide stability, while adaptability ensures responsiveness to evolving contexts.

Reflects Divined Unity: The interconnectedness of relational spirituality, community dialogue, and evolving understanding reflects the unity and diversity within divine creation.

By integrating these elements, SGM offers a model that adapts dynamically to changing contexts while remaining firmly rooted in the principles of compassion, unity, and divined alignment. This integration strengthens its ability to navigate moral challenges and fosters a collaborative journey toward greater understanding and alignment with divined truths.

Acknowledging the Purpose of the 12 Points
The 12 points were introduced as a shared framework to foster mutual understanding of our respective models, not as definitive metrics for comparison. If these points are now being used to assess the validity or superiority of one model over the other, it’s important to clarify their purpose and limitations:

Device for Clarity: The points were meant to outline each model’s foundational principles, offering a lens through which to understand and evaluate internal coherence.
Not a Comparative Tool: The points were not intended as a scoring system to declare one model superior to the other.

Logical Fallacies in Repurposing the Points
Equivocation:
If the 12 points are now being reframed as benchmarks for evaluating the models, this constitutes a shift in purpose. Originally designed to describe the models, these points are now being treated as a standard for judgment, creating a false equivalence.


Straw Man:
Misrepresenting the original intent of the 12 points could distort my arguments about SGM. For example:

You might argue that because OGM’s safeguards are listed explicitly in its points, it is inherently more robust. This ignores that SGM safeguards were not framed in the same way within its 12 points, as the purpose of the exercise was descriptive, not prescriptive.

Clarifying the Role of the Points
To avoid these fallacies and return to productive dialogue, it’s essential to clarify how the 12 points should and should not be used:

Shared Understanding: The points are tools to help us understand the internal logic and strengths of each model.

Evaluation of Coherence: Each model can be assessed on its own terms using these points to determine if its principles align with its claims.

Limitations in Comparison: These points do not account for external criteria, such as adaptability, inclusivity, or alignment with evolving moral contexts, which require a broader evaluative framework.

Proposing a Balanced Approach
To ensure fairness in our dialogue, I propose:


Refocusing on Clarity: Let’s agree to use the 12 points as descriptive tools rather than comparative metrics unless supplemented by external criteria agreed upon by both parties.

Exploring Key Criteria Together: Beyond the 12 points, we could collaboratively identify external benchmarks—such as adaptability, safeguards against misperception, and responsiveness to evolving insights—for a more comprehensive comparison.

Avoiding Logical Pitfalls: Both models have unique strengths. Let’s ensure the points serve their intended purpose of enhancing understanding rather than creating artificial hierarchies.

Image
Image

An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.


Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

User avatar
The Tanager
Savant
Posts: 5755
Joined: Wed May 06, 2015 11:08 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: The Bible and Science

Post #80

Post by The Tanager »

William wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2024 3:04 pmI appreciate your clarification. My critique focused not on the mere acknowledgment of potential rigidity but on how OGM’s structure—due to its emphasis on fixed teachings—may inherently amplify this risk compared to SGM. While safeguards are critical, their effectiveness is contingent on adaptability and responsiveness to evolving moral contexts.
Can you give an actual argument that the effectiveness of safeguards is contingent on adaptability and responsiveness to evolving moral contexts? I don’t think there is an evolving moral context in relation to truthfulness.
William wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2024 3:04 pmSGM does not rely on a single safeguard. Its adaptability stems from multiple mechanisms, such as:

Relational Spirituality: Dynamic engagement between individuals and divined principles, enabling personal discernment.
Community Dialogue: Collaborative correction through diverse perspectives.
Evolving Understanding: Recognition that truth remains fixed, but its application evolves with new insights and contexts.
These are framed within oneness because they are integrated rather than separate.

Thus, while OGM’s additional safeguards are notable, their reliance on institutional structures risks stagnation. SGM’s safeguards, by emphasizing flexibility, aim to mitigate this.
SGM aims to mitigate that, but opens itself up to other dangers. And if this is the formulation, then OGM also has the mechanisms of relational spirituality, community dialogue, and evolving understanding PLUS objective truth revealed by God to humanity and put into texts, plus objective philosophical reasoning built off of facts.
William wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2024 3:04 pmComparing models by foundational principles does not equate to merely judging them by self-referential metrics. Rather, it involves assessing how well these principles address shared goals—such as moral clarity, adaptability, and alignment with divined truths. For example:

How does a model navigate historical shifts in morality (e.g., abolition of slavery)?
How effectively does it prevent misapplication or corruption over time?
Which is done through the criteria I’ve named.
William wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2024 3:04 pmWhile universal criteria (e.g., safeguarding against error) are important, overlooking model-specific strengths—such as SGM’s adaptability and subjective discernment—risks unfairly prioritizing one model’s framework over another’s unique contributions.

