Revelation vs Reason

[AgnosticBoy]

In another thread, I recently explained that I could not become a Christian because I don't see it being compatible with the processes of reason and verifiable evidence. Of course, Christians can use reason and evidence, but they often do so after the fact by trying to validate their preconceived conclusions (the details in the Bible). A rational person would use reason before reaching a conclusion.

In response to this, LittleNipper seemed to have used revelation as justification for his beliefs. That line of thinking ties into the discussions on faith vs reason - here's one such perspective in regards to the faith side:

A conflict between knowledge derived through natural human faculties and knowledge derived from divine revelation occurs only if an apparent contradiction arises.
...
If we are going to understand better the relationship between faith and reason, we must have a clearer understanding of these two words. The word faith is used in several different ways by Christian thinkers. It can refer to the beliefs that Christians share (the “Christian faith”). The word faith also can refer to our response to God and the promises of the gospel. This is what the Reformed Confessions mean when they speak of “saving faith” (for example, the WCF 14). This faith involves knowledge, assent, and trust. Finally, many philosophers and theologians have spoken of faith as a source of knowledge. As Caleb Miller explains, “The truths of faith are those that can be known or justifiedly believed because of divine revelation, and are justified on the basis of their having been revealed by God.”

- Ligioner Ministries

Here's what I want to know:
1. Why is Revelation better than reason or even on par with it?
2. If revelation is useful and reliable, then why are there so many different Christian denominations and Bible canons throughout history? Why did the Church wrongly condemn Galileo for his heliocentric theory?

[Goose]

Here's what I want to know:
1. Why is Revelation better than reason or even on par with it?

If Revelation is from God, then Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible.

2. If revelation is useful and reliable, then why are there so many different Christian denominations and Bible canons throughout history?

There are different denominations and so on because people often arrive at different conclusions.

Why did the Church wrongly condemn Galileo for his heliocentric theory?

The history behind Galileo and the Church is an interesting one. The quick answer to your question is that new ideas often encounter resistance. This is true in many fields such as science.

[Data]

Here's what I want to know:
1. Why is Revelation better than reason or even on par with it?

If Revelation is from God, then Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible.

I would only add that divine revelation is obvious wishful thinking. Extra biblically, that is.

2. If revelation is useful and reliable, then why are there so many different Christian denominations and Bible canons throughout history?

There are different denominations and so on because people often arrive at different conclusions.

Agreed, and what has always puzzled me is that "science" minded skeptics find variations of opinion so problematic. You would think that science is somehow "divine" revelation. Dogmatic.

Why did the Church wrongly condemn Galileo for his heliocentric theory?

The history behind Galileo and the Church is an interesting one. The quick answer to your question is that new ideas often encounter resistance. This is true in many fields such as science.

The clash between science and religion could be said to have begun in the sixth century BCE with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, who's geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. It was adopted by the church through the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

Galileo's heliocentric concept flew in the face of Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture. Thus, the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and might I add, accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admitted to their error in their judgement of Galileo.

The perceived conflict between religion and science was caused by science, philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible.

[alexxcJRO]

Here's what I want to know:
1. Why is Revelation better than reason or even on par with it?

If Revelation is from God, then Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible.

Imagine simpletons using this excuse to commit atrocities.

If anyone objects. Just use the "then Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible".

"This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.' "(1 Samuel 15:2-3)
"16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God."(Deuteronomy 20:16-18)

Imagine this talk:

Supposed Prophet: God has told me we have to completely destroy Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.
Another man1: But what about children and women?
Supposed Prophet: God has commanded we do not spare no one. No men or women, child or animal.
Another man1: Why the animals? Makes no sense!
Suposed Prophet: Are you questioning God almighty?! Revelation is better than your human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible: God.

[TRANSPONDER]

Here's what I want to know:
1. Why is Revelation better than reason or even on par with it?

If Revelation is from God, then Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible.

I would only add that divine revelation is obvious wishful thinking. Extra biblically, that is.

2. If revelation is useful and reliable, then why are there so many different Christian denominations and Bible canons throughout history?

There are different denominations and so on because people often arrive at different conclusions.

Agreed, and what has always puzzled me is that "science" minded skeptics find variations of opinion so problematic. You would think that science is somehow "divine" revelation. Dogmatic.

Why did the Church wrongly condemn Galileo for his heliocentric theory?

The history behind Galileo and the Church is an interesting one. The quick answer to your question is that new ideas often encounter resistance. This is true in many fields such as science.

The clash between science and religion could be said to have begun in the sixth century BCE with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, who's geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. It was adopted by the church through the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

Galileo's heliocentric concept flew in the face of Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture. Thus, the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and might I add, accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admitted to their error in their judgement of Galileo.

The perceived conflict between religion and science was caused by science, philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible.

That was pretty good until the end. If I got it correctly 'Science and the Bible' was right to be opposed because science in Claims at least, debunks the Bible

[TRANSPONDER]

Here's what I want to know:
1. Why is Revelation better than reason or even on par with it?

If Revelation is from God, then Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible.

2. If revelation is useful and reliable, then why are there so many different Christian denominations and Bible canons throughout history?

There are different denominations and so on because people often arrive at different conclusions.

Why did the Church wrongly condemn Galileo for his heliocentric theory?

The history behind Galileo and the Church is an interesting one. The quick answer to your question is that new ideas often encounter resistance. This is true in many fields such as science.

There's the problem. IF. If Revelation is not from a god (name your own) but from various human minds and explains why nobody agrees on anything other than when backed up with the rack, the stake and the excommunication.

You pretty much make the point "There are different denominations and so on because people often arrive at different conclusions". Well - exactly. So how do we determine whether or If any of it is true revelation? The Churches and indeed individuals who may have thought they had worked it out logically from the Bible or just claimed Revelation came up with ideas that either ended up sectarian Dogma or being pulled apart on the Inquisition's racks.

The Church or Religious thought has become infamous for opposing scientific discoveries, either on doctrinal grounds or reluctance to admit it had made a mistake. From Galileo to Dover, religion had fought against heliocentricism as well as evolution. It has grudgingly accepted evolution (though of course the cultists and Genesis extremists still battle against it) and religious science -rejection is fighting everything and losing battle after battle - transplants, stem cells, and now vaccines and climate change.

Ok, not all the religions, and not always religions but political cults, but they use religious - based science skepticism as well as politically motivated. I trust one day we will look back as we do at the witch trials and wonder 'How could people have been so stupid?' We see it in science - denial right now.

[Data]

In another thread, I recently explained that I could not become a Christian because I don't see it being compatible with the processes of reason and verifiable evidence.

In order for one to become a true follower of Christ all one need do is have the desire to do so and then follow up on it. It isn't an intellectual pursuit.

Of course, Christians can use reason and evidence, but they often do so after the fact by trying to validate their preconceived conclusions (the details in the Bible).

I'm not going to argue that. Here's a basic explanation of the scientific method: observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

A rational person would use reason before reaching a conclusion.

Reaching the conclusion not to become a Christian?

In response to this, LittleNipper seemed to have used revelation as justification for his beliefs. That line of thinking ties into the discussions on faith vs reason - here's one such perspective in regards to the faith side:

A conflict between knowledge derived through natural human faculties and knowledge derived from divine revelation occurs only if an apparent contradiction arises.
...
If we are going to understand better the relationship between faith and reason, we must have a clearer understanding of these two words. The word faith is used in several different ways by Christian thinkers. It can refer to the beliefs that Christians share (the “Christian faith”). The word faith also can refer to our response to God and the promises of the gospel. This is what the Reformed Confessions mean when they speak of “saving faith” (for example, the WCF 14). This faith involves knowledge, assent, and trust. Finally, many philosophers and theologians have spoken of faith as a source of knowledge. As Caleb Miller explains, “The truths of faith are those that can be known or justifiedly believed because of divine revelation, and are justified on the basis of their having been revealed by God.”

- Ligioner Ministries

That's so loaded I don't even want to touch it. Faith is trust. The only divine revelation we have is the Bible. Argue that instead.

Here's what I want to know:
1. Why is Revelation better than reason or even on par with it?

Better is a subjective term. So is revelation and reason. A more accurate and relevant, but far less ideological and debatable question is why should revelation be preferred over reason. The answer, I suppose, would be neither should be preferred but both used. Without revelation (The Bible) you have nothing to reason with. Without reason the revelation is useless.

2. If revelation is useful and reliable, then why are there so many different Christian denominations and Bible canons throughout history? Why did the Church wrongly condemn Galileo for his heliocentric theory?

Due to slight variations of an apostate dogma.

[Data]

That was pretty good until the end. If I got it correctly 'Science and the Bible' was right to be opposed because science in Claims at least, debunks the Bible

No. The end actually demonstrates the error in that statement.

[Goose]

Here's what I want to know:
1. Why is Revelation better than reason or even on par with it?

If Revelation is from God, then Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible.

Imagine simpletons using this excuse to commit atrocities.

The premise is hardly an excuse. The consequent follows from the antecedent. It can be used as the first premise of a valid argument. Let me spell it out more explicitly:

1. If Revelation is from God, then Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible.

2. Revelation is from God.

3. Therefore, Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible (via modus ponens).

If anyone objects. Just use the "then Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible".

When you say “just use” do you mean “just commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent”?

"This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.' "(1 Samuel 15:2-3)
"16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God."(Deuteronomy 20:16-18)

Imagine this talk:

Supposed Prophet: God has told me we have to completely destroy Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.
Another man1: But what about children and women?
Supposed Prophet: God has commanded we do not spare no one. No men or women, child or animal.
Another man1: Why the animals? Makes no sense!
Suposed Prophet: Are you questioning God almighty?! Revelation is better than your human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible: God.

What exactly are you arguing here?

[TRANSPONDER]

That was pretty good until the end. If I got it correctly 'Science and the Bible' was right to be opposed because science in Claims at least, debunks the Bible

No. The end actually demonstrates the error in that statement.

No Science does debunk the Bible. That is why Bible believers spend so much time and effort trying to fiddle and debunk science.

Since I'm here and I don't want all my time wasted our pal goose appears to argue:
The premise is hardly an excuse. The consequent follows from the antecedent. It can be used as the first premise of a valid argument. Let me spell it out more explicitly:

1. If Revelation is from God, then Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible.

2. Revelation is from God.

3. Therefore, Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible (via modus ponens).

If anyone objects. Just use the "then Revelation is better than human reason because it originates from a source that is not fallible".
When you say “just use” do you mean “just commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent”?

The fallacy there appears to be assuming the parameters are correct. "Revelation is from God" is an unvalidated claim, contested by not only people of other religions or none, but people of different doctrines or claims within the religion. How do we know that any revelation is from God? We can't even consider the 'Revelation' of the Bible reliable. The proposition above is based on claims that are by no means universally accepted. Proposition fails.