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

61–70 of 136 posts

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

#61

Post by Yizahi »

eigenheart wrote: post #10
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…

Many, many people who've had near death experiences, e.g. Howard Storm, Dean Braxton, Randy Kay, Bryan Melvin, etc... do not believe simply because they want to believe: their entire operating system (heart, mind, soul) has been updated with the ineffable and there's no going back.

Do you realize that humanity has an enormous pool of people from multiple races and cultures, which have a near death experience on a regular basis? They are called soldiers. The representation of humans groups is near perfect in the army, excepts for women obviously.

There is no evidence that near death experience can change human thinking to the "belief" in any statistically significant numbers. The only people who claim to become "believers" after such experience are probably people already on the verge of believing due to their psyche or education or both.

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

#62

Post by xupybd »

_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 don't know if religion can totally answer the why question either. You end up with the unanswerable why is God?

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

#63

Post by ykevinator2 »

_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,…

No post body was provided.

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

#64

Post by ykevinator2 »

_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…

No post body was provided.

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

#65

Post by ykevinator2 »

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:…

No post body was provided.

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

#66

Post by ykevinator2 »

tines wrote: post #37
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"…

No post body was provided.

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

#67

Post by djokkataja »

KMag wrote: post #54
djokkataja wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 potentia…

What if it turns out that for many actions, the game-theoretically optimal strategy for the individual isn't optimal for the society, and people's gut instincts are reasonably close to game theoretic analysis? In other words, what if it turns out that it's really objectively best for society if everyone is tricked into being good?

Even for something as simple as the prisoner's dilemma, there's quite a bit of variety in both situations and agents, so how do you decide what the "optimal" game theoretic strategy is for actual people in much more complex situations in reality?

I'm not sure that it's tricking people, because society is people. I mean, suppose that people aren't tricked into being good, and then society is worse off. How could everyone in the worse off society be doing better than everyone in the better off society? This doesn't seem like a trick to me so much as adopting a different perspective.

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

#68

Post by throw0101a »

_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…

> The fundamental difference between science and religion in my opinion is that science says "I will believe things only if I can understand them" […]

There are certain metaphysical assumptions that you have to make before you can start science:

* That there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.

* That this objective reality is governed by natural laws;

* That reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.

* That Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.

See:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Provid...

Not all world views have those. Take the first one: AFAIK, Buddhism (and Hinduism?) believe that the world is an illusion. Why would do empirical experiments on illusions?

I don't think it was an accident that science took off in Europe. Certainly there were individuals in other parts of the world that were curious about how the cosmos worked, but the overall worldview of their societies wasn't as receptive to such endeavours. There were many scientists in Muslim areas, but Islam generally ended up denying the fourth point above:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism

TL; DR: Science itself cannot prove science is true.

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

#69

Post by throw0101a »

lelandfe wrote: post #23
barrysteve wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, chalk me up to the beautiful camp. I think the King James Bible reads like flowing poetry at times, which is something I'd never ascribe to the NIV.

Perhaps check out Douay–Rheims as well, which was produced around the same time:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay–Rheims_Bible

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

#70

Post by _8j50 »

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…

Can you determine an evidence is sufficient if you cannot understand it? You can accept what us happening but can you accept that as evidence of someone's explanation? Water boils at 100c , ok, but why? Because energy is being transfered in the form of heat? Or because the elemental force of fire is incompatible with water and the result is violence?
Post reply on HN