The Bible and Science

[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

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #80]

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.

By 'evolving moral contexts,' I mean changes in societal understanding of how moral principles (like truthfulness) are applied. While the core principle of truthfulness may remain constant, what constitutes ‘truthful behavior’ in complex scenarios (e.g., digital ethics, whistleblowing) can evolve.
Do you accept that application contexts for moral principles can change, even if the principles themselves do not?

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.

SGM relies on safeguards rooted in adaptability:

Relational Spirituality: Dynamic personal engagement with GOD.
Community Dialogue: Collective discernment through diverse voices. (eg. Human experience reporting.)
Evolving Understanding: Acknowledges the fixed nature of truth but adapts its application to new contexts. (re the ongoing evolution of human understanding and adjustment)
Key Point: These safeguards are integrated into the framework of oneness, ensuring flexibility without fragmentation. I argue that this flexibility helps mitigate the risk of stagnation inherent in OGM's institutional reliance.

This is why I have been asking you how OGM incorporates subjective experience into its overall model. It is not about what the models have in common, but where they diverge and why this is the case.

What specific dangers do you believe SGM opens itself to? Are these dangers necessarily more critical than the risk of stagnation in OGM?

The shared reports themselves are a form of Collective Discernment and the SGM places no ridged requirement to have any report off the table of discussion.

What safeguards does the OGM offer as a means of insuring all reports are relevant to the whole picture of Truth?

While OGM's reliance on objective truth grounded in divined texts and philosophy is a strength, it may also limit adaptability. How does OGM prevent these truths from being interpreted in ways that become detached from evolving human contexts?

SGM’s safeguards aim to preserve the essence of any identified objective truth while allowing its application to grow alongside new insights and challenges.

My concern is that while OGM’s additional safeguards may appear robust, they risk amplifying the very dangers of rigidity and stagnation they claim to seek to avoid.

Which is done through the criteria I’ve named.

While I see that the criteria you’ve named play a significant role in evaluating how a model functions, these criteria are not an end in themselves but tools to address broader goals—such as navigating moral shifts and preventing corruption over time. A model should also demonstrate how its principles function in specific historical and contemporary contexts.

Do your criteria explicitly account for how historical shifts in morality (e.g., the abolition of slavery) were addressed or misapplied within different models? If so, how do they adapt to prevent misapplication over time?

While the criteria you name may help establish foundational principles, a model’s real-world application requires ongoing adaptability. How does your model ensure these criteria remain relevant and are not misused to justify harmful practices, especially as societal contexts evolve?

Models that justified slavery often relied on criteria tied to objective truths or fixed interpretations. Adaptability and community dialogue were crucial in challenging and correcting these misapplications. How does your model ensure it remains open to such recalibrations without losing its foundational integrity?

In today’s world, issues like AI ethics and climate change bring moral questions that traditional criteria may not fully address. Does your model have mechanisms to incorporate new understandings into its framework?

If we compared models by their ability to address shared challenges—such as moral evolution and the prevention of misapplication—while testing their resilience to stagnation or fragmentation, this could help us see where different models excel or struggle.

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.

You’re right that, in sports, objective results like wins and losses are the ultimate measure of success within the agreed framework of the competition.

However, moral models aren’t like sports teams competing within a fixed framework; they’re more akin to a team striving to innovate and adapt in a league where the rules and expectations evolve over time. A model that wins in one context may fail in another if it can’t adapt.

Objective metrics are essential, but if they don’t account for adaptability and engagement, they risk rewarding short-term results at the expense of long-term relevance. For instance, a team that wins by sticking rigidly to one strategy might struggle to stay competitive as the game evolves. Moral models face a similar challenge—remaining effective as contexts and challenges shift over time.

SGM does not abandon objective criteria, but rather compels us that we evaluate models by how well they combine static principles with adaptability and engagement. A truly robust model would excel at both adhering to foundational truths and applying them flexibly in evolving contexts.

You say OGM has an objective way to compare models. How does it incorporate adaptability and subjective discernment into this comparison? Does it view those as secondary to objective metrics?

My concern isn’t that OGM lacks objectivity, but that it may undervalue qualities like adaptability, which are critical for addressing real-world complexities over time.

