3 ms·

> saying basically that no scientific truth can be an argument for or against any spiritual claim. This is an agument for "NOMA" or Non Overlapping Magisteria.

> saying basically that no scientific truth can be an argument for or against any spiritual claim. This is an agument for "NOMA" or Non Overlapping Magisteria. While this is true in the abstract pure Deist standpoint, it's not true for most religions or supernatural belief systems. All Abrahamic regions (for example) make specific claims about the nature of reality that is in direct conflict with science.

labster 8y ago
The degree to which practitioners of Abrahamic religions believe best guess scientific claims from thousands of years ago varies, of course.
- mgamache 8y ago
  True... However, 38% of Americans still hold a Creationist View of Humans https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-... [2017]
- d0lph 8y ago
  And also, in some scenarios people mock the bible for calling a whale a fish in the story of Jonah, when a whale is a mammal. However the people of the time did not distinguish animals like we do. We only started classifying animals like that in the 1800s.
  - 79357423 8y ago
    If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13) So where are we misinterpreting this one?
  - Viliam1234 8y ago
    I suppose before the 1800s whales were also able to swallow humans. /s
    - thedailymail 8y ago
      A sperm whale could theoretically swallow an adult human, but it is very doubtful that this has ever actually happened. http://www.whalefacts.org/can-whales-swallow-people/ http://www.whalefacts.org/can-whales-swallow-people/
DSingularity 8y ago
Are we sure that the religious texts themselves make the claims about reality. Is it instead incorrect physical interpretations by followers of the religion of the religious text?
- 79357423 8y ago
  We're sure.

labster 8y ago

The degree to which practitioners of Abrahamic religions believe best guess scientific claims from thousands of years ago varies, of course.

mgamache 8y ago
True... However, 38% of Americans still hold a Creationist View of Humans https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-... [2017]
d0lph 8y ago
And also, in some scenarios people mock the bible for calling a whale a fish in the story of Jonah, when a whale is a mammal. However the people of the time did not distinguish animals like we do. We only started classifying animals like that in the 1800s.
- 79357423 8y ago
  If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13) So where are we misinterpreting this one?
- Viliam1234 8y ago
  I suppose before the 1800s whales were also able to swallow humans. /s
  - thedailymail 8y ago
    A sperm whale could theoretically swallow an adult human, but it is very doubtful that this has ever actually happened. http://www.whalefacts.org/can-whales-swallow-people/ http://www.whalefacts.org/can-whales-swallow-people/

DSingularity 8y ago

Are we sure that the religious texts themselves make the claims about reality. Is it instead incorrect physical interpretations by followers of the religion of the religious text?

79357423 8y ago
We're sure.