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

[The Tanager]

For example, let’s consider the monarchy established in ancient Israel. While the texts often frame the kings as divinely appointed (e.g., Saul, David, Solomon), they also contain accounts of kings abusing their power, such as David’s actions regarding Bathsheba and Uriah (2 Samuel 11). In this case, while the text condemns David’s actions as sinful, it also preserves his kingship and legacy. The same can be said for Solomon, who, despite his wisdom, engaged in political alliances through marriages that led to the introduction of foreign gods into Israel’s worship (1 Kings 11:1-6). In both cases, the texts criticize the sins but also continue to legitimize the overall institution of kingship, which itself was a political construct.

Yes, spiritual life will have ramifications in the political arena.

Additionally, we can look at the relationship between the priests and the people in texts like Leviticus and Deuteronomy. These books set up a system where the priests not only mediated between the people and God but also held significant political and social power. While the laws may serve spiritual purposes, they also reinforce a hierarchy that places the priestly class in a position of control over the broader population. This intertwining of religious authority with social power can be seen as reinforcing the very dynamics that Jesus later critiques in the religious leaders of his time.

Social power, in itself, is not bad; it’s how it’s used that can be good or bad. The texts call those with it to use it in good ways. Humans too often don’t comply. Jesus critiques the way it was done, not the institutions themselves.

These examples suggest that, while the texts condemn individual acts of iniquity, they may still reflect and even reinforce the broader social and political structures that enabled such behavior.

It doesn’t matter what social and political structures exist, humans will use them to benefit themselves at the expense of others (i.e., commit individual acts of iniquity). The problem is humanity, not one structure or another.

I appreciate the discussion, Tanager, but there’s something that I think we can’t overlook: the fact that Christianity, along with its Bible, has a long history that includes significant acts of violence, coercion, and oppression. In many cases, Christians today explain these darker chapters by claiming that those who committed these acts were not "true" Christians. But this explanation feels like an avoidance of responsibility for how intertwined religion has historically been with political and social power, which often led to "works of iniquity."...

More accurately, Christians today explain that they weren’t acting in accord with Christian teaching. Christians openly admit that all people, including Christians, still sin. And I think you are wrong that Christians don’t confront these wicked chapters in their history head-on. Many, many Christians do.

So, when you ask me to move beyond possibility and bring up specifics, I think part of the issue is recognizing that the problem isn’t just individual acts of iniquity but the broader systems of power—political, social, and religious—that have been intertwined with the faith from its earliest texts to its modern history.

I asked for specifics in the texts, since you seemed to be talking about the teachings, but you seem now to be focused on the actions by the religious communities and not the texts themselves.

Do you see this same pattern in Christian history?

Yes, I see that same pattern. It’s humanity. It’s the sin problem that everyone has.

And if so, how does that fit with the idea of moral guidance coming from an external source like GOD if the systems designed to enforce it have consistently fallen short?

It fits perfectly. Free will.

As Christianity developed, especially through the early church and into what we now call Cultural Christianity, the role of interpreting scripture became centralized in religious institutions. The same priestly class, now in Christian form, determined how scripture should be read and what moral guidelines should be followed. This gave these intermediaries immense power to shape religious doctrine and enforce it in ways that often aligned with political and social control.

I agree, but they did so going against the text, namely, the priesthood of all believers.

It’s important to ask how much of the moral guidance said to come from GOD has been filtered through this ongoing system of interpretation. If those in power—whether prophets, priests, or Christian leaders—controlled both the mediation of spiritual practices and the interpretation of sacred texts, then we must question whether the objective moral law they claim to uphold is truly external and divine, or if it has been shaped by human agendas.

I agree. Each branch must be looked at for their own merit/demerit.

This raises the question: Given the historical progression of these mediators acting as scriptural interpreters, how can we be certain that what is presented as objective morality in the Bible hasn’t been influenced by those very power dynamics that Jesus critiqued?

By analyzing the texts.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #41]


Our examination of Cultural Christianity highlights the tension between the historical institutions of Christianity and the deeper, more authentic spiritual experience of connecting with GOD. Over centuries, the power structures associated with religious institutions have shaped how scripture is interpreted, often distorting the teachings of GOD into something that serves political and social agendas rather than divine purpose. This raises crucial questions about objective morality, human free will, and the evolving role of GOD in our understanding of both morality and knowledge, especially as it relates to science.

The Problem of Power in Religious Institutions
As we discussed, the history of Christianity reveals that it has often been used as a political tool, with its teachings applied selectively to justify systems of inequity and control. While power itself is not inherently bad, the way it has been wielded by religious leaders over the centuries often contradicts the original teachings of GOD, as seen in the words of Jesus. Jesus critiqued not only the misuse of power within institutions but also the institutions themselves when they hindered genuine connection with GOD and others. He called for a return to love, humility, and justice, challenging both corrupt practices and the systems that upheld them.

This leads to a key question: How do we reconcile the morality presented in the Bible with the power dynamics that have influenced its interpretation? Subjective GOD Theory offers a way to understand this issue. Rather than seeing biblical morality as a static, objective set of laws imposed by an external deity, we can view it as a product of GOD’s subjective interaction with humanity. GOD communicates morality through the lived experiences of individuals and communities, and these interpretations have been shaped—sometimes distorted—by human institutions and power dynamics.

Subjective Morality and the Influence of GOD
The notion of objective morality becomes more complex when we acknowledge that religious texts, such as the Bible, have been interpreted by people living within specific cultural and political contexts. What is often presented as "objective" morality may, in fact, reflect the subjective experiences of those who held power at different points in history.

GOD’s influence, as understood through Subjective GOD Theory, is not an external imposition of moral laws but a dynamic relationship between human consciousness and the divine. This relationship allows for the evolution of morality, as individuals and societies grow in their understanding of justice, compassion, and love. GOD’s presence works within the subjective experiences of people, guiding moral development but allowing for free will, which is why we see both moral progress and resistance to it across history.

This view does not diminish the importance of biblical teachings, but it suggests that these teachings must be understood as part of a subjective, evolving dialogue between humanity and GOD. Rather than looking for fixed, universal moral laws, we are invited to engage in a continuous process of interpreting and applying GOD’s guidance to our lives in ways that reflect the deeper principles of love and justice.

The Role of Science in Subjective GOD Theory
Incorporating science into this framework further enriches our understanding of how GOD interacts with humanity. Science, like morality, can be seen as a divinely inspired pursuit, a way for humans to explore the universe and better understand the creation in which we live. The curiosity and creativity that drive scientific inquiry are not separate from the divine influence but are part of GOD’s inspiration. Through science, we seek to uncover the mysteries of the universe, which in turn helps us understand the deeper nature of GOD.

Subjective GOD Theory views science as a spiritual practice, one that complements moral and spiritual growth. Just as GOD guides our moral intuitions, so too does GOD inspire our quest for knowledge through scientific discovery. The universe itself is seen as a manifestation of GOD’s creative power, and the process of studying it through science is a way of engaging with GOD’s creation.

Moreover, the ethical use of scientific knowledge reflects the same free will that governs moral decision-making. While GOD inspires the pursuit of knowledge, it is up to humanity to decide how to apply that knowledge. When used for the benefit of others and the advancement of understanding, science aligns with GOD’s will. When used destructively, it reflects a disconnect from the divine influence. This dynamic relationship between science, morality, and GOD allows us to see both as part of a subjective, evolving process that requires human responsibility and ethical consideration.

Free Will and Human Responsibility
Central to Subjective GOD Theory is the idea that humans possess free will, though it is subject to the limitations placed upon us in the reality experience. GOD didn’t give us wings, but also didn’t tell us we couldn’t fly—leaving it to us to explore, innovate, and push the boundaries of what is possible within those limitations.

