Well, of course we focus on natural theologians' arguments for the existence of God, because God's existence is logically prior to any other arguments you could have about Him. It doesn't matter what God as revealed in nature can teach us about predestination if God doesn't exist to predestine anyone.
I'm not sure about all religions, but a Christian's belief that nature proves God's existence is taught in the bible:
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" - Romans 1:19 & 1:20
Kind of off-topic but, why does the angloworld keep using a translation of the bible that's written in an almost "archaic" English (yes I know, I'm exaggerating, but I can't think of a better description from the top of my head).
Coming from someone that was born and raised in a Portuguese speaking country, their version of the bible seems much more "accessible", But I acknowledge the fact that it might come at the cost of the accuracy of the translation.
I think some people may do it out of a misguided perception that an older translation is more accurate. I used to read the NKJV out of this misperception, but I tend to stick with ESV these days. It's much more readable (imo), and if the resources I've researched over the years are accurate, it's a better translation than the King James or New King James versions.
Yeah, chalk me up to the beautiful camp. I think the King James Bible reads like flowing poetry at times, which is something I'd never ascribe to the NIV.
that archaic language is what people have agreed upon; getting that agreement is not trivial. From an arts point of view, I would say that poetic words with multiple meanings, start a sort of mental process that includes questions and "reaching inward to find meaning"
The latter makes a lot of sense, if people have to put in more mental work to extract a meaning from it, they might treasure their findings more. Cool concept.
Because the King James Version (KJV) was so dominant for so long among English speakers that archaic language came to be associated with Holy Writ. Generations have been conditioned to think that scripture is supposed to sound old.
Now, lots of Christian denominations do favor more modern translations, but the KJV refuses to go away.
Fun fact from the church I grew up in (Mormonism): aside from the Bible and the Book of Mormon, Mormons have a book of scripture called Doctrine and Covenants, which contains revelations from God directly to Joseph Smith. But what's funny is that this book is also written in faux-Jacobean English. Smith didn't think it through!
The KJV was so dominant in 19th Century America that Smith (like most people probably) just assumed that if God spoke directly to us, he would use language that sounded like the Bible. So when he purported to write down the words of God, that's exactly what he made them sound like. He didn't think about the fact that the the KJV is written in Jacobean English because it was written in the Jacobean era, and that scripture only sounds old to our ears now because that translation has persisted for so long.
So today, lots of Christian churches are adopting newer translations of the Bible. But the Mormon church is stuck with the KJV forever because Joseph Smith established the tradition that that's how God sounds when he talks to us. We can't just produce a modern translation of the D&C because it's supposedly the primary source!
> So today, lots of Christian churches are adopting newer translations of the Bible. But the Mormon church is stuck with the KJV forever because Joseph Smith established the tradition that that's how God sounds when he talks to us. We can't just produce a modern translation of the D&C because it's supposedly the primary source!
You could, though! It would probably be comparably controversial to translating the Hebrew Bible into Modern Hebrew:
I mean...Jesus was an orthodox Jew and prayed in (mostly) Hebrew (the sacral language), not Aramaic (the vernacular language of the Jews at the time). Having a "sacral language" or "sacral register" is not specific to the English or to the KJV. You will find the same phenomenon in other areas as well, some of which aren't even remotely religious. Think of the register of speech people use when writing a paper for publication in an academic journal, it's distinct from the register of speech you'd use when talking with your mother, or addressing graduates at a university commencement speech.
I can 100% relate to that. For most of my 12 year long career I wrote, spoke and produced technical documentation exclusively in English.
Now that I work with a bunch of Portuguese speaking people, I find that I have a hard time communicating about anything related to work in an informal manner.
That leads to some awkward (albeit funny) situations in which sometimes I forget non-domain-specific words in Portuguese, and just Google Translate them (back into my own native language!).
In one instance I could not come up with a good enough translation for the word "henceforth", so I translated it and got "doravante", which I obliviously used it when establishing new deploy procedures. I got some laughs from my co-workers because apparently "doravante" is an absolutely archaic word.
It really isn't that archaic. It might not be the best resource for Biblical scholarship, but it's quite readable today. The KJV is so dominant in English culture that English's course of evolution is probably guided by it.
The KJV has probably been more influential on English than Shakespeare on English or Cervantes or Dante on their respective languages. Consider that, until recently (1950s?), the KJV has been read daily by a large portion of English speakers.
(I'm Catholic and native Spanish speaking, I don't have any cultural attachment to KJV)
For me, it's the concern that newer translations are very likely derived from older translations; even when they attempt to translate the original Hebrew/Greek, they'll tend to be colored by other translations, be they other English translations or the Latin and German translations preceding the first English translations.
That being said, I usually go with Young's Literal Translation due to its explicit focus on, well, being a literal translation of the original Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text; whereas even KJV does its share of editorializing, YLT actively avoids it. Unfortunately, the consequence of such a literal translation is that it makes even KJV look modern and comprehensible by comparison ;)
I have an alternate and, I think, unusual view on this subject, which is that Christianity actually teaches that God's existence is, by design, not proven or provable by nature at all. I think this follows from these facts:
1. Faith is the substance of things hoped for (Hebrews 11), and we don't possess [proof of] what we hope for (Romans 8:24).
* This means that anything the scripture places in the realm "of faith" is something that we don't have tangible proof of
* For example, we have righteousness "by faith" but no undeniable proof of this righteousness, as in Galatians 5:5: "For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope"
2. The existence of God, and the creation of the world, are placed in the realm of faith by the scripture.
* "Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists" (Hebrews 11:6)
* "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Hebrews 11:3)
Therefore the existence of God and the creation of the world are purposefully consigned by God to the realm of unverifiable facts.
This makes sense intuitively, because it makes the gospel appear weak and foolish in accordance with 1 Corinthians 1:27, and prevents anyone from approaching the subject based on their own intellectual powers as in Matthew 11:25.
And in light of this, the verse you mentioned in Romans can be taken to be about mankind, who were originally literally shown things by God Himself corporately, rather than about any particular man or all men individually.
In my opinion, this logic precludes apologists from appealing to natural theology as a legitimate way of convincing someone to believe in God or to convert to the Christian faith. According to this line of thinking, submitting evidence to someone that can be verified by observation in order to convince someone that God exists or that Christ is God is actually undermining faith.
> such as the ‘New Atheists’ – to assert that the disproofs of God
None of the atheists I know try to disprove all gods because they're generally collections of unfalsifiable claims. Specific gods as claimed to exist by specific groups, yes, but generally no.
> [to assert that] the secular science that they claim to be doing are value-neutral, apolitical and objective
How strange that science can't be neutral because someone's introduced a god. It couldn't be that person's god making the science non-neutral and political now, could it? I dare say (tongue in cheek) that the proof of that is obvious through mere observation.
> None of the atheists I know try to disprove all gods because they're generally collections of unfalsifiable claims. Specific gods as claimed to exist by specific groups, yes, but generally no.
"New Atheism" as a term, _requires_ it.
It isn't simply atheism, but rather a form that advocates for an intolerance of all religion. Whilst it doesn't require that you advocate for particular disproof against individual gods, as it may make use of all-encompassing arguments, it does requires that the concept of gods being disproved.
Two things to ask anybody who claims to have some information, or even just some personal beliefs, about something they call "God" :
1. What are the statements about what you call "God" that you believe in?
2. Why do you believe just that set of statements and not some other set of statements?
I believe that the answer to 2., if they are honest, would most often be: They believe the set of statements they believe because they WANT to believe just those statements. And why do they want to believe just such a set of statements? Because believing what they believe makes them feel good.
They want to believe those statements, and here's the minor miracle: Just because they want to believe those statements, they also all of a sudden do believe them. At least they claim they do.
Many, many people who've had near death experiences, e.g. Howard Storm, Dean Braxton, Randy Kay, Bryan Melvin, etc... do not believe simply because they want to believe: their entire operating system (heart, mind, soul) has been updated with the ineffable and there's no going back.
Do you realize that humanity has an enormous pool of people from multiple races and cultures, which have a near death experience on a regular basis? They are called soldiers. The representation of humans groups is near perfect in the army, excepts for women obviously.
