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

111–120 of 136 posts

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

#111

Post by t0bia_s »

_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've always been under the impression that science is descriptive, it answers how?"

And yet, that "how" is relative to actual knowledge that is shaping with time or even point of view.

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

#112

Post by atoav »

pqs wrote: post #76
atoav wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is a believe. For most people religion is also just a believe

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

#113

Post by andrewmcwatters »

azth wrote: post #107
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religion doesn’t answer why we are here. Non-religious people think that’s what religion does.

Depends on which religion. Islam does: * https://quran.com/51/56 * https://quran.com/67/2 And more.

The Book of Isaiah says the same thing. That's not the point of either religion, and practitioners know this.

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

#114

Post by igouy »

shakna wrote: post #109
igouy wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't seem like holding incompatible religious beliefs at the same time ("… possible to hold scientific and religious beliefs at the same time…"). That seems like picking one religious belief over another, on an ad hoc basis.

> "never two different religions at the same time."

And "syncretic religions of incompatible elements" are neither of the original "two different religions" but a new third religion.

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

#115

Post by shakna »

igouy wrote: post #114
shakna wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "never two different religions at the same time."

And "syncretic religions of incompatible elements" are neither of the original "two different religions" but a new third religion.

So you're splitting the concept between "religious syncretism" and "double belonging", and claiming that the latter [0] is impossible?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_religious_belonging

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

#116

Post by trhway »

_8j50 wrote: post #106
Rechtsstaat wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with criticizing things one doesn't believe in? Especially if, as the parent noted, that thing one doesn't belief in has—through the actions of people that do believe—negative impacts on one's life?

Nothing. But you did a strawman there by changing the subject about what you care or don't care about. If you don't care about relgion then why are you commenting? If you do enough to criticize and take time to comment then don't strawman and address what i said not what you implied. We are talking truth and belief not impact on ones life.

>If you don't care about relgion then why are you commenting?

my original comment contains clear answer.

>address what i said

i clearly addressed your stated requirement that one have to meet some your criteria of understanding of religion in order to criticize - as i clearly disagree with such a requirement because my involvement with religion isn't at my will, it is a defense from the religion forcing itself upon me everywhere.

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

#117

Post by yellowapple »

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…

> God is ascribed attributes the universe is not: omniscience and omnipotence.

Ain't really sure whence you'd get that impression. It's hard to exist without the universe being aware of it and causing it to be, both in the sense of the universe having been in a state enabling your existence and in the sense of your existence having effects on the universe (and thus producing new states enabling other existences).

God and the universe might not be one and the same, but they're intertwined; for the universe and the contents thereof to exist in any meaningful sense beyond some homogenous blob of cold matter, you need something dictating the interactions of matter and energy to produce something meaningful. Call it God, call it physics, call it whatever, but regardless it's obvious that it exists - the universe would be a rather boring place otherwise.

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

#118

Post by yellowapple »

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…

Hell, there's even the hypothesis that Christianity itself is a blend of Buddhism and Judaism.

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

#119

Post by yellowapple »

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…

For me, it's the concern that newer translations are very likely derived from older translations; even when they attempt to translate the original Hebrew/Greek, they'll tend to be colored by other translations, be they other English translations or the Latin and German translations preceding the first English translations.

That being said, I usually go with Young's Literal Translation due to its explicit focus on, well, being a literal translation of the original Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text; whereas even KJV does its share of editorializing, YLT actively avoids it. Unfortunately, the consequence of such a literal translation is that it makes even KJV look modern and comprehensible by comparison ;)

Post reply on HN