This means that while GOD may inspire individuals to pursue scientific discovery or moral progress, the outcome of those pursuits depends on human choices. Some may resist moral intuitions due to personal, cultural, or psychological factors, just as some may use scientific advancements for harmful purposes. The role of GOD is not to impose a fixed moral code but to guide and inspire, leaving humans the responsibility to decide how to act.

A Unified Perspective: Science, Morality, and GOD
In this integrated view, GOD, morality, and science are not separate realms but are all part of a subjective relationship between the divine and humanity. GOD influences human consciousness in many ways—through moral intuitions, the inspiration to pursue knowledge, and the desire to grow spiritually. Science and morality are thus both reflections of GOD’s presence in human life, driven by a shared purpose of seeking understanding, justice, and truth.

This perspective allows us to move beyond the limitations of Cultural Christianity, which often focuses on institutional power and external forms of morality, and into a deeper engagement with GOD. It encourages us to see both our moral development and our scientific discoveries as expressions of the divine—guided by GOD’s influence but shaped by our own free will.

In conclusion, by embracing the idea of a Subjective GOD, we can integrate the pursuit of scientific knowledge, the development of moral values, and the broader spiritual journey into a unified, evolving process. GOD is present in all of these pursuits, working through the subjective experiences of humanity to foster growth, discovery, and a deeper understanding of the universe and our place within it. In this way, both science and morality are seen as part of the same divine dialogue, inviting us to continually grow in our relationship with GOD and with the world around us.

If we cannot directly see GOD outside of ourselves, then - as Jesus said, it suggests that the presence of GOD is experienced within—through our subjective thoughts, emotions, and intuitions. This aligns with the idea that GOD works through our internal experiences, guiding us not by external commands but by inspiring our moral choices, our creativity, and our pursuit of knowledge from within. It implies that the divine is encountered in our relationship with ourselves, others, and the world, reflecting GOD’s influence through our lived, subjective experiences rather than through observable, external phenomena which is an extension of that.

[The Tanager]

Our examination of Cultural Christianity highlights the tension between the historical institutions of Christianity and the deeper, more authentic spiritual experience of connecting with GOD. Over centuries, the power structures associated with religious institutions have shaped how scripture is interpreted, often distorting the teachings of GOD into something that serves political and social agendas rather than divine purpose. This raises crucial questions about objective morality, human free will, and the evolving role of GOD in our understanding of both morality and knowledge, especially as it relates to science.

First, I agree we have that history, but we also have the texts themselves and those are two different things.

Second, this fact doesn’t say anything relevant to the crucial questions of objective morality, human free will, or God’s role in our knowledge.

This leads to a key question: How do we reconcile the morality presented in the Bible with the power dynamics that have influenced its interpretation?

By free will. People have misinterpreted the texts because of their thirst for power. That’s perfectly reconciled.

What is often presented as "objective" morality may, in fact, reflect the subjective experiences of those who held power at different points in history.

Of course. That doesn’t mean objective morality doesn’t also exist.

In conclusion, by embracing the idea of a Subjective GOD, we can integrate the pursuit of scientific knowledge, the development of moral values, and the broader spiritual journey into a unified, evolving process.

I’ve agreed with so much of what you’ve written, except that you are somehow against the externality of God in Biblical Christianity. I don’t understand why. Yes, we can’t physically see God outside of ourselves, but that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. We can experience the words and actions of external agents that takes us beyond our own thoughts, emotions, and intuitions. I think there is great evidence for God being one of those external agents.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #43]

If GOD’s role is mediated through these power structures, then how can we claim that the morality we find in the texts is truly objective? Or that free will is being respected when interpretations of GOD’s will are handed down from an institution that may have its own interests at heart?

I think it’s important to recognize that the texts have never existed in a vacuum—how they are interpreted and applied is inevitably influenced by the social, political, and institutional contexts in which they’ve been used. The power structures associated with Cultural Christianity have often shaped the way these texts have been understood, which in turn affects their role in the discussion of objective morality, human free will, and knowledge.

When it comes toa supposed objective morality, for instance, the interpretations of what is "right" and "wrong" have historically been filtered through the lens of those in power. Religious leaders, acting as mediators and scriptural interpreters, often used their interpretations of the texts to enforce specific social norms, political control, or even punishments, as we discussed elsewhere. This raises questions about whether the morality presented in the texts can truly be seen as objective if it’s been subject to subjective human interpretation throughout history.

Similarly, the notion of human free will is also shaped by how these institutions have defined it. If, for centuries, people were taught that deviation from the Church’s interpretations of scripture would result in divine punishment (or even real-world punishment), can we say that individuals truly exercised free will? Or was their understanding of free will constrained by these power dynamics?

Finally, when it comes to knowledge—especially in relation to science—religious institutions have often positioned themselves as the final authority, sometimes resisting scientific progress that challenged established interpretations of scripture. This has had a profound impact on how people have historically understood the world and GOD’s role in it. The tension between science and religion has often been shaped by those same power structures, which sought to control the narrative about the nature of reality.

If the texts are inextricably tied to the institutions that shaped them, it raises important questions about the purity of the "objective" model of moral guidance they provide. Any claim of objective morality would have to account for the layers of human influence embedded in both the text and its interpretation.

I think the way the texts have been interpreted over time cannot be separated from the power structures that shaped those interpretations. This, in turn, impacts our understanding of the objective morality model, free will, and the evolving role of GOD in both spiritual and scientific knowledge.

What are your thoughts on this interplay between the texts and their historical use in shaping moral and theological concepts? Do you think it’s possible to separate the two, or are they inevitably connected?

Free will allows for misinterpretation due to people’s thirst for power. That explains the misuse of the texts at an individual level, but I think the issue runs deeper when we look at the institutionalized and systemic nature of these interpretations.

If we accept that free will accounts for individual misinterpretations, what about the long-standing power structures that have influenced biblical interpretation for centuries? Entire religious institutions have shaped and controlled the way the Bible is read and understood, often aligning those interpretations with political and social agendas. This isn’t just a case of individual free will at play—it’s the institutionalized use of free will to consolidate power.

For example:
• The Canonization Process: The process of deciding which texts were included in the Bible was guided by councils and religious leaders who had their own theological and political concerns. Was this purely a matter of free will, or were these decisions influenced by the need to establish orthodoxy and suppress dissenting views?
• Interpretations of Key Doctrines: Many doctrines—such as the divine right of kings, or the justification for the persecution of heretics—were promoted by powerful religious institutions over long periods. These interpretations were passed down as objective truth, but they clearly served the power structures in place.

So, the question remains: Is it enough to say that these were just misinterpretations caused by free will, or do we also need to acknowledge that the institutions guiding these interpretations were built on power dynamics that shaped their reading of the texts?
If we’re to reconcile the morality in the Bible with how it’s been used historically, we can’t ignore the impact of those power dynamics on how the texts were understood and applied. How do we account for that deeper, institutionalized use of power when we discuss the purity of the moral guidance offered in the Bible?

I understand that you’re claiming objective morality exists, but I regard this as more of a model than an actuality. As I’ve pointed out, what we call "objective" morality can only be traced through human institutions—through their authorship, interpretation, and influence. From where I stand, this suggests that the concept of objective morality is a theoretical framework rather than something that exists independently in reality.

So far, you haven’t provided any concrete examples of objective morality that exist outside of these human institutions. Without those examples, it seems to me that the objective morality you refer to is not a fact, but rather a model used to explain how morality might work, while still being subject to human influence.

This is why I find it problematic to accept the claim of objective morality as a reality. Without evidence or examples that show it exists outside of human interpretation, it remains just a theory or model. It’s one thing to present a model of morality, but it’s another to demonstrate that it exists in the world, independently of human input.

