17 ms·

Granted, the religious _practice_ I’m most familiar with is Christianity as it is practiced in North America. There, non-trivial numbers of people believe that

Granted, the religious _practice_ I’m most familiar with is Christianity as it is practiced in North America. There, non-trivial numbers of people believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and hold to other similar falsifiable claims. I would gladly shrug my shoulders and say “To each, his own.” But there are constant battles to present some of these views (albeit less extreme) in public school curricula. Some have ended in landmark cases before the Supreme Court. One can make the argument that science and religion occupy disparate spheres of interest, as Gould did with his “non-overlapping magisteria,” but it ignores the fact that religion as it is practiced often makes claims about material reality, claims that can be put to scientific scrutiny. The historical record is interesting, and I appreciate the details presented in TFA. But I’m concerned with the practicalities of religious practice and those of science and the “constantly-overlapping magisteria” of material claims.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Point taken, but you have to understand that American Fundamentalism is a minor pocket of Christianity in the worldwide scheme of things. There are billions of Christians who don't believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth. Billions of us. And perhaps those Fundamentalists felt that the anti-religious atheists needed an appropriate foil. Certainly some of the noisiest people have come from both camps and made their presence and beliefs known. I believe there is a silent majority on both sides that sees no conflict between science and religion, because this lack of conflict has existed for 2,000 years, and it will continue to exist, because Christianity is the source of spiritual truth, and science seeks to explain physical truths.
- defrost 3y ago
  > because Christianity is the source of spiritual truth the source? I'll give you a source (for some) .. but there are a lot of religions across the globe and Christianity is just one of several in the Abrahamic family. Fair point about Galileo though - his trial was principally due to him being a delibrately provocative giant pain in the butt to all the wrong people.
  - andrewmcwatters 3y ago
    Several? There’s Judaism and Christianity. There’s also Islam which came later, whose scriptures contradict with canonical Christian texts. Islam also exhibits religious deviation from ethnic bias. Other so-called Abrahamic religions are beliefs tossed in a blender with some of this and some of that, sometimes ethic emphasis, sometimes syncretism. But no serious reader should consider them “Abrahamic.”
    - defrost 3y ago
      Pretty sure most of Utah feels slighted by your comment. When people refer to the Abrahamic religions they are usually thinking of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. There are, in fact, more Abrahamic religions, such as the Baha’i Faith, Yezidi, Druze, Samaritan and Rastafari, ... https://www.bl.uk/sacred-texts/articles/the-abrahamic-religions https://www.bl.uk/sacred-texts/articles/the-abrahamic-religi... You're certainly entitled to your opinion just as the British Libray (above link) is entitled to theirs. It's not like serious readers bother much with the British Library. The British Library is a research library in London that is the national library of the United Kingdom. It is one of the two largest libraries in the world, along with the Library of Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Library
      - andrewmcwatters 3y ago
        I’m going to assume you’re talking about Mormonism, which isn’t a new religion unto itself. It’s a denomination. Your other examples, which are copy-pasted from other sites, are in fact, religions of syncretism. They are obviously not Abrahamic. If we created a new religion right here in this HN thread and combined Abrahamic precepts with some blend of western Buddhism and secular thought, does it make it an “Abhramic” religion? No it makes it a syncretic religion. It’s irrelevant what the size of an institution says. This is just an example of an argument from authority fallacy. You’re not making an actual point. It’s a poor reference to authority, too. If you wanted good cookware, would you go to Walmart or Williams Sonoma? Why of all places would The British Library be an institution for religious authority as compared to actual religious history schools?
- jowea 3y ago
  Depending on how the specific questions are asked there's 18% to 39% of survey respondents with some sort of young earth creationist beliefs.[0][1] That's tens of millions of people in the most powerful country in the world. And American Evangelicals seem to be doing quite a bit of evangelizing around the world. [0] https://ncse.ngo/americans-scientific-knowledge-and-beliefs-about-human-evolution-year-darwin https://ncse.ngo/americans-scientific-knowledge-and-beliefs-... [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/02/06/the-evolution-of-pew-research-centers-survey-questions-about-the-origins-and-development-of-life-on-earth/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/02/06/the-evolutio...
- lgvln 3y ago
  There is a distinction between 'what Christians believe' and 'what the Bible claims'. The creation narrative in Genesis: either "the Bible is sacred and wholly true/correct" OR "the theory of evolution is true/correct". If the Bible can be wrong about the nature of the universe (as the Church was wrong about heliocentricism during Galileo's time), then surely it can be wrong about any number of issues.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    I wouldn't call Genesis "wrong", I'd just call it "describing things from a different perspective". Genesis does not purport to be a science textbook, or a 21st-century historical narrative. If you choose to remain ignorant of that perspective and the literary devices used by the divinely inspired author of Genesis, then I'm afraid you're missing out.
    - lgvln 3y ago
      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 is at complete odds with the fields of biology, anthropology, geography, physics etc - the conclusion one should hold is: Genesis is "not wrong".
      - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
        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.
        lgvln 3y ago
        Consider me ignorant, how would you "interpret" the narrative in a way that is compatible with modern science?

