331–340 of 344 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty arrogant and ignorant statement considering some of our best scientific discoveries were mistakes.
> some of our best scientific discoveries were mistakes Could you give a few examples?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hopefully it's clear that I know the dictionary meaning of 'atheist'. I'll expand the point I was trying to make slightly and address your use of 'faith'. In a very strict sense of the word, atheism is an assertion that there is no god/supernatural being. It is clear that this assertion is impossible to prove, only possible to prove wrong. For any god you prove does not exist it is trivial to imagine one that does an…
I'm pretty sure what you're describing is agnosticism, not atheism. It certainly doesn't describe so-called "militant atheism".
An atheist disbelieves assertions of the existence of a deity or deities and believes the burden of proof is on those who say there is a god.
An agnostic disbelieves assertions that the existence of a deity or deities has been demonstrated, but also disbelieves assertions that the nonexistence of a deity or deities has been demonstrated.
Specifically, an atheist is not saying that there is no god, just that we don't have proof for any god. A 'Strong Atheist' may go on to affirm that there are no gods at all, but that is not required for atheism.
Based on this, I think I was talking about atheism in the most part, but with a bit of agnosticism thrown in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's plenty of falsifiable evidence that suggests that adhering to religion is good for the individual, So there are positive benefits as well. There are also examples of religions doing good for humanity. To say that Newton's theology "did not influence anybody and was therefore a waste of time" is absolutely false. I remember my math teacher mentioning several of his statements and beliefs about the nature of Go…
So what are some of the important theological discoveries by Newton?
Despite his intense biblical study and belief in a creating God, Newton observed the distinction between religion and science made by Galileo: “The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.” During his presidency of the Royal Society, Newton banned any subject touching religion, even apologetics. He wrote, “We are not to introduce divine revelations into philosophy [science], nor philosophical [scientific] opinions into religion.”
Yet for Newton this distinction was not a divorce, much less a conflict. Although the books of God’s Word and his Works were not to provide the content of each other’s teachings, they were bound together. Newton did not consider one to be sacred and the other secular, nor did Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, or Pascal—all practicing Christians. Only later Enlightenment philosophy produced a model of “warfare” between science and theology.
Newton’s theology profoundly influenced his scientific method, which rejected pure speculation in favor of observations and experiments.
pg's "theology" is a strawman. Theology is nothing but a study of the implications of the historical events concerning Jesus of Nazareth, those events themselves being subject to the historical method. Either I am missing something, or pg is essentially implying some or all of the following: 1. The person of Jesus Christ did not exist in history. 2. There is insufficient information concerning him. 3. Studying the hi…
Theology is not the study of the historical Jesus. The study of the historical Jesus using the same methods as other historical research is just historical research. Theology on the other hand is the study of God and the Bible from a religious rather then historical angle. So it is a completely different subject.
Therefore, before Theology, one must first establish the historicity and details of those events according to the historical method and textual criticism (without any bias or presuppositions from naturalist philosophy). Theology then takes it from there. And really Theology is nothing more than a study of what is already there in the Bible, for the Bible is a record not just of the events themselves, but also the meaning of those events. It provides the facts and the rubric for interpreting those facts. "Theologians" never invent or bring anything to the table, which God has not already made clear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Theology is not the study of the historical Jesus. The study of the historical Jesus using the same methods as other historical research is just historical research. Theology on the other hand is the study of God and the Bible from a religious rather then historical angle. So it is a completely different subject.
No, Theology is "a study of the __implications__ of the historical events" concerning Jesus Christ, which is another way of saying it studies the meaning of the historical events concerning Jesus. If there are no historical events concerning Jesus, then Theology is a waste of time. You cannot study or know anything about God, which he has not himself already revealed in history. That's a fundamental tenet of Theology…
That is a religious viewpoint, a leap of faith. From a rational perspective, there is no reason to think God put anything special in the Bible. The Bible is a collection of texts about things people have believed, but there is no reason to think God had a hand in it anymore than in say the Quran or the Edda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you denying he had any choice in what areas of discovery to pursue? And that there were no trade-offs involved? If not, then you are stuck on semantics.
