What truths re the world stemmed 1st from religious faith?

[_DrW]

Modern beer was invented by monks.

More seriously, inquiry used to be more heavily entwined with the priest class and religion. It's really difficult to answer this question because there's a difference between knowledge coming from religion as religion and knowledge coming from religious practice using other means. Monasteries might produce incredibly tasty honey, but they didn't come by their production methods through revelation, in other words. So if you look at the Pythagrorean cult, are you going to say their contributions to mathematics stemmed from their religion or their mathematical reasoning? It's not an easy answer because religious people sometimes call their ordinary, secular faculties such as intuitive inspiration a religious thing.

Absolutely. Knowledge comes from observation, experimentation, hypothesis generation, and hypothesis testing and refinement.

Regardless of whether this is process is carried out by theists or atheists (who seem to do a better job of it by the way) it is science.

The religious approach is to pray for revelation and wait, or when that fails, simply make it up as you go along. From this process in modern times, we get things like Kolob cosmology, some truths are not helpful, the mantle supersedes the intellect, and when the leaders have spoken, the thinking has been done.

[_lostsheep]

The Pythagorean religious sect gave us the mystical belief that numbers/mathematics underlie the world. Everything in modern science seems to support that religious belief.

Related to that is the essentially religious belief of other Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle that the world is rational and understandable. I call this a religious belief because it was based on the (unobserved) existence of some divine mind/logos/form that is the source of our worlds rationality. Later on Christianity adopted this viewpoint as well since it claimed to be the religion of the logos incarnate.

[_lostsheep]

The Jewish and Christian religions taught that our universe was not eternal but had a beginning (but they were off on its age by about 13 billion years or so). Augustine even gave us the idea that the world was created with time not in time. This religious belief has been supported by 20th century discoveries in cosmology. And if the universe did indeed begin with a singularity then this would support the Christian concept of creation from nothing because space, time, and energy all came into being at the big bang.

[_harmony]

Truth? Or scientific fact?

The two are different things. You're positing for scientific fact, not truth.

[_sock puppet]

Truth? Or scientific fact?

The two are different things. You're positing for scientific fact, not truth.

I hear some believers often say they can only learn so much about our circumstances from science, and that they learn the rest by faith.

What is it that they learn about our circumstances without evidence and reason? Without evidence, I can hope in any of an infinite number of directions. What truth am I going to find simply because I hope for it, in the absence of evidence?

[_harmony]

Truth? Or scientific fact?

The two are different things. You're positing for scientific fact, not truth.

I hear some believers often say they can only learn so much about our circumstances from science, and that they learn the rest by faith.

What is it that they learn about our circumstances without evidence and reason? Without evidence, I can hope in any of an infinite number of directions. What truth am I going to find simply because I hope for it, in the absence of evidence?

You're still discussing fact. Scientific fact is subject to change based on updated evidence.

Truth, on the other hand, isn't subject to change because the evidence is always the same.

So to answer your title question: all of them.

[_huckelberry]

Modern beer was invented by monks.

The religious approach is to pray for revelation and wait, or when that fails, simply make it up as you go along. From this process in modern times, we get things like Kolob cosmology, some truths are not helpful, the mantle supersedes the intellect, and when the leaders have spoken, the thinking has been done.

I thought the beer observation was a pleasant one.
On the other hand this picture of religious approach is repulsive. I think there are some times people, especially ones under 15 years of age who do this. I doubt that Joseph Smith was doing anything like this when he came up with Kolob. I think he was engaged in a scientific study of how to influence people. Mr Smiths version of religious study is not a form I favor either but it does at least get into the ballpark in making study of human relationships. I think religion is the study of how to live finding your best self and finding your true relationships to others.

I do not see nor want special revelations about history and science from religion. I think it is clear that what looks today like special religious informaton about the natural world in the Bible is not revelation but the science and history of that time now severely outdated. The course of the sun around the earth is not some religious revelation it is scientific observation.

[_sock puppet]

Truth? Or scientific fact?

The two are different things. You're positing for scientific fact, not truth.

I hear some believers often say they can only learn so much about our circumstances from science, and that they learn the rest by faith.

What is it that they learn about our circumstances without evidence and reason? Without evidence, I can hope in any of an infinite number of directions. What truth am I going to find simply because I hope for it, in the absence of evidence?

You're still discussing fact. Scientific fact is subject to change based on updated evidence.

Truth, on the other hand, isn't subject to change because the evidence is always the same.

So to answer your title question: all of them.

harmony, non-scientific "truths" are subject to change in religions, particularly how swift those changes have occurred in Mormonism's ~180 year existence.

I would like you to expound on this disconnect you seem to perceive in

a-science/based on updating evidence and
b-"truths"/based on always-the-same evidence.

I'm not sure I follow or understand the distinction you are drawing.

[_harmony]

harmony, non-scientific "truths" are subject to change in religions, particularly how swift those changes have occurred in Mormonism's ~180 year existence.

There's more to "religion" than Mormonism. Unless you're being that focused, Mormonism is a pretty small dot on the face of thousands of years of religion.

I would like you to expound on this disconnect you seem to perceive in

a-science/based on updating evidence and
b-"truths"/based on always-the-same evidence.

I'm not sure I follow or understand the distinction you are drawing.

Updating evidence:
Science 200+ years ago--the earth is flat
Science today--the earth is round

The same evidence:
Religion 2000+ years ago: love is important
Religion today: love is important

See?

[_EAllusion]

Harmony -

Religions have evolved their ideas on how life should be lived and why. All you did was pick an example that was broad and easily established enough that it wouldn't be likely to change much. Change it to, "It's Ok to keep slaves" and your mileage may vary. Heck, what exactly it means to "love" has consistently changed as people's understanding has changed. You can do likewise with basic empirical facts. 200 years ago people thought the sun rises in the east. That hasn't changed.

Part of the problem is your definitions of "truth" and "fact" are incoherent enough that you end up drawing distinctions that don't actually exist.