So, if you’re asserting that objective morality is more than just a model, I’d like to see specific examples where this morality exists outside of human institutions. Otherwise, I think we should recognize it as a theoretical concept rather than an established reality.

I’d like to address your claim that there is "great evidence" for GOD being an external agent. So far, you haven’t provided any concrete evidence to support that idea, and I think this is a key point we need to explore further.

I’m not dismissing the possibility that GOD could exist as an external agent, but in order for us to move forward meaningfully in this discussion, we need to look at the evidence you believe supports that claim. Without evidence, the idea of an external GOD remains just that—a claim.

If we’re going to compare the idea of an external GOD with a Subjective GOD, we need to do so on equal footing. I’ve outlined how a Subjective GOD allows for an integrated approach to morality, science, and spirituality, and why that resonates more with my understanding of how we interact with the divine. But for me to properly engage with your position, I’d need to see the evidence you’re referring to that supports the existence of an external, objective GOD.

Until we have that concrete evidence to discuss, I’d suggest that the external GOD model is more of a theoretical framework, much like the concept of a Subjective GOD. I think it’s important that we explore whether the evidence you mention exists and whether it truly points to an external GOD or if it’s something that can be explained in through the Subjective GOD model.

Would you be able to provide specific examples or evidence that support the idea of GOD as an external agent?

I also want to address your concern about my being somewhat against the GOD of Biblical Christianity. To clarify, my issue isn’t with GOD as a concept, but with the way the Bible presents GOD as an objective reality. I regard the portrayal of the Bible's GOD (both in Judaism and Christianity), particularly in stories that imply His objective existence, as a combination of the various authors’ projections and, in that sense, largely fictional.

This doesn’t mean that I regard the Subjective GOD as fictional. As I’ve expressed before, the idea of a Subjective GOD aligns with the way we experience morality, spirituality, and knowledge as an evolving process deeply connected to our inner experiences. I am simply careful not to conflate what I see as fiction (the projection of GOD as an external, objective being in Biblical stories) with the reality of a Subjective GOD.

In other words, my approach is not about rejecting the existence of GOD altogether but about making a distinction between the fictional elements of the biblical portrayal of GOD and the genuine experience of a Subjective GOD. I think it’s important to separate these two ideas so we can have a clearer understanding of what we mean when we talk about the divine.

Does this help clarify where I’m coming from?

[The Tanager]

If GOD’s role is mediated through these power structures, then how can we claim that the morality we find in the texts is truly objective? Or that free will is being respected when interpretations of GOD’s will are handed down from an institution that may have its own interests at heart?

Because the possibility of corruption isn’t enough; we have the texts themselves and can talk about what is actually the case. The texts don’t simply praise and rubber stamp those in power; they constantly call them to task.

I think it’s important to recognize that the texts have never existed in a vacuum—how they are interpreted and applied is inevitably influenced by the social, political, and institutional contexts in which they’ve been used. The power structures associated with Cultural Christianity have often shaped the way these texts have been understood, which in turn affects their role in the discussion of objective morality, human free will, and knowledge.

Yes, but some interpretations and uses are more rational than others.

When it comes toa supposed objective morality, for instance, the interpretations of what is "right" and "wrong" have historically been filtered through the lens of those in power. Religious leaders, acting as mediators and scriptural interpreters, often used their interpretations of the texts to enforce specific social norms, political control, or even punishments, as we discussed elsewhere. This raises questions about whether the morality presented in the texts can truly be seen as objective if it’s been subject to subjective human interpretation throughout history.

Morality as presented in the text and interpretations of the morality presented in the text are different things. Misinterpretations of the texts do nothing to subtract from the objectivity question concerning the text itself.

Similarly, the notion of human free will is also shaped by how these institutions have defined it. If, for centuries, people were taught that deviation from the Church’s interpretations of scripture would result in divine punishment (or even real-world punishment), can we say that individuals truly exercised free will? Or was their understanding of free will constrained by these power dynamics?

The issues and notions around free will are defined without respect to one specific worldview. As to individuals’ wills, there are constant influences and some have less resistance than others, but nothing keeps them from being free.

Finally, when it comes to knowledge—especially in relation to science—religious institutions have often positioned themselves as the final authority, sometimes resisting scientific progress that challenged established interpretations of scripture. This has had a profound impact on how people have historically understood the world and GOD’s role in it. The tension between science and religion has often been shaped by those same power structures, which sought to control the narrative about the nature of reality.

If it wasn’t for Christianity, science would not be what it is. Christianity is the worldview that provides the foundation for the flourishing of science. Yes, some Christians (and others) resist science, just as some secularists resist philosophy, and some people resist spiritual truths. It’s a human problem.

Any claim of objective morality would have to account for the layers of human influence embedded in both the text and its interpretation.

Any worldview needs to account for the layers, but the question of whether morality is objective or not does not have to account for those layers, as they are separate questions.

What are your thoughts on this interplay between the texts and their historical use in shaping moral and theological concepts? Do you think it’s possible to separate the two, or are they inevitably connected?

It’s absolutely possible to separate them in one’s analysis.

The Canonization Process: The process of deciding which texts were included in the Bible was guided by councils and religious leaders who had their own theological and political concerns. Was this purely a matter of free will, or were these decisions influenced by the need to establish orthodoxy and suppress dissenting views?

The canonization process that came much later just solidified what was already practiced among the everyday Christian communities for reasons of apostolic authorship, proximity of the writings, etc.

Interpretations of Key Doctrines: Many doctrines—such as the divine right of kings, or the justification for the persecution of heretics—were promoted by powerful religious institutions over long periods. These interpretations were passed down as objective truth, but they clearly served the power structures in place.

My claims are about the texts themselves, not the misuse of them.

I understand that you’re claiming objective morality exists, but I regard this as more of a model than an actuality. As I’ve pointed out, what we call "objective" morality can only be traced through human institutions—through their authorship, interpretation, and influence. From where I stand, this suggests that the concept of objective morality is a theoretical framework rather than something that exists independently in reality.

You don’t think GOD’s moral opinions on certain acts are an actuality? Or do you think GOD’s opinions are wrong, or evolving and some day GOD will think abusing a child is okay? Please directly answer these questions.

So far, you haven’t provided any concrete examples of objective morality that exist outside of these human institutions. Without those examples, it seems to me that the objective morality you refer to is not a fact, but rather a model used to explain how morality might work, while still being subject to human influence.

Child abuse is wrong. Why is that not a concrete example of objective morality?

I’d like to address your claim that there is "great evidence" for GOD being an external agent. So far, you haven’t provided any concrete evidence to support that idea, and I think this is a key point we need to explore further.

I haven’t because we’ve been talking about other things. This would involve looking at the various arguments for God’s existence (Kalam, moral, fine-tuning, intelligibility of reality, applicability of mathematics, consciousness, historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, etc.). Are you wanting to take this discussion there?

But for me to properly engage with your position, I’d need to see the evidence you’re referring to that supports the existence of an external, objective GOD.

But you haven’t offered evidence for a “subjective GOD”. You’ve offered a “subjective GOD” as a framework through which to understand evidence and are showing that it fits and is therefore possible. That’s not evidence for the actuality of a “subjective GOD”, so you need to offer arguments for the actuality of a subjective GOD as well.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #45]

I appreciate the depth of your engagement, Tanager. Let me address your key points step by step:

1. Objective Morality and the Role of Institutions
You’ve asked whether I think GOD’s moral opinions on certain acts, like child abuse, are an actuality. I don’t deny that acts like child abuse are morally wrong, but the key issue here is whether that morality is truly objective or if it’s mediated and interpreted by human institutions. When we say child abuse is wrong, I agree wholeheartedly, but the idea that this is an example of "objective morality" still depends on the way we interpret that morality through religious, cultural, and social frameworks.