There is no evidence that near death experience can change human thinking to the "belief" in any statistically significant numbers. The only people who claim to become "believers" after such experience are probably people already on the verge of believing due to their psyche or education or both.
No doubt. My question is simply what exactly do they believe in and why? They had some wonderful experience, maybe they heard a voice saying "I am God thou shall not have other gods but me". Ok you had that experience but what can and what do you infer from it? That every word in the Bible is true? How would you draw that conclusion, based on the heavenly experience you had?
I think the point that many people refuse to question their "faith" is a clue which tells us that they believe because they want to believe, regardless of any factual basis.
I'm not against faith I believe everybody has the right to believe whatever they choose to believe. And if they do then obviously there are good reasons why they do so, my guess is the reason is it makes them feel better.
1.
we are "computationally" equivalent to a turing machine: a tape with symbols on it and a head that reads and writes symbols to the tape according to rules.
the natural generalization of a turing machine to infinity would be a hyper turing machine: an infinitely wide tape and infinitely many heads.
i think language of "god" is mostly expressed in terms of infinities. e.g. pi (most infinite numbers are inexpressible to us, since most infinite numbers are transcendental numbers)
2. The alphabet our math uses is pretty much all finite. What percent of the axioms and theorems that you know are infinitely long? Shouldn't the overwhelming majority of axioms and theorems be infinitely long (and in particular map onto an uncountable set?). It just seems natural given the circumstances.
No I don't believe any axioms and theorems should be infinitely long. If they were then there would not be enough time for us to understand them, or even read them through. Theorems which nobody can understand would not be useful for anything.
From your perspective a Christian has faith in God solely because they want to. This perspective is somewhat ironic because in many cases Christians believe that they have faith in God because God gifted them the faith; in other words, they have faith against their human/created/natural desire to be autonomous and suppress the knowledge of God.
> From your perspective a Christian has faith in God solely because they want to.
That is just my guess in most cases, but of course there can be many different reasons.
It is a bit ironic yes. I remember talking to Christians who told me it is basically a sin to NOT believe. So if you don't believe, it is not just that God didn't give you that gift of faith, but that you really have to force yourself to believe, or else you go to Hell. And you have to believe that it is not you who is forcing you to believe but it is God that makes you believe, if and when you do.
But my point was not really about whether to "believe" or not, but how does it come to be that you believe the very specific set of beliefs that you do, which I assume vary from person to person even within the same congregation.
The root of the word faith comes from the Latin "fides", which can alternatively be translated as "trust" (think fiduciary). You don't need faith to believe in God. This is a common misunderstanding among both atheists and theists.
The article was quite difficult to read, the point was often lost in historical recaps and relationships between historical figures.
The central premise is wrong, natural theology was dicussed by hume and paley, but neither of their arguments disprove it.
Arguments about 'proving' god using end up being arguments about what 'kind' of evidence qualifies as proof, which is not explored here.
Paley's infinite regression of watches doesn't sidestep God, it moves God into the watch. Paley's argument about a stone being ultimately purposeless depends on knowledge he doesn't have.
The position you can't logically argue to God is JE Schellenberg's non-resistant, non-believer. As soon as you start arguing logical propositions, they have to end somewhere and it's always God if pushed far enough.
Douglas Adams' parody argument is fun, but is just wrong as a serious theological argument.
The 2005 version of intelligent design the article discusses was rejected from schools because it was an undeveloped young-earth creationist style religious proposition. Stephen meyer spent the rest of the 2000s debating phd scientists (buried in youtube) and found they couldnt challenge his claims and he also developed the idea into a scientific philosophy. That's the face of intelligent design the author should be addressing.
It would be better for the internet community to have a wiki-like or myspace-like battleground for theological interpretation so that we can all skip to the most recent developments and see the history of it like a git changelog, without having to endlessly quiz a Dominican monk about the arguments Aquanis conquered.
I think it was difficult for you to read because you aren't viewing it from the required context. It made perfect sense to me, I was enraptured and thought it was written beautifully. But I also have the requisite beliefs to address the subject matter - sorta like trying to grok algebra without understanding division or multiplication.
>The central premise is wrong, natural theology was dicussed by hume and paley, but neither of their arguments disprove it.
This is a misunderstanding, I think, because the author was saying Hume and Paley are examples of natural theology, they weren't trying to disprove it. They were embedded in their own cultural and theological context, just as we are, and if they could view us (as we view them) then they'd understand just as little of our context as we do of theirs.
>Arguments about 'proving' god using end up being arguments about what 'kind' of evidence qualifies as proof, which is not explored here.
Right, because the piece was written to show the differing definitions of "proof" - how do you prove something immaterial using a material context? You can't, because that'd be attempting to connect two disconnected fields. It's like using math to define a word in the dictionary. The argument between spiritual and atheist people was never "does god exist", but rather "what is god's will (in relation to this phenomenon) / what is the scientific nature of this phenomenon", which is two ways of saying the same thing.
This isn't an attempt to say "Ha atheists are dumb and they suck, god rulezz" it's more of a peace offering - "Hey can we agree to focus on the authoritarian patriarchal evangelical zealots who want to condemn our children to a life of ignorance?"
>Paley's infinite regression of watches doesn't sidestep God, it moves God into the watch. Paley's argument about a stone being ultimately purposeless depends on knowledge he doesn't have.
I think you misunderstood Paley here - essentially he's saying the difference between seeing a rock by the side of the road and a watch is that with a rock you wouldn't presume any ultimate purpose, because it's just a rock. But a watch is intricate, it's mechanical, it clearly has purpose - therefore we can view other things with unclear purposes - like earlobes or mosquitos or geologic processes - as having some kind of purpose, even if we don't understand it. Therefore we shouldn't (I dunno) extinct dodos or something, because clearly there is some purpose in them simply because they exist at all.
I think it's important to note that "purpose" doesn't necessarily imply forethought, as discussed later in the article when they talk about how evolution and such is the most germane and lucid presentation of god's will.
>As soon as you start arguing logical propositions, they have to end somewhere and it's always God if pushed far enough.
Well, by arguing so, you're pushing them in a specific direction. Are you really surprised they end at the polar edge of their reasoning?
>Douglas Adams' parody argument is fun, but is just wrong as a serious theological argument.
Then give the author credit and take it as a fun burst of levity, and not as a serious theological argument.
>The 2005 version of intelligent design the article discusses was rejected from schools because it was an undeveloped young-earth creationist style religious proposition. Stephen meyer spent the rest of the 2000s debating phd scientists (buried in youtube) and found they couldnt challenge his claims and he also developed the idea into a scientific philosophy. That's the face of intelligent design the author should be addressing.
Yup. Almost as if we share a common enemy.
>It would be better for the internet community to have a wiki-like or myspace-like battleground for theological interpretation so th...
I'll admit I'm still confused by the author's intent and that could be my error for all I know.
>Right, because the piece was written to show the differing definitions of "proof" - how do you prove something immaterial using a material context? You can't, because that'd be attempting to connect two disconnected fields. It's like using math to define a word in the dictionary. The argument between spiritual and atheist people was never "does god exist", but rather "what is god's will (in relation to this phenomenon) / what is the scientific nature of this phenomenon", which is two ways of saying the same thing.
I think all the arguments to pull a scientific atheist from their scientific atheism depend on immaterial factors as being unable to be parsed in science. Going as broad as possible in the question about what kinds of evidence one could obtain to be proof of God has to come before the other questions. Most recently those arguments have taken shape in the form of categorical arguments, like where does consciousness, love or human character come from?
There's a weird rabbit hole appeared in our world where science has tried to eat up metaphysics as the ultimate explanation of the natural world. Science can never succeed at that task, but people are happy to live like Sisyphus it appears. Always trying to reduce the visions that are expressed through metaphysics down to scientific rationalism, but being unable to finally pull the light-bulb from the socket, so to speak.
