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

91–100 of 136 posts

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

#91

Post by keane »

taylodl wrote: post #80
_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 tryin…

In this context you seem to be expecting a rule of thumb to do quite a lot of lifting.

You seem to imply that the universe is self-evident to all and is therefore “simpler” as something that has always existed. That’s what theists are claiming God is: already self-evident to all.

Conflating God and the universe as interchangeable is addressed by the Contingency Argument: https://youtu.be/FPCzEP0oD7I

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

#92

Post by dickersnoodle »

keane wrote: post #89
dickersnoodle wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here’s the thing: the religious believe that everyone on Earth, in that they experience reality alone, have sufficient evidence that reality has a creator. That elements of reality may be indescribable or that individuals experience reality in a subjective way doesn’t affect that claim. Resigning truth and falsehood into a single category is a nonstarter. The conclusion here from HL Mencken’s quote is a fallacy calle…

That first sentence sounds too ontological to be useful. St Anselm made the same mistake - because he could imagine a perfect God, that perfection required God to exist. He (and countless other apologists) believed that the universe and its nature were subject to the requirements of their ideas of God, without accounting for the inevitable limitations and imperfections of those ideas.

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

#93

Post by igouy »

swat535 wrote: post #86
_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…

First, in a very real sense, the modern physical sciences came from religion. The great founders of science—Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, etc.—were, without exception, trained in ecclesially sponsored schools and universities. It was under the aegis of the church that they took in their physics, their astronomy, and their mathematics. More specifically, they learned in those institutions two essenti…

> Another type of rationality … is required for the determination of those matters.

And that is … Philosophy?

> A chemist might…

> A geologist might…

Perhaps neuroscience and data science would be more appropriate.

> … nevertheless speak the profoundest truths about God, creation, sin, redemption, grace, etc.

In the eye of the beholder.

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

#94

Post by igouy »

shakna wrote: post #81
analog31 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. That's not true at all. Religious syncretism is a very old concept, and involves the blending of religions. There are Catholic Buddhists, for example, and there have been those professing to follow that since around the 1600s. You'll also find m…

> … the blending of religions.

And when they conflict?

We can blend oil and vinegar but they'll settle out into oil and vinegar.

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

#95

Post by shakna »

igouy wrote: post #94
shakna wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That's not true at all. Religious syncretism is a very old concept, and involves the blending of religions. There are Catholic Buddhists, for example, and there have been those professing to follow that since around the 1600s. You'll also find m…

> … the blending of religions. And when they conflict? We can blend oil and vinegar but they'll settle out into oil and vinegar.

Incan beliefs are polytheistic, and Catholicism is monotheistic. There are still a myriad of syncretic forms of the two.

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

#96

Post by igouy »

pqs wrote: post #77
givemeethekeys wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Church teaching about Adam and Eve and sin?

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

#97

Post by taylodl »

keane wrote: post #91
taylodl wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tryin…

In this context you seem to be expecting a rule of thumb to do quite a lot of lifting. You seem to imply that the universe is self-evident to all and is therefore “simpler” as something that has always existed. That’s what theists are claiming God is: already self-evident to all. Conflating God and the universe as interchangeable is addressed by the Contingency Argument: https://youtu.be/FPCzEP0oD7I

God is ascribed attributes the universe is not: omniscience and omnipotence. To a lesser extent one realizes those attributes of God also means God is conscious, which is not something we typically ascribe to the universe. I would argue since the universe lacks omniscience, omnipotence, consciousness, and by extension, will power it is a far simpler entity than God. So saying the universe has existed forever and saying God has existed forever are therefore two vastly different statements due to the different complexities inherent in the two different entities being compared. The universe is far, far, far simpler a construct than God and by using Occam's Razor I conclude a universe that has existed forever is far more likely than a God that has existed forever.

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

#98

Post by igouy »

xupybd wrote: post #62
_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?

… I am that I am…

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

#99

Post by igouy »

shakna wrote: post #95
igouy wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> … the blending of religions. And when they conflict? We can blend oil and vinegar but they'll settle out into oil and vinegar.

Incan beliefs are polytheistic, and Catholicism is monotheistic. There are still a myriad of syncretic forms of the two.

Doesn't seem like you responded to the question?

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

#100

Post by taylodl »

taylodl wrote: post #97
keane wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this context you seem to be expecting a rule of thumb to do quite a lot of lifting. You seem to imply that the universe is self-evident to all and is therefore “simpler” as something that has always existed. That’s what theists are claiming God is: already self-evident to all. Conflating God and the universe as interchangeable is addressed by the Contingency Argument: https://youtu.be/FPCzEP0oD7I

God is ascribed attributes the universe is not: omniscience and omnipotence. To a lesser extent one realizes those attributes of God also means God is conscious, which is not something we typically ascribe to the universe. I would argue since the universe lacks omniscience, omnipotence, consciousness, and by extension, will power it is a far simpler entity than God. So saying the universe has existed forever and sayi…

Though I suppose it is possible for a universe that has existed forever to have yielded a God that has also existed forever! Strange things are possible when we allow for infinite timelines!

That's why it makes more sense that the universe had a definite beginning and asking about time before that beginning is undefined - time simply doesn't exist before the beginning. Roger Penrose has some interesting ideas on what happened before the Big Bang (the universe "forgets" how to "tell" time and so time doesn't exist between different "epochs" of the universe):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o0gAglNdZw

Post reply on HN