4 ms·

I feel like a bit of a dick pointing this out, but I think everyone should realize this magazine (as well as Nautil.us by the way) is funded by the Templeton Fo

I feel like a bit of a dick pointing this out, but I think everyone should realize this magazine (as well as Nautil.us by the way) is funded by the Templeton Foundation, which has quite a strong focus on religion (eh, sorry, "the intersection of religion and science"). On the one hand I feel it shouldn't really matter and we can all judge an article by its contents, but on the other hand some of the articles that show up here are really just a religious wolf in a scientific sheep's clothing, and I don't think many here would give them more than 2 seconds of their day if they knew this upfront.

acqq 6y ago
Yes, and with that attitude they and the people that write for them to match the agenda aren't different from the producer of "Ancient Aliens" who has a very specific agenda: to train the viewers to not believe the science (1) and "look for God", in his own words: "It’s really a show about looking for God. Science would have you believe we are the result of nothing more than a chance assemblage of matter. The real truth is we don’t know." It's one thing to positively promote your beliefs, what's from a humanistic point very wrong is intentionally sowing confusion and spreading doubt in what is already known (and demotivating people to even attempt to learn something right). Time and again we see how the people eventually suffer from such actions. Also, "If Life Were Only Like This" (2) I wish I could pull Thomas Kuhn to every writer who mentions him around just to promote his own agenda: "I heard what you're saying, you know nothing of my work, how you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing." 1) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/style/ancient-aliens.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/style/ancient-aliens.html 2) https://www.openculture.com/2017/05/woody-allen-gets-marshall-mcluhan-to-put-a-pontificating-professor-in-his-place.html https://www.openculture.com/2017/05/woody-allen-gets-marshal...
- paganel 6y ago
  > The real truth is we don’t know I'm an agnostic person but isn't that the present (scientific) consensus right now? That doesn't necessarily mean that there was a "God" that was behind of it all, but I was left with the impression that the whole "everything happened by chance and chance only" discussion was more common 15-20 years ago compared to now, when we have other agnostic people seriously proposing the "we live in a simulation" theory or the "multiverse/multi-world" theories, both options which are not necessarily random (especially the "simulation" one). Just to make clear, I'm no scientist and I didn't follow this conversation ("what are the origins of the world/universe?") that closely because I don't find it to be that interesting, so if I'm talking non-sense maybe some other more knowledgeable people can correct me.
  - acqq 6y ago
    We do know that what all famous religions promote is a complete nonsense, as in, what's in the religious books which claim to be fundamental truth just isn't scientific, but instead matches exactly what the humans of the times in which the books were written understood about the world around them. But the humanity learned much more since then. And it's not a new phenomenon. As the American continent was discovered by Europeans, with all the vegetables never before seen in Europe, it was already completely obvious that the world as described in the "holy" texts doesn't match the facts. America just doesn't exist in the Bible or in Koran, and neither do most of the products we eat today. (2) And then the Mormons, being in America, filled that gap with their "newer" "holy" text again delivered by an angel. It's so completely not fitting what we scientifically know that the detractors can't argue at that level at all, trying instead to place their god in the "gaps" (1) which became immensely smaller as the scientific knowledge progressed. The spreaders of doubt can't increase the "gaps" the science already narrowed down, but work day and night to increase the number of people whose own perception of the world around them has bigger gaps, especially by maintaining the false associations in their minds ("when you hear this think instead about that"). That's doable and that's good enough for them. But it's bad for humanity. That's how we have people drinking bleach and spreading such ideas to others. They just remain confused and demotivated to learn consistently ("we should doubt everything especially the science"). And by the same principles, we get the text we all comment here and your response too, hanging exactly to these words. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps 2) https://www.britannica.com/list/18-food-crops-developed-in-the-americas https://www.britannica.com/list/18-food-crops-developed-in-t... -- there's no: beans, corn (maize), peanut, peppers, potato, sunflower or tomato in the Bible and, of course, no American continent. Both in the Bible and in the Koran the Earth is flat, under the solid firmament (the original word meant something like "the thinly beaten firm dome" as the metal bowls were made) to which the stars are attached. In Koran, moreover, the "god" shoots the devils with the shooting stars. Edit: a response to the "god is unknown" reply: yes, "god" can be "unknown", and I agree that those who argue should first precisely define their "god", what is however known is that whatever the religious books tell you that god is -- just can't be true, and the stories are on the level of simple child stories, from the today's perspective. My definition therefore is "all the appearances and acts of god in the holy texts." If you are ready to throw away everything in the "holy" texts and still believe in "something" that is not against what is already scientifically known, I surely have no problem with that. But a jealous god demanding a firstborn son to be ritually sacrificed, or sending bears to maul children who mocked his prophet, or sacrificing himself on the cross in spite of being almighty and being able to do any simpler intervention, or giving exclusive prophecies to an illiterate caravan robber allowing him to have as many wives as he wants and commanding him to kill all unbelievers? Forgetaboutit.
ceilingcorner 6y ago
Religion and science are not, and have never been, antagonists in any real sense.
- tikej 6y ago
  This is maybe (but it’s heavy maybe) true for the ideas of religion and science. In reality religious institutions and people opposed and still oppose science and scientific freedom due to their beliefs. Of course other groups of people also do this, but there is a correlation between religion and science opposition (E.g. creationism is heavily tied to Christian religion). The more science explains the further religion is pushed back.
  - dawg- 6y ago
    I disagree, in fact the history of science and religious institutions dates back to the very beginning of science. Gregor Mendel, father of modern day Genetics, a Catholic monk. Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest who came up with the Big Bang Theory. Look at all the scientific work of the Jesuits, their big research universities, etc. There are countless examples of groundbreaking science coming from religious institutions - and this is just from one world religion that I am most familiar with. Many Islamic and Jewish scholars have also been scientists. These deeply religious people believe that naturalistic observations can get us closer to the ultimate truth of God. There is no purely empirical argument that can be made to refute that worldview - you must turn to philosophy and contend in that arena.
    - tikej 6y ago
      Maybe it’s the other way? They were scholars in societies/groups s that were religious. Also you didn’t mentioned cases of Galileo, Copernicus, Bacon, Ockham, Giordano Bruno and countless other punished for merely presenting views other than official provided by religion. I’m not saying that religious people can’t contribute to science. Everyone can. It doesn’t change the fact, that in science, contrarily to religion, (besides maybe scientific method) there are no views that are not refutable and cannot change provided enough evidence.
naringas 6y ago
a lot of what goes by as 'science' is really just religion with a "this is not religion" facade. (for example all 'science' with a "replication problem"). At the core, both religious people as well as scientific people just want certainty of whatever they believe (also known as 'the truth'). They just go about it in different ways.
- tikej 6y ago
  > At the core, both religious people as well as scientific people just want certainty of whatever they believe (also known as 'the truth'). They just go about it in different ways. There is a tiny difference that you don’t seem to mention. While everyone would like to be right, science people change their views provided with evidence that they are wrong, while religious people don’t, they have dogmas. If someone doesn’t change they only claim to be “scientific people”. Sure, if science is non-replicable than it can’t and shouldn’t be called science. It bothers me too about social sciences and psychology, but the problem in this disciplines is that objects of their study are extremely complicated.
- acqq 6y ago
  Behind claims of the "replication problem" are different phenomena, and some claims there are themselves more wrong than some other. Specifically, one specific person who made his name of claiming "replication problem" as bigger than his peers believed later himself obviously proved to be a tool in promoting unsupported claims under a disguise of scientific work: John Ioannidis, who accepted money from a billionaire to publicly claim, and even write papers, that the pandemics will be magically over in no time. On another side, there are surely known problems in social "sciences" (which by definition aren't those which establish "hard" physical, chemical or biologic facts, but which can surely be helped by these facts and by the tools developed in the "harder" sciences) but the problems there existed since these areas of study existed and some are inherent to them.