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

Point taken, but you have to understand that American Fundamentalism is a minor pocket of Christianity in the worldwide scheme of things. There are billions of Christians who don't believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth. Billions of us. And perhaps those Fundamentalists felt that the anti-religious atheists needed an appropriate foil. Certainly some of the noisiest people have come from both camps and made their presence and beliefs known. I believe there is a silent majority on both sides that sees no conflict between science and religion, because this lack of conflict has existed for 2,000 years, and it will continue to exist, because Christianity is the source of spiritual truth, and science seeks to explain physical truths.

defrost 3y ago
> because Christianity is the source of spiritual truth the source? I'll give you a source (for some) .. but there are a lot of religions across the globe and Christianity is just one of several in the Abrahamic family. Fair point about Galileo though - his trial was principally due to him being a delibrately provocative giant pain in the butt to all the wrong people.
- andrewmcwatters 3y ago
  Several? There’s Judaism and Christianity. There’s also Islam which came later, whose scriptures contradict with canonical Christian texts. Islam also exhibits religious deviation from ethnic bias. Other so-called Abrahamic religions are beliefs tossed in a blender with some of this and some of that, sometimes ethic emphasis, sometimes syncretism. But no serious reader should consider them “Abrahamic.”
  - defrost 3y ago
    Pretty sure most of Utah feels slighted by your comment. When people refer to the Abrahamic religions they are usually thinking of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. There are, in fact, more Abrahamic religions, such as the Baha’i Faith, Yezidi, Druze, Samaritan and Rastafari, ... https://www.bl.uk/sacred-texts/articles/the-abrahamic-religions https://www.bl.uk/sacred-texts/articles/the-abrahamic-religi... You're certainly entitled to your opinion just as the British Libray (above link) is entitled to theirs. It's not like serious readers bother much with the British Library. The British Library is a research library in London that is the national library of the United Kingdom. It is one of the two largest libraries in the world, along with the Library of Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Library
    - andrewmcwatters 3y ago
      I’m going to assume you’re talking about Mormonism, which isn’t a new religion unto itself. It’s a denomination. Your other examples, which are copy-pasted from other sites, are in fact, religions of syncretism. They are obviously not Abrahamic. If we created a new religion right here in this HN thread and combined Abrahamic precepts with some blend of western Buddhism and secular thought, does it make it an “Abhramic” religion? No it makes it a syncretic religion. It’s irrelevant what the size of an institution says. This is just an example of an argument from authority fallacy. You’re not making an actual point. It’s a poor reference to authority, too. If you wanted good cookware, would you go to Walmart or Williams Sonoma? Why of all places would The British Library be an institution for religious authority as compared to actual religious history schools?
jowea 3y ago
Depending on how the specific questions are asked there's 18% to 39% of survey respondents with some sort of young earth creationist beliefs.[0][1] That's tens of millions of people in the most powerful country in the world. And American Evangelicals seem to be doing quite a bit of evangelizing around the world. [0] https://ncse.ngo/americans-scientific-knowledge-and-beliefs-about-human-evolution-year-darwin https://ncse.ngo/americans-scientific-knowledge-and-beliefs-... [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/02/06/the-evolution-of-pew-research-centers-survey-questions-about-the-origins-and-development-of-life-on-earth/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/02/06/the-evolutio...
lgvln 3y ago
There is a distinction between 'what Christians believe' and 'what the Bible claims'. The creation narrative in Genesis: either "the Bible is sacred and wholly true/correct" OR "the theory of evolution is true/correct". If the Bible can be wrong about the nature of the universe (as the Church was wrong about heliocentricism during Galileo's time), then surely it can be wrong about any number of issues.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  I wouldn't call Genesis "wrong", I'd just call it "describing things from a different perspective". Genesis does not purport to be a science textbook, or a 21st-century historical narrative. If you choose to remain ignorant of that perspective and the literary devices used by the divinely inspired author of Genesis, then I'm afraid you're missing out.
  - lgvln 3y ago
    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 is at complete odds with the fields of biology, anthropology, geography, physics etc - the conclusion one should hold is: Genesis is "not wrong".
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      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.
      - lgvln 3y ago
        Consider me ignorant, how would you "interpret" the narrative in a way that is compatible with modern science?