In other words, I’m questioning the objective nature of morality as it is presented through the texts and interpreted by institutions. Even if GOD’s moral stance is constant, the way humans understand and apply that stance is subject to interpretation, which is often shaped by the interests of those in power. That’s why I regard "objective morality" as more of a model—an idealized framework—rather than an independent fact that exists outside of these influences.

So, when you use child abuse as an example of objective morality, my concern is not whether the act is wrong (we agree it is), but whether the moral stance on it has been shaped by the subjective, human lens through which we are often led to understand GOD’s will.

2. GOD as an External Agent
You’ve mentioned that various arguments, such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the moral argument, and others, are evidence for GOD being an external agent. If we want to explore those arguments, I’m open to that, but we would need to carefully examine each one to see how convincingly it points to an external GOD as you claim.

However, your challenge that I haven’t provided evidence for a Subjective GOD is valid. I haven’t presented the concept as an evidential claim in the same way that classical arguments are presented for an external GOD. Instead, I’ve offered the Subjective GOD framework as a model that aligns with human experience, morality, and spiritual understanding in a way that integrates the personal, internal interactions people have with the divine.

While it’s a different approach from providing empirical or philosophical proofs, I think it’s equally valid to explore how well this model fits with the way we experience reality. This is why I describe it as a way of understanding how humans relate to GOD and morality, rather than presenting it as a fact to be proven in the traditional sense.

3. Free Will and Institutional Influence
You’ve mentioned that free will is defined across worldviews and that individuals retain their ability to choose, even within religious institutions. I don’t disagree that people have the perception of free will, but my concern is the influence these institutions exert. When institutions position themselves as the ultimate interpreters of GOD’s will and moral law, it can constrain how people understand their choices. This doesn’t remove perception of free will, but it can limit the perceived options available to individuals, especially when deviation from institutional doctrine is framed as sinful or deserving of punishment.

In this sense, perception of free will exists, but it’s operating within a framework heavily influenced by institutional power. The extent to which individuals can truly engage with their own understanding of morality, outside institutional influence, is what I’m questioning.

4. Canonization and Historical Use of Texts
You mentioned that the canonization process merely solidified what was already practiced among Christian communities. While that may be true to some extent, it’s also important to recognize that the councils involved in canonization had theological and political motives. Decisions about which texts to include and which to exclude weren’t made in a vacuum—they reflected concerns about orthodoxy, authority, and control over religious practice. This speaks to my broader point: the historical use of these texts has been deeply intertwined with institutional power, which affects how we understand the moral and spiritual guidance they offer.

5. The Relationship Between Texts and Interpretations
You argue that interpretations of the texts and the texts themselves are separate matters, and I understand that distinction. But the practical reality is that the interpretation of these texts has shaped how people experience and apply the supposed "objective" morality within them. Even if we grant that the texts present an objective moral framework, the fact that this framework has been filtered through centuries of human interpretation complicates the claim of pure objectivity.

When religious leaders or institutions act as mediators of these texts, they influence how individuals engage with moral teachings, often blending divine guidance with their own social or political agendas. This is why I think it’s critical to explore the connection between the texts themselves and their historical use in shaping moral concepts.

Science.
I’d like to focus on your comment about science, especially since it’s central to the thread topic. You mentioned that “Christianity is the worldview that provides the foundation for the flourishing of science,” and while there’s some truth to the fact that some Christian thinkers contributed to the development of scientific thought, it’s important to distinguish between Cultural Christianity and the teachings of Jesus.

Cultural Christianity vs. Following Jesus
Many of the early scientists who were part of the Christian tradition—such as Isaac Newton or Galileo—were Cultural Christians, meaning they operated within the framework of Christian society and its institutions. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean they were devout followers of Jesus in the sense of adhering strictly to his teachings. In fact, many of these scientists were aligned with the Christian institution—a powerful, hierarchical body that often sought to consolidate its influence over knowledge and truth.

It’s critical to recognize that these institutions didn’t always reflect the spiritual teachings of Jesus but instead acted as authorities over what could be considered "truth." This is evident in instances where these very institutions resisted scientific discoveries that challenged established interpretations of scripture. Galileo, for example, was persecuted by the Church for his heliocentric theory, not because it contradicted Jesus’ teachings, but because it threatened the authority of the Church's scriptural interpretation.

Resistance to Scientific Progress
While some early scientists were influenced by their Cultural Christian upbringing, the Christian institutions themselves were often more concerned with maintaining doctrinal control than fostering free scientific inquiry. From Galileo’s trial to resistance against Darwin’s theory of evolution, we see repeated instances where religious authorities sought to curtail or control scientific progress that conflicted with their interpretations of the world.

This resistance wasn’t limited to a few isolated cases—it was a recurring theme in the relationship between religious institutions and scientific discovery. In many cases, it was Cultural Christianity that was in opposition to scientific advancements, seeking to preserve its authority over knowledge rather than exploring new truths through observation and experimentation.

The Independence of Science
Moreover, while Cultural Christianity played a role in preserving certain kinds of knowledge during the Middle Ages, it’s important to note that science flourished independently in various cultures—both before and outside of Christianity. The scientific method itself, which emphasizes skepticism, evidence, and constant revision of theories based on new data, emerged independently of Cultural Christian doctrine and, with the static nature of religious authority at the time.

The Golden Age of Islamic science, for example, produced significant advancements in mathematics, astronomy, and medicine long before the rise of modern Western science. These contributions show that science’s flourishing isn’t exclusive to the Cultural Christian worldview, and it often progressed in environments where religious institutions didn’t impose rigid doctrinal control over inquiry.

Conclusion: Science and Cultural Christianity
In conclusion, while some early scientists were part of Cultural Christian institutions, it’s important to recognize that many were operating in name as Christians, engaging with the scientific method in ways that often conflicted with the institutional authority of the Church. The flourishing of science didn’t come from adherence to Cultural Christian doctrine but from a broader pursuit of knowledge, often in the face of institutional resistance. The relationship between science and religion has been complex, with moments of both cooperation and tension.

What are your thoughts on the distinction between Cultural Christianity and the teachings of Jesus when it comes to the development of science?

__________________________________________
Also, I’ve noticed that in many of your replies, you tend to provide brief, one-line responses, on complex topics like morality, free will, and science. While I appreciate your concise approach, I think these topics deserve a bit more exploration. When we’re discussing issues as intricate as the nature of objective morality or the role of Christianity in science, simple responses can sometimes leave key points unexplored or ambiguous.

I’d like to encourage more detailed engagement on some of these issues, as it helps both of us to fully understand each other’s positions and move the conversation forward. For instance, when you mentioned that “Christianity is the worldview that provides the foundation for the flourishing of science,” it would be great to hear more about how you see that playing out, especially given the historical resistance to scientific progress by religious institutions.

Likewise, on the topic of objective morality, I’d be interested to hear more about how you reconcile the historical influence of institutions with the idea that morality can exist independently of these human frameworks.

I think it would really enrich our dialogue if we took the time to dive deeper into these points.

[The Tanager]

1. Objective Morality and the Role of Institutions

You’ve asked whether I think GOD’s moral opinions on certain acts, like child abuse, are an actuality. I don’t deny that acts like child abuse are morally wrong, but the key issue here is whether that morality is truly objective or if it’s mediated and interpreted by human institutions. When we say child abuse is wrong, I agree wholeheartedly, but the idea that this is an example of "objective morality" still depends on the way we interpret that morality through religious, cultural, and social frameworks.

