Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies • Hacker News Board

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#41

Post by mrguyorama » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 6:39 PM UTC

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…

>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.

But is this reality or just a nice narrative people like to bring up as a "all experts are wrong" dog whistle?

The Galileo thing was about politics, not religion. The pope (who was a good friend of his) gave him permission to write and publish the book, and then Galileo used an exact quote from that friend as a line from a character called "Simplicio" and it turns out spitting in your friend's face when the rest of the elites already hate you is a great way to be censured in a time before "knowledge is power".

It also wasn't scientific.

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#42

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 6:41 PM UTC

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.

> 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.

“The Bible can be wrong about any number of issues, just not, when understood properly, about faith and morals” is a not-uncommon Christian position.

That it is simple, self-contained, ibtended literally, and correct on every factual detail is... a rather novel opinion.

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#43

Post by andrewmcwatters » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 6:41 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #39

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Once had? Go tell that to an Orthodox Jew, or you know, go read what they actually believe. There is no Jewish faith, to my knowledge, that ever had multiple gods.

You're referring to Yahwism, which is a name and concept given by secular scholars trying to understand the origins of Judaism, but no such religion in-and-of-itself ever existed.

It would be like national historians grouping the histories of Canada, The United States of America, and Mexico into some sort of "Peoples of Northern America" nation, which does not exist.

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#44

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 6:43 PM UTC

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.

Note that this is a complaint Muslims, some Jews, and some others direct at the Trinity, so...

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#45

Post by lgvln » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 6:49 PM UTC

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #36

lgvln wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is what I am getting: it is simply a "matter of perspective"; despite the Bible getting the age of the planet comically wrong (~10,000 years vs ~4,500,000,000 years) , that the life did not progress as claimed (on day 5, God created the birds and sea animals; on day 6, the land animals and humans; which would mean the dinosaurs and humans roamed the planet concurrently, among other absurdities), in a way which is at complete odds with the fields of biology, anthropology, geography, physics etc - the conclusion one should hold is: Genesis is "not wrong".

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#46

Post by mrguyorama » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 6:56 PM UTC

QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #18

QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“We don’t know how rna can self replicate” implies “the creator of the universe gave birth to himself and then had himself tortured and killed and then brought back to life because the only conceivable alternative was for him to torture us all forever for being the way he made us”

Its basic deductive logic, i have no idea how atheists don’t see it

Do you regularly provide commentary to your own arguments with strangers?

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#47

Post by NoZebra120vClip » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:06 PM UTC

lgvln wrote: post #45

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is what I am getting: it is simply a "matter of perspective"; despite the Bible getting the age of the planet comically wrong (~10,000 years vs ~4,500,000,000 years) , that the life did not progress as claimed (on day 5, God created the birds and sea animals; on day 6, the land animals and humans; which would mean the dinosaurs and humans roamed the planet concurrently, among other absurdities), in a way which i…

Correct, yes, because you are wrong in trying to calculate those so-called facts based on your naïve reading of Genesis. As I said, not a science text, not a history report. If you can't interpret Sacred Scripture properly, then of course you will come to absurd conclusions.

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#48

Post by jononomo » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:06 PM UTC

kbrkbr wrote: post #34

jononomo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you. The fact that it cannot be true that "life exists and no god exists" sums up the situation perfectly.

We can determine the truth of this statement empirically due to our understanding of information science, entropy, chemistry, and physics.

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#49

Post by tnecniv » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:09 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #41

lgvln wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. But is this reality or just a nice narrative people like to bring up as a "all experts are wrong" dog whistle? The Galileo thing was about politics, not religion. The pope (who was a good friend of his) gave…

The Vatican also had real power back then, not just soft power as the head of a religion. They controlled a decent chunk of Italy outright. Galileo was also around during the Counter-Reformation when the Church dealing with the political ramifications of the rise of Protestantism, and saw his reinterpretation of the Bible as fire power for the Protestants.

Moreover, there were valid epistemological criticisms of Galileo’s theory. The scientific method and accepted standards of proof were being developed. This work was also pre-Newton, this physical laws themselves were still not well-understood. Many of his critics were skeptical because, while heliocentric theory simplified the math, Galileo hadn’t disproved geocentricism — he gave a sufficient condition for his data not a necessary one. Thus, they complained he was making claims beyond the scope of his scientific work.

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#50

Post by lgvln » Thu, Jul 06, 2023, 7:09 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #41

lgvln wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. But is this reality or just a nice narrative people like to bring up as a "all experts are wrong" dog whistle? The Galileo thing was about politics, not religion. The pope (who was a good friend of his) gave…

> But is this reality or just a nice narrative people like to bring up as a "all experts are wrong" dog whistle?

How is that even remotely related to "all experts are wrong"?

> The Galileo thing was about politics, not religion.

As I said in another comment, the Copernican heliocentric model is at odds with the Church's geocentric doctrine and the Scriptures, hence challenging the Church's and the religion's credibility and authority. To claim that the Galileo affair is simply a "personal feud" is wholly disingenuous.

> It also wasn't scientific.

Galileo used the empirical data (observation of the planets) he obtained through his telescope to test and justify the Copernican heliocentrism model - it is the definition of science.