7 ms·

> In the last 100 years especially, religious people have grown anti-science, largely because we see science growing increasingly atheistic. If I may have a mo

by Kalium 12y ago

> In the last 100 years especially, religious people have grown anti-science, largely because we see science growing increasingly atheistic. If I may have a moment? I want to discuss this comment. For a very long time, many people rooted their faith in mystery. Nobody knows how the weather works, therefore God does it. That sort of thinking was very commonplace. Science has always been "atheistic" in that God has never been a coherent part of any scientific system. It's difficult to account for an uncontrollable and omnipotent force, after all. Nothing there has changed in centuries. What has changed in that science has advanced enough to pull away the mysteries that used to be attributed to God. Ever hear the phrase "God of the gaps"? For a lot of people, that was - and is - how they understand God. Anything they didn't understand, that was God. Science was just something those rich eggheads did. Over time, it became possible to see the material world in which we live as comprised of matter and energy that are governed by natural laws. It was no longer necessary to see God in everything you didn't understand. The human body wasn't divinely created in its current form, we're the product of millennia of evolution. To a great many people, whose primary understanding of divinity is that of a God of the gaps, knowledge and faith are fundamentally incompatible. If they acquired knowledge, the unknowns on which their faith rests will vanish and their faith be shaken. I suppose this is a very long-winded way of saying that I don't perceive science as becoming more atheistic over time. I perceive religion as being in a slow, painful retreat from territory it never should have occupied.

arethuza 12y ago
“Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end to divine things.” - Hippocrates.
cscurmudgeon 12y ago
"God of the gaps" is one big straw man argument. Lots of religious philosophies don't even have a place for God directly acting in the world. Evolution is again a straw man argument. Lots of religions accept it. Ever hear of Gödel's rigorous ontological argument? http://mally.stanford.edu/Papers/ontological-computational.pdf http://mally.stanford.edu/Papers/ontological-computational.p... Science is the not end of it all. Science rests on logic and rational thought. What would be the scientific experiment for validating the scientific method? My point is that arguing against simple-minded religious folks is easy. But nobody has come up with any serious objections to arguments like those coming from Kurt Gödel and the like. I am not holding my breath! :)
- Kalium 12y ago
  It's a giant straw man from end to end, yes. Yet it's also how many of the lay population conceive of divinity.
  - cscurmudgeon 12y ago
    I have to agree that most lay conceptions of divinity can't stand much scrutiny.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  But nobody has come up with any serious objections to arguments like those coming from Kurt Gödel and the like. Reality is measured by evidence, not arguments.
  - cscurmudgeon 12y ago
    So math is not real? (So if science uses something imaginary, why is it better than religion?) I should have been more clear. By "argument", I mean't rock solid logical proof from axioms. (This is more of a logician's term.) I will show you a neat simple trick used in introductory logic classes. "Reality is measured by evidence, not arguments." What is the truth value (or probability of being true) of that sentence? Where is the physical data for that?
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      What is Godel's argument that proves Jesus was born to a virgin and came back to life?
      - cscurmudgeon 12y ago
        Straw man. As I said nobody is saying that is true. I don't believe in Christianity. Probably Godel didn't too.
        12y ago
A_COMPUTER 12y ago
In my opinion the difference between then and now is that now you have a contingent of scientists that actively promote the position that you cannot simultaneously be both religious and a scientist. I understand the positive goals they are trying to achieve, but I don't think they are considering the ways it can be counterproductive to their cause. I don't think you can do anything about fundamentalist Christians, but I wonder how many people were pushed into fundamentalism because something less extreme was still treated with utter contempt.
- Kalium 12y ago
  The people you refer to would cite the ineffectualness of the moderate positions to which you appeal. Their position is based in part on the notion that the less extreme approaches have failed utterly.
dcre 12y ago
I appreciate the clarity with which you've articulated your understanding of religion, but I disagree with almost everything you've said. Since the disagreement is not really about facts, but rather attitude or orientation, it might be pretty hard for me get you to see it from my perspective, but I'll try. Here's the main idea: you see a fundamental gap between science and religion that in the past simply did not exist. > Ever hear the phrase "God of the gaps"? For a lot of people, that was - and is - how they understand God. This may be true of many people today, but it is an essentially modern understanding of God that cannot have been held by anyone before the Renaissance. Before the scientific worldview existed, there simply were no gaps for God to reside in. What did God mean to people then? Richard Tarnas's The Passion of the Western Mind[1] is a wonderful intellectual history of the West starting from the Greeks. You would probably find it interesting. It traces some of the philosophical roots of Christianity back into Greek thought, and it traces the philosophical roots of your modern worldview back into Christian thought. And before you dismiss me as a religious weirdo, I am a lifelong atheist who has studied a lot of math and physics. [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Passion-Western-Mind-Understanding/dp/0345368096 http://www.amazon.com/The-Passion-Western-Mind-Understanding...
- Kalium 12y ago
  Oh, I agree. In the past, religion was the only available mental framework within which people could attempt to make sense of reality. The transition to a society where a framework grounded in methodological materialism is available has not always been a smooth one. For the moment, my concern is limited to what living people think and perceive.
  - sounds 12y ago
    Only, that's not what he said. You say, "religion was the only available mental framework" He says, "philosophical roots of Christianity back into Greek thought" ... and ... "philosophical roots of your modern worldview back into Christian thought."
    - Kalium 12y ago
yawboakye 12y ago
What's fascinating about the progress of science is the discovery of hidden laws that govern our universe. Discovering how the weather works doesn't mean it arrived by accident. We both know that laws don't and have never had creatorial powers. Governing laws are defined by a creator before/during creation, and are discovered through observation. So the laws of the weather, among others, were waiting to be discovered. But they must have been set by someone.
- Kalium 12y ago
  That... is a religious position, rather than a scientific one. There's ample evidence of complexity emerging from simplicity without a governing intelligence.
  - yawboakye 12y ago
    > There's ample evidence of complexity emerging from simplicity without a governing intelligence. I wouldn't be so quick to say classify the evidence as supporting complexity emerging from simplicity without a governing intelligence; because we know so little about our universe and how it works. Our best scientists are still at work. But, there's orders of magnitude ample evidence of complexity emerging from simplicity with a governing intelligence. Everything, everything created by humans.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Let me rephrase. There is ample evidence of complexity emerging from simplicity without the obvious, direct, and quantifiable involvement of governing intelligence.

by Kalium 12y ago

arethuza 12y ago

“Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end to divine things.” - Hippocrates.

cscurmudgeon 12y ago

"God of the gaps" is one big straw man argument. Lots of religious philosophies don't even have a place for God directly acting in the world. Evolution is again a straw man argument. Lots of religions accept it. Ever hear of Gödel's rigorous ontological argument? http://mally.stanford.edu/Papers/ontological-computational.pdf http://mally.stanford.edu/Papers/ontological-computational.p... Science is the not end of it all. Science rests on logic and rational thought. What would be the scientific experiment for validating the scientific method? My point is that arguing against simple-minded religious folks is easy. But nobody has come up with any serious objections to arguments like those coming from Kurt Gödel and the like. I am not holding my breath! :)

Kalium 12y ago
It's a giant straw man from end to end, yes. Yet it's also how many of the lay population conceive of divinity.
- cscurmudgeon 12y ago
  I have to agree that most lay conceptions of divinity can't stand much scrutiny.
nitrogen 12y ago
But nobody has come up with any serious objections to arguments like those coming from Kurt Gödel and the like. Reality is measured by evidence, not arguments.
- cscurmudgeon 12y ago
  So math is not real? (So if science uses something imaginary, why is it better than religion?) I should have been more clear. By "argument", I mean't rock solid logical proof from axioms. (This is more of a logician's term.) I will show you a neat simple trick used in introductory logic classes. "Reality is measured by evidence, not arguments." What is the truth value (or probability of being true) of that sentence? Where is the physical data for that?
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    What is Godel's argument that proves Jesus was born to a virgin and came back to life?
    - cscurmudgeon 12y ago
      Straw man. As I said nobody is saying that is true. I don't believe in Christianity. Probably Godel didn't too.
      - 12y ago

A_COMPUTER 12y ago

In my opinion the difference between then and now is that now you have a contingent of scientists that actively promote the position that you cannot simultaneously be both religious and a scientist. I understand the positive goals they are trying to achieve, but I don't think they are considering the ways it can be counterproductive to their cause. I don't think you can do anything about fundamentalist Christians, but I wonder how many people were pushed into fundamentalism because something less extreme was still treated with utter contempt.

Kalium 12y ago
The people you refer to would cite the ineffectualness of the moderate positions to which you appeal. Their position is based in part on the notion that the less extreme approaches have failed utterly.

dcre 12y ago

I appreciate the clarity with which you've articulated your understanding of religion, but I disagree with almost everything you've said. Since the disagreement is not really about facts, but rather attitude or orientation, it might be pretty hard for me get you to see it from my perspective, but I'll try. Here's the main idea: you see a fundamental gap between science and religion that in the past simply did not exist. > Ever hear the phrase "God of the gaps"? For a lot of people, that was - and is - how they understand God. This may be true of many people today, but it is an essentially modern understanding of God that cannot have been held by anyone before the Renaissance. Before the scientific worldview existed, there simply were no gaps for God to reside in. What did God mean to people then? Richard Tarnas's The Passion of the Western Mind[1] is a wonderful intellectual history of the West starting from the Greeks. You would probably find it interesting. It traces some of the philosophical roots of Christianity back into Greek thought, and it traces the philosophical roots of your modern worldview back into Christian thought. And before you dismiss me as a religious weirdo, I am a lifelong atheist who has studied a lot of math and physics. [1] http://www.amazon.com/The-Passion-Western-Mind-Understanding/dp/0345368096 http://www.amazon.com/The-Passion-Western-Mind-Understanding...

Kalium 12y ago
Oh, I agree. In the past, religion was the only available mental framework within which people could attempt to make sense of reality. The transition to a society where a framework grounded in methodological materialism is available has not always been a smooth one. For the moment, my concern is limited to what living people think and perceive.
- sounds 12y ago
  Only, that's not what he said. You say, "religion was the only available mental framework" He says, "philosophical roots of Christianity back into Greek thought" ... and ... "philosophical roots of your modern worldview back into Christian thought."
  - Kalium 12y ago

yawboakye 12y ago

What's fascinating about the progress of science is the discovery of hidden laws that govern our universe. Discovering how the weather works doesn't mean it arrived by accident. We both know that laws don't and have never had creatorial powers. Governing laws are defined by a creator before/during creation, and are discovered through observation. So the laws of the weather, among others, were waiting to be discovered. But they must have been set by someone.

Kalium 12y ago
That... is a religious position, rather than a scientific one. There's ample evidence of complexity emerging from simplicity without a governing intelligence.
- yawboakye 12y ago
  > There's ample evidence of complexity emerging from simplicity without a governing intelligence. I wouldn't be so quick to say classify the evidence as supporting complexity emerging from simplicity without a governing intelligence; because we know so little about our universe and how it works. Our best scientists are still at work. But, there's orders of magnitude ample evidence of complexity emerging from simplicity with a governing intelligence. Everything, everything created by humans.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Let me rephrase. There is ample evidence of complexity emerging from simplicity without the obvious, direct, and quantifiable involvement of governing intelligence.