In other words, I’m questioning the objective nature of morality as it is presented through the texts and interpreted by institutions. Even if GOD’s moral stance is constant, the way humans understand and apply that stance is subject to interpretation, which is often shaped by the interests of those in power. That’s why I regard "objective morality" as more of a model—an idealized framework—rather than an independent fact that exists outside of these influences.

So, when you use child abuse as an example of objective morality, my concern is not whether the act is wrong (we agree it is), but whether the moral stance on it has been shaped by the subjective, human lens through which we are often led to understand GOD’s will.

No, those are two different questions. In the other thread you said you understood the distinction between ontology and epistemology. I think this shows you don’t. Objective morality is an ontological claim. You say the act is wrong; that we agree on that. You are a moral objectivist.

You then talk about epistemology, which is not the objective morality vs subjective morality discussion. It’s a different discussion.

2. GOD as an External Agent

You’ve mentioned that various arguments, such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the moral argument, and others, are evidence for GOD being an external agent. If we want to explore those arguments, I’m open to that, but we would need to carefully examine each one to see how convincingly it points to an external GOD as you claim.

I’m fine either way.

However, your challenge that I haven’t provided evidence for a Subjective GOD is valid. I haven’t presented the concept as an evidential claim in the same way that classical arguments are presented for an external GOD. Instead, I’ve offered the Subjective GOD framework as a model that aligns with human experience, morality, and spiritual understanding in a way that integrates the personal, internal interactions people have with the divine.

While it’s a different approach from providing empirical or philosophical proofs, I think it’s equally valid to explore how well this model fits with the way we experience reality. This is why I describe it as a way of understanding how humans relate to GOD and morality, rather than presenting it as a fact to be proven in the traditional sense.

I think showing that a view fits with reality is an important first step, and that even that alone can be a good argument for something being true against the alternatives, but I think that if one can go beyond that, then one should, and that by doing so, they get a fuller picture to base their beliefs on.

3. Free Will and Institutional Influence

You’ve mentioned that free will is defined across worldviews and that individuals retain their ability to choose, even within religious institutions. I don’t disagree that people have the perception of free will, but my concern is the influence these institutions exert. When institutions position themselves as the ultimate interpreters of GOD’s will and moral law, it can constrain how people understand their choices. This doesn’t remove perception of free will, but it can limit the perceived options available to individuals, especially when deviation from institutional doctrine is framed as sinful or deserving of punishment.

In this sense, perception of free will exists, but it’s operating within a framework heavily influenced by institutional power. The extent to which individuals can truly engage with their own understanding of morality, outside institutional influence, is what I’m questioning.

I completely agree. I think we should think independently, but that doesn’t necessarily mean rejecting the doctrines.

4. Canonization and Historical Use of Texts

You mentioned that the canonization process merely solidified what was already practiced among Christian communities. While that may be true to some extent, it’s also important to recognize that the councils involved in canonization had theological and political motives. Decisions about which texts to include and which to exclude weren’t made in a vacuum—they reflected concerns about orthodoxy, authority, and control over religious practice. This speaks to my broader point: the historical use of these texts has been deeply intertwined with institutional power, which affects how we understand the moral and spiritual guidance they offer.

But the texts chosen mirrored what was already being done in the Christian communities. If there were large doubts by various groups on certain texts, they erred on the side of caution. I don’t think Constantine cared which texts were chosen, he just wanted something chosen.

5. The Relationship Between Texts and Interpretations

You argue that interpretations of the texts and the texts themselves are separate matters, and I understand that distinction. But the practical reality is that the interpretation of these texts has shaped how people experience and apply the supposed "objective" morality within them. Even if we grant that the texts present an objective moral framework, the fact that this framework has been filtered through centuries of human interpretation complicates the claim of pure objectivity.

When religious leaders or institutions act as mediators of these texts, they influence how individuals engage with moral teachings, often blending divine guidance with their own social or political agendas. This is why I think it’s critical to explore the connection between the texts themselves and their historical use in shaping moral concepts.

These two uses of ‘objective’ are from two different contexts, picking out different concepts. I agree with you that moral opinions aren’t handed down from one person to the other in an unbroken objective chain. I agree that this question is important; I’ve only been saying that it’s a different question from the objective vs. subjective morality debate that we were initially having.

6. Science

I’d like to focus on your comment about science, especially since it’s central to the thread topic. You mentioned that “Christianity is the worldview that provides the foundation for the flourishing of science,” and while there’s some truth to the fact that some Christian thinkers contributed to the development of scientific thought, it’s important to distinguish between Cultural Christianity and the teachings of Jesus….

I agree, but the part of cultural Christianity that contributes is based in the worldview that the Bible provides.That was my point.

Yes, many Christians have felt their power threatened and acted out of keeping that power rather than following what I think Jesus calls His followers to pursue and do. But, as an aside, naturalists (i.e., those who espouse naturalism) and other worldviews do the same thing with science, misusing it for their own gains. It’s a human problem.

I’m not sure what you refer to when you say the scientific method emerged independently of Cultural Christianity. As far as Islam’s contribution, I was specifically thinking of the hard sciences, but even Islam comes out of the basic Judeo-Christian worldview.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #47]

I think showing that a view fits with reality is an important first step, and that even that alone can be a good argument for something being true against the alternatives, but I think that if one can go beyond that, then one should, and that by doing so, they get a fuller picture to base their beliefs on.

It seems like you’re implying that the Objective GOD model "goes beyond" the Subjective GOD model, even though you haven’t directly stated it. While I agree that going beyond just showing how a model fits with reality is valuable, I think it’s worth questioning how much the Objective GOD model truly "goes beyond" in areas that matter to human experience.

The Objective GOD model might provide more formal arguments or claims of empirical evidence (like the Kalam Cosmological Argument or the moral argument), but these arguments still face challenges—especially when it comes to explaining how people personally experience and relate to GOD. Most religious believers, regardless of theological background, relate to the divine in deeply personal, subjective ways, through moral intuitions, spiritual insights, or inner experiences.

In contrast, the Subjective GOD model is designed to directly engage with these personal aspects of human experience. It doesn’t aim to prove GOD’s existence in the traditional sense but rather to explain how individuals experience morality, spirituality, and divine guidance in their own lives. In this way, it aligns more closely with the actual experiences of most believers.

I’d be curious to hear how you think the Objective GOD model addresses these subjective aspects of human experience. How does it account for the deeply personal ways in which people relate to GOD, which are often at the heart of religious belief?

Both models have their strengths and limitations, but I’d argue that the Subjective GOD model may offer a more meaningful approach when it comes to understanding the individual’s direct experience of the divine.

I completely agree. I think we should think independently, but that doesn’t necessarily mean rejecting the doctrines.

What doctrines are you referring to with your one line reply?
I appreciate your point about independent thinking not necessarily meaning the "rejection of doctrines."

I continue to clarify, I’m not rejecting doctrines themselves, but I’m critical of how doctrines are often filtered through the lens of objectification—especially in terms of how ontology presents GOD as an external, objective entity.

My concern is with how these doctrines, when viewed through that ontological framework, can become rigid and disconnected from personal, subjective spiritual experiences. What I’m questioning is the way that doctrines are interpreted and enforced through institutional authority, often creating a one-size-fits-all approach to understanding the divine.

I understand doctrines can still be meaningful, but they are engaged with in ways that allow for individual interpretation and subjective experience, rather than being strictly filtered through an externalized, objective framework.

But the texts chosen mirrored what was already being done in the Christian communities. If there were large doubts by various groups on certain texts, they erred on the side of caution. I don’t think Constantine cared which texts were chosen, he just wanted something chosen.

You’re right that the canonization process reflected what was already happening in Christian communities, but I think it’s important to highlight that by the time the canons were formalized, Christianity had largely become a cultural institution. It wasn’t just a spiritual movement anymore; it had deeply integrated into the political and social structures of the Roman Empire.

At that point, the process of canonization was less about discovering or discerning divine truth and more about formalizing what had already become established through cultural and institutional power dynamics. The councils were operating in an environment where Christianity had become part of the fabric of society, and formalizing the canon served to cement the authority of the Church and its role in governing religious practice.

So, even though the texts may have mirrored practices already in place, those practices were heavily influenced by the cultural shift that had taken place—where Christianity was no longer just a religious belief system but a key player in political and social control. In this sense, the canonization process was about consolidating that authority as much as it was about theological consistency.

What are your thoughts on how this cultural shift might have influenced the way certain texts were prioritized or excluded?

These two uses of ‘objective’ are from two different contexts, picking out different concepts. I agree with you that moral opinions aren’t handed down from one person to the other in an unbroken objective chain. I agree that this question is important; I’ve only been saying that it’s a different question from the objective vs. subjective morality debate that we were initially having.

I have clarified my position re this, in the other thread.

I agree, but the part of cultural Christianity that contributes is based in the worldview that the Bible provides.That was my point.

Yes, many Christians have felt their power threatened and acted out of keeping that power rather than following what I think Jesus calls His followers to pursue and do. But, as an aside, naturalists (i.e., those who espouse naturalism) and other worldviews do the same thing with science, misusing it for their own gains. It’s a human problem.

I’m not sure what you refer to when you say the scientific method emerged independently of Cultural Christianity. As far as Islam’s contribution, I was specifically thinking of the hard sciences, but even Islam comes out of the basic Judeo-Christian worldview.

Thanks for your response, Tanager. I appreciate your emphasis on the biblical worldview’s contribution to science. However, I noticed that in your reply, some of the key points I raised weren’t fully addressed, and there’s also an important distinction I’d like to clarify regarding Cultural Christianity and the teachings of Jesus.

1. Cultural Christianity vs. Following Jesus
You’ve acknowledged that many Christians have acted out of a desire to preserve power rather than following Jesus’ teachings, and I appreciate that point. However, my original point about Cultural Christianity wasn’t just about individual misuse of power—it was about how the institutions of Cultural Christianity operated as authoritative bodies. These institutions often used doctrine to maintain control over knowledge and truth, even if that wasn’t always aligned with the spiritual teachings of Jesus.

You didn’t directly address the distinction I raised between Cultural Christians, who followed the institutional framework, and devout followers of Jesus. My point is that many early scientists operated within Cultural Christian institutions but weren’t necessarily following Jesus in the way that the Gospels portray. For example, Galileo wasn’t persecuted because he violated Jesus’ teachings but because his scientific findings threatened the Church’s institutional authority.

2. Resistance to Scientific Progress by Religious Institutions
I also mentioned historical examples where Christian institutions actively resisted scientific progress, such as the trial of Galileo and the opposition to Darwin’s theory of evolution. These weren’t just instances of individuals misusing their power, but rather institutional efforts to maintain doctrinal control.

While you acknowledged that power can be misused, you didn’t engage with the specific examples I mentioned or the broader theme that religious institutions, as powerful entities, often resisted scientific advancements when those findings challenged their established interpretations of scripture.

3. Independence of the Scientific Method
Another key point that wasn’t fully addressed is the independence of the scientific method from Cultural Christian doctrine. You asked what I meant by saying the scientific method emerged independently of Christianity, and I think it’s important to clarify that the method of skepticism, evidence, and revision—which is fundamental to scientific inquiry—didn’t emerge from religious doctrine but rather developed as a way to understand the world through observation and experimentation.

The Golden Age of Islamic science, which I mentioned, produced significant advancements in mathematics, astronomy, and medicine long before modern Western science. This shows that science’s flourishing wasn’t exclusive to the Cultural Christian worldview. I think this independence is an important aspect of how science progressed across different cultures, often in spite of institutional resistance from religious authorities.

4. Fallacy of Equating Naturalism with Cultural Christianity
In your response, you compared how naturalists and other worldviews also misuse science for personal or political gain. While I agree that humans across worldviews can misuse science, I want to point out that this comparison doesn’t address the core critique of how Cultural Christianity resisted scientific advancements. It seems like a tu quoque fallacy—pointing out that others do it too doesn’t justify or diminish the critiques of how Christian institutions have historically sought to control knowledge.

The issue I raised was specifically about how Cultural Christian institutions resisted scientific progress to maintain doctrinal authority. Pointing out that naturalists do the same thing with science doesn’t change the fact that Christian institutions played a significant role in shaping (and sometimes resisting) scientific advancement.

Independence of the Scientific Method and Islamic Contributions
Regarding your comment about Islam’s contribution to science, I noticed you mentioned that you were thinking of the hard sciences specifically. You also said that "Islam comes out of the basic Judeo-Christian worldview." While there’s no denying the shared historical and theological connections between these Abrahamic faiths, I think this point is besides the core issue I was raising.

The significant contributions of Islamic scholars—especially during the Golden Age of Islam—were made in a scientific context that was independent of Christian doctrine. These advancements in fields like mathematics, astronomy, and medicine were crucial to the development of modern science, and they show that the flourishing of science wasn’t exclusive to the Cultural Christian worldview.

While Islam shares a lineage with Judeo-Christian traditions, the scientific method and many specific discoveries arose from philosophical inquiry and empirical observation rather than theological mandates. So, while there are commonalities between these faith traditions, it doesn’t mean that Islamic contributions to science were merely extensions of a Judeo-Christian worldview.

What I’m emphasizing is the independent development of scientific ideas and practices in different cultures, often in environments where religious authorities didn’t impose rigid doctrinal control over inquiry.

In summary, I think it’s crucial to address these distinctions and examples more directly. While I agree that misuse of power is a human problem across worldviews, the historical role of Cultural Christian institutions in resisting scientific progress is important to acknowledge, especially in the broader conversation about science and religion.

[The Tanager]

It seems like you’re implying that the Objective GOD model "goes beyond" the Subjective GOD model, even though you haven’t directly stated it. While I agree that going beyond just showing how a model fits with reality is valuable, I think it’s worth questioning how much the Objective GOD model truly "goes beyond" in areas that matter to human experience.

We would all do well to stick with what is actually claimed and to ask clarifying questions about what we think the implication may be. I was not implying that the objective God model goes beyond the subjective GOD model or what the context for judging that is in your mind. I claimed and only meant that adding positive support for the truth of a framework that is possibly true goes beyond only establishing that the framework is possibly true.

The Objective GOD model might provide more formal arguments or claims of empirical evidence (like the Kalam Cosmological Argument or the moral argument), but these arguments still face challenges—especially when it comes to explaining how people personally experience and relate to GOD. Most religious believers, regardless of theological background, relate to the divine in deeply personal, subjective ways, through moral intuitions, spiritual insights, or inner experiences.

In contrast, the Subjective GOD model is designed to directly engage with these personal aspects of human experience. It doesn’t aim to prove GOD’s existence in the traditional sense but rather to explain how individuals experience morality, spirituality, and divine guidance in their own lives. In this way, it aligns more closely with the actual experiences of most believers.

I’m more interested in which more closely aligns with truth, where that truth covers both the rational arguments that make sense of reality as well as making sense of actually experiencing that reality.

I’d be curious to hear how you think the Objective GOD model addresses these subjective aspects of human experience. How does it account for the deeply personal ways in which people relate to GOD, which are often at the heart of religious belief?

