Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

williampoulos.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#31

Post by Zickzack »

jononomo wrote: post #12
dickersnoodle wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Research into the question of the origin of life has put atheism to bed as a serious hypothesis This is almost too dumb to respond to, but here goes. Atheism isn't a hypothesis and never has been. I half-suspect you mean abiogenesis, but even there you'd be dead wrong. Recent research in abiogenesis has continued to make progress and I'd be happy to provide you with some recent citations. As for atheism being "a sci…

Yes, the "money talks, bullshit walks" perspective is what is kicking atheism out the door. The existence of life is absolutely overwhelming proof of the existence of a creative God. I suggest you read the book "The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check" by Tan and Stadler. I'm well aware that you'll be able to try and snow the discussion with two dozen "citations" that will all be dead-end rabbit holes,…

Let us assume there were no reasonable explanation for the origin of life. Yet, "there is no reasonable explanation of life, hence god exists" would still be a non sequitur. You have to brush up your Logic, and it is not meant as a 'take that'.

If you want to do yourself a favor, try your skills on "there is no reasonable explanation of life, hence Zeus exists". Or Allah, if it helps.

Worse yet, you are peddling the god of the gaps: the god that is supposed to explain things where science cannot. This is exactly the god that is fleeing from science ever since science reared its head. And it is the view of god which the original article tries to refute. As your existence shows, it cannot be entirely right.

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#32

Post by lgvln »

jjaken wrote: post #25
lgvln wrote: post #2

The author conveniently fails to mention Galileo was found guilty of heresy by the Church, forced to retract his Dialogues and lived the rest of his life under house arrest for advocating the Copernican heliocentric model over the doctrinal geocentric model.[0] When one cherry picks evidence like that... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

That’s the one example anyone ever uses and it’s way oversimplified. It’s also something that occurred 400 years ago, conducted by a church that doesn’t exist anymore (the catholics have changed a lot in 400 years and the Inquisition has been dead a long time). The argument in the OP isn’t that religion hasn’t opposed or suppressed science. It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science. While some may wie…

What lies in the heart of the Galileo's Copernican Heliocentrism argument is the Church is and can be wrong, thus challenging the authority of the Church.

It is often used as an example because it is the prime example of the beginning of The Enlightenment, also known as The Age of Reason, the triumph of reason and evidence over dogma, which gave rise to modernity.

> It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science.

Take the creation narrative in Genesis: the world was created ~10,000 years ago in 6 (or 7, depending on how you count it) days. Is that narrative in fundamental conflict with modern science? Can both the genesis creation narrative and the theory of evolution be right? What and who decides which is correct? Should reason and evidence guide our beliefs or ancient texts proclaimed to be sacred?

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#33

Post by lgvln »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #5
kashunstva wrote: post #3

Granted, the religious _practice_ I’m most familiar with is Christianity as it is practiced in North America. There, non-trivial numbers of people believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and hold to other similar falsifiable claims. I would gladly shrug my shoulders and say “To each, his own.” But there are constant battles to present some of these views (albeit less extreme) in public school curricula. Some have en…

Point taken, but you have to understand that American Fundamentalism is a minor pocket of Christianity in the worldwide scheme of things. There are billions of Christians who don't believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth. Billions of us. And perhaps those Fundamentalists felt that the anti-religious atheists needed an appropriate foil. Certainly some of the noisiest people have come from both camps and made their presence…

There is a distinction between 'what Christians believe' and 'what the Bible claims'.

The creation narrative in Genesis: either "the Bible is sacred and wholly true/correct" OR "the theory of evolution is true/correct". If the Bible can be wrong about the nature of the universe (as the Church was wrong about heliocentricism during Galileo's time), then surely it can be wrong about any number of issues.

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#34

Post by kbrkbr »

jononomo wrote: post #28
rockemsockem wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't exactly sound like the type of person who would have needed convincing that atheism is not "a serious hypothesis". So are you really someone who can declare that with any credibility? This also feels like terminology nitpicking. Plenty of scientists are agnostic instead of explicitly atheists, but they tend to be just as unreligious.

The existence of life is a straightforward and definitive proof for the existence of God.

A proof is usually some premises together with a conclusion, such that the premises are true or accepted, and it is not possible that the premises are true while the conclusion is not - usually for formal reasons.

I don't see why "life exists and no god exists" should be a contradiction for formal or other reasons.

Furthermore: the existence of which god? As you know there and have been many religions with different gods.

And lastly: if it was straightforward, how come so many people fail to see it?

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#35

Post by mrkeen »

jononomo wrote: post #28
rockemsockem wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't exactly sound like the type of person who would have needed convincing that atheism is not "a serious hypothesis". So are you really someone who can declare that with any credibility? This also feels like terminology nitpicking. Plenty of scientists are agnostic instead of explicitly atheists, but they tend to be just as unreligious.

The existence of life is a straightforward and definitive proof for the existence of God.

Is the existence of God a straightforward and definitive proof for the existence of God^2?

