Authority of the scriptures...

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Baldeee, May 5, 2016.

  1. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    Too often a discussion on the question of whether or not God exists comes down, in part, to the belief one has in the divinity of scriptures, such that it comes across as a case of believing God exists because it says so in the scriptures, and the scriptures are correct because they are divinely inspired.
    So apparently circular reasoning.
    Now this may not be the argument that the person holds, but it is how it too often comes across.
    The scriptures are put forward as the authority on the attributes of God, for understanding God.

    So the question: on what basis does scripture have authority on the question of God?

    Is it simply a matter of faith that they are divinely inspired (thus the apparent circularity)?
    Is it that the scriptures contain nuggets of facts about some things that then gives them credence for what they say about other things?
    If so why do we not apply this to other written texts, such as works of historical fiction?
    Or is it simply that we are taught to accept them as such, just as those who taught us were themselves taught, and those teachers before them?
    I.e. It is a tradition rather than any inherent correctness in what they claim to be an authority on?

    And to be clear, I am using the term "authority" here in the sense that they are the place to go for the best notion of God.
    So please no equivocating.
    And I am inquiring as someone who has not personally awarded them special status of deserving authority.
    I can fully understand why one would deem them the best place for understanding God once they have committed to their divine inspiration etc, but on what basis do we commit to such?
    And no quoting of scripture, please, as that would be begging the question.

    Thanks
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    None if they are not devinely inspired.
    If devinely inspired that would be the basis to suggest full authority.

    Alex
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    I am not aware of any serious argument for God (and there have been quite a number, historically) that relies on scripture. I assume that is because the circularity of doing so would have been obvious to anyone who wanted to make a serious argument.

    It seems to me that, logically, it has to be the other way round: that one is first convinced of the existence of God and then one may choose to accept what various scriptures have to say on the subject. However, in practice, certain scriptures have folklore and cultural status and are imbibed with mother's milk, making it quite an exercise for someone to step temporarily out of that tradition and culture and ask the question in a logical manner, free from prior assumptions.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Some more questions about "scripture".

    Is there really any reason to believe that every "scripture" from every religious tradition is primarily concerned with revealing, or even has something to say about a single "God"?

    If the answer is 'yes', then what are we to make of non-theistic 'scriptures' from non-theistic religious traditions, such as the Pali canon or the Jaina sutras? What about polytheistic traditions?

    In other words,

    Is there any reason to believe that every scripture from every tradition is primarily concerned with teaching or revealing the same thing?

    Should we believe that all scriptures have a single subject matter and a single message regarding it, when rightly understood?

    And a more methodological question,

    How should religious writings that are properly considered 'scripture' be distinguished from religious writings that aren't properly considered 'scripture'?

    It seems to me that 'scriptures' always exist in the context of traditions. Scriptures are only identified as being scripture, as writings carrying special and perhaps even supernatural authority, by the traditions that created them, use them and recognize them as such. So even if we believe (as I do) that scriptures have little informative value concerning the deeper metaphysical questions, we can still say that 'scriptures' are authoritative about the fundamental teachings of particular traditions, for adherents of the traditions that accept those particular 'scriptures' as having that authority. That's basically how writings attain the status of 'scripture', I guess.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2016
    Xelasnave.1947, Sarkus and exchemist like this.
  8. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    But on what basis do those that hold them to be divinely inspired, and thus their authority, reach that conclusion?
    I fully agree with you, though, they have no authority to me other than as historical documents that have had profound influence on almost all of society in some way or other, rightly or wrongly.
    I'm just trying to see if there is more to them than the circularity I keep stumbling into.
     
  9. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    Indeed, I am not aware of any.
    The KCA does not, for example.
    So why is it that discussions on the nature of God, including his existence or not, are mooted by some as irrelevant until one uses scriptures to understand God?
    On what basis, other than their own belief in the divinity of the scriptures, is there to hold the scriptures as having the last word on who or what God is?
    Should all discussions that look to address the existence or otherwise of God formalise the non-relevance of scripture to the discussion, until such time as the scripture is shown to have authority, rather than just assumed to have?
    Perhaps, but is it not possible that the scriptures give a description of what to look for, and then when you see the thing they describe you will know it is at least the God described in scripture if not the genuine article?
    Much like if you look for an aircraft, you need to have at least a basic idea of what it is, what it does, do you not?
    If not, how would you know what you are looking at if/when you stumble into it?

    Now, once you stumble across the God as described in scripture (assuming that that is possible), how would you know that this is truly God and not some case of mistaken identity?
    If a text book you are given describes an aircraft as something you sit on with four legs and a rest for your back, I can find four such aircraft around my table.
    And if everyone considers those things to be aircraft, does that make them aircraft?
    Maybe in label but in actuality, especially when we have another word for those things.