Both models have their strengths and limitations, but I’d argue that the Subjective GOD model may offer a more meaningful approach when it comes to understanding the individual’s direct experience of the divine.

I’d be interested in hearing exactly what you think the specific differences are. Give three specific examples and show the difference you think between our two models. That would help me grasp your actual thoughts better because I’m not sure it’s not muddled in my head.

What doctrines are you referring to with your one line reply?
I appreciate your point about independent thinking not necessarily meaning the "rejection of doctrines."

All of them. I didn’t have a specific one in mind. It relates to all issues.

I continue to clarify, I’m not rejecting doctrines themselves, but I’m critical of how doctrines are often filtered through the lens of objectification—especially in terms of how ontology presents GOD as an external, objective entity.

My concern is with how these doctrines, when viewed through that ontological framework, can become rigid and disconnected from personal, subjective spiritual experiences. What I’m questioning is the way that doctrines are interpreted and enforced through institutional authority, often creating a one-size-fits-all approach to understanding the divine.

I am concerned of that as well. Could you give a specific example on your mind so that we could see our views play out more concretely?

At that point, the process of canonization was less about discovering or discerning divine truth and more about formalizing what had already become established through cultural and institutional power dynamics. The councils were operating in an environment where Christianity had become part of the fabric of society, and formalizing the canon served to cement the authority of the Church and its role in governing religious practice.

So, even though the texts may have mirrored practices already in place, those practices were heavily influenced by the cultural shift that had taken place—where Christianity was no longer just a religious belief system but a key player in political and social control. In this sense, the canonization process was about consolidating that authority as much as it was about theological consistency.

What are your thoughts on how this cultural shift might have influenced the way certain texts were prioritized or excluded?

I think you are conflating two things here, both things worth talking about, but not in a conflated way. The process of canonization wasn’t about discovering/discerning divine truth because that had already been done. That’s one thing. What are the truths?

But then the institution that stamped the canon went about using the authority given to them to do that to do other things that were power driven. That moved to things like trying to control the interpretations of those texts, who could be spiritual leaders, etc. But this is a second thing.

You seem to keep mixing the two together as though they are one thing, when they are not. This second thing did not affect which books were chosen and excluded; it affected other things.

You’ve acknowledged that many Christians have acted out of a desire to preserve power rather than following Jesus’ teachings, and I appreciate that point. However, my original point about Cultural Christianity wasn’t just about individual misuse of power—it was about how the institutions of Cultural Christianity operated as authoritative bodies. These institutions often used doctrine to maintain control over knowledge and truth, even if that wasn’t always aligned with the spiritual teachings of Jesus.

Institutions are just groups of individuals sometimes acting out of a desire to preserve their power.

You didn’t directly address the distinction I raised between Cultural Christians, who followed the institutional framework, and devout followers of Jesus. My point is that many early scientists operated within Cultural Christian institutions but weren’t necessarily following Jesus in the way that the Gospels portray. For example, Galileo wasn’t persecuted because he violated Jesus’ teachings but because his scientific findings threatened the Church’s institutional authority.

I agree.

I also mentioned historical examples where Christian institutions actively resisted scientific progress, such as the trial of Galileo and the opposition to Darwin’s theory of evolution. These weren’t just instances of individuals misusing their power, but rather institutional efforts to maintain doctrinal control.

I agree, but “institutional efforts” is just saying “this group of individuals”.

Another key point that wasn’t fully addressed is the independence of the scientific method from Cultural Christian doctrine. You asked what I meant by saying the scientific method emerged independently of Christianity, and I think it’s important to clarify that the method of skepticism, evidence, and revision—which is fundamental to scientific inquiry—didn’t emerge from religious doctrine but rather developed as a way to understand the world through observation and experimentation.

The Golden Age of Islamic science, which I mentioned, produced significant advancements in mathematics, astronomy, and medicine long before modern Western science. This shows that science’s flourishing wasn’t exclusive to the Cultural Christian worldview. I think this independence is an important aspect of how science progressed across different cultures, often in spite of institutional resistance from religious authorities.

It’s still not clear to me exactly what you mean. Skepticism, evidence, and revision has always been a part of human society. These are philosophical things, not “science”. Science applies these to the natural world.

As to Islam, it comes out of the Jewish-Christian worldview that I’m saying is the worldview in history that most directly leads to the reliability of the world which is the basis of science. They borrowed from the Judeo-Christian worldview the elements that lead them towards those studies. In other words, they were not made in a scientific context that was independent of Christian doctrine. Yes, some doctrines, but not the ones that are the foundation of science.

In your response, you compared how naturalists and other worldviews also misuse science for personal or political gain. While I agree that humans across worldviews can misuse science, I want to point out that this comparison doesn’t address the core critique of how Cultural Christianity resisted scientific advancements. It seems like a tu quoque fallacy—pointing out that others do it too doesn’t justify or diminish the critiques of how Christian institutions have historically sought to control knowledge.

I’m not trying to say Christians shouldn’t be critiqued for misusing it; I’ve said they were wrong. I was only pointing out that it was not a uniquely Christian thing in case you or someone reading this would think otherwise.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #49]

We would all do well to stick with what is actually claimed and to ask clarifying questions about what we think the implication may be. I was not implying that the objective God model goes beyond the subjective GOD model or what the context for judging that is in your mind. I claimed and only meant that adding positive support for the truth of a framework that is possibly true goes beyond only establishing that the framework is possibly true.

I’m more interested in which more closely aligns with truth, where that truth covers both the rational arguments that make sense of reality as well as making sense of actually experiencing that reality.

You raise an interesting point about truth, Tanager, and it seems that the distinction between truth and evidence is central to our conversation. From your responses, I get the sense that you view the Subjective GOD model as offering a framework that aligns with experience but perhaps doesn’t amount to truth in the way you’re defining it. This leaves me wondering what kind of evidence or criteria you consider sufficient when determining whether something aligns with truth.

You mentioned that truth covers both rational arguments and experiencing reality, which I agree are important. However, truth often seems to be a fickle thing, especially when dealing with something as deeply personal and subjective as an individual’s relationship with GOD. The SG model accounts for these inner, personal experiences, which are central to how many people understand their connection with the divine.

Given that we’re comparing the Subjective GOD and Objective GOD models, I’m curious about your perspective: What kind of evidence or criteria do you consider valid or sufficient to determine whether a model (such as the Objective GOD model) aligns with truth? Does personal, subjective experience play a role in that determination, or does it fall short of what you consider "truth"?

I’d be interested to hear how you weigh personal experience in relation to rational argument when it comes to evaluating the truth of a model.

I’d be interested in hearing exactly what you think the specific differences are. Give three specific examples and show the difference you think between our two models. That would help me grasp your actual thoughts better because I’m not sure it’s not muddled in my head.

To be clear, I wasn’t trying to make an argument about the differences between our models in that particular point. Rather, I’m genuinely curious about how the Objective GOD model—given that it emphasizes an external, objective source for morality — accounts for the deeply personal and subjective experiences that people have with GOD, which are often central to their understanding and relationship with GOD.

People do, experience GOD in personal, inward ways, such as through moral intuitions, spiritual insights, and a sense of divine presence. I’m interested in how the Objective GOD model makes sense of those experiences. How does it explain the personal, inner relationship with GOD that people describe, given that it focuses on GOD as an external, objective reality?

What are your thoughts on how the Objective GOD model addresses these subjective aspects of human experience, especially as they relate to the way some people understand and relate to GOD?

What doctrines are you referring to with your one line reply?

All of them. I didn’t have a specific one in mind. It relates to all issues.

I’ve noticed that one-line replies tend to distract from the depth of our conversation rather than provide the clarity needed to engage fully with the topics we're discussing. Moving forward, I’ve decided to skip any one-line replies, as they don’t allow for the kind of detailed exploration that would help us both better understand each other’s positions.