Ultimately, I think we both agree that moral models should safeguard against error. Where we might differ is how much weight to give qualities like adaptability and engagement. I see these as essential for navigating new challenges without compromising foundational truths. We could explore how OGM balances these priorities.

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?

Your football analogy is compelling, but it may not fully capture the complexity of comparing moral models. Unlike football teams, which compete within the same fixed system of rules, SGM and OGM operate with different frameworks and priorities. Evaluating them requires criteria that account for these differences while still reflecting shared goals, like moral clarity and alignment with divined truths.

I understand your concern that criteria inherently aligned with one model might unfairly bias the evaluation, and I agree that any criteria used should strive for objectivity and fairness.

The 12 points I mentioned weren’t intended to favor SGM but rather to highlight general principles like alignment with divined truths and safeguards against error. These are broad and foundational enough that any model—SGM, OGM, or otherwise—can address them in its own way.

If these points seem too closely aligned with SGM, I’m open to refining them collaboratively to ensure they reflect principles both models can engage with fairly.

You mentioned criteria like explanatory power and scope as allowing for balanced comparison. I don’t see these as incompatible with the principles I’ve outlined; in fact, they could complement one another.

Could we explore how both SGM and OGM perform on these criteria you propose? I’m particularly curious about how explanatory power and scope relate to aspects like adaptability and safeguards against misapplication over time.

Ultimately, my goal isn’t to impose criteria that favor one model over another but to collaboratively refine a set of principles that allow us to evaluate both fairly. I believe this approach will help us better understand the unique contributions and potential limitations of each model.

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.

I agree that misperception is a critical risk for any moral or spiritual model, and it’s essential to have mechanisms that address this effectively.

I also see the value of objective reasoning and external structures as safeguards against misperception.

SGM addresses the risk of misperception through a dynamic process that includes relational spirituality, diverse community dialogue, and evolving understanding. These elements work together to identify and correct errors over time.

For example, community input provides a diversity of perspectives, which can help identify blind spots or misperceptions in an individual’s understanding of divined principles or spiritual experiences.

While external safeguards like texts and institutions can offer valuable guidance, they are not immune to misperception or misuse themselves. History shows that rigid interpretations of texts or institutional authority have sometimes perpetuated misperceptions rather than resolving them.

SGM’s approach doesn’t reject external inputs like texts or philosophical reasoning; rather, it integrates them within a framework of dynamic engagement, ensuring they remain relevant and responsive to evolving contexts.

How does OGM ensure that its reliance on texts and institutions doesn’t itself fall into a misperception loop—such as rigid interpretations or institutional stagnation? Wouldn’t adaptability and dynamic interaction also be necessary to address these risks?

Ultimately, both models aim to address misperception. While SGM does so dynamically, OGM relies on external structures. Both approaches have strengths and limitations that we should consider in evaluating their effectiveness.

The strength of SGM lies in its adaptability and openness to ongoing correction. While it may not rely as heavily on static structures, its safeguards—community dialogue, relational spirituality, and evolving understanding—provide a robust framework for addressing misperception without becoming locked into rigid interpretations or institutional biases.

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.

It’s true that both SGM and OGM value active participation, reflection, and correction. This is an important shared goal in addressing misperceptions and corruption.

The key difference lies in how these corrections occur. SGM’s approach emphasizes adaptability through relational spirituality and collective recalibration. These processes are inherently flexible, responding to evolving contexts and insights. OGM, on the other hand, relies heavily on institutional structures and fixed texts, which, while valuable, may limit adaptability in dynamic situations.

History provides examples of how reliance on fixed texts or institutional authority has sometimes perpetuated misperceptions or systemic corruption. For instance, rigid interpretations of sacred texts were used to justify slavery and colonialism, and institutional safeguards often failed to address these until external or adaptive forces intervened.

SGM’s emphasis on relational spirituality and collective dialogue ensures that safeguards are continually recalibrated through diverse perspectives and lived experiences. This prevents stagnation and encourages correction from within, rather than relying on static frameworks that may resist change.

While OGM calls for active participation and correction, how does it ensure that institutional or textual safeguards themselves don’t become barriers to necessary change? For instance, how does OGM address situations where interpretations of texts or institutional rules lag behind evolving moral understandings?

