For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by _8j50 » Wed, Jun 22, 2022, 12:08 PM UTC

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…

You don't care so much you use every opportunity to tell people how much you don't care?

Clearly I meant atheists that criticize things they don't even believe in.

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

#72

Post by gxt » Wed, Jun 22, 2022, 12:13 PM UTC

_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,…

Religion's only purpose is to fabricate legitimacy for those who want the power to dictate what people should do.

Any other meaning that might be perceived is only there to deceive you.

Kingdoms fabricate legitimacy by birthright. Democracies by elections (not the people LOL). Etc.

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

#73

Post by analog31 » Wed, Jun 22, 2022, 12:38 PM UTC

_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 think it's simpler. Religion and science answer different questions, because if they ever disagree on an answer, it instantly ceases to be a religious question. Never the other way around. This asymmetry is like the arrow of increasing entropy, always pointing towards science.

Another asymmetry is that it's possible to hold scientific and religious beliefs at the same time (thanks to the above), but never two different religions at the same time. I know lots of Catholic scientists, but no Catholic Buddhists.

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

#74

Post by pqs » Wed, Jun 22, 2022, 12:56 PM UTC

analog31 wrote: post #73

_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 think it's simpler. Religion and science answer different questions, because if they ever disagree on an answer, it instantly ceases to be a religious question. Never the other way around. This asymmetry is like the arrow of increasing entropy, always pointing towards science. Another asymmetry is that it's possible to hold scientific and religious beliefs at the same time (thanks to the above), but never two diffe…

There are Catholic Zen Masters [1], so, somehow, it is possible to be Catholic and Buddhist. As a Catholic who dabbled in Zen when I was lost, I don't really understand how this can be combined, but this exists. My current view is that in Catholicism you'll find everything that Zen has to offer (silence, meditation, living in the present, honor the little details of life, etc.) and a lot more [2].

From a Catholic point of view, there is no contradiction, whatsoever, between science and religion. It is perfectly compatible and there is no contradiction with scripture. The problems are with scientism.

[1]: https://www.ncronline.org/news/i-wanted-faith-was-deeper-jes...

[2]: See, for example, Saint Thérèse of Lisieux.

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

#75

Post by pqs » Wed, Jun 22, 2022, 12:57 PM UTC

_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,…

Science deals with quantities in the material world, religion deals with meaning.

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

#76

Post by pqs » Wed, Jun 22, 2022, 12:58 PM UTC

atoav wrote: post #56

_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,…

But there is intersection between science and believe systems. Knowing what we know about space for example, it would be hard to justify the believe a certain subjective perspective onto a star constellation influences a persons fate based on their birth date =astrology. In this case the more we know about the how of the stars in the sky the less we can believe the uninformed why astrology is trying to present us. Si…

Astrology is not a religion. It seems to me that it is just plain wrong science.

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

#77

Post by pqs » Wed, Jun 22, 2022, 12:59 PM UTC

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…

That is strange. There is no contradiction between Catholicism and science. Genesis is not a scientific book. It is not a scientific treatise on cosmology, at all.

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

#78

Post by dickersnoodle » Wed, Jun 22, 2022, 1:43 PM UTC

rembicilious wrote: post #50

Fezzik wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Everything else they believe follows from this first unprovable belief."

Not accepting an idea if they think it conflicts with their personal interpretation of the Christian Bible can be a crippling inflexibility, and it (IMO) betrays a kind of inverted hubris when it's not accompanied by a strong admonition to not be too cock-sure about one's personal interpretation, because that will evolve as a person changes through growth and experience.

Not being able to do this is the source of a lot of cognitive dissonance that happens when a religious authority (operating from a prophet motive, no doubt) makes a confident prediction that winds up not coming to pass. A really recent example is all of the evangelicals who predicted that Trump would be re-elected after he provably lost the 2020 Presidential election. Some of the "prophetic community" apologized online (which they then retracted under intense pressure); most of the rest of them took refuge in "Satan stole the election!" which helped facilitate the Jan 6 insurrection.

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

#79

Post by dickersnoodle » Wed, Jun 22, 2022, 2:01 PM UTC

keane wrote: post #47

Fezzik wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 kno…

If it were only that clear-cut. "What we all have universal access to" is (so far) ineffable, which makes it open to lots of individual interpretations. The result is a great deal of what H. L. Mencken called "a great deal of theological blather and turmoil" because there's no way of telling truth from falsehood.

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

#80

Post by taylodl » Wed, Jun 22, 2022, 2:07 PM UTC

_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 would argue the God concept is a poor explanation of why? because you're just kicking the can down the road: either God had a beginning and you have to explain that or God is infinite which puts us right back to the same problem of having a universe with infinite duration. If we're going to say God has existed forever then it's simpler (Occam's Razor) to say the universe has existed forever.

Honestly, I think trying to answer why? is a misguided effort. There doesn't need to be a reason why, and moreover inanimate objects don't have motives. Why are we here? Because we're here!