I am concerned of that as well. Could you give a specific example on your mind so that we could see our views play out more concretely?

I’m a bit unclear on your request for a specific example, as I’ve provided several throughout our discussion. For instance, I’ve mentioned the role of institutional authority in shaping doctrines and how that can lead to a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach that disconnects people from their personal, subjective experiences with GOD.

Are you asking for a more focused example on a particular doctrine or situation? If there’s a specific aspect you’d like me to elaborate on, I’d be happy to provide more detail. Let me know how you’d like to proceed.

I think you are conflating two things here, both things worth talking about, but not in a conflated way. The process of canonization wasn’t about discovering/discerning divine truth because that had already been done. That’s one thing. What are the truths?

But then the institution that stamped the canon went about using the authority given to them to do that to do other things that were power driven. That moved to things like trying to control the interpretations of those texts, who could be spiritual leaders, etc. But this is a second thing.

You seem to keep mixing the two together as though they are one thing, when they are not. This second thing did not affect which books were chosen and excluded; it affected other things.

That’s an interesting distinction you’re drawing, Tanager, between the canonization process itself and the later use of institutional authority to control interpretations. But this raises an important question: What evidence do we have that the canonization process was innocent of any corruption or influence, while the corruption only happened afterward?

The councils involved in canonization were operating within a socio-political context where Christianity had already become intertwined with the structures of power. Given that, it seems unlikely that the process of choosing which texts to canonize would have been completely immune to the same influences that later shaped the use and interpretation of those texts.

If the institutions involved in canonization were also concerned with consolidating authority and shaping the direction of Christian practice, why wouldn’t those concerns have influenced the very selection of texts? I think it’s worth considering that the dynamics of power and control were likely at play throughout the entire process, not just after the texts were canonized.

What are your thoughts on this possibility, and is there evidence that the canonization process itself was free from these broader influences?

You mentioned that the process of canonization wasn’t about discovering or discerning divine truth because that had already been done. That’s a significant claim, and it raises some important questions. What evidence do we have that divine truth had already been fully discerned before the canonization process? Who was responsible for discerning that truth, and how do we know their conclusions were free from the influence of cultural or political dynamics?

(In the same sense of a seed, what is planted is what will grow and we know what they are by the fruit that comes from them.)

I agree, but “institutional efforts” is just saying “this group of individuals”.

I think it’s important to distinguish between individuals and institutions as systems. While institutions are, of course, made up of people, they operate as organized structures with hierarchies, shared interests, and established doctrines. When I talk about "institutional efforts," I’m referring to the broader, coordinated actions taken by these systems to maintain control and authority over certain areas—such as the interpretation of doctrine or resistance to scientific ideas that challenge their established worldview.

This is also something that gets handed down through generations. In this sense, I’m speaking more in terms of what the Bible refers to as "principalities"—systemic forces and powers that go beyond just individual actions—rather than the more simplistic and misleading idea of "this group of individuals." Principalities, in this context, represent the ongoing influence and authority of institutional power, which shapes and controls religious, cultural, and social life over long periods of time.

For example, in the case of Galileo’s trial, it wasn’t just a handful of individuals acting independently; it was the Church as an institution, representing a principality, enforcing its doctrinal control, with the backing of its hierarchy and authority. Similarly, the opposition to Darwin’s theory of evolution wasn’t just isolated actions by individuals but part of a larger, institutional response aimed at preserving theological teachings. These weren’t fleeting decisions by individuals but reflections of long-standing systems of control passed through generations.

It’s still not clear to me exactly what you mean. Skepticism, evidence, and revision has always been a part of human society. These are philosophical things, not “science”. Science applies these to the natural world.

As to Islam, it comes out of the Jewish-Christian worldview that I’m saying is the worldview in history that most directly leads to the reliability of the world which is the basis of science. They borrowed from the Judeo-Christian worldview the elements that lead them towards those studies. In other words, they were not made in a scientific context that was independent of Christian doctrine. Yes, some doctrines, but not the ones that are the foundation of science.

It seems to me that you’re making a positive claim about the Judeo-Christian worldview and its contribution to the foundation of science, specifically in terms of providing the belief in a reliable, orderly world that can be studied through observation and experimentation. This ties in well with the broader discussion of the Bible and science that you outlined in the opening post of this thread.

I think it would be helpful to explore how the Bible contributes to this view of the world. For example, in your list of approaches to understanding the Bible and science, you mentioned the idea that:

The Bible makes direct scientific claims (and therefore conflicts with or aligns with scientific understanding),
The Bible is a completely metaphorical text, or
The Bible uses the linguistic and phenomenological understandings of the day to teach deeper truths.

Based on your claim about the Judeo-Christian worldview, would you say that the Bible provides direct claims about the reliability and orderliness of the world, which later enabled the development of the scientific method? Or would you argue that the Bible provides metaphorical or theological insights into the nature of creation, which aligned with scientific principles much later?

In addition, I think it’s important to also consider pre-religious theism, where early humans—before formal religions like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam—were already thinking in ways that aligned with scientific discovery. Early human societies engaged in observation, experimentation, and discovery in practical ways, such as with tool-making, agriculture, and understanding natural patterns. These early discoveries were part of a natural human interaction with the world, and in some ways, can be seen as precursors to what we now call "the process of science."

I’d also be interested in how you see this foundation influencing other cultures, like the Greeks or Islamic scholars during the Golden Age of Islamic science, who contributed significantly to the scientific method without relying on Christian doctrine. How do you think those cultures integrated similar ideas about the world’s reliability in a way that contributed to science, and do you think that idea was truly unique to the Judeo-Christian worldview?

I’m not trying to say Christians shouldn’t be critiqued for misusing it; I’ve said they were wrong. I was only pointing out that it was not a uniquely Christian thing in case you or someone reading this would think otherwise.

Thanks for the clarification, Tanager. I understand that you’re not excusing the abuse of science by Christians and that you’re emphasizing it’s a broader human issue. I agree that people from all worldviews have been abusing science for personal or political gain.

However, my core critique is specifically about how Cultural Christianity—as an institutional force—resisted scientific advancements that challenged its authority. While misuse of science is indeed a broader human issue, the organized resistance to scientific progress by Christian institutions had a particularly significant impact on the development of knowledge, especially in Europe. For instance, the trials of Galileo and the resistance to Darwin’s theory of evolution were not isolated cases of individual misuse but part of a broader institutional effort to maintain doctrinal control.

In the broader context of Abrahamic traditions, it’s important to recognize that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share a common foundation in how they view the world as an ordered, created system. This belief in a reliable, ordered world contributed positively to the development of science in various ways, as seen in the Golden Age of Islamic science. However, it’s worth acknowledging that all three Abrahamic traditions—not just Christianity—have, at times, developed institutional structures more concerned with protecting theological and political authority than fostering free scientific inquiry. This tension is something we’ve seen across history, whether in medieval Europe, the Islamic world, or even within Jewish theological traditions.

To bring this into a modern context, I’d also be interested in hearing your thoughts on how Abrahamic traditions would position themselves in relation to figures like Elon Musk, whose work in technology and science—whether it’s space exploration with SpaceX or advancing artificial intelligence and electric cars with Tesla—has had a profound impact on the world. Do you think Musk is using science responsibly, or do you see aspects of his work that might be viewed as an abuse of science according to Abrahamic principles?

Given the traditional tension between religious authority and scientific advancements, where do you think the Abrahamic worldview stand on figures like Musk who push the boundaries of scientific and technological exploration?

How do you, as someone who is culturally Christian, stand on that?