I'm sorry, but you need to re-read my last post. I made perfectly clear which "works of a religious nature" I was talking about. If you don't know who L.Ron Hubbard was, or what the Urantia book is I suggest you go Google them. Your examples are irrelevant as they would clearly be excluded.

I don't understand how that is relevant to the identity of the author? Were that founder to gain such power, how could there be any doubt as to his identity?

I don't see your point. Yes, there is a difference but I said nothing about "just hoping". If views are based on preponderance of evidence, which is reasonable enough, how can a scenario for which there is no evidence be relevant at all? If there is evidence that the assigned authorship is wrong, or that some sort of cover-up or conspiracy occurred, then that obviously needs to be taken into account. The weight given to evidence will vary among individuals, usually according to what you believed in the first place. Not very scientific, maybe, but very human. Religion is not science, or philosophy, or history. Hence all the 'conclusive proof' that believers in religion A present that religion B is 'wrong' which believers in religion B think irrelevant or absurd. And all the 'conclusive proof' that believers in religion B present that religion A is 'wrong' which believers in religion A think irrelevant or absurd.

Howdy,

I read your post and still am confused at what you are talking of here. I understood that by works of a religious nature you were speaking of, the books I had mentioned in the ealier post?



I was speaking with regards to sincerity of the author;

Just knowing a name is not enough to know the condition of an indvidual, you spoke of, if there is no evidence to say that the individual may be insincere then I'll accept it as sincere, or at least thats how it seems you wrote, what I am saying is that, if the individual's religion became popular enough, strong enough, it could in turn supress, not his identity, but the true nature of who he was.


As much as I disagree wih some parts I dont think theres a point in delving into it. I guess in some places, I can only assume, I have misunderstood your sentences.

I wanted to discuss the principle, not neccesarily the evidence, i.e. does one agree in principle that knowing the author of a sacred text/message is of importance.

I still fail to understand how anyone may think it is not, how we can assume sincerity because it is a religious text or because followers of the text claimed s/he was sincere, how we can say, if there's no evidence to say s/he was a liar I will think he is truthful.

Many parts of the Bible were written by people completely unknown to us.
Therefore, for me as a Christian, the question who wrote the Bible and what their lives were like, cannot be of great importance.

What is more important is how - given that the 66 books in the Bible were written by numerous different authors over several millenia, people of different backgrounds, different times and circumstances - the Bible remains amazingly coherent and clear in the message it gives.
Namely that of God's relationship with his people, and his continued revelation to us, finally ending in his direct salvation through Jesus Christ.

That is, to me as a Christian, the true sign of God's divine working in the Bible as the holy book which I believe in.
In comparison to that the authorship (other than God's promise to us that all authors were divinely inspired - see below), seems much less important.

Peace

So for you, you would hold that since the Bible is so consistent with itself over the numerous books, the individual authors of each books are not relevant. Adding to that that God himself promised the inspiration of all scripture.

Ok. If the Bible was just one book, would the authorship matter?

Yes, although I would include many others as well such as the Hindu and Buddhist scriptures, the Tao Te Ching, and so on.

Yes, pretty much.

Yes, that is concievable. But you could think of a thousand scenarios that might be concievable, none are of any relevance unless there is evidence they might have actually occurred.

In principle, then, no I don't think it is of essential importance, although it might well be of some significance. The sacred/text message should stand on it's own merits, if it can't do that it is worthless anyway.

I don't see how it is not possible to (generally) make that assumption as the alternative simply makes no sense. In your everyday life do you refuse to make any sort of judgement about what people tell you, being constantly suspicious, even when there is no reason to suspect they may not be telling the truth? Of course not. If you read, say, an important article in political philosophy, are you always worried about lack of sincerity or hidden motives? I can read Marx and believe him mistaken about many things, but I have no reason to doubt his sincerity.

The only case where I can see the authorship of the sort of religious work we are talking about of being of any real significance is if that author is supposed to be God.