Imagine evaluating a team not just by its wins but by its ability to adapt, innovate, and engage with its players and fans. In moral models, adaptability and engagement are vital alongside static metrics of “success.”
Yes, imagine giving Roma a Champions League spot because it presses more than anyone else or has more fans show up for games than competitors (it’s 3rd in average crowd size). That would be outrageous. It would mean the games don’t actually matter.

OGM doesn’t overlook model-specific strengths, it simply has an objective way to compare them.
William wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2024 3:04 pmYou suggest that the 12 points I referenced are SGM-specific and therefore biased, making them unhelpful for evaluating both models.

The Role of Criteria: The 12 points reflect general principles that both SGM and OGM can address (e.g., alignment with divined truths, safeguards against error). While SGM inherently aligns with these principles, the points are not exclusive to it.
Invitation for Refinement: If these criteria seem skewed, I invite you to propose additional or alternative criteria that reflect OGM’s strengths and allow for a balanced comparison. Collaborative refinement of these metrics can ensure fairness.
That’s like judging all Italian football teams by the general principles that inherently align with AS Roma and saying other teams could be just like them, so it’s objective enough. That’s clearly begging the question.

In no way would I want to propose other criteria that reflect OGM’s strengths and judge non-OGM by those. That would be begging the question. Neither do I want to use some criteria modeled on OGM and some on SGM, as that just points out the differences. I’ve already proposed criteria that allows for actual balanced comparison (explanatory power, scope, etc.) rather than these alternatives. Do you think SGM doesn’t perform well on these?
William wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2024 3:04 pm Both SGM and OGM recognize the risk of misperception. However, SGM’s dynamic approach ensures that misperceptions are addressed through ongoing interaction with divined principles, community input, and spiritual experiences.
But if the relationship is already misperceived, then the ongoing interaction with supposed but misperceived divined principles, spiritual experiences, and misperceiving community input can’t ensure anything. That’s the whole point. You need something outside of these to catch one up out of the misperception loop. You need objective reasoning reflected in texts, institutions, etc. like OGM offers.
William wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2024 3:04 pmUnlike OGM’s institutional safeguards, SGM’s relational spirituality actively evolves through personal and collective recalibration. This allows it to address misperceptions more flexibly, reducing the risk of systemic stagnation or suppression.
You keep claiming this, but where is the evidence of it? Why think SGM reduces the corruption better? OGM, at every safeguard level, calls for active participation, reflection, correction as well.
William wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2024 3:04 pmLet’s refine a set of shared criteria that evaluate adaptability, alignment, and resilience across both models.
Sure, let’s start with the six I named. Which ones do you agree with? Which ones do you reject and why? Explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, degree of ad-hocness, concordance with accepted beliefs, comparative superiority.
William wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2024 3:04 pmWe can explore specific historical or doctrinal challenges (e.g., slavery, women’s rights) to test how each model addresses them in practice.
Sure.
William wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2024 3:04 pmFurther discuss how relational spirituality and institutional safeguards compare in preventing misperception and stagnation.
Sure, but make sure you aren’t setting up a false choice here. OGM isn’t just institutional safeguards, but everything SGM offers PLUS institutional safeguards (texts, creeds, etc.).
William wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2024 3:04 pmThe 12 points were introduced as a shared framework to foster mutual understanding of our respective models, not as definitive metrics for comparison.
Thank you for clarifying that. I think we understand OGM and SGM, at least relatively enough to go further in order to compare the two.

On your proposed criteria (if they are that and not just picking out 3 of the 12 points):

1. Relational Spirituality - I don’t accept this as criteria. I think it is important to have, but criteria should be able to judge this as good or bad. I think OGM and SGM are equal here, but it still shouldn’t be used as a criteria.

2. Community Dialogue

Collaborative Correction: - Again, I think OGM and SGM both offer this, but it’s not a good criteria.

3. Evolving Understanding - Again, I thing OGM and SGM both offer this, but it’s not a good criteria.

Even if those were good criteria, they wouldn’t place OGM over SGM or vice versa; they are equal there (at least in theory).

Post Reply