Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 136 posts

Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point

#31

Post by trhway »

_8j50 wrote: post #28
_gabe_ wrote: post #22

This article seems to be saying that science and religion are trying to answer the same question, how did we get here. But I feel like that's misguided. I've always been under the impression that science is descriptive, it answers how? Whereas religion is deeper than that and aims to answer why? We can explain how natural processes work, but, and I believe this is a question Aristotle asked with the immovable mover,…

Sort of. Academic theologians want to answer why. A religious person already knows, if you have to find data and infer things then it is philosophy not religion. Religion is based on information directed by the creator either directly to the believer or via trusted proxy. For example if you asked me why the universe exists I already know: because God willed it so. Most religious questions are a whether or not somethi…

>Tangentially, I am a bit baffled by folks that are not believers yet try to make sense of a religion, don't they understand hierarchy of belief?

I'd not give a damn about religion if it weren't shoving itself in my face everywhere. For example I don't care whatever religion some people on some remote islands may be practicing because they aren't forcing their religious dogmas on me (and as long as they don't abuse other people). The Big Religion though that we have around is forcing it's tentacles everywhere trying to strangulate everything, and thus even non believers have to deal with it defending themselves.

Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point

#32

Post by carpo »

_8j50 wrote: post #28
_gabe_ wrote: post #22

This article seems to be saying that science and religion are trying to answer the same question, how did we get here. But I feel like that's misguided. I've always been under the impression that science is descriptive, it answers how? Whereas religion is deeper than that and aims to answer why? We can explain how natural processes work, but, and I believe this is a question Aristotle asked with the immovable mover,…

Sort of. Academic theologians want to answer why. A religious person already knows, if you have to find data and infer things then it is philosophy not religion. Religion is based on information directed by the creator either directly to the believer or via trusted proxy. For example if you asked me why the universe exists I already know: because God willed it so. Most religious questions are a whether or not somethi…

There are many things in science that scientists don't understand but still believe exist. The difference is the scientist won't then ascribe that thing to a god just because it's not understood.

Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point

#33

Post by analog31 »

_8j50 wrote: post #28
_gabe_ wrote: post #22

This article seems to be saying that science and religion are trying to answer the same question, how did we get here. But I feel like that's misguided. I've always been under the impression that science is descriptive, it answers how? Whereas religion is deeper than that and aims to answer why? We can explain how natural processes work, but, and I believe this is a question Aristotle asked with the immovable mover,…

Sort of. Academic theologians want to answer why. A religious person already knows, if you have to find data and infer things then it is philosophy not religion. Religion is based on information directed by the creator either directly to the believer or via trusted proxy. For example if you asked me why the universe exists I already know: because God willed it so. Most religious questions are a whether or not somethi…

I take it from the opposite direction. I trust that every sufficiently mature religion has a self consistent doctrine with answers to every question. If the religion is popular enough, I can just look up the questions and answers. For this reason, I have no reason to even engage in the dialogue.

For this reason, I share your bafflement.

Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point

#34

Post by andi999 »

barrysteve wrote: post #14
CodeBeater wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of off-topic but, why does the angloworld keep using a translation of the bible that's written in an almost "archaic" English (yes I know, I'm exaggerating, but I can't think of a better description from the top of my head). Coming from someone that was born and raised in a Portuguese speaking country, their version of the bible seems much more "accessible", But I acknowledge the fact that it might come at the c…

KJV is conservative methodists and baptists and high church anglicans. There's also plenty of ESV and NIV kicking anout. Native english speakers often agree the KJV is beautiful in writing and speech.

Maybe that it makes the content more difficult to understand is a plus.

Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point

#35

Post by Fezzik »

_8j50 wrote: post #28
_gabe_ wrote: post #22

This article seems to be saying that science and religion are trying to answer the same question, how did we get here. But I feel like that's misguided. I've always been under the impression that science is descriptive, it answers how? Whereas religion is deeper than that and aims to answer why? We can explain how natural processes work, but, and I believe this is a question Aristotle asked with the immovable mover,…

Sort of. Academic theologians want to answer why. A religious person already knows, if you have to find data and infer things then it is philosophy not religion. Religion is based on information directed by the creator either directly to the believer or via trusted proxy. For example if you asked me why the universe exists I already know: because God willed it so. Most religious questions are a whether or not somethi…

Maybe it’s pedantic, but in my experience the best summation of a scientific approach to beleif is to say ‘I will withhold belief until sufficient evidence is provided to support the belief.’ Most noticeably, this stance does not exclude the currently unknown from being true or known at some point, it simply holds a person to the honest — and truly humble — mindset of never thinking things are true on insufficient evidence, no matter how badly the conclusion is desired.

You seem to be asserting that religious persons are willing to believe things on insufficient evidence, for example those “things beyond our understanding or currect capacity or ability to know,” and that is somehow a good thing?

Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point

#36

Post by mjh2539 »

Ishmaeli wrote: post #18
CodeBeater wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of off-topic but, why does the angloworld keep using a translation of the bible that's written in an almost "archaic" English (yes I know, I'm exaggerating, but I can't think of a better description from the top of my head). Coming from someone that was born and raised in a Portuguese speaking country, their version of the bible seems much more "accessible", But I acknowledge the fact that it might come at the c…

Because the King James Version (KJV) was so dominant for so long among English speakers that archaic language came to be associated with Holy Writ. Generations have been conditioned to think that scripture is supposed to sound old. Now, lots of Christian denominations do favor more modern translations, but the KJV refuses to go away. Fun fact from the church I grew up in (Mormonism): aside from the Bible and the Book…

I mean...Jesus was an orthodox Jew and prayed in (mostly) Hebrew (the sacral language), not Aramaic (the vernacular language of the Jews at the time). Having a "sacral language" or "sacral register" is not specific to the English or to the KJV. You will find the same phenomenon in other areas as well, some of which aren't even remotely religious. Think of the register of speech people use when writing a paper for publication in an academic journal, it's distinct from the register of speech you'd use when talking with your mother, or addressing graduates at a university commencement speech.

Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point

#37

Post by tines »

Xeoncross wrote: post #6

I'm not sure about all religions, but a Christian's belief that nature proves God's existence is taught in the bible: "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" - Romans 1:…

I have an alternate and, I think, unusual view on this subject, which is that Christianity actually teaches that God's existence is, by design, not proven or provable by nature at all. I think this follows from these facts:

1. Faith is the substance of things hoped for (Hebrews 11), and we don't possess [proof of] what we hope for (Romans 8:24).

* This means that anything the scripture places in the realm "of faith" is something that we don't have tangible proof of

* For example, we have righteousness "by faith" but no undeniable proof of this righteousness, as in Galatians 5:5: "For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope"

2. The existence of God, and the creation of the world, are placed in the realm of faith by the scripture.

* "Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists" (Hebrews 11:6)

* "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Hebrews 11:3)

Therefore the existence of God and the creation of the world are purposefully consigned by God to the realm of unverifiable facts.

This makes sense intuitively, because it makes the gospel appear weak and foolish in accordance with 1 Corinthians 1:27, and prevents anyone from approaching the subject based on their own intellectual powers as in Matthew 11:25.

And in light of this, the verse you mentioned in Romans can be taken to be about mankind, who were originally literally shown things by God Himself corporately, rather than about any particular man or all men individually.

In my opinion, this logic precludes apologists from appealing to natural theology as a legitimate way of convincing someone to believe in God or to convert to the Christian faith. According to this line of thinking, submitting evidence to someone that can be verified by observation in order to convince someone that God exists or that Christ is God is actually undermining faith.

Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point

#38

Post by mjh2539 »

nikolay wrote: post #19

Faith by definition is believing without requiring proof! In fact, searching for proof requires your faith is not solid!

The root of the word faith comes from the Latin "fides", which can alternatively be translated as "trust" (think fiduciary). You don't need faith to believe in God. This is a common misunderstanding among both atheists and theists.

Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point

#39

Post by onenukecourse »

CodeBeater wrote: post #8
Xeoncross wrote: post #6

I'm not sure about all religions, but a Christian's belief that nature proves God's existence is taught in the bible: "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" - Romans 1:…

Kind of off-topic but, why does the angloworld keep using a translation of the bible that's written in an almost "archaic" English (yes I know, I'm exaggerating, but I can't think of a better description from the top of my head). Coming from someone that was born and raised in a Portuguese speaking country, their version of the bible seems much more "accessible", But I acknowledge the fact that it might come at the c…

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&versi...

It really isn't that archaic. It might not be the best resource for Biblical scholarship, but it's quite readable today. The KJV is so dominant in English culture that English's course of evolution is probably guided by it.

The KJV has probably been more influential on English than Shakespeare on English or Cervantes or Dante on their respective languages. Consider that, until recently (1950s?), the KJV has been read daily by a large portion of English speakers.

(I'm Catholic and native Spanish speaking, I don't have any cultural attachment to KJV)

Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point

#40

Post by virtualwhys »

_gabe_ wrote: post #22

This article seems to be saying that science and religion are trying to answer the same question, how did we get here. But I feel like that's misguided. I've always been under the impression that science is descriptive, it answers how? Whereas religion is deeper than that and aims to answer why? We can explain how natural processes work, but, and I believe this is a question Aristotle asked with the immovable mover,…

> If it's infinite, how did it all start?

Ha, good one! Certainly would be quite wonderful if, despite death, there is neither a beginning nor end to it.

I can't imagine life being finite, is that even possible given what we're in?

Post reply on HN