I'm not stuck on semantics, so that's the truth of the matter, whether you attempt to rationalize I am or not. Make no mistake that semantics are always important. Without the English language, neither you or I could communicate concepts here. It also allows you to attempt to reword what others are saying, but I'm not going to allow that here. When you attempt to state someone is "stuck on semantics" and that person…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For people who wonder why YC and pg are okay with some of Peter Thiel's more extreme behavior, this is why. For his "weird" behavior, yeah, probably. For some of his "other" behavior -- his support for Trump, generally; and his (very recent, and very disturbing) attemps to soft-peddle, and normalize sexual violence -- more likely it's because they lack awareness of some basic political history.
You're getting downvotes. Could you explain some of the stuff you're describing? Maybe the thinking about normalizing sexual violence?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13378029
That's what I mean by "normalizing" -- "it's no big deal, what are all these people so uptight about?" -- that whole line.
As for "basic awareness of political history", I'm referring of course to events in the 1920s and early 1930s. With respect to which it is, in my view, really, really hard not to see close parallels (despite certain differences) with the current situation. Unless, that is, one spent one's formative intellectual years going out of one's way to not become aware of certain things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For people who wonder why YC and pg are okay with some of Peter Thiel's more extreme behavior, this is why. For his "weird" behavior, yeah, probably. For some of his "other" behavior -- his support for Trump, generally; and his (very recent, and very disturbing) attemps to soft-peddle, and normalize sexual violence -- more likely it's because they lack awareness of some basic political history.
You're getting downvotes. Could you explain some of the stuff you're describing? Maybe the thinking about normalizing sexual violence?
Unless that's the only tool of "expression" they have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, Theology is "a study of the __implications__ of the historical events" concerning Jesus Christ, which is another way of saying it studies the meaning of the historical events concerning Jesus. If there are no historical events concerning Jesus, then Theology is a waste of time. You cannot study or know anything about God, which he has not himself already revealed in history. That's a fundamental tenet of Theology…
> "Theologians" never invent or bring anything to the table, which God has not already made clear. That is a religious viewpoint, a leap of faith. From a rational perspective, there is no reason to think God put anything special in the Bible. The Bible is a collection of texts about things people have believed, but there is no reason to think God had a hand in it anymore than in say the Quran or the Edda.
> "That is a religious viewpoint, a leap of faith"
No, it reflects an understanding of the scientific method, which makes no claim to have any tools or ability to study the supernatural. Or do you disagree as to the limits and scope of science? Science is limited to the study of the natural world, which includes the study of history (according to the historical method).
"From a rational perspective, there is no reason to think God put anything special in the Bible."
By logic, that is false. If, the supernatural (should it exist) wished to break into the natural world by working events and leaving information which humans could study and understand and be sure of in terms of history, then so be it, but you have no rational ability to challenge that right. Or have you already disallowed the possibility of the supernatural or precluded any ability on its part? As Paul said to Agrippa in his defence, "why would any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead?"
You do however, have the scientific ability to study history, to see if such events have not in fact taken place. History is the study of events, regardless of the "probability" of such events. Only a frequentist would hold that an event cannot happen because they themselves deem it unlikely. To the historian, events either happened or they did not.
Finally, as a corollary, it follows that there is also no scientific ability to disprove anything supernatural (as much as some naturalists would love to do), merely to prove it, and then only on the basis of its interaction with the natural world which can be studied by science. Carl Sagan would tell you the same thing.
The problem for some is that they are hampered by naturalist philosophy (as opposed to science) or frequentism, or their lifestyle or worldview, or what others think of them. As Jesus himself said to the religious Pharisees who opposed him: "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Theologians" never invent or bring anything to the table, which God has not already made clear. That is a religious viewpoint, a leap of faith. From a rational perspective, there is no reason to think God put anything special in the Bible. The Bible is a collection of texts about things people have believed, but there is no reason to think God had a hand in it anymore than in say the Quran or the Edda.
>> "Theologians" never invent or bring anything to the table, which God has not already made clear. > "That is a religious viewpoint, a leap of faith" No, it reflects an understanding of the scientific method, which makes no claim to have any tools or ability to study the supernatural. Or do you disagree as to the limits and scope of science? Science is limited to the study of the natural world, which includes the st…
History shows us many accounts of the supernatural, but we cannot believe them all, since they are contradictory. E.g. Paul claiming he saw Jesus in a vision, Mohammad claiming God told him that Jesus was not killed, legends that Alexander was the son of Zeus and so on. At least some of these accounts of the supernatural must be unreliable. It is purely an act of faith to decide to believe some and not others, since there is no scientific way to validate the claims.