    So how would you know if it is not God?
     
    exchemist likes this.
  10. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    Define "scripture".
     
  11. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    Good question.
    Apologists would probably claim that they do all speak of the same, and interpret things from each so as to make it seem that way.
    But who says that their interpretation is any more correct than your own?
    Sure, every tradition, every sport even, has its rule book that is the authority for those that partake, and it is an authority you sign up for when you partake.
    But the authority given to scripture is one of truth, not just a rule set, not just a guide for some thing I happen to do.
    That claim or acceptance of truth extends well beyond the reaches of the tradition, superseding what many of us might call common sense in some areas.
    When I leave a football pitch, the rules are left on the pitch.
    With scripture the pitch is one's entire outlook, ones 's way of life, and there is no leaving it on the side.

    So if, as you suggest (and I don't disagree), authority is given by the participants, what does it take for someone to willingly do that with scripture, where it is not something you can leave the pitch when you're tired?
     
  12. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    The writings of a religion that are deemed, by the adherents of that religion, to be divinely inspired.
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    That's actually a very good point. But nonetheless, all that means is that you need to get a concept - a hypothesis, if you like - of God from somewhere, before attempting to prove its existence. Scripture would thus only feature in your proof as part of the definition of the term "God", i.e. of the thing you seek to prove.
     
  14. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Perhaps not in the Western context. But in India, orthodox Hindus have traditionally accepted sabda as a pramana. 'Pramanas' are supposed to be epistemologically valid ways of knowing things, and 'sabda' basically means 'hearing' or 'testimony'. Indian philosophy has a long history of arguing about the validity of various pramanas, especially sabda, so historically there's been plenty of disagreement surrounding it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shabda

    Hinduism's fondness for sabda (the Buddhists and Indian philosophical schools like Carvaka rejected it) is very closely associated with Hinduism's emphasis on shruti, on the idea of supernatural utterances embodied in Hindu tradition (their Vedic literature) that reveal transcendent things such as the divine order/dharma. So as a result, the Indians developed elaborate linguistic theories of revelation in which divine creation by speaking things into existence and the creation of linguistic meaning seem to have been thought of as much the same thing (as in the Greek idea of logos).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Śruti
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2016
  15. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Yes it's true I was thinking of European arguments. Thanks for the Hindu material - I expect my son is more familiar with this than I am but I'll certainly have a look at it - and note your point re "logos".
     
  16. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,252
    Boy oh boy you guys seams to be more screwed up then us . The more man analyses the more man gets lost, in religion .
     
  17. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    In that case, it's all circular.
     
  18. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    What basis indeed.
    You should ask "them" but I doubt you will change the view you now hold.
    If you do change you will have become one of "them"

    Alex
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I believe this form of being is called a *Tulpa* or *Thoughtform*.
    But my mind always seems to come back to the concept of a *mirror neural system* which to my understanding is actually being programmed by observation and associated emotional experiences. This is why when someone smiles at us it causes us to smile back, when watching someone getting hurt we cringe, even as we are just fine, These are mirror responses, also known as *empathic responses* (empathy).
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2016
  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Yes so dont go there.

    Alex
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Yeah, embrace ignorance and stupidity. You'll be happier that way.

    Like Donald Trump supporters, I suppose.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    None. Your question is answered that simply and all the rest is mere babble.

    Here is some babble: I am aware of some research (but unable to cite it) that suggested there are some personalities who are more comfortable with absolutes and clarity, than with shade of grey and ambiguity. Perhaps for some this can reach the level of a craving, so that they must find something to believe in, that provides certainty in an uncertain world. The teachings of family and culture will be the easiest resource to meet that need.

    And then there are people who are natural leaders and a much large number who are natural followers. Natural followers also like clarity and decisiveness that can be delivered holy scripture whose authority is clear, because their leaders have told them it is.

    If this seems very elitist and patronising and dismissive of believers then you have understood what I have said precisely.

    Bur remember, it is just babble.
     
  23. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,226
    My answer would currently be the same as this, but given so many do believe in the divinity of the scriptures I am endeavouring to find out why they do.
    But so far, of the people who have responded to this thread, only one is a believer, which is a shame as it means we can only ever really discuss in a manner that reaffirms our positions.
    We all are likely to make sense to each other as we likely share the same thought process.
    Maybe I was hoping for some diversity.
    Jan, for example, cries out to discuss scripture yet, while the thread is but young, he/she (which is it?) is noted by absence.

    And babble is good, as long as it gets the mind working.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    It does seem that way, but I think it is also perhaps merely describing the result rather than the cause?
    By that I mean is it that these personality traits drive the people, or are the traits merely the result of something else?
    Apologies, I may not be being too clear as I try to put my rambling thoughts into words... but I think I'm working myself into the realms of psychology and I'm not sure I want to go there yet.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Isn't almost everything?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page