>the difference between seeing a rock by the side of the road and a watch is that with a rock you wouldn't presume any ultimate purpose, because it's just a rock
The act of the scientific rational atheist of "not presuming" is the same act of J.E. Schellenberg's non-resisting, non-believing atheist. Taking the lesser "ontological cost" in assuming only the world exists and nothing more than that. The argument I make is that God cannot be ruled out in this fashion because the scientific atheist cannot rule out that the Rock has a purpose. I don't have a better argument than that, it's a very difficult argument to overcome in my eyes. I don't know ultimately why someone would be compelled to believing in God's existence, but plenty of arguments that inspire a longing to believe are an easier sell, as logically unsatisfying as it is.
>Then give the author credit and take it as a fun burst of levity, and not as a serious theological argument.
I like the argument, it is fun! But I don't think it was presented in that manner, and again I could be wrong, it just appeared to be support for the author's supposed intention rather than comedic relief.
>That sounds good to me, but how do you distill it? I think nearly as much effort would be required in administrating and preparing the presentation of the conversation as would be in actually making them. And making arguments is the fun part.
The Christian scholastic argument always depends on a two-step dialogue and that could be mapped as threads of support For or Against a specific topic, with the Topic usually encapsulated in a single word, logged as written arguments from authors across time. Like a gant chart filled with popular word topics that are each their own timeline of For/Against arguments.
The discussion about said topics need not be more complicated than a hacker-news clone.
This article seems to be saying that science and religion are trying to answer the same question, how did we get here. But I feel like that's misguided.
I've always been under the impression that science is descriptive, it answers how?
Whereas religion is deeper than that and aims to answer why?
We can explain how natural processes work, but, and I believe this is a question Aristotle asked with the immovable mover, we'll never be able to get to a root cause of why everything exists and what started it all.
Either the universe is infinite and time has no beginning, or there is a beginning and potentially an end. If there's a beginning, what was before the beginning? If it's infinite, how did it all start? These are the questions that I thought religion tried to answer. Science can (most likely) never answer why. Science is fundamentally based on repeatable experiments, and that's fine. We can use it to build a model of how the universe works, but as of today, we can't use science to answer the fundamental questions about the reason for the universe.
> I've always been under the impression that science is descriptive, it answers how?
This may be philosophical, but has science ever actually, and by that I mean explicitly, answered how? Is how even possible to answer?
I think probably not, given our current understandings, or probably not just period. Science is about building models of the reality we experience. The models are not reality themselves, so they don’t answer how. They only answer how relative to our own knowledge and experience. Also, it isn’t clear if our experience of reality is objective. I have a feeling that there is such a thing as relative objectivity among the different participants of the universe.
> Whereas religion is deeper than that and aims to answer why?
Religion is more of an organizational collective of power and control, but religion proper, let’s call it, and spiritually are more about consolation, in my view. This is related to why, but I think it also helps to frame religion and spirituality as “what now”? We’re here, there’s this life, this Earth, this Universe, so what are we supposed to do? I think why creeps in there as well.
I’m reminded of A Serious Man and the repetitious “what’s going on?”.
Sort of. Academic theologians want to answer why. A religious person already knows, if you have to find data and infer things then it is philosophy not religion. Religion is based on information directed by the creator either directly to the believer or via trusted proxy. For example if you asked me why the universe exists I already know: because God willed it so. Most religious questions are a whether or not something is the will of the creator and how to implement that will. Of course that is monotheistic but with hinduism for example their many gods do things and that is why things are, how to do things to align with them is also a question as is with buddhism and reincarnation based on how well one implements the universe's will but my point is religion is what is there based on the answers to the questions you mentioned not the pursuit to answer that question. If you come up with a religion on your own I suppose you can call it that (although I must question the difference between that and a philosophical principle) but religion as is organized religion already has answers for the believer.
Tangentially, I am a bit baffled by folks that are not believers yet try to make sense of a religion, don't they understand hierarchy of belief? As in you need to know arithmetic before you can do linear alegbra? How can one understand anything religious without being theistic (buddhism aside). Most of the common atheist questions about faith are easily answered with the prerequisite of theism fulfilled for example.
The fundamental difference between science and religion in my opinion is that science says "I will believe things only if I can understand them" while religion says "The things you can understand and that are beyond human capacity to understand are described this way" religion is based on the acceptance that one cannot understand all things in reality, that things beyond our understanding or currect capacity or ability to know are still real and have effect in our reality.
>Tangentially, I am a bit baffled by folks that are not believers yet try to make sense of a religion, don't they understand hierarchy of belief?
I'd not give a damn about religion if it weren't shoving itself in my face everywhere. For example I don't care whatever religion some people on some remote islands may be practicing because they aren't forcing their religious dogmas on me (and as long as they don't abuse other people). The Big Religion though that we have around is forcing it's tentacles everywhere trying to strangulate everything, and thus even non believers have to deal with it defending themselves.
I challenge the assertion that the gp is really antidogmatic. The definition of abuse and the appropriate response to it, while generally unquestioned in one society, may not be the same in a remote island society.
Let's jump right in the deep end. Let's say you have a remote culture where genital mutilation is done for purely religious reasons. This is done in an unclean fashion, as it's a tribal culture. Would you argue against intervention?
it isn't a dogma, it is my personal dislike of [unconsented] abuse. Depending on situation/domain i may be wrapping it into legal/dogmatic/moral/etc. devices, whatever works, yet in the end at the very core it would be just that my personal dislike of abuse.
Nothing. But you did a strawman there by changing the subject about what you care or don't care about. If you don't care about relgion then why are you commenting? If you do enough to criticize and take time to comment then don't strawman and address what i said not what you implied.
We are talking truth and belief not impact on ones life.
>If you don't care about relgion then why are you commenting?
my original comment contains clear answer.
>address what i said
i clearly addressed your stated requirement that one have to meet some your criteria of understanding of religion in order to criticize - as i clearly disagree with such a requirement because my involvement with religion isn't at my will, it is a defense from the religion forcing itself upon me everywhere.
There are many things in science that scientists don't understand but still believe exist. The difference is the scientist won't then ascribe that thing to a god just because it's not understood.
I take it from the opposite direction. I trust that every sufficiently mature religion has a self consistent doctrine with answers to every question. If the religion is popular enough, I can just look up the questions and answers. For this reason, I have no reason to even engage in the dialogue.
Maybe it’s pedantic, but in my experience the best summation of a scientific approach to beleif is to say ‘I will withhold belief until sufficient evidence is provided to support the belief.’ Most noticeably, this stance does not exclude the currently unknown from being true or known at some point, it simply holds a person to the honest — and truly humble — mindset of never thinking things are true on insufficient evidence, no matter how badly the conclusion is desired.
You seem to be asserting that religious persons are willing to believe things on insufficient evidence, for example those “things beyond our understanding or currect capacity or ability to know,” and that is somehow a good thing?
This is just Positivism or Empiricism and there are huge problems with it as a method of epistemology. The link is discussing the First Cause argument and you, like others in this thread, are reducing metaphysical arguments to “others believe differently from me only because they want their belief to be true”.
As for the sufficient evidence, regardless of the personal perspective in the parent comment, you should know that a fundamental (Abrahamic) theological claim is that all humans have sufficient evidence of their creator’s existence. That’s mainly where the dispute is: the religious say what we all have universal access to /is/ sufficient; the non-religious claim what we have is insufficient.
If it were only that clear-cut. "What we all have universal access to" is (so far) ineffable, which makes it open to lots of individual interpretations. The result is a great deal of what H. L. Mencken called "a great deal of theological blather and turmoil" because there's no way of telling truth from falsehood.
Here’s the thing: the religious believe that everyone on Earth, in that they experience reality alone, have sufficient evidence that reality has a creator. That elements of reality may be indescribable or that individuals experience reality in a subjective way doesn’t affect that claim. Resigning truth and falsehood into a single category is a nonstarter. The conclusion here from HL Mencken’s quote is a fallacy called inflation of conflict.
That first sentence sounds too ontological to be useful. St Anselm made the same mistake - because he could imagine a perfect God, that perfection required God to exist. He (and countless other apologists) believed that the universe and its nature were subject to the requirements of their ideas of God, without accounting for the inevitable limitations and imperfections of those ideas.
The claim was “the world existing rather than not existing is proof of the existence of God”. Ideas about characteristics of God, limited and imperfect as they may be, were not cited.
