5 ms·
God of the Gaps: How the Supernatural Explains What We Can’t
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- swader999 3y agoWe defer to miracles in science too. The basic assumptions on the fundamental axioms require faith. Try to really grok the double slit, delayed choice quantum eraser experiment for a fun rabbit hole.
- wredue 3y ago>We defer to miracles in science too No we don’t. You’re overloading different definitions of “miracle” to feel better about a bad position. A miracle is science is an unlikely or unexpected result, something which is then followed by further investigation. A miracle in religion is an event influenced by the supernatural. Does it not get tiring making arguments like “Well, it’s the same word!!!!!1!1!1!1!1!”?
- greenpizza13 3y agoNot faith in the religious sense, no. I get the sense you are overloading the term to make a false equivalence to bolster religious faith as valid. It’s not. Faith in science, even basic assumptions on fundamental axioms, is grounded in reality .
- za3faran 3y ago> Faith in science, even basic assumptions on fundamental axioms, is grounded in reality . So is faith in established, proven, and documented religious materials with a chain of narration (Isnad in Arabic).
- Supermancho 3y ago> I get the sense you are overloading the term to make a false equivalence to bolster religious faith I think this is a poor argument. It's swinging the "no true scotsman" because it's convenient to what you want to define. Faith in science and faith in another religion is not a false equivalence. Religion is the poorly defined term. Science fits well within it. Ironically, this is a common holy war on HN.
- PrimeMcFly 3y agoA faith that stems from knowledge and a tradition of rigor is quite different from a faith that stems from indoctrination or a desire for there to be some kind of greater meaning to life.
- tivert 3y ago> A faith that stems from knowledge and a tradition of rigor is quite different from a faith that stems from indoctrination or a desire for there to be some kind of greater meaning to life. You're making a false (and biased) distinction. You almost certainly have been indoctrinated into valuing the thing you label "rigor," and your faith in it stems from that indoctrination. Your position is just an obscured version of "my gods are the true ones, and all others are false or inferior, because my gods are mine."
- Supermancho 3y agoIt's a way of drawing a new line in the sand. There are plenty of religions that don't have indoctrination (all have rituals) or a desire to find a greater meaning. eg Abrahamic religions don't promote a search for greater meaning.
- PrimeMcFly 3y agoAlmost all people are religious because they were indoctrinated into it as kids.
- swader999 3y agoReality...
- alienicecream 3y agoFaith in science is actually worse. At least religious faith dares to tell you something and asks that you have faith in it. Science tells you this is what is for the time being, until we know better, and there is no guarantee that we won't reach a limit to knowledge that we will not be able to pierce. With science you can count on one thing: you'll die before you know the fundamental truth.
- wredue 3y ago>with science you can count on one thing: you’ll die before you know the fundamental truth Now that’s a hilariously ironic take within a comment declaring religious faiths (belief absent evidence, meaning it’s impossible to “know its true”) superiority. That science tries not to deal in absolutes is a feature, not a bug. You’re looking at the pursuit of knowledge from an entirely incorrect perspective.
- Detrytus 3y agoI think "dark matter" bullshit is a good example of that: you create mathematical model of the universe, but the reality does not match predictions of your model, so what do you do? You invent "dark matter". Now tell me: how is this any different than claiming that you have invisible, untouchable dragon hanging out in your garage? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage
- xboxnolifes 3y ago> Now tell me: how is this any different than claiming that you have invisible, untouchable dragon hanging out in your garage? Dark matter is the exact opposite of this. Dark matter is a term used because we don't understand it. It's a place-in for "matter that doesn't match our existing understanding of matter". People aren't embracing it's existence. They are trying to figure out what it is, and why do our current models not account for it properly.
- PrimeMcFly 3y agoOne is a hypothesis that will be tested and either verified or dismissed based on evidence, the other is fantasy that can never be falsified.
- swader999 3y agoYou can look at the data on NDE. The aware studies are interesting. Then there's remote viewing and CIA notes on those things that point to interesting research. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5.pdf https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R0017002... And the missing page in the above doc: https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7e4g3/found-page-25-of-the-cias-gateway-report-on-astral-projection https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7e4g3/found-page-25-of-the-... Going out of body is fairly easy to do as well.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago> You can look at the data on NDE. The aware studies are interesting. If it's possible and testable and reproducible, then it falls under the umbrella of science. So I don't see how it's special in any way. The dragon example consciously resists any attempt to test it at every turn, which is not true of NDE.
- klysm 3y agoUsing the word miracle suggests the fundamental axioms we have to hold are not likely
- ndsipa_pomu 3y agoI don't think that "miracle" is the correct word to use with science as by design, the experiments should be reproducible, whereas a miracle is surely an unique event. The use of statistical methods to eliminate chance events would surely eliminate miracles too. However, certainly there's elements of belief involved with the underlying explanations of scientific phenomena, but there's also a push to try to reduce the number of things that scientist are required to take on faith. There's also more reliance on equations rather than the interpretation of why experiments agree with the equations - the "shut up and calculate" approach. It's interesting when people try to figure out experiments that can rule out certain beliefs, such as the Bell inequality. An important point though is that failing experiments can rule out certain options too, whereas a failed religious experience may be explained away by any number of reasons ("God moves in mysterious ways").
- user3939382 3y agoThe premise of the article is atheism. > We can discover where religion comes from by examining x i.e. religion doesn’t come from God or our soul.
- manicennui 3y agoThere is a big difference between not understanding something and believing that there might be some kind of power that we don't yet understand and deciding that because we don't understand something that a bunch of unrelated made up shit must be true.
- za3faran 3y agoThere's also the fallacy that assumes these are the only two available alternatives.
- moribvndvs 3y agoThere’s also a big difference in having faith to find aspiration, direction, and strength versus using it to abrogate responsibility or rationalize bad behavior. For example, praying for god to fix your problems rather than using the gifts they ostensibly gave you to solve them yourself, or not stopping doing the thing that is causing the problem to begin with. Or evading responsibility for things you do that cause suffering, misery, and harm because it’s somehow god’s will.
- za3faran 3y agoIn Islam, we are taught to both to utilize reasoning and causes (الأخذ بالأسباب), as well as to supplicate and ask God for assistance. The two are not mutually exclusive, but necessary and complementary.