7 ms·

"belief in supernatural powers is doomed to die out, all over the world, as a result of the increasing adequacy and diffusion of scientific knowledge" That's n

"belief in supernatural powers is doomed to die out, all over the world, as a result of the increasing adequacy and diffusion of scientific knowledge" That's not what religion is, and it's rather upsetting to see supposed 'intellectuals' with such a sad failure to grasp even the basics of metaphysics, let alone spirituality. There is no 'war' between Science and Religion. Maybe a 'war' between 'Scientists' and 'Some kinds of religious people who believe some impractical things' ... But the real debate is between 'Scientific Materialists' and 'Spiritualists' and that's a reasonable debate.

macns 9y ago
> There is no 'war' between Science and Religion. I agree. But there seems to be a war on science by religious fanatics.
- owebmaster 9y ago
  And a war on religion by science fanatics. Science is already a religion, if you ask me. There are even a lot of Messiahs: Newton, Einstein, Tesla. But also a lot of oil snake salesmen.
  - beojan 9y ago
    Atheistic (or better, anti-theistic) fanatics, not science fanatics.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    I would say that the war is between religion and philosophic materialism (or physicalism, if you prefer). Materialism is the dominant mental framework among scientists, but it is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. ("The physical universe is all that exists" is not scientifically provable, even in principle.)
- humanrebar 9y ago
  There is a war on science from fundamentalists, sure, but it's not limited to theists. Was Damore a religious fanatic? He was engaging in a rational, scientific discussion (merits of the attempt aside, that was the stated goal). What about anti-vaccine people? What about there-is-no-good-GMO people? I think it's inconsistent at best to think the biggest enemy of science is religious fanatics. In fact, the biggest enemy of science these days is bad science. Lack of replicated results, for example.
  - urahara 9y ago
    All 'anti-vaccine' and 'damorish' types I met were undereducated in one way or another. Not necessarily in terms of university education, often it was some gap in basic self-education resulting in the lack of quality reasoning or soft skills or breadth of knowledge. On the side of an average person, there are many other enemies of science like absence of intellectual honesty, sincere pursuit of truth and ability to work towards it (often combined).
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      > All 'anti-vaccine' and 'damorish' types I met were undereducated in one way or another. I wasn't saying Damore was right. I was saying people who failed to respond in rational, scientific ways were being basically anti-science.
  - macns 9y ago
    > I think it's inconsistent at best to think the biggest enemy of science is religious fanatics. In fact, the biggest enemy of science these days is bad science. Lack of replicated results, for example. Good point on "enemies of science". Note though, the quote there seems to be a war on science by religious fanatics is different than science's biggest enemy is religious fanatics. The second one complements the grandparent's view on war between science and religion which implies that there is some sort of common ground between the two; there isn't any.
beojan 9y ago
Your comment is basically the entire point of this article. There is no conflict between science and religion. There is a conflict between science and a fundamentalist straw man of religion (biblical literalism, for instance, or the Graeco-Roman pantheon). I think the conflict idea is spread mostly by those who themselves encountered the idea that science and religion are in conflict before they learned much science or much about religion, so they've internalized the idea that the two are in conflict, and everything new they learn only serves to reinforce this.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  Agreed except there isn't a problem with biblical literalism. The arguments against biblical literalism generally boil down to metaphysical or theological arguments, which are fine, but they're not scientific. I'd challenge someone to demonstrate a bible passage that cannot be true given an all-powerful God. They generally come down to "Could God make a fossil record and evolution in a 24-hour period?" I don't see why not. You don't have to think it's true, but it's logically consistent assuming an omnipotent God is possible.
  - beojan 9y ago
    The theological arguments are really much more important than the scientific ones. Genesis 6 conflicts with the basic monotheistic nature of Christianity, and means there's no real way to take Genesis literally while professing the Nicene creed (which pretty much defines Christianity).
    - oldandtired 9y ago
      In what way? Have you studied the underpinnings of the language used? Is this an interpretation based on you reading an English version of those passages? Pray tell why it undermines the monotheism of Christianity?
      - beojan 9y ago
        We're talking about taking Genesis literally. Genesis 6 uses the phrase "sons of God" which contradicts the Nicene creed which states "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God".