Most Protestant christians believe that the christian bible is divinely inspired. Everything else they believe follows from this first unprovable belief.
They may not accept an idea if they feel it conflicts with their personal interpretation of the christian bible, no matter how convincing the evidence.
On the other hand, some protestants are not so attached to their beliefs, and can adapt them to mesh with reality when presented with convincing evidence.
Let's not confuse theologians with most theists. Most theists (and most atheists, for that matter) haven't delved deeply into the foundations of their belief systems.
"Everything else they believe follows from this first unprovable belief."
Not accepting an idea if they think it conflicts with their personal interpretation of the Christian Bible can be a crippling inflexibility, and it (IMO) betrays a kind of inverted hubris when it's not accompanied by a strong admonition to not be too cock-sure about one's personal interpretation, because that will evolve as a person changes through growth and experience.
Not being able to do this is the source of a lot of cognitive dissonance that happens when a religious authority (operating from a prophet motive, no doubt) makes a confident prediction that winds up not coming to pass. A really recent example is all of the evangelicals who predicted that Trump would be re-elected after he provably lost the 2020 Presidential election. Some of the "prophetic community" apologized online (which they then retracted under intense pressure); most of the rest of them took refuge in "Satan stole the election!" which helped facilitate the Jan 6 insurrection.
I think they're rather asserting that the scientific method is built upon materialist axioms, whereas religions are almost definitionally come with non-materialist axioms as foundational.
It may seem self-evident that purely materialist axioms are more useful as a basis for starting the discussion, but depending on the end goal, starting the discussion more easily may not be advantageous in reaching the end goal. It's possible that restricting ourselves to purely materialist axioms is a case of looking for our keys under the light post because it's dark in the alley where we dropped them.
Can you determine an evidence is sufficient if you cannot understand it? You can accept what us happening but can you accept that as evidence of someone's explanation? Water boils at 100c , ok, but why? Because energy is being transfered in the form of heat? Or because the elemental force of fire is incompatible with water and the result is violence?
Not all world views have those. Take the first one: AFAIK, Buddhism (and Hinduism?) believe that the world is an illusion. Why would do empirical experiments on illusions?
I don't think it was an accident that science took off in Europe. Certainly there were individuals in other parts of the world that were curious about how the cosmos worked, but the overall worldview of their societies wasn't as receptive to such endeavours. There were many scientists in Muslim areas, but Islam generally ended up denying the fourth point above:
As a Muslim, Islam's stance is quite nuanced. God does lay out rules that govern our world (called Sunan in Arabic, plural of Sunnah - path or way or method, etc.), and we accept causality in general. At the same time, we believe that God is the ultimate root cause of everything. If He wills, He can break these laws (e.g. we have the narrative of how Abraham Peace be upon him was thrown into the fire when he denied and destroyed the idols of his tribe, only for the fire not to harm him because God ordered it not to: https://quran.com/21/68-69), and nothing happens without God's knowledge or permission. This is why we have bases such as: https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2517
As you point out, we have had many Muslim scientists in our history that pushed the boundaries of discovery and knowledge. We're proud of our history and their achievements.
First, in a very real sense, the modern physical sciences came from religion.
The great founders of science—Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, etc.—were, without exception, trained in ecclesially sponsored schools and universities. It was under the aegis of the church that they took in their physics, their astronomy, and their mathematics. More specifically, they learned in those institutions two essentially theological truths necessary for the emergence of the experimental sciences—namely, that the universe is not God and that the universe, in every nook and cranny, is marked by intelligibility. If nature were divine—as indeed it is considered to be in many religions, philosophies, and mysticisms—then it could never be an apt subject for observation, analysis, and experimentation. And if nature were simply chaotic, void of form, it would never yield up the harmonies and patterned intelligibilities that scientists readily seek. When these two truths, which are both a function of the doctrine of creation, obtain, the sciences can get underway.
Second, when science and theology are properly understood, they are not in conflict, since they are not competing for primacy on the same playing field, like opposing football teams. Utilizing the scientific method, the physical sciences deal with events, objects, dynamics, and relationships within the empirically verifiable order. Theology, employing an entirely different method, deals with God and the things of God—and God is not an object in the world, not a reality circumscribed within the context of nature. As Thomas Aquinas put it, God is not ens summum (highest being), but rather ipsum esse (the act of being as such)—which is to say, God is not a being among beings, but instead the reason why there is an empirically observable universe at all. In this way, he is like the author of a richly complex novel. Charles Dickens never appears as a character in any of his sprawling narratives, yet he is the reason why any of those characters exist at all. Accordingly, the sciences, as such, can never adjudicate the question of God’s existence nor speak of his activity or attributes. Another type of rationality—not in competition with scientific rationality—is required for the determination of those matters.
And this brings me to my third point: scientism is not science. Sadly rampant today, scientism is the reduction of all knowledge to the scientific form of knowledge. The undeniable success of the physical sciences and the extraordinary usefulness of the technologies to which they have given rise have produced in the minds of many this conviction, but it represents a tragic impoverishment. A chemist might be able to tell us the chemical makeup of the paints that Michelangelo used on the Sistine Ceiling, but he couldn’t, qua scientist, tell us a thing about what makes that work of art so beautiful. A geologist might be able to tell us the stratification of the earth below the city of Chicago, but he could never, again qua scientist, tell us whether that city is being justly or unjustly governed. There isn’t a trace of the scientific method in Romeo and Juliet, but who would be so stupid as to assert that that play tells us nothing true about the nature of love. In a similar way, the great texts of the Bible and the theological tradition are not “scientific,” but they nevertheless speak the profoundest truths about God, creation, sin, redemption, grace, etc. Both the cause and effect of scientism, sadly, is the attenuation of the liberal arts in our institutions of higher education. Rather than appreciating literature, history, philosophy, and religion as conduits of objective truth, many today relegate these to the arena of subjective feeling or subject them to withering ideological criticism.
I propose that religion incorporates the most accepted science of the time it was established.
We haven't had a new popular enough religion that incorporates the current state of accepted science.
It benefits the leadership of any organization to give its members a reason for its existence. The better the reason, the greater chance of growth. Religions aim to provide the complete package - rules for society and the individual and rules for life and what comes after it.
I think it could be handy if there was a "religion" that looked at the various ways that historical religions are beneficial for their adherents (in practices and beliefs) and tried to distill things down and build some new things up from whatever gets worked out in that way. From a secular perspective, religions contain quite a bit of invented material, so this doesn't seem that unreasonable. And this could potentially be combined with more scientific perspectives, where the whole set of beliefs and practices can be updated as new things are learned, though presumably the most foundational elements wouldn't change as much.
What if it turns out that for many actions, the game-theoretically optimal strategy for the individual isn't optimal for the society, and people's gut instincts are reasonably close to game theoretic analysis? In other words, what if it turns out that it's really objectively best for society if everyone is tricked into being good?
Even for something as simple as the prisoner's dilemma, there's quite a bit of variety in both situations and agents, so how do you decide what the "optimal" game theoretic strategy is for actual people in much more complex situations in reality?
I'm not sure that it's tricking people, because society is people. I mean, suppose that people aren't tricked into being good, and then society is worse off. How could everyone in the worse off society be doing better than everyone in the better off society? This doesn't seem like a trick to me so much as adopting a different perspective.
I'm talking about cases where society's best outcome isn't a Nash equilibrium, but due to deception about the rewards of different actions, the socially optimal solution appears to be a Nash equilibrium. Some citizens would be better off if they defected, and society worse off, but due to deception, they don't realize they'd be better off.
That is strange. There is no contradiction between Catholicism and science. Genesis is not a scientific book. It is not a scientific treatise on cosmology, at all.
Sin is not a scientific concept. The story of Adam and Eve is about the origin of sin. It is not a scientific theory. The Catholic Church does not deny the truth of scientific theories of evolution.
One thing I learned recently is that some religions[1] do not try to explain the world and its origin. It is just that the dominant religions do so we assume it is part of a religion's definition.
