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

41–50 of 136 posts

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

#41

Post by WoahNoun »

keane wrote: post #27
galaxyLogic wrote: post #9

Two things to ask anybody who claims to have some information, or even just some personal beliefs, about something they call "God" : 1. What are the statements about what you call "God" that you believe in? 2. Why do you believe just that set of statements and not some other set of statements? I believe that the answer to 2., if they are honest, would most often be: They believe the set of statements they believe bec…

From your perspective a Christian has faith in God solely because they want to. This perspective is somewhat ironic because in many cases Christians believe that they have faith in God because God gifted them the faith; in other words, they have faith against their human/created/natural desire to be autonomous and suppress the knowledge of God.

No post body was provided.

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

#43

Post by givemeethekeys »

_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,…

I propose that religion incorporates the most accepted science of the time it was established.

We haven't had a new popular enough religion that incorporates the current state of accepted science.

It benefits the leadership of any organization to give its members a reason for its existence. The better the reason, the greater chance of growth. Religions aim to provide the complete package - rules for society and the individual and rules for life and what comes after it.

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

#44

Post by KMag »

carpo wrote: post #32
_8j50 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're conflating scientists and the scientific method. Down this road lies "No true scientist"/"No true Scotsman".

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

#45

Post by djokkataja »

givemeethekeys wrote: post #43
_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,…

I propose that religion incorporates the most accepted science of the time it was established. We haven't had a new popular enough religion that incorporates the current state of accepted science. It benefits the leadership of any organization to give its members a reason for its existence. The better the reason, the greater chance of growth. Religions aim to provide the complete package - rules for society and the i…

I think it could be handy if there was a "religion" that looked at the various ways that historical religions are beneficial for their adherents (in practices and beliefs) and tried to distill things down and build some new things up from whatever gets worked out in that way. From a secular perspective, religions contain quite a bit of invented material, so this doesn't seem that unreasonable. And this could potentially be combined with more scientific perspectives, where the whole set of beliefs and practices can be updated as new things are learned, though presumably the most foundational elements wouldn't change as much.

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

#46

Post by nestorD »

_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,…

One thing I learned recently is that some religions[1] do not try to explain the world and its origin. It is just that the dominant religions do so we assume it is part of a religion's definition.

[1]: One example would be Gardnerian Wicca.

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

#47

Post by keane »

Fezzik wrote: post #35
_8j50 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ev…

This is just Positivism or Empiricism and there are huge problems with it as a method of epistemology. The link is discussing the First Cause argument and you, like others in this thread, are reducing metaphysical arguments to “others believe differently from me only because they want their belief to be true”.

As for the sufficient evidence, regardless of the personal perspective in the parent comment, you should know that a fundamental (Abrahamic) theological claim is that all humans have sufficient evidence of their creator’s existence. That’s mainly where the dispute is: the religious say what we all have universal access to /is/ sufficient; the non-religious claim what we have is insufficient.

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

#48

Post by yummies »

trhway wrote: post #31
_8j50 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

But if they are abusing other people, you'd care, and intervention would be justified? Is that not imposing your dogma on them?

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

#49

Post by daseiner1 »

yummies wrote: post #48
trhway wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 o…

But if they are abusing other people, you'd care, and intervention would be justified? Is that not imposing your dogma on them?

I’d assert that an anti-dogma stance is inherently non-dogmatic.

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

#50

Post by rembicilious »

Fezzik wrote: post #35
_8j50 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ev…

Most Protestant christians believe that the christian bible is divinely inspired. Everything else they believe follows from this first unprovable belief. They may not accept an idea if they feel it conflicts with their personal interpretation of the christian bible, no matter how convincing the evidence. On the other hand, some protestants are not so attached to their beliefs, and can adapt them to mesh with reality when presented with convincing evidence.
Post reply on HN