macns 9y ago

> There is no 'war' between Science and Religion. I agree. But there seems to be a war on science by religious fanatics.

owebmaster 9y ago
And a war on religion by science fanatics. Science is already a religion, if you ask me. There are even a lot of Messiahs: Newton, Einstein, Tesla. But also a lot of oil snake salesmen.
- beojan 9y ago
  Atheistic (or better, anti-theistic) fanatics, not science fanatics.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  I would say that the war is between religion and philosophic materialism (or physicalism, if you prefer). Materialism is the dominant mental framework among scientists, but it is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. ("The physical universe is all that exists" is not scientifically provable, even in principle.)
humanrebar 9y ago
There is a war on science from fundamentalists, sure, but it's not limited to theists. Was Damore a religious fanatic? He was engaging in a rational, scientific discussion (merits of the attempt aside, that was the stated goal). What about anti-vaccine people? What about there-is-no-good-GMO people? I think it's inconsistent at best to think the biggest enemy of science is religious fanatics. In fact, the biggest enemy of science these days is bad science. Lack of replicated results, for example.
- urahara 9y ago
  All 'anti-vaccine' and 'damorish' types I met were undereducated in one way or another. Not necessarily in terms of university education, often it was some gap in basic self-education resulting in the lack of quality reasoning or soft skills or breadth of knowledge. On the side of an average person, there are many other enemies of science like absence of intellectual honesty, sincere pursuit of truth and ability to work towards it (often combined).
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > All 'anti-vaccine' and 'damorish' types I met were undereducated in one way or another. I wasn't saying Damore was right. I was saying people who failed to respond in rational, scientific ways were being basically anti-science.
- macns 9y ago
  > I think it's inconsistent at best to think the biggest enemy of science is religious fanatics. In fact, the biggest enemy of science these days is bad science. Lack of replicated results, for example. Good point on "enemies of science". Note though, the quote there seems to be a war on science by religious fanatics is different than science's biggest enemy is religious fanatics. The second one complements the grandparent's view on war between science and religion which implies that there is some sort of common ground between the two; there isn't any.

beojan 9y ago

Your comment is basically the entire point of this article. There is no conflict between science and religion. There is a conflict between science and a fundamentalist straw man of religion (biblical literalism, for instance, or the Graeco-Roman pantheon). I think the conflict idea is spread mostly by those who themselves encountered the idea that science and religion are in conflict before they learned much science or much about religion, so they've internalized the idea that the two are in conflict, and everything new they learn only serves to reinforce this.

humanrebar 9y ago
Agreed except there isn't a problem with biblical literalism. The arguments against biblical literalism generally boil down to metaphysical or theological arguments, which are fine, but they're not scientific. I'd challenge someone to demonstrate a bible passage that cannot be true given an all-powerful God. They generally come down to "Could God make a fossil record and evolution in a 24-hour period?" I don't see why not. You don't have to think it's true, but it's logically consistent assuming an omnipotent God is possible.
- beojan 9y ago
  The theological arguments are really much more important than the scientific ones. Genesis 6 conflicts with the basic monotheistic nature of Christianity, and means there's no real way to take Genesis literally while professing the Nicene creed (which pretty much defines Christianity).
  - oldandtired 9y ago
    In what way? Have you studied the underpinnings of the language used? Is this an interpretation based on you reading an English version of those passages? Pray tell why it undermines the monotheism of Christianity?
    - beojan 9y ago
      We're talking about taking Genesis literally. Genesis 6 uses the phrase "sons of God" which contradicts the Nicene creed which states "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God".