acqq 6y ago

Yes, and with that attitude they and the people that write for them to match the agenda aren't different from the producer of "Ancient Aliens" who has a very specific agenda: to train the viewers to not believe the science (1) and "look for God", in his own words: "It’s really a show about looking for God. Science would have you believe we are the result of nothing more than a chance assemblage of matter. The real truth is we don’t know." It's one thing to positively promote your beliefs, what's from a humanistic point very wrong is intentionally sowing confusion and spreading doubt in what is already known (and demotivating people to even attempt to learn something right). Time and again we see how the people eventually suffer from such actions. Also, "If Life Were Only Like This" (2) I wish I could pull Thomas Kuhn to every writer who mentions him around just to promote his own agenda: "I heard what you're saying, you know nothing of my work, how you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing." 1) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/style/ancient-aliens.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/style/ancient-aliens.html 2) https://www.openculture.com/2017/05/woody-allen-gets-marshall-mcluhan-to-put-a-pontificating-professor-in-his-place.html https://www.openculture.com/2017/05/woody-allen-gets-marshal...

paganel 6y ago
> The real truth is we don’t know I'm an agnostic person but isn't that the present (scientific) consensus right now? That doesn't necessarily mean that there was a "God" that was behind of it all, but I was left with the impression that the whole "everything happened by chance and chance only" discussion was more common 15-20 years ago compared to now, when we have other agnostic people seriously proposing the "we live in a simulation" theory or the "multiverse/multi-world" theories, both options which are not necessarily random (especially the "simulation" one). Just to make clear, I'm no scientist and I didn't follow this conversation ("what are the origins of the world/universe?") that closely because I don't find it to be that interesting, so if I'm talking non-sense maybe some other more knowledgeable people can correct me.
- acqq 6y ago
  We do know that what all famous religions promote is a complete nonsense, as in, what's in the religious books which claim to be fundamental truth just isn't scientific, but instead matches exactly what the humans of the times in which the books were written understood about the world around them. But the humanity learned much more since then. And it's not a new phenomenon. As the American continent was discovered by Europeans, with all the vegetables never before seen in Europe, it was already completely obvious that the world as described in the "holy" texts doesn't match the facts. America just doesn't exist in the Bible or in Koran, and neither do most of the products we eat today. (2) And then the Mormons, being in America, filled that gap with their "newer" "holy" text again delivered by an angel. It's so completely not fitting what we scientifically know that the detractors can't argue at that level at all, trying instead to place their god in the "gaps" (1) which became immensely smaller as the scientific knowledge progressed. The spreaders of doubt can't increase the "gaps" the science already narrowed down, but work day and night to increase the number of people whose own perception of the world around them has bigger gaps, especially by maintaining the false associations in their minds ("when you hear this think instead about that"). That's doable and that's good enough for them. But it's bad for humanity. That's how we have people drinking bleach and spreading such ideas to others. They just remain confused and demotivated to learn consistently ("we should doubt everything especially the science"). And by the same principles, we get the text we all comment here and your response too, hanging exactly to these words. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps 2) https://www.britannica.com/list/18-food-crops-developed-in-the-americas https://www.britannica.com/list/18-food-crops-developed-in-t... -- there's no: beans, corn (maize), peanut, peppers, potato, sunflower or tomato in the Bible and, of course, no American continent. Both in the Bible and in the Koran the Earth is flat, under the solid firmament (the original word meant something like "the thinly beaten firm dome" as the metal bowls were made) to which the stars are attached. In Koran, moreover, the "god" shoots the devils with the shooting stars. Edit: a response to the "god is unknown" reply: yes, "god" can be "unknown", and I agree that those who argue should first precisely define their "god", what is however known is that whatever the religious books tell you that god is -- just can't be true, and the stories are on the level of simple child stories, from the today's perspective. My definition therefore is "all the appearances and acts of god in the holy texts." If you are ready to throw away everything in the "holy" texts and still believe in "something" that is not against what is already scientifically known, I surely have no problem with that. But a jealous god demanding a firstborn son to be ritually sacrificed, or sending bears to maul children who mocked his prophet, or sacrificing himself on the cross in spite of being almighty and being able to do any simpler intervention, or giving exclusive prophecies to an illiterate caravan robber allowing him to have as many wives as he wants and commanding him to kill all unbelievers? Forgetaboutit.

ceilingcorner 6y ago

Religion and science are not, and have never been, antagonists in any real sense.

tikej 6y ago
This is maybe (but it’s heavy maybe) true for the ideas of religion and science. In reality religious institutions and people opposed and still oppose science and scientific freedom due to their beliefs. Of course other groups of people also do this, but there is a correlation between religion and science opposition (E.g. creationism is heavily tied to Christian religion). The more science explains the further religion is pushed back.
- dawg- 6y ago
  I disagree, in fact the history of science and religious institutions dates back to the very beginning of science. Gregor Mendel, father of modern day Genetics, a Catholic monk. Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest who came up with the Big Bang Theory. Look at all the scientific work of the Jesuits, their big research universities, etc. There are countless examples of groundbreaking science coming from religious institutions - and this is just from one world religion that I am most familiar with. Many Islamic and Jewish scholars have also been scientists. These deeply religious people believe that naturalistic observations can get us closer to the ultimate truth of God. There is no purely empirical argument that can be made to refute that worldview - you must turn to philosophy and contend in that arena.
  - tikej 6y ago
    Maybe it’s the other way? They were scholars in societies/groups s that were religious. Also you didn’t mentioned cases of Galileo, Copernicus, Bacon, Ockham, Giordano Bruno and countless other punished for merely presenting views other than official provided by religion. I’m not saying that religious people can’t contribute to science. Everyone can. It doesn’t change the fact, that in science, contrarily to religion, (besides maybe scientific method) there are no views that are not refutable and cannot change provided enough evidence.

naringas 6y ago

a lot of what goes by as 'science' is really just religion with a "this is not religion" facade. (for example all 'science' with a "replication problem"). At the core, both religious people as well as scientific people just want certainty of whatever they believe (also known as 'the truth'). They just go about it in different ways.

tikej 6y ago
> At the core, both religious people as well as scientific people just want certainty of whatever they believe (also known as 'the truth'). They just go about it in different ways. There is a tiny difference that you don’t seem to mention. While everyone would like to be right, science people change their views provided with evidence that they are wrong, while religious people don’t, they have dogmas. If someone doesn’t change they only claim to be “scientific people”. Sure, if science is non-replicable than it can’t and shouldn’t be called science. It bothers me too about social sciences and psychology, but the problem in this disciplines is that objects of their study are extremely complicated.
acqq 6y ago
Behind claims of the "replication problem" are different phenomena, and some claims there are themselves more wrong than some other. Specifically, one specific person who made his name of claiming "replication problem" as bigger than his peers believed later himself obviously proved to be a tool in promoting unsupported claims under a disguise of scientific work: John Ioannidis, who accepted money from a billionaire to publicly claim, and even write papers, that the pandemics will be magically over in no time. On another side, there are surely known problems in social "sciences" (which by definition aren't those which establish "hard" physical, chemical or biologic facts, but which can surely be helped by these facts and by the tools developed in the "harder" sciences) but the problems there existed since these areas of study existed and some are inherent to them.