Okey,

I agree, we simply would not know, that's what I am saying, anything could have been possible. We have to try and see what actually was most probable. I'm not saying we should believe that x.y.z happend, rather, we should refrain from thinking someone is/done x.y.z till we can see reasons to think that.


Merits like?

In our everyday life we come across the equivilent of the authors. When I see an individual with a British Gas badge, full gear, and so forth, I am more inclined to trust him, due to seeing his credentials, then a stranger selling me something off the back of a lorry.

In everyday life we read symbols on individuals which allow us to make decisions. We see a group of youths who ask if I would like to buy a phone, I'd say no, because of this suspicion. I try not to read articles on philosophy or anything unless I can be assured that the author has some credibility, you see? I reference my work in essay due to that.

Well to some degree the three Abrahamic Religions do claim that.

Thank you for your patience.

I'm not sure if I can answer that question.

If the Bible was only written by one man, I might think that it was just that ... one book written by one author.
I would be inclined to believe it may be of human origin, rather than divine ...

In the early days when the books had not been yet compiled, if you had been born then you migt have not believed in the Gospel of Mark. I guess we can never know since it would be a different place and time. But its interesting.

I have heard the argument that the NT must be Divinely inspired because several different writers were saying basically the same thing. I take it that you are implying the Qur'an does not have Divine origins because it came through only Muhammad (saaws).

That definitely raises a critical point and that is the prophethood/ messengership of Muhammad (saaws). I find it odd that Christians reject the messengership of Muhammad (saaws) even though prior to his receiving the Message first in the cave, he was known as an honest and trustworthy person. Yet, they accept, but don't publicly declare, the messengership of Paul even though prior to his receiving the "Gospel" on the road to Damascus, he hated "the Way" and was basically a bounty hunter, hunting down Christians. He even held Stephen's clothes while he was being stoned.

Principally, if not exclusively, just making sense I think. In a very specific way in the case of religious teachings; the sort of deeply affecting "makes sense" that can change and dictate the whole way you lead your life. That is why I am a Buddhist, because Buddhist teachings make total sense to me at every level, rational, intuitive and experiential. I assume exactly the same is true of muslims, Christians or anyone else in relation to their own scriptures.

True, but in that case you would a good reason to believe the stranger might be dishonest. Same with the gas man; they always present identification so you would be very suspicous of someone who did not. But the 'credentials' thing seems rather irrelevant in the case of religion - indeed it seems usually exactly the opposite was true. What 'religious credentials' did Jesus present, other than his words? Or Mohammed? Neither had a little badge that identified them as God's messengers!

It's a wise policy in relation to student work, certainly. But how do you think people get credibility? On the merits of what they write!

Many 'great ideas' were dreamed up by people with no 'credibility' with their peers prior to doing so. Many never got it until long after they were dead. The credibility comes from the ideas themselves, everyone has to start somewhere. A great example is Einstein.. he had no academic 'credibility' prior to publishing. He got it because his papers were read, they made sense, explained what hadn't been explained before, and could not be refuted. In other words his papers made sense. Any piece of philosophy, religious or otherwise, can be assessed in the same way. By always relying on someone having 'credibility' you are merely letting other people decide whether they are right on your behalf. Good ideas stand on their own merit and are not dependent on who first thought of them.

And thank you for a very interesting debate!

Greetings and peace be with you Al Habeshi;

I have thought of all kinds of ways to say this, but I can’t find a good way to explain what I mean, I pray that I will not offend anyone with my clumsy words.

In a way it is not so important that Prophet Mohammed wrote the Holy Quran, rather it is the belief that it is the word of Allaah (swt).

If Karl Marx had written the Holy Quran in the 1800s it would still be believed if Allaah (swt) was behind it.

I still struggle to understand as to why the same one God allows so many religious texts to come into existence; attracting millions of followers in all kind of diverse ways.

Somewhere in each text is the message that this is the only way to salvation and every other way is wrong.

There is a great need that we should all pray for each other, in the hope that we might all achieve salvation.

In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith friendship.

Eric