But there is intersection between science and believe systems. Knowing what we know about space for example, it would be hard to justify the believe a certain subjective perspective onto a star constellation influences a persons fate based on their birth date =astrology.
In this case the more we know about the how of the stars in the sky the less we can believe the uninformed why astrology is trying to present us.
Similar conflicts happen with religion and one cannot ignore that knowing the how deeply influences the why. Most members of our species can't stand the lack of meaning and the will use what they know to create stories that convey it. This is an understandable mechanism and in itself not a problem, but it can become one if the story is told in a way where it starts to clash with the facts.
In the end these stories, even when they call themselves holy texts are written by humans from their own limited perspectives of the time. That doesn't mean, there can not be wisdom in there, but there can also be wisdom in other texts so that doesn't really cut it..
Then almost everything is religion. Even science, which is based on axioms. For example, in science we believe that nature is inteligible. This cannot be proven.
I think it's simpler. Religion and science answer different questions, because if they ever disagree on an answer, it instantly ceases to be a religious question. Never the other way around. This asymmetry is like the arrow of increasing entropy, always pointing towards science.
Another asymmetry is that it's possible to hold scientific and religious beliefs at the same time (thanks to the above), but never two different religions at the same time. I know lots of Catholic scientists, but no Catholic Buddhists.
There are Catholic Zen Masters [1], so, somehow, it is possible to be Catholic and Buddhist. As a Catholic who dabbled in Zen when I was lost, I don't really understand how this can be combined, but this exists. My current view is that in Catholicism you'll find everything that Zen has to offer (silence, meditation, living in the present, honor the little details of life, etc.) and a lot more [2].
From a Catholic point of view, there is no contradiction, whatsoever, between science and religion. It is perfectly compatible and there is no contradiction with scripture. The problems are with scientism.
> Another asymmetry is that it's possible to hold scientific and religious beliefs at the same time (thanks to the above), but never two different religions at the same time.
That's not true at all. Religious syncretism is a very old concept, and involves the blending of religions.
There are Catholic Buddhists, for example, and there have been those professing to follow that since around the 1600s. You'll also find many blends of traditional Incan beliefs and Catholicism, despite the surface-level incompatibilities, in South America.
One specific example might be Caodaism, which blends elements of Catholicism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Caodaism has about 2.5Mil followers in Vietnam. One of the core tenants of the religion is that we are now living in a period of time called the Third Amnesty, the end of which will be marked by the syncretism of _all_ religions into one.
Polytheism and monotheism are completely incompatible. However, syncretic religions of incompatible elements actually exist. Thus, the assumption that they can't, is wrong.
That doesn't seem like holding incompatible religious beliefs at the same time ("… possible to hold scientific and religious beliefs at the same time…"). That seems like picking one religious belief over another, on an ad hoc basis.
Ultimately it's 8 billion religions. It all breaks down when you look at what people believe at an individual level. It's possible that no two people believe the same thing, even if they claim to be adherents to the same sect. And if an individual's beliefs are at odds with their church, who am I to decide who's right, if I don't even share the beliefs of either?
For instance, the majority of American Catholics believe it's OK to use birth control. So, who represents "Catholicism," the people or the church fathers? It's just my nature to give benefit of the doubt to the people.
I would argue the God concept is a poor explanation of why? because you're just kicking the can down the road: either God had a beginning and you have to explain that or God is infinite which puts us right back to the same problem of having a universe with infinite duration. If we're going to say God has existed forever then it's simpler (Occam's Razor) to say the universe has existed forever.
Honestly, I think trying to answer why? is a misguided effort. There doesn't need to be a reason why, and moreover inanimate objects don't have motives. Why are we here? Because we're here!
In this context you seem to be expecting a rule of thumb to do quite a lot of lifting.
You seem to imply that the universe is self-evident to all and is therefore “simpler” as something that has always existed. That’s what theists are claiming God is: already self-evident to all.
Conflating God and the universe as interchangeable is addressed by the Contingency Argument: https://youtu.be/FPCzEP0oD7I
God is ascribed attributes the universe is not: omniscience and omnipotence. To a lesser extent one realizes those attributes of God also means God is conscious, which is not something we typically ascribe to the universe. I would argue since the universe lacks omniscience, omnipotence, consciousness, and by extension, will power it is a far simpler entity than God. So saying the universe has existed forever and saying God has existed forever are therefore two vastly different statements due to the different complexities inherent in the two different entities being compared. The universe is far, far, far simpler a construct than God and by using Occam's Razor I conclude a universe that has existed forever is far more likely than a God that has existed forever.
Though I suppose it is possible for a universe that has existed forever to have yielded a God that has also existed forever! Strange things are possible when we allow for infinite timelines!
That's why it makes more sense that the universe had a definite beginning and asking about time before that beginning is undefined - time simply doesn't exist before the beginning. Roger Penrose has some interesting ideas on what happened before the Big Bang (the universe "forgets" how to "tell" time and so time doesn't exist between different "epochs" of the universe):
> God is ascribed attributes the universe is not: omniscience and omnipotence.
Ain't really sure whence you'd get that impression. It's hard to exist without the universe being aware of it and causing it to be, both in the sense of the universe having been in a state enabling your existence and in the sense of your existence having effects on the universe (and thus producing new states enabling other existences).
God and the universe might not be one and the same, but they're intertwined; for the universe and the contents thereof to exist in any meaningful sense beyond some homogenous blob of cold matter, you need something dictating the interactions of matter and energy to produce something meaningful. Call it God, call it physics, call it whatever, but regardless it's obvious that it exists - the universe would be a rather boring place otherwise.
There’s issues with the idea of a universe existing forever, namely Kant’s First Antinomy: if the universe existed for an infinite time, then an infinite amount of events would have already taken place.
That's why I think Penrose may be on to something by saying the universe "forgets" how to tell time between different "epochs", where each "epoch" appears to have begun with a time zero corresponding with a big bang. If the universe "forgets" how to tell time between those "epochs" then those epochs are causally separated and you sidestep the infinite amount of events. The interesting bit is what evidence would reveal that to be the case?
We have proof (e.g. Big Bang) that the universe did not exist forever.
Secondly, asking "who created God" is similar to seeing a piece of bread, asking who baked it, then asking "who baked the baker"? It's a logical inconsistency and absurdity.
Science may not be able to explain why and how the universe came into existence but it may explain why humans so stubbornly insist to know the reasons for something they can't ever know yet at the same time are so willing to accept irrational explanations for it.
For the record, natural theology is very much alive in the Catholic tradition, and it is certainly used to prove that God exists. This article seems to be focused on Evangelicals and New Atheists, which are different traditions.
The existence of God is easily proven from an empirical scientific perspective just by observing the genetic code, the inner workings of the cell, and contemplating the origin-of-life problem.
135 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 188 ms ] threadHe may existed, or will appear under certain circumstances. Or he may have quantum nature: doesn't exist, but manifests himself.
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" - Romans 1:19 & 1:20
Coming from someone that was born and raised in a Portuguese speaking country, their version of the bible seems much more "accessible", But I acknowledge the fact that it might come at the cost of the accuracy of the translation.
Native english speakers often agree the KJV is beautiful in writing and speech.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay–Rheims_Bible
Not almost, it was deliberately archaic when written.
But also...the “angloworld” as a whole doesn't.
Now, lots of Christian denominations do favor more modern translations, but the KJV refuses to go away.
Fun fact from the church I grew up in (Mormonism): aside from the Bible and the Book of Mormon, Mormons have a book of scripture called Doctrine and Covenants, which contains revelations from God directly to Joseph Smith. But what's funny is that this book is also written in faux-Jacobean English. Smith didn't think it through!
The KJV was so dominant in 19th Century America that Smith (like most people probably) just assumed that if God spoke directly to us, he would use language that sounded like the Bible. So when he purported to write down the words of God, that's exactly what he made them sound like. He didn't think about the fact that the the KJV is written in Jacobean English because it was written in the Jacobean era, and that scripture only sounds old to our ears now because that translation has persisted for so long.
So today, lots of Christian churches are adopting newer translations of the Bible. But the Mormon church is stuck with the KJV forever because Joseph Smith established the tradition that that's how God sounds when he talks to us. We can't just produce a modern translation of the D&C because it's supposedly the primary source!