SGM’s strength lies in its ability to adapt in real-time through personal and collective engagement. This relational recalibration reduces the risk of systemic stagnation by prioritizing dynamic interaction over reliance on static safeguards.

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.

These six criteria provide a solid foundation for evaluating models, as they focus on coherence, scope, and utility. I think they can be very useful in our discussion.

I agree that explanatory power is crucial. A model must provide clear, coherent explanations for the phenomena it addresses.

I’d suggest that explanatory power should also consider how well the model adapts to new insights or challenges.

Explanatory scope is also important; a model should address a wide range of relevant issues.
It’s worth noting that broader scope doesn’t necessarily mean better if it sacrifices depth or precision. For example, does a model’s attempt to address everything dilute its ability to address specific challenges effectively?

Plausibility is critical—models must align with what we know about the world to be credible.
I’d emphasize that plausibility includes the ability to integrate subjective and relational experiences alongside objective evidence.

I see the value in minimizing ad-hocness; models that require excessive exceptions or patchwork solutions can lose credibility.
Might there be cases where adaptive refinements—what some might call ‘ad-hoc adjustments’—are necessary to address new contexts or insights? For example, is a model that evolves inherently ad-hoc, or is it simply responsive?

Concordance with accepted beliefs is useful as a starting point, ensuring a model doesn’t radically conflict with established understanding.
It’s also important to recognize that moral and spiritual progress often involves challenging and evolving accepted beliefs. For example, many accepted beliefs about human rights have changed over time due to evolving understandings.

Comparative superiority is an essential criterion for determining which model best meets shared goals.
To assess this effectively, we should define what aspects of adaptability, alignment, and resilience are most important in this comparison.

I’d propose adding flexibility as a criterion—how well a model adapts to new challenges without losing its foundational integrity.
I’d also suggest evaluating resilience—how effectively a model prevents misapplication or corruption over time.

1. Explanatory Power: How well does the model explain the phenomena it addresses?
2. Explanatory Scope: Does it cover a broad range of relevant issues without losing depth?
3. Plausibility: Does it align with what we know about the world and integrate subjective experiences?
4. Degree of Ad-hocness: Does the model avoid excessive exceptions or patchwork solutions while allowing for necessary adaptations?
5. Concordance With Accepted Beliefs: Does it align with established understandings, while remaining open to progress?
6. Comparative Superiority: How does it perform relative to other models in addressing shared goals?
7. Flexibility and Resilience: How well does it adapt to new challenges while maintaining foundational integrity, and how effectively does it prevent misapplication or corruption over time?

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.).

I see your point that OGM seeks to integrate SGM’s strengths with additional institutional safeguards like texts and creeds. This breadth may be an important consideration.

The key question isn’t just whether a model includes multiple safeguards, but how those safeguards interact and function in practice. For instance, does the addition of institutional safeguards enhance flexibility and adaptability, or does it risk creating rigidity and stagnation?

Institutional safeguards like texts and creeds have sometimes been used to justify harmful practices, such as slavery, for extended periods. How does OGM ensure that these safeguards don’t hinder necessary moral recalibrations when cultural understandings evolve?

SGM’s emphasis on relational spirituality and community dialogue fosters adaptability, encouraging correction through ongoing engagement with lived experiences and diverse perspectives.

Institutional safeguards have traditionally been slow to recognize and incorporate changes in societal understandings of women’s rights. How does OGM balance fidelity to foundational texts with responsiveness to evolving moral contexts?

SGM’s safeguards, by integrating evolving understanding and collective discernment, allow for more dynamic correction without being bound by rigid institutional interpretations.

OGM’s safeguards are not necessarily inherently flawed, but I’m curious how they address situations where institutional structures resist necessary change. For example, do they rely on external pressures to initiate recalibration, or is there an internal mechanism for adaptability? Exploring these examples together could help us see where each model’s strengths are.

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).

I didn’t propose these points as decisive criteria for comparison, but rather as aspects that illustrate how the models function. They help ground the discussion in concrete features of each model, even if they aren’t themselves meant to determine superiority.

You’re right that, in theory, both OGM and SGM incorporate Relational Spirituality, Community Dialogue, and Evolving Understanding.

The practical implementation of these features might differ significantly between the models. For example, does OGM’s institutional framework influence how Community Dialogue or Evolving Understanding functions in practice?

