Religions Through the Ages

by
This content has been archived. It may no longer be accurate or relevant.

The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won’t get us very far.

~ Niels Bohr

Click to Tweet/Email/Share This Post

3 thoughts on “Religions Through the Ages”

  1. There are two paths to knowledge: observation and revelation. Observation is commonly associated with the scientific method; revelation, with religion. In truth, revelation dominates both.

    Observation includes experimentation. It is direct, first-hand experience. My observation of the performance of airfoils is direct and first-hand, but my conclusions are limited to ‘if you get this wing moving through air at this angle-of-attack (AOA), it will lift you into the air.’ The Wright Brothers (blessed be their names) observed and recorded far more about airfoils and lift and AOA than I. They put math to their observations. I just flew.

    Revelation, by contrast, is indirect and second-hand. Someone told you this was so. Is there among us an eye witness to the parting of the Red Sea or to the resurrection of Lazarus? Even if there were, his account would be revelation to me. Second-hand, not first-hand.

    Almost all our knowledge comes to us by revelation.

    An example: Does the Sun revolve around the Earth?

    Based on your observation — direct and first-hand — you must say that it does. Any contrary theory came to you by revelation — someone told you — unless you have a good quality telescope and have made precise measurements of the apparent retrograde motion of Mars over a span of years. Most of us don’t have such a telescope. Of those few who do, how many are inclined to repeat the experiment? And how many prefer to have faith in those who have gone before, been there, done that, and accept their revelation?

    Science depends on revelation no less than does Religion . . . no matter what Neil deGrasse Tyson says.

    (I am willing to bet that I could get the Heliocentric Model of our planetary system ruled inadmissible in court as hearsay . . . depending on who is the judge.)

Comments are closed.