You could, though! It would probably be comparably controversial to translating the Hebrew Bible into Modern Hebrew:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh_Ram
Now that I work with a bunch of Portuguese speaking people, I find that I have a hard time communicating about anything related to work in an informal manner.
That leads to some awkward (albeit funny) situations in which sometimes I forget non-domain-specific words in Portuguese, and just Google Translate them (back into my own native language!).
In one instance I could not come up with a good enough translation for the word "henceforth", so I translated it and got "doravante", which I obliviously used it when establishing new deploy procedures. I got some laughs from my co-workers because apparently "doravante" is an absolutely archaic word.
It really isn't that archaic. It might not be the best resource for Biblical scholarship, but it's quite readable today. The KJV is so dominant in English culture that English's course of evolution is probably guided by it.
The KJV has probably been more influential on English than Shakespeare on English or Cervantes or Dante on their respective languages. Consider that, until recently (1950s?), the KJV has been read daily by a large portion of English speakers.
(I'm Catholic and native Spanish speaking, I don't have any cultural attachment to KJV)
That being said, I usually go with Young's Literal Translation due to its explicit focus on, well, being a literal translation of the original Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text; whereas even KJV does its share of editorializing, YLT actively avoids it. Unfortunately, the consequence of such a literal translation is that it makes even KJV look modern and comprehensible by comparison ;)
1. Faith is the substance of things hoped for (Hebrews 11), and we don't possess [proof of] what we hope for (Romans 8:24).
* This means that anything the scripture places in the realm "of faith" is something that we don't have tangible proof of
* For example, we have righteousness "by faith" but no undeniable proof of this righteousness, as in Galatians 5:5: "For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope"
2. The existence of God, and the creation of the world, are placed in the realm of faith by the scripture.
* "Without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists" (Hebrews 11:6)
* "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." (Hebrews 11:3)
Therefore the existence of God and the creation of the world are purposefully consigned by God to the realm of unverifiable facts.
This makes sense intuitively, because it makes the gospel appear weak and foolish in accordance with 1 Corinthians 1:27, and prevents anyone from approaching the subject based on their own intellectual powers as in Matthew 11:25.
And in light of this, the verse you mentioned in Romans can be taken to be about mankind, who were originally literally shown things by God Himself corporately, rather than about any particular man or all men individually.
In my opinion, this logic precludes apologists from appealing to natural theology as a legitimate way of convincing someone to believe in God or to convert to the Christian faith. According to this line of thinking, submitting evidence to someone that can be verified by observation in order to convince someone that God exists or that Christ is God is actually undermining faith.
None of the atheists I know try to disprove all gods because they're generally collections of unfalsifiable claims. Specific gods as claimed to exist by specific groups, yes, but generally no.
> [to assert that] the secular science that they claim to be doing are value-neutral, apolitical and objective
How strange that science can't be neutral because someone's introduced a god. It couldn't be that person's god making the science non-neutral and political now, could it? I dare say (tongue in cheek) that the proof of that is obvious through mere observation.
Anecdotal and unfamiliar with the literature.
>How strange that science can’t be neutral because someone…
That’s not what the article implies in the slightest. Nor is it why science is unable to be objective.
"New Atheism" as a term, _requires_ it.
It isn't simply atheism, but rather a form that advocates for an intolerance of all religion. Whilst it doesn't require that you advocate for particular disproof against individual gods, as it may make use of all-encompassing arguments, it does requires that the concept of gods being disproved.
1. What are the statements about what you call "God" that you believe in?
2. Why do you believe just that set of statements and not some other set of statements?
I believe that the answer to 2., if they are honest, would most often be: They believe the set of statements they believe because they WANT to believe just those statements. And why do they want to believe just such a set of statements? Because believing what they believe makes them feel good.
They want to believe those statements, and here's the minor miracle: Just because they want to believe those statements, they also all of a sudden do believe them. At least they claim they do.
There is no evidence that near death experience can change human thinking to the "belief" in any statistically significant numbers. The only people who claim to become "believers" after such experience are probably people already on the verge of believing due to their psyche or education or both.
I think the point that many people refuse to question their "faith" is a clue which tells us that they believe because they want to believe, regardless of any factual basis.
I'm not against faith I believe everybody has the right to believe whatever they choose to believe. And if they do then obviously there are good reasons why they do so, my guess is the reason is it makes them feel better.
the natural generalization of a turing machine to infinity would be a hyper turing machine: an infinitely wide tape and infinitely many heads.
i think language of "god" is mostly expressed in terms of infinities. e.g. pi (most infinite numbers are inexpressible to us, since most infinite numbers are transcendental numbers)
2. The alphabet our math uses is pretty much all finite. What percent of the axioms and theorems that you know are infinitely long? Shouldn't the overwhelming majority of axioms and theorems be infinitely long (and in particular map onto an uncountable set?). It just seems natural given the circumstances.
That is just my guess in most cases, but of course there can be many different reasons.
It is a bit ironic yes. I remember talking to Christians who told me it is basically a sin to NOT believe. So if you don't believe, it is not just that God didn't give you that gift of faith, but that you really have to force yourself to believe, or else you go to Hell. And you have to believe that it is not you who is forcing you to believe but it is God that makes you believe, if and when you do.
But my point was not really about whether to "believe" or not, but how does it come to be that you believe the very specific set of beliefs that you do, which I assume vary from person to person even within the same congregation.
The central premise is wrong, natural theology was dicussed by hume and paley, but neither of their arguments disprove it.
Arguments about 'proving' god using end up being arguments about what 'kind' of evidence qualifies as proof, which is not explored here.
Paley's infinite regression of watches doesn't sidestep God, it moves God into the watch. Paley's argument about a stone being ultimately purposeless depends on knowledge he doesn't have.
The position you can't logically argue to God is JE Schellenberg's non-resistant, non-believer. As soon as you start arguing logical propositions, they have to end somewhere and it's always God if pushed far enough.
Douglas Adams' parody argument is fun, but is just wrong as a serious theological argument.
The 2005 version of intelligent design the article discusses was rejected from schools because it was an undeveloped young-earth creationist style religious proposition. Stephen meyer spent the rest of the 2000s debating phd scientists (buried in youtube) and found they couldnt challenge his claims and he also developed the idea into a scientific philosophy. That's the face of intelligent design the author should be addressing.
It would be better for the internet community to have a wiki-like or myspace-like battleground for theological interpretation so that we can all skip to the most recent developments and see the history of it like a git changelog, without having to endlessly quiz a Dominican monk about the arguments Aquanis conquered.
>The central premise is wrong, natural theology was dicussed by hume and paley, but neither of their arguments disprove it.
This is a misunderstanding, I think, because the author was saying Hume and Paley are examples of natural theology, they weren't trying to disprove it. They were embedded in their own cultural and theological context, just as we are, and if they could view us (as we view them) then they'd understand just as little of our context as we do of theirs.
>Arguments about 'proving' god using end up being arguments about what 'kind' of evidence qualifies as proof, which is not explored here.
Right, because the piece was written to show the differing definitions of "proof" - how do you prove something immaterial using a material context? You can't, because that'd be attempting to connect two disconnected fields. It's like using math to define a word in the dictionary. The argument between spiritual and atheist people was never "does god exist", but rather "what is god's will (in relation to this phenomenon) / what is the scientific nature of this phenomenon", which is two ways of saying the same thing.
This isn't an attempt to say "Ha atheists are dumb and they suck, god rulezz" it's more of a peace offering - "Hey can we agree to focus on the authoritarian patriarchal evangelical zealots who want to condemn our children to a life of ignorance?"
>Paley's infinite regression of watches doesn't sidestep God, it moves God into the watch. Paley's argument about a stone being ultimately purposeless depends on knowledge he doesn't have.
I think you misunderstood Paley here - essentially he's saying the difference between seeing a rock by the side of the road and a watch is that with a rock you wouldn't presume any ultimate purpose, because it's just a rock. But a watch is intricate, it's mechanical, it clearly has purpose - therefore we can view other things with unclear purposes - like earlobes or mosquitos or geologic processes - as having some kind of purpose, even if we don't understand it. Therefore we shouldn't (I dunno) extinct dodos or something, because clearly there is some purpose in them simply because they exist at all.
