5 ms·

The problem is religion is a constantly moving target for falsifiability. Religion constantly transforms itself to fit the world as science describes it. Heck,

The problem is religion is a constantly moving target for falsifiability. Religion constantly transforms itself to fit the world as science describes it. Heck, the earth use to be the center of the universe according to religion. Personally religion is a non-scientific thing that really has no place in science at all. As a result, it's really not relevant on hacker news either , IMO.

k-mcgrady 11y ago
>> "Heck, the earth use to be the center of the universe according to religion." Em, didn't everyone believe this? Sure religion was slow to adapt when proof the Earth wasn't the centre was brought forward but at the time that was a pretty big claim. >> "Personally religion is a non-scientific thing that really has no place in science at all. As a result, it's really not relevant on hacker news either , IMO." Of course that's your opinion but this is Hacker News, not science news. If your interested in how someone runs a large company it can be relevant to look at religious leaders like the pope of dalai lama as that is essentially what they do and on a bigger scale than any company.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  >>Em, didn't everyone believe this? Sure religion was slow to adapt when proof the Earth wasn't the centre was brought forward but at the time that was a pretty big claim. Everybody believed it due to religion, even when the science described a different reality.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    Everybody believed it because of science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Ptolemaic_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Ptolemaic_mod... E: The important takeaway: "It has been determined, in fact, that the Copernican, Ptolemaic and even the Tychonic models provided identical results to identical inputs. They are computationally equivalent. It wasn't until Kepler demonstrated a physical observation that could show that the physical sun is directly involved in determining an orbit that a new model was required."
    - crimsonalucard 11y ago
      Theories can change. That is the nature of science, peer review and new observations. When the science on heliocentricity was developed, religion tried to warp reality as we know it and shove Galileo under a rug. Inevitably, reality won out, but not without cost. See famous story below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
      - Nadya 11y ago
        You're conflating the Catholic Church to cover all religions - as well as ignoring the politics behind the Galileo events. You also seem to believe that Galileo was the creator of the heliocentric model. Please see my other reply. [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9708703 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9708703
Nadya 11y ago
>The problem is religion is a constantly moving target for falsifiability. Religion constantly transforms itself to fit the world as science describes it. So does science. >Heck, the earth use to be the center of the universe according to religion. That's a gross simplification. See: Ptolemy and Nicolaus Copernicus. It was actually "common knowledge" in the scientific community that the Earth was the center of the universe. The popularized issue between Galileo and the Catholic Church (and not just "religion") was largely political. The Catholic Church, to retain power, could not be wrong about anything. If they had been teaching (with scientific backing even!) that the Earth was the center of the universe. That was how it must be. Galileo wanted to educated people outside of the scientific community that the Earth was not the center. So he had to be silenced, else the Church would be wrong and may lose power. As early as 300~ B.C.E , there is a reference from Archemedes' book "The Sand Reckoner" of a heliocentric system described by Aristarchus of Samos. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos
someone8932759 11y ago
Buddhism is as close to a science as anything that could be described by anyone as a religion can get. It's really an experiment that you choose to perform on yourself, and your objective reality. What you find is precisely the point of it.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  No it's not. Reincarnation is about as fantastic as you can get. Not. Close. To. Science. At. All. Science isn't about choices. It's about Truth. What is true and what is false isn't a choice.
  - wordbank 11y ago
    There's no reincarnation in Buddhism, only rebirth. And rebirth happens to you right now when your consciousness arises again and again from previous states of your mind. Yes, there's also a "fantastic" theory that this process goes beyond physical death but this theory is supported by simple logic of buddhist philosophy.
    - crimsonalucard 11y ago
      >but this theory is supported by simple logic of buddhist philosophy. but not supported by science.
      - wordbank 11y ago
        Science is not an absolute knowledge. It has many unproved theories and makes mistakes on a regular basis. (Please note that my world view is purely scientific but I'm using buddhist ideas for looking into my consciousness because science doesn't say much about it.)
    - someone8932759 11y ago
      This is, in my opinion, the correct interpretation of "reincarnation". It's the realisation that your experience (and you!) is changing moment-to-moment, never constant. Being that the self is inconstant, what is self and what is not self can be sorted out. Going beyond that to imply a continuity of the "same" "individual" consciousness after a birth is not the point being made.
dang 11y ago
Religious flamewars are not allowed on HN. There are other places on the internet to conduct generic polemics against religion. Please don't do it here.

k-mcgrady 11y ago

>> "Heck, the earth use to be the center of the universe according to religion." Em, didn't everyone believe this? Sure religion was slow to adapt when proof the Earth wasn't the centre was brought forward but at the time that was a pretty big claim. >> "Personally religion is a non-scientific thing that really has no place in science at all. As a result, it's really not relevant on hacker news either , IMO." Of course that's your opinion but this is Hacker News, not science news. If your interested in how someone runs a large company it can be relevant to look at religious leaders like the pope of dalai lama as that is essentially what they do and on a bigger scale than any company.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
>>Em, didn't everyone believe this? Sure religion was slow to adapt when proof the Earth wasn't the centre was brought forward but at the time that was a pretty big claim. Everybody believed it due to religion, even when the science described a different reality.
- Nadya 11y ago
  Everybody believed it because of science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Ptolemaic_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Ptolemaic_mod... E: The important takeaway: "It has been determined, in fact, that the Copernican, Ptolemaic and even the Tychonic models provided identical results to identical inputs. They are computationally equivalent. It wasn't until Kepler demonstrated a physical observation that could show that the physical sun is directly involved in determining an orbit that a new model was required."
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    Theories can change. That is the nature of science, peer review and new observations. When the science on heliocentricity was developed, religion tried to warp reality as we know it and shove Galileo under a rug. Inevitably, reality won out, but not without cost. See famous story below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
    - Nadya 11y ago
      You're conflating the Catholic Church to cover all religions - as well as ignoring the politics behind the Galileo events. You also seem to believe that Galileo was the creator of the heliocentric model. Please see my other reply. [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9708703 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9708703

Nadya 11y ago

>The problem is religion is a constantly moving target for falsifiability. Religion constantly transforms itself to fit the world as science describes it. So does science. >Heck, the earth use to be the center of the universe according to religion. That's a gross simplification. See: Ptolemy and Nicolaus Copernicus. It was actually "common knowledge" in the scientific community that the Earth was the center of the universe. The popularized issue between Galileo and the Catholic Church (and not just "religion") was largely political. The Catholic Church, to retain power, could not be wrong about anything. If they had been teaching (with scientific backing even!) that the Earth was the center of the universe. That was how it must be. Galileo wanted to educated people outside of the scientific community that the Earth was not the center. So he had to be silenced, else the Church would be wrong and may lose power. As early as 300~ B.C.E , there is a reference from Archemedes' book "The Sand Reckoner" of a heliocentric system described by Aristarchus of Samos. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos

someone8932759 11y ago

Buddhism is as close to a science as anything that could be described by anyone as a religion can get. It's really an experiment that you choose to perform on yourself, and your objective reality. What you find is precisely the point of it.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
No it's not. Reincarnation is about as fantastic as you can get. Not. Close. To. Science. At. All. Science isn't about choices. It's about Truth. What is true and what is false isn't a choice.
- wordbank 11y ago
  There's no reincarnation in Buddhism, only rebirth. And rebirth happens to you right now when your consciousness arises again and again from previous states of your mind. Yes, there's also a "fantastic" theory that this process goes beyond physical death but this theory is supported by simple logic of buddhist philosophy.
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    >but this theory is supported by simple logic of buddhist philosophy. but not supported by science.
    - wordbank 11y ago
      Science is not an absolute knowledge. It has many unproved theories and makes mistakes on a regular basis. (Please note that my world view is purely scientific but I'm using buddhist ideas for looking into my consciousness because science doesn't say much about it.)
  - someone8932759 11y ago
    This is, in my opinion, the correct interpretation of "reincarnation". It's the realisation that your experience (and you!) is changing moment-to-moment, never constant. Being that the self is inconstant, what is self and what is not self can be sorted out. Going beyond that to imply a continuity of the "same" "individual" consciousness after a birth is not the point being made.

dang 11y ago

Religious flamewars are not allowed on HN. There are other places on the internet to conduct generic polemics against religion. Please don't do it here.