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

51–60 of 77 posts

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#51

Post by tnecniv »

jjaken wrote: post #37
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…

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.

That’s what they taught us in Catholic school as a kid. The Old Testament was a combination of parables and oral history before eventually being recorded. Moreover, we were taught that part of the significance of the Crucifixion was that it was to establish a new pact between humans and God, hence Jesus doing away with the old rules and commandments and Jesus commanding that the faith be spread beyond ethnic Jews.

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#52

Post by lgvln »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #47
lgvln wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Consider me ignorant, how would you "interpret" the narrative in a way that is compatible with modern science?

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#53

Post by andrewmcwatters »

dragonwriter wrote: post #44
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. Note that this is a complaint Muslims, some Jews, and some others direct at the Trinity, so...

Sure, but the Trinity isn’t multiple gods.

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#54

Post by jjaken »

tnecniv wrote: post #51
jjaken wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s what they taught us in Catholic school as a kid. The Old Testament was a combination of parables and oral history before eventually being recorded. Moreover, we were taught that part of the significance of the Crucifixion was that it was to establish a new pact between humans and God, hence Jesus doing away with the old rules and commandments and Jesus commanding that the faith be spread beyond ethnic Jews.

Yup. I’m not catholic anymore but it’s what I was taught too.

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#55

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

lgvln wrote: post #52
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Consider me ignorant, how would you "interpret" the narrative in a way that is compatible with modern science?

That's not a goal of interpretation. You don't start by saying "let me make this compatible with 'modern science', whatever that is." Its chief literary genre is allegory, if that helps.

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#56

Post by dragonwriter »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #53
dragonwriter wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Sure, but the Trinity isn’t multiple gods.

Well, yeah, that's what Christians claiming to be Abrahamic monotheists claim.

Non-Christian Abrahamic monotheists often strenuously disagree.

EDIT: to be clear, I am a Christian and believe the Trinity isn't multiple Gods (and neither is, say, the veneration of saints.) But I am also not gatekeeping clearly Abrahamic-in-descent faiths from the Abrahamic family tree on the basis of whether or not they posit the existence of entities that I consider incompatible with monotheism (both because “monotheism” is a separate descriptor from Abrahamic, and because evaluated monotheism is slippery.)

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#57

Post by lgvln »

tnecniv wrote: post #49
mrguyorama wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 Gali…

> 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.

That is incorrect. Galileo observed that Venus had phases despite remaining near the Sun as observed from Earth, which proves that Venus revolves the Sun, not the Earth, hence refutes the geocentric model. His discovery of the moons revolving Jupiter further refutes the geocentric model, that not everything in the sky revolves around Earth.

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#58

Post by tnecniv »

lgvln wrote: post #30
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's not really how it happened. Don't forget that Galileo spilled a lot of ink in order to deliberately mock and humiliate the Holy Father at the time. His trial and sentence were not so much about his science than about his lousy attitude toward legitimate authority. There were other scientists who adhered to the Copernican perspective (Copernicus himself is a Roman Catholic priest) without so much trouble.

> His trial and sentence were not so much about his science than about his lousy attitude toward legitimate authority References? The charge of heresy is for heretic views, such as the Copernican heliocentric model in his case. It threatens to upend the authority of the Church; if the Church can be wrong about the nature of the universe then surely they can be wrong about other matters as well. His Dialogues remain b…

The Wikipedia article [0] has a detailed discussion of the political elements as well as valid scientific criticisms of his work.

Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made: offering a sufficient condition for an occurrence does not prove that this condition caused the event. Him being tried and convicted of heresy doesn’t mean that his trial wasn’t politically motivated. Despots make up charges for political enemies constantly throughout history and heresy was an obvious choice

The Pope had been a fan and political ally of his within the church even before his ascension, and Galileo didn’t just disregard his request for a discussion of geocentric theory but did so in a way that specifically called him an idiot and undermined his authority. The Pope, who was essentially the ruler of central Italy, couldn’t let that public ridicule slide whether or not Galileo intended it (historians think the slights were unintentional). This led to his second trial for heresy for which he was convicted.

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

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#59

Post by lgvln »

lgvln wrote: post #52
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Consider me ignorant, how would you "interpret" the narrative in a way that is compatible with modern science?

> That's not a goal of interpretation. You don't start by saying "let me make this compatible with 'modern science', whatever that is." Its chief literary genre is allegory, if that helps.

Perfect. To summarise: the genesis creation narrative can never be wrong. It is an allegorical narrative with no factual value. Despite having no factual value, one can be mistaken about it. The burden of proof lies not with the claimant but the dissenter, if they can overcome their "false perspective", ignorance or naivety that is.

Re: Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies

#60

Post by lgvln »

tnecniv wrote: post #58
lgvln wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His trial and sentence were not so much about his science than about his lousy attitude toward legitimate authority References? The charge of heresy is for heretic views, such as the Copernican heliocentric model in his case. It threatens to upend the authority of the Church; if the Church can be wrong about the nature of the universe then surely they can be wrong about other matters as well. His Dialogues remain b…

The Wikipedia article [0] has a detailed discussion of the political elements as well as valid scientific criticisms of his work. Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made: offering a sufficient condition for an occurrence does not prove that this condition caused the event. Him being tried and convicted of heresy doesn’t mean that his trial wasn’t politically motivated. De…

> The Wikipedia article [0] has a detailed discussion of the political elements

I am not denying that there were political factors in play. I am saying that the main factor in play was his dissent against the Church.

> valid scientific criticisms of his work. Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made

There is a distinction between 'evidence that refutes the geocentric model' and 'evidence that supports the Copernican heliocentric model'.

While the technology available did not allow him conclusively proof the Copernican heliocentric model (there were also issues with the model), the evidence he had strongly refuted the central thesis of the geocentric model - that Earth is the center of the universe and everything in the sky resolves around Earth. That lead him to advocate for the Copernican heliocentric model, inference to the best explanation.

Galileo observed that Venus had phases despite remaining near the Sun in Earth's sky, which proves that Venus revolves the Sun, not the Earth, hence refutes the geocentric model. His discovery of the moons revolving Jupiter further refutes the geocentric model, that not everything in the sky revolves around Earth. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Copernican_sy...

Post reply on HN