While you suggest that Relational Spirituality isn’t a good criterion, it does highlight the difference between SGM’s dynamic emphasis on personal engagement and OGM’s inclusion of institutional safeguards. This interaction may influence how adaptable or personal each model feels in practice.

Community Dialogue is theoretically present in both models, but its execution might differ. For instance, does OGM’s reliance on texts and creeds place limits on the scope of dialogue compared to SGM’s more open-ended approach?

Evolving Understanding is key to addressing new challenges. While both models incorporate this, does OGM’s focus on institutional safeguards constrain the pace or breadth of evolution compared to SGM?

If these points don’t function as comparative criteria, I’m open to shifting the focus. Perhaps we can build on the criteria you’ve proposed—like explanatory power, scope, and resilience—to explore how each model performs in addressing practical challenges like slavery or women’s rights.

[The Tanager]

Hey William…I’m trying to simplify and organize it a little better for me to keep up with it. If I seemed to have missed anything important, just bring it back out.

1. What are the views?

SGM’s safeguards aim to preserve the essence of any identified objective truth while allowing its application to grow alongside new insights and challenges.

My concern is that while OGM’s additional safeguards may appear robust, they risk amplifying the very dangers of rigidity and stagnation they claim to seek to avoid.

Ultimately, both models aim to address misperception. While SGM does so dynamically, OGM relies on external structures. Both approaches have strengths and limitations that we should consider in evaluating their effectiveness.

I don’t understand why you think Christianity relies on external structures and isn’t dynamic. Biblical Christianity calls for dynamic personal engagement with God (relational spirituality), collective discernment through diverse voices (community dialogue) and acknowledging the fixed nature of truth, while adapting its application to new contexts (evolving understanding) integrated together in a framework of oneness.

Why do you think Christianity isn’t an SGM? The reason you don’t seems to center around the authority given to the Bible and “institutional safeguards”. Is that accurate? But you also talk about preserving the essence of identified objective truth while allowing its application to grow alongside new insights and challenges.

First, let’s assume texts and creeds inherently lead to what you are saying they do, namely, corruption like slavery and colonialism. Okay, but the absence of texts and creeds also have historically led to tons of harmful practices on the individual level since the individual can act on their beliefs alone, blind to their own biases. Yes, of course, it doesn’t lead to as worldwide an effect, but that’s because SGM doesn’t have enough people and power behind it, while OGM is a model used by many in power.

Second, I don’t think texts and creeds are inherently pushing us to corruption. What you mentioned about preserving the essence of identified objective truth while allowing its application to grow is exactly the kind of authority I believe the Bible and “institutional safeguards” have in Christianity. That is a very historical and traditional approach (even within Judaism prior to Christianity), even though some cultural Christians have taken a different approach, leading to the rigid christianities you seem to be judging OGMs on as a whole.

Third, where do you think the identified objective truths are preserved?

2. What criteria are we using to compare the views?

Do your criteria explicitly account for how historical shifts in morality (e.g., the abolition of slavery) were addressed or misapplied within different models?

I’m confused on how you are using “criteria”. Can you clarify that better? Why do you think comparative criteria are parts of the model that can adapt over time or help the model to establish its foundational principles or be used to justify slavery?

These six criteria provide a solid foundation for evaluating models, as they focus on coherence, scope, and utility. I think they can be very useful in our discussion.

Great.

I’d propose adding flexibility as a criterion—how well a model adapts to new challenges without losing its foundational integrity.
I’d also suggest evaluating resilience—how effectively a model prevents misapplication or corruption over time.

I don’t think flexibility and resilience are good criteria to add. I do think they are important features for a model to have, though.

Whether the amount of flexibility or resilience is good or not will be covered by whether it meets the other six criteria. If the flexibility/resilience showed explains most things (scope) well (power) in ways that are plausible, in concordance with accepted beliefs, with little ad-hocness and does so better than alternative models, then that model will be better.

3. Applying the criteria to the views.

Could we explore how both SGM and OGM perform on these criteria you propose? I’m particularly curious about how explanatory power and scope relate to aspects like adaptability and safeguards against misapplication over time.

Please define adaptability.

As to the safeguards you mentioned above, I think both of our views probably have equal explanatory power and scope.