All Quotes By Tag: Holy-scriptures

“Make time to study the Holy Scripture.”

“The truth speaks for itself.”

“The Holy Scripture is a holy instruction of God.”

“Whoever is wise will heed to the word of God.”

“We sometimes rejects God plans, because we have our own plans. Then later wonder why we suffer and why God has abandon us or allowing bad things to happen to us. Before you rejects God plans and follow your own. Remember God doesn’t make mistakes we do.”

“Even if there can be the first cause of the Universe — God, it wouldn’t necessarily support any evidence that God can convey some information about his will to some chosen persons, that there is some holy scriptures, containing just God’s message to humanity sent in that way. Any information, which you can get from the alleged ‘holy scripture’, is a product of the human mind, written by humans and changed by humans in various periods.There is no invariant version of any ‘holy scripture’, even if the concepts and propositions of it formally remain the same, their meaning is changing constantly, as a result of different interpretations, from one civilization to another, from one period to another. That interpretation is more essential and decisive than what is formally written there. Not ‘holy scripture’ itself, but its interpretation manipulates brains in such a way that a person builds his religious vision on the basis of the interpretation of ‘holy scripture’ made by somebody else. Without that interpretation, a person can hardly perceive anything in ‘holy scripture’ in terms of religion. But the main problem is that there cannot be only one interpretation of ‘holy scripture’, and there cannot be harmony among various religious visions, even within one religion. One interpretation can make you be humanist, while another — aggressive, depending on who and how interpreted what is written there. The naked truth is that when someone interprets something, he does it according to his mental apparatus, that is why any ‘holy scripture’ can only express the state of this mental apparatus with its cognitive and emotional bias, in some cases even its serious defect and disorder, and not the will of God itself.”

“Each religion makes scores of purportedly factual assertions about everything from the creation of the universe to the afterlife. But on what grounds can believers presume to know that these assertions are true? The reasons they give are various, but the ultimate justification for most religious people’s beliefs is a simple one: we believe what we believe because our holy scriptures say so. But how, then, do we know that our holy scriptures are factually accurate? Because the scriptures themselves say so. Theologians specialize in weaving elaborate webs of verbiage to avoid saying anything quite so bluntly, but this gem of circular reasoning really is the epistemological bottom line on which all ‘faith’ is grounded. In the words of Pope John Paul II: ‘By the authority of his absolute transcendence, God who makes himself known is also the source of the credibility of what he reveals.’ It goes without saying that this begs the question of whether the texts at issue really were authored or inspired by God, and on what grounds one knows this. ‘Faith’ is not in fact a rejection of reason, but simply a lazy acceptance of bad reasons. ‘Faith’ is the pseudo-justification that some people trot out when they want to make claims without the necessary evidence.But of course we never apply these lax standards of evidence to the claims made in the other fellow’s holy scriptures: when it comes to religions other than one’s own, religious people are as rational as everyone else. Only our own religion, whatever it may be, seems to merit some special dispensation from the general standards of evidence.And here, it seems to me, is the crux of the conflict between religion and science. Not the religious rejection of specific scientific theories (be it heliocentrism in the 17th century or evolutionary biology today); over time most religions do find some way to make peace with well-established science. Rather, the scientific worldview and the religious worldview come into conflict over a far more fundamental question: namely, what constitutes evidence.Science relies on publicly reproducible sense experience (that is, experiments and observations) combined with rational reflection on those empirical observations. Religious people acknowledge the validity of that method, but then claim to be in the possession of additional methods for obtaining reliable knowledge of factual matters — methods that go beyond the mere assessment of empirical evidence — such as intuition, revelation, or the reliance on sacred texts. But the trouble is this: What good reason do we have to believe that such methods work, in the sense of steering us systematically (even if not invariably) towards true beliefs rather than towards false ones? At least in the domains where we have been able to test these methods — astronomy, geology and history, for instance — they have not proven terribly reliable. Why should we expect them to work any better when we apply them to problems that are even more difficult, such as the fundamental nature of the universe?Last but not least, these non-empirical methods suffer from an insuperable logical problem: What should we do when different people’s intuitions or revelations conflict? How can we know which of the many purportedly sacred texts — whose assertions frequently contradict one another — are in fact sacred?”