I think it's important to note that "purpose" doesn't necessarily imply forethought, as discussed later in the article when they talk about how evolution and such is the most germane and lucid presentation of god's will.
>As soon as you start arguing logical propositions, they have to end somewhere and it's always God if pushed far enough.
Well, by arguing so, you're pushing them in a specific direction. Are you really surprised they end at the polar edge of their reasoning?
>Douglas Adams' parody argument is fun, but is just wrong as a serious theological argument.
Then give the author credit and take it as a fun burst of levity, and not as a serious theological argument.
>The 2005 version of intelligent design the article discusses was rejected from schools because it was an undeveloped young-earth creationist style religious proposition. Stephen meyer spent the rest of the 2000s debating phd scientists (buried in youtube) and found they couldnt challenge his claims and he also developed the idea into a scientific philosophy. That's the face of intelligent design the author should be addressing.
Yup. Almost as if we share a common enemy.
>It would be better for the internet community to have a wiki-like or myspace-like battleground for theological interpretation so th...
>Right, because the piece was written to show the differing definitions of "proof" - how do you prove something immaterial using a material context? You can't, because that'd be attempting to connect two disconnected fields. It's like using math to define a word in the dictionary. The argument between spiritual and atheist people was never "does god exist", but rather "what is god's will (in relation to this phenomenon) / what is the scientific nature of this phenomenon", which is two ways of saying the same thing.
I think all the arguments to pull a scientific atheist from their scientific atheism depend on immaterial factors as being unable to be parsed in science. Going as broad as possible in the question about what kinds of evidence one could obtain to be proof of God has to come before the other questions. Most recently those arguments have taken shape in the form of categorical arguments, like where does consciousness, love or human character come from?
There's a weird rabbit hole appeared in our world where science has tried to eat up metaphysics as the ultimate explanation of the natural world. Science can never succeed at that task, but people are happy to live like Sisyphus it appears. Always trying to reduce the visions that are expressed through metaphysics down to scientific rationalism, but being unable to finally pull the light-bulb from the socket, so to speak.
>the difference between seeing a rock by the side of the road and a watch is that with a rock you wouldn't presume any ultimate purpose, because it's just a rock
The act of the scientific rational atheist of "not presuming" is the same act of J.E. Schellenberg's non-resisting, non-believing atheist. Taking the lesser "ontological cost" in assuming only the world exists and nothing more than that. The argument I make is that God cannot be ruled out in this fashion because the scientific atheist cannot rule out that the Rock has a purpose. I don't have a better argument than that, it's a very difficult argument to overcome in my eyes. I don't know ultimately why someone would be compelled to believing in God's existence, but plenty of arguments that inspire a longing to believe are an easier sell, as logically unsatisfying as it is.
>Then give the author credit and take it as a fun burst of levity, and not as a serious theological argument.
I like the argument, it is fun! But I don't think it was presented in that manner, and again I could be wrong, it just appeared to be support for the author's supposed intention rather than comedic relief.
>That sounds good to me, but how do you distill it? I think nearly as much effort would be required in administrating and preparing the presentation of the conversation as would be in actually making them. And making arguments is the fun part.
The Christian scholastic argument always depends on a two-step dialogue and that could be mapped as threads of support For or Against a specific topic, with the Topic usually encapsulated in a single word, logged as written arguments from authors across time. Like a gant chart filled with popular word topics that are each their own timeline of For/Against arguments.
The discussion about said topics need not be more complicated than a hacker-news clone.
I've always been under the impression that science is descriptive, it answers how?
Whereas religion is deeper than that and aims to answer why?
We can explain how natural processes work, but, and I believe this is a question Aristotle asked with the immovable mover, we'll never be able to get to a root cause of why everything exists and what started it all.
Either the universe is infinite and time has no beginning, or there is a beginning and potentially an end. If there's a beginning, what was before the beginning? If it's infinite, how did it all start? These are the questions that I thought religion tried to answer. Science can (most likely) never answer why. Science is fundamentally based on repeatable experiments, and that's fine. We can use it to build a model of how the universe works, but as of today, we can't use science to answer the fundamental questions about the reason for the universe.
This may be philosophical, but has science ever actually, and by that I mean explicitly, answered how? Is how even possible to answer?
I think probably not, given our current understandings, or probably not just period. Science is about building models of the reality we experience. The models are not reality themselves, so they don’t answer how. They only answer how relative to our own knowledge and experience. Also, it isn’t clear if our experience of reality is objective. I have a feeling that there is such a thing as relative objectivity among the different participants of the universe.
> Whereas religion is deeper than that and aims to answer why?
Religion is more of an organizational collective of power and control, but religion proper, let’s call it, and spiritually are more about consolation, in my view. This is related to why, but I think it also helps to frame religion and spirituality as “what now”? We’re here, there’s this life, this Earth, this Universe, so what are we supposed to do? I think why creeps in there as well.
I’m reminded of A Serious Man and the repetitious “what’s going on?”.
Tangentially, I am a bit baffled by folks that are not believers yet try to make sense of a religion, don't they understand hierarchy of belief? As in you need to know arithmetic before you can do linear alegbra? How can one understand anything religious without being theistic (buddhism aside). Most of the common atheist questions about faith are easily answered with the prerequisite of theism fulfilled for example.
The fundamental difference between science and religion in my opinion is that science says "I will believe things only if I can understand them" while religion says "The things you can understand and that are beyond human capacity to understand are described this way" religion is based on the acceptance that one cannot understand all things in reality, that things beyond our understanding or currect capacity or ability to know are still real and have effect in our reality.
I'd not give a damn about religion if it weren't shoving itself in my face everywhere. For example I don't care whatever religion some people on some remote islands may be practicing because they aren't forcing their religious dogmas on me (and as long as they don't abuse other people). The Big Religion though that we have around is forcing it's tentacles everywhere trying to strangulate everything, and thus even non believers have to deal with it defending themselves.
Clearly I meant atheists that criticize things they don't even believe in.
Especially if, as the parent noted, that thing one doesn't belief in has—through the actions of people that do believe—negative impacts on one's life?
We are talking truth and belief not impact on ones life.
my original comment contains clear answer.
>address what i said
i clearly addressed your stated requirement that one have to meet some your criteria of understanding of religion in order to criticize - as i clearly disagree with such a requirement because my involvement with religion isn't at my will, it is a defense from the religion forcing itself upon me everywhere.
For this reason, I share your bafflement.
You seem to be asserting that religious persons are willing to believe things on insufficient evidence, for example those “things beyond our understanding or currect capacity or ability to know,” and that is somehow a good thing?
As for the sufficient evidence, regardless of the personal perspective in the parent comment, you should know that a fundamental (Abrahamic) theological claim is that all humans have sufficient evidence of their creator’s existence. That’s mainly where the dispute is: the religious say what we all have universal access to /is/ sufficient; the non-religious claim what we have is insufficient.
Not accepting an idea if they think it conflicts with their personal interpretation of the Christian Bible can be a crippling inflexibility, and it (IMO) betrays a kind of inverted hubris when it's not accompanied by a strong admonition to not be too cock-sure about one's personal interpretation, because that will evolve as a person changes through growth and experience.
Not being able to do this is the source of a lot of cognitive dissonance that happens when a religious authority (operating from a prophet motive, no doubt) makes a confident prediction that winds up not coming to pass. A really recent example is all of the evangelicals who predicted that Trump would be re-elected after he provably lost the 2020 Presidential election. Some of the "prophetic community" apologized online (which they then retracted under intense pressure); most of the rest of them took refuge in "Satan stole the election!" which helped facilitate the Jan 6 insurrection.
It may seem self-evident that purely materialist axioms are more useful as a basis for starting the discussion, but depending on the end goal, starting the discussion more easily may not be advantageous in reaching the end goal. It's possible that restricting ourselves to purely materialist axioms is a case of looking for our keys under the light post because it's dark in the alley where we dropped them.
There are certain metaphysical assumptions that you have to make before you can start science:
* That there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.
* That this objective reality is governed by natural laws;
* That reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.
* That Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.
See:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Provid...
Not all world views have those. Take the first one: AFAIK, Buddhism (and Hinduism?) believe that the world is an illusion. Why would do empirical experiments on illusions?
I don't think it was an accident that science took off in Europe. Certainly there were individuals in other parts of the world that were curious about how the cosmos worked, but the overall worldview of their societies wasn't as receptive to such endeavours. There were many scientists in Muslim areas, but Islam generally ended up denying the fourth point above:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism
TL; DR: Science itself cannot prove science is true.
As you point out, we have had many Muslim scientists in our history that pushed the boundaries of discovery and knowledge. We're proud of our history and their achievements.
The great founders of science—Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, etc.—were, without exception, trained in ecclesially sponsored schools and universities. It was under the aegis of the church that they took in their physics, their astronomy, and their mathematics. More specifically, they learned in those institutions two essentially theological truths necessary for the emergence of the experimental sciences—namely, that the universe is not God and that the universe, in every nook and cranny, is marked by intelligibility. If nature were divine—as indeed it is considered to be in many religions, philosophies, and mysticisms—then it could never be an apt subject for observation, analysis, and experimentation. And if nature were simply chaotic, void of form, it would never yield up the harmonies and patterned intelligibilities that scientists readily seek. When these two truths, which are both a function of the doctrine of creation, obtain, the sciences can get underway.
Second, when science and theology are properly understood, they are not in conflict, since they are not competing for primacy on the same playing field, like opposing football teams. Utilizing the scientific method, the physical sciences deal with events, objects, dynamics, and relationships within the empirically verifiable order. Theology, employing an entirely different method, deals with God and the things of God—and God is not an object in the world, not a reality circumscribed within the context of nature. As Thomas Aquinas put it, God is not ens summum (highest being), but rather ipsum esse (the act of being as such)—which is to say, God is not a being among beings, but instead the reason why there is an empirically observable universe at all. In this way, he is like the author of a richly complex novel. Charles Dickens never appears as a character in any of his sprawling narratives, yet he is the reason why any of those characters exist at all. Accordingly, the sciences, as such, can never adjudicate the question of God’s existence nor speak of his activity or attributes. Another type of rationality—not in competition with scientific rationality—is required for the determination of those matters.
And this brings me to my third point: scientism is not science. Sadly rampant today, scientism is the reduction of all knowledge to the scientific form of knowledge. The undeniable success of the physical sciences and the extraordinary usefulness of the technologies to which they have given rise have produced in the minds of many this conviction, but it represents a tragic impoverishment. A chemist might be able to tell us the chemical makeup of the paints that Michelangelo used on the Sistine Ceiling, but he couldn’t, qua scientist, tell us a thing about what makes that work of art so beautiful. A geologist might be able to tell us the stratification of the earth below the city of Chicago, but he could never, again qua scientist, tell us whether that city is being justly or unjustly governed. There isn’t a trace of the scientific method in Romeo and Juliet, but who would be so stupid as to assert that that play tells us nothing true about the nature of love. In a similar way, the great texts of the Bible and the theological tradition are not “scientific,” but they nevertheless speak the profoundest truths about God, creation, sin, redemption, grace, etc. Both the cause and effect of scientism, sadly, is the attenuation of the liberal arts in our institutions of higher education. Rather than appreciating literature, history, philosophy, and religion as conduits of objective truth, many today relegate these to the arena of subjective feeling or subject them to withering ideological criticism.
And that is … Philosophy?
> A chemist might…
> A geologist might…
Perhaps neuroscience and data science would be more appropriate.
> … nevertheless speak the profoundest truths about God, creation, sin, redemption, grace, etc.
In the eye of the beholder.
Basically Aristotle lays out the framework without getting anywhere near a religious text.
Ha, good one! Certainly would be quite wonderful if, despite death, there is neither a beginning nor end to it.
I can't imagine life being finite, is that even possible given what we're in?
We haven't had a new popular enough religion that incorporates the current state of accepted science.
It benefits the leadership of any organization to give its members a reason for its existence. The better the reason, the greater chance of growth. Religions aim to provide the complete package - rules for society and the individual and rules for life and what comes after it.
I'm not sure that it's tricking people, because society is people. I mean, suppose that people aren't tricked into being good, and then society is worse off. How could everyone in the worse off society be doing better than everyone in the better off society? This doesn't seem like a trick to me so much as adopting a different perspective.
[1]: One example would be Gardnerian Wicca.
In this case the more we know about the how of the stars in the sky the less we can believe the uninformed why astrology is trying to present us.
Similar conflicts happen with religion and one cannot ignore that knowing the how deeply influences the why. Most members of our species can't stand the lack of meaning and the will use what they know to create stories that convey it. This is an understandable mechanism and in itself not a problem, but it can become one if the story is told in a way where it starts to clash with the facts.
In the end these stories, even when they call themselves holy texts are written by humans from their own limited perspectives of the time. That doesn't mean, there can not be wisdom in there, but there can also be wisdom in other texts so that doesn't really cut it..
Any other meaning that might be perceived is only there to deceive you.
Kingdoms fabricate legitimacy by birthright. Democracies by elections (not the people LOL). Etc.
Another asymmetry is that it's possible to hold scientific and religious beliefs at the same time (thanks to the above), but never two different religions at the same time. I know lots of Catholic scientists, but no Catholic Buddhists.
From a Catholic point of view, there is no contradiction, whatsoever, between science and religion. It is perfectly compatible and there is no contradiction with scripture. The problems are with scientism.
[1]: https://www.ncronline.org/news/i-wanted-faith-was-deeper-jes...
[2]: See, for example, Saint Thérèse of Lisieux.
That's not true at all. Religious syncretism is a very old concept, and involves the blending of religions.
There are Catholic Buddhists, for example, and there have been those professing to follow that since around the 1600s. You'll also find many blends of traditional Incan beliefs and Catholicism, despite the surface-level incompatibilities, in South America.
One specific example might be Caodaism, which blends elements of Catholicism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Caodaism has about 2.5Mil followers in Vietnam. One of the core tenants of the religion is that we are now living in a period of time called the Third Amnesty, the end of which will be marked by the syncretism of _all_ religions into one.
And when they conflict?
We can blend oil and vinegar but they'll settle out into oil and vinegar.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_religious_belonging
For instance, the majority of American Catholics believe it's OK to use birth control. So, who represents "Catholicism," the people or the church fathers? It's just my nature to give benefit of the doubt to the people.
Honestly, I think trying to answer why? is a misguided effort. There doesn't need to be a reason why, and moreover inanimate objects don't have motives. Why are we here? Because we're here!
You seem to imply that the universe is self-evident to all and is therefore “simpler” as something that has always existed. That’s what theists are claiming God is: already self-evident to all.
Conflating God and the universe as interchangeable is addressed by the Contingency Argument: https://youtu.be/FPCzEP0oD7I
That's why it makes more sense that the universe had a definite beginning and asking about time before that beginning is undefined - time simply doesn't exist before the beginning. Roger Penrose has some interesting ideas on what happened before the Big Bang (the universe "forgets" how to "tell" time and so time doesn't exist between different "epochs" of the universe):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o0gAglNdZw
Ain't really sure whence you'd get that impression. It's hard to exist without the universe being aware of it and causing it to be, both in the sense of the universe having been in a state enabling your existence and in the sense of your existence having effects on the universe (and thus producing new states enabling other existences).
God and the universe might not be one and the same, but they're intertwined; for the universe and the contents thereof to exist in any meaningful sense beyond some homogenous blob of cold matter, you need something dictating the interactions of matter and energy to produce something meaningful. Call it God, call it physics, call it whatever, but regardless it's obvious that it exists - the universe would be a rather boring place otherwise.
Secondly, asking "who created God" is similar to seeing a piece of bread, asking who baked it, then asking "who baked the baker"? It's a logical inconsistency and absurdity.
* https://quran.com/51/56
* https://quran.com/67/2
And more.
And yet, that "how" is relative to actual knowledge that is shaping with time or even point of view.