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#36

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

lgvln wrote: post #33
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point taken, but you have to understand that American Fundamentalism is a minor pocket of Christianity in the worldwide scheme of things. There are billions of Christians who don't believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth. Billions of us. And perhaps those Fundamentalists felt that the anti-religious atheists needed an appropriate foil. Certainly some of the noisiest people have come from both camps and made their presence…

There is a distinction between 'what Christians believe' and 'what the Bible claims'. The creation narrative in Genesis : either "the Bible is sacred and wholly true/correct" OR "the theory of evolution is true/correct". If the Bible can be wrong about the nature of the universe (as the Church was wrong about heliocentricism during Galileo's time), then surely it can be wrong about any number of issues.

I wouldn't call Genesis "wrong", I'd just call it "describing things from a different perspective". Genesis does not purport to be a science textbook, or a 21st-century historical narrative. If you choose to remain ignorant of that perspective and the literary devices used by the divinely inspired author of Genesis, then I'm afraid you're missing out.

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#37

Post by jjaken »

lgvln wrote: post #32
jjaken wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the one example anyone ever uses and it’s way oversimplified. It’s also something that occurred 400 years ago, conducted by a church that doesn’t exist anymore (the catholics have changed a lot in 400 years and the Inquisition has been dead a long time). The argument in the OP isn’t that religion hasn’t opposed or suppressed science. It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science. While some may wie…

What lies in the heart of the Galileo's Copernican Heliocentrism argument is the Church is and can be wrong, thus challenging the authority of the Church. It is often used as an example because it is the prime example of the beginning of The Enlightenment, also known as The Age of Reason, the triumph of reason and evidence over dogma, which gave rise to modernity. > It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to s…

Depends on the dogma. For some christian sects the old testament is genuinely a fable. It isn’t necessarily the religion, or spirituality more generally, that is opposed to science or rationality, but the dogma and way the spirituality/religion is taught/practiced.

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#38

Post by andrewmcwatters »

jowea wrote: post #26
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m going to assume you’re talking about Mormonism, which isn’t a new religion unto itself. It’s a denomination. Your other examples, which are copy-pasted from other sites, are in fact, religions of syncretism. They are obviously not Abrahamic. If we created a new religion right here in this HN thread and combined Abrahamic precepts with some blend of western Buddhism and secular thought, does it make it an “Abhrami…

There are some Christians who don't recognize Mormonism or some other groups that call themselves Christian as Christians due to theological differences, mainly about the Trinity IIRC. As for Abrahamic faiths, the obvious criteria to decide if it is Abrahamic or not is to see if they claim to worship the God of Abraham, which a quick Wikipedia check indicates they all do. What criteria do you believe correct and incl…

I’m telling you that there are subjects that you should prefer domain-specific reading to in contrast to obtaining all of your information from Wikipedia.

Some of it is straight up wrong, or edited by people with particular editorial priorities.

In the case of religious readings from Wikipedia, much of it written from the secular perspective is straight up wrong. You could simply ask an educated, practicing Jew about Judaism and be more informed. They’d obviously be a practitioner anyway.

In the case of these so-called “Abrahamic” religions, the scriptures of said origin religions talk about false gods, yet some of the ones you claim believe in multiple gods. So which is it? Do you believe in the god of Abraham alone or not?

This is just a casual example of scriptural violation. It’s trivial to point this out.

You can’t be a serious scholar of faiths and consider such points of view without labeling them as syncretic religions.

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#39

Post by mrguyorama »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #38
jowea wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some Christians who don't recognize Mormonism or some other groups that call themselves Christian as Christians due to theological differences, mainly about the Trinity IIRC. As for Abrahamic faiths, the obvious criteria to decide if it is Abrahamic or not is to see if they claim to worship the God of Abraham, which a quick Wikipedia check indicates they all do. What criteria do you believe correct and incl…

I’m telling you that there are subjects that you should prefer domain-specific reading to in contrast to obtaining all of your information from Wikipedia. Some of it is straight up wrong, or edited by people with particular editorial priorities. In the case of religious readings from Wikipedia, much of it written from the secular perspective is straight up wrong. You could simply ask an educated, practicing Jew about…

>In the case of these so-called “Abrahamic” religions, the scriptures of said origin religions talk about false gods, yet some of the ones you claim believe in multiple gods. So which is it? Do you believe in the god of Abraham alone or not?

The jewish faith once had a pantheon of gods. You've "no true scottsman"ed your way into saying the jewish faith is not Abrahamic.

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#40

Post by [deleted] »

lgvln wrote: post #33
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point taken, but you have to understand that American Fundamentalism is a minor pocket of Christianity in the worldwide scheme of things. There are billions of Christians who don't believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth. Billions of us. And perhaps those Fundamentalists felt that the anti-religious atheists needed an appropriate foil. Certainly some of the noisiest people have come from both camps and made their presence…

There is a distinction between 'what Christians believe' and 'what the Bible claims'. The creation narrative in Genesis : either "the Bible is sacred and wholly true/correct" OR "the theory of evolution is true/correct". If the Bible can be wrong about the nature of the universe (as the Church was wrong about heliocentricism during Galileo's time), then surely it can be wrong about any number of issues.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN