The author conveniently fails to mention Galileo was found guilty of heresy by the Church, forced to retract his Dialogues and lived the rest of his life under house arrest for advocating the Copernican heliocentric model over the doctrinal geocentric model.[0]
Well, that's not really how it happened. Don't forget that Galileo spilled a lot of ink in order to deliberately mock and humiliate the Holy Father at the time. His trial and sentence were not so much about his science than about his lousy attitude toward legitimate authority. There were other scientists who adhered to the Copernican perspective (Copernicus himself is a Roman Catholic priest) without so much trouble.
> His trial and sentence were not so much about his science than about his lousy attitude toward legitimate authority
References?
The charge of heresy is for heretic views, such as the Copernican heliocentric model in his case. It threatens to upend the authority of the Church; if the Church can be wrong about the nature of the universe then surely they can be wrong about other matters as well. His Dialogues remain banned by the Church till 1835, ~200 years later. To say that Galileo was convicted of heresy for "bad behaviour" is simply disingenuous.
The Wikipedia article [0] has a detailed discussion of the political elements as well as valid scientific criticisms of his work.
Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made: offering a sufficient condition for an occurrence does not prove that this condition caused the event. Him being tried and convicted of heresy doesn’t mean that his trial wasn’t politically motivated. Despots make up charges for political enemies constantly throughout history and heresy was an obvious choice
The Pope had been a fan and political ally of his within the church even before his ascension, and Galileo didn’t just disregard his request for a discussion of geocentric theory but did so in a way that specifically called him an idiot and undermined his authority. The Pope, who was essentially the ruler of central Italy, couldn’t let that public ridicule slide whether or not Galileo intended it (historians think the slights were unintentional). This led to his second trial for heresy for which he was convicted.
> The Wikipedia article [0] has a detailed discussion of the political elements
I am not denying that there were political factors in play. I am saying that the main factor in play was his dissent against the Church.
> valid scientific criticisms of his work. Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made
There is a distinction between 'evidence that refutes the geocentric model' and 'evidence that supports the Copernican heliocentric model'.
While the technology available did not allow him conclusively proof the Copernican heliocentric model (there were also issues with the model), the evidence he had strongly refuted the central thesis of the geocentric model - that Earth is the center of the universe and everything in the sky resolves around Earth. That lead him to advocate for the Copernican heliocentric model, inference to the best explanation.
Galileo observed that Venus had phases despite remaining near the Sun in Earth's sky, which proves that Venus revolves the Sun, not the Earth, hence refutes the geocentric model. His discovery of the moons revolving Jupiter further refutes the geocentric model, that not everything in the sky revolves around Earth. [0]
That’s the one example anyone ever uses and it’s way oversimplified. It’s also something that occurred 400 years ago, conducted by a church that doesn’t exist anymore (the catholics have changed a lot in 400 years and the Inquisition has been dead a long time).
The argument in the OP isn’t that religion hasn’t opposed or suppressed science. It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science. While some may wield religion to whatever ends suits them, the religion itself was merely the tool of the day. We see evidence of that throughout history, to oppose science or anything else.
What lies in the heart of the Galileo's Copernican Heliocentrism argument is the Church is and can be wrong, thus challenging the authority of the Church.
It is often used as an example because it is the prime example of the beginning of The Enlightenment, also known as The Age of Reason, the triumph of reason and evidence over dogma, which gave rise to modernity.
> It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science.
Take the creation narrative in Genesis: the world was created ~10,000 years ago in 6 (or 7, depending on how you count it) days. Is that narrative in fundamental conflict with modern science? Can both the genesis creation narrative and the theory of evolution be right? What and who decides which is correct? Should reason and evidence guide our beliefs or ancient texts proclaimed to be sacred?
Depends on the dogma. For some christian sects the old testament is genuinely a fable. It isn’t necessarily the religion, or spirituality more generally, that is opposed to science or rationality, but the dogma and way the spirituality/religion is taught/practiced.
That’s what they taught us in Catholic school as a kid. The Old Testament was a combination of parables and oral history before eventually being recorded. Moreover, we were taught that part of the significance of the Crucifixion was that it was to establish a new pact between humans and God, hence Jesus doing away with the old rules and commandments and Jesus commanding that the faith be spread beyond ethnic Jews.
That's very sad, but not so surprising, that Catholic schools would teach things that the Catholic Church has never taught. That's usually one more brick in the wall for kids who leave the faith, because their illusions are shattered by teachers and clergy who don't really believe in Church doctrines, and couldn't be bothered to pass down the Truth to children who are eager to know it.
>It is often used as an example because it is the prime example of the beginning of The Enlightenment, also known as The Age of Reason, the triumph of reason and evidence over dogma, which gave rise to modernity.
But is this reality or just a nice narrative people like to bring up as a "all experts are wrong" dog whistle?
The Galileo thing was about politics, not religion. The pope (who was a good friend of his) gave him permission to write and publish the book, and then Galileo used an exact quote from that friend as a line from a character called "Simplicio" and it turns out spitting in your friend's face when the rest of the elites already hate you is a great way to be censured in a time before "knowledge is power".
The Vatican also had real power back then, not just soft power as the head of a religion. They controlled a decent chunk of Italy outright. Galileo was also around during the Counter-Reformation when the Church dealing with the political ramifications of the rise of Protestantism, and saw his reinterpretation of the Bible as fire power for the Protestants.
Moreover, there were valid epistemological criticisms of Galileo’s theory. The scientific method and accepted standards of proof were being developed. This work was also pre-Newton, this physical laws themselves were still not well-understood. Many of his critics were skeptical because, while heliocentric theory simplified the math, Galileo hadn’t disproved geocentricism — he gave a sufficient condition for his data not a necessary one. Thus, they complained he was making claims beyond the scope of his scientific work.
> he gave a sufficient condition for his data not a necessary one. Thus, they complained he was making claims beyond the scope of his scientific work.
That is incorrect. Galileo observed that Venus had phases despite remaining near the Sun as observed from Earth, which proves that Venus revolves the Sun, not the Earth, hence refutes the geocentric model. His discovery of the moons revolving Jupiter further refutes the geocentric model, that not everything in the sky revolves around Earth.
> But is this reality or just a nice narrative people like to bring up as a "all experts are wrong" dog whistle?
How is that even remotely related to "all experts are wrong"?
> The Galileo thing was about politics, not religion.
As I said in another comment, the Copernican heliocentric model is at odds with the Church's geocentric doctrine and the Scriptures, hence challenging the Church's and the religion's credibility and authority. To claim that the Galileo affair is simply a "personal feud" is wholly disingenuous.
> It also wasn't scientific.
Galileo used the empirical data (observation of the planets) he obtained through his telescope to test and justify the Copernican heliocentrism model - it is the definition of science.
Granted, the religious _practice_ I’m most familiar with is Christianity as it is practiced in North America. There, non-trivial numbers of people believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and hold to other similar falsifiable claims. I would gladly shrug my shoulders and say “To each, his own.” But there are constant battles to present some of these views (albeit less extreme) in public school curricula. Some have ended in landmark cases before the Supreme Court.
One can make the argument that science and religion occupy disparate spheres of interest, as Gould did with his “non-overlapping magisteria,” but it ignores the fact that religion as it is practiced often makes claims about material reality, claims that can be put to scientific scrutiny.
The historical record is interesting, and I appreciate the details presented in TFA. But I’m concerned with the practicalities of religious practice and those of science and the “constantly-overlapping magisteria” of material claims.
Point taken, but you have to understand that American Fundamentalism is a minor pocket of Christianity in the worldwide scheme of things. There are billions of Christians who don't believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth. Billions of us.
And perhaps those Fundamentalists felt that the anti-religious atheists needed an appropriate foil. Certainly some of the noisiest people have come from both camps and made their presence and beliefs known. I believe there is a silent majority on both sides that sees no conflict between science and religion, because this lack of conflict has existed for 2,000 years, and it will continue to exist, because Christianity is the source of spiritual truth, and science seeks to explain physical truths.
> because Christianity is the source of spiritual truth
the source?
I'll give you a source (for some) .. but there are a lot of religions across the globe and Christianity is just one of several in the Abrahamic family.
Fair point about Galileo though - his trial was principally due to him being a delibrately provocative giant pain in the butt to all the wrong people.
Several? There’s Judaism and Christianity. There’s also Islam which came later, whose scriptures contradict with canonical Christian texts. Islam also exhibits religious deviation from ethnic bias.
Other so-called Abrahamic religions are beliefs tossed in a blender with some of this and some of that, sometimes ethic emphasis, sometimes syncretism. But no serious reader should consider them “Abrahamic.”
Pretty sure most of Utah feels slighted by your comment.
When people refer to the Abrahamic religions they are usually thinking of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
There are, in fact, more Abrahamic religions, such as the Baha’i Faith, Yezidi, Druze, Samaritan and Rastafari, ...
You're certainly entitled to your opinion just as the British Libray (above link) is entitled to theirs.
It's not like serious readers bother much with the British Library.
The British Library is a research library in London that is the national library of the United Kingdom.
It is one of the two largest libraries in the world, along with the Library of Congress.
I’m going to assume you’re talking about Mormonism, which isn’t a new religion unto itself. It’s a denomination.
Your other examples, which are copy-pasted from other sites, are in fact, religions of syncretism.
They are obviously not Abrahamic.
If we created a new religion right here in this HN thread and combined Abrahamic precepts with some blend of western Buddhism and secular thought, does it make it an “Abhramic” religion? No it makes it a syncretic religion.
It’s irrelevant what the size of an institution says. This is just an example of an argument from authority fallacy. You’re not making an actual point.
It’s a poor reference to authority, too. If you wanted good cookware, would you go to Walmart or Williams Sonoma? Why of all places would The British Library be an institution for religious authority as compared to actual religious history schools?
There are some Christians who don't recognize Mormonism or some other groups that call themselves Christian as Christians due to theological differences, mainly about the Trinity IIRC.
As for Abrahamic faiths, the obvious criteria to decide if it is Abrahamic or not is to see if they claim to worship the God of Abraham, which a quick Wikipedia check indicates they all do. What criteria do you believe correct and includes Judaism and Christianity but not any other?
I’m telling you that there are subjects that you should prefer domain-specific reading to in contrast to obtaining all of your information from Wikipedia.
Some of it is straight up wrong, or edited by people with particular editorial priorities.
In the case of religious readings from Wikipedia, much of it written from the secular perspective is straight up wrong. You could simply ask an educated, practicing Jew about Judaism and be more informed. They’d obviously be a practitioner anyway.
In the case of these so-called “Abrahamic” religions, the scriptures of said origin religions talk about false gods, yet some of the ones you claim believe in multiple gods. So which is it? Do you believe in the god of Abraham alone or not?
This is just a casual example of scriptural violation. It’s trivial to point this out.
You can’t be a serious scholar of faiths and consider such points of view without labeling them as syncretic religions.
>In the case of these so-called “Abrahamic” religions, the scriptures of said origin religions talk about false gods, yet some of the ones you claim believe in multiple gods. So which is it? Do you believe in the god of Abraham alone or not?
The jewish faith once had a pantheon of gods. You've "no true scottsman"ed your way into saying the jewish faith is not Abrahamic.
Once had? Go tell that to an Orthodox Jew, or you know, go read what they actually believe. There is no Jewish faith, to my knowledge, that ever had multiple gods.
You're referring to Yahwism, which is a name and concept given by secular scholars trying to understand the origins of Judaism, but no such religion in-and-of-itself ever existed.
It would be like national historians grouping the histories of Canada, The United States of America, and Mexico into some sort of "Peoples of Northern America" nation, which does not exist.
> In the case of these so-called “Abrahamic” religions, the scriptures of said origin religions talk about false gods, yet some of the ones you claim believe in multiple gods.
Note that this is a complaint Muslims, some Jews, and some others direct at the Trinity, so...
Well, yeah, that's what Christians claiming to be Abrahamic monotheists claim.
Non-Christian Abrahamic monotheists often strenuously disagree.
EDIT: to be clear, I am a Christian and believe the Trinity isn't multiple Gods (and neither is, say, the veneration of saints.) But I am also not gatekeeping clearly Abrahamic-in-descent faiths from the Abrahamic family tree on the basis of whether or not they posit the existence of entities that I consider incompatible with monotheism (both because “monotheism” is a separate descriptor from Abrahamic, and because evaluated monotheism is slippery.)
There is still no Jewish faith to my knowledge that is polytheistic. If you have material to share that provides evidence otherwise, I’d be interested in reading it, but Judaism isn’t Yahwism. That’s not gatekeeping, that’s… reading.
Mono- and polytheism isn’t slippery. You either believe in one god or multiple gods. There’s little to dissect there.
Well, someone's already brought up the Latter-Day Saint movement, which has interesting features:
- LDS claim to be Christian
- LDS claim to believe in the Trinity
- LDS have added to Sacred Scripture and claim that Divine Revelation is ongoing
- LDS are, in fact, henotheistic, which is a little bit of slip between mono- and poly-. LDS believe that God the Father, and Jesus as well, were once mortal beings who achieved *theosis*, becoming gods, and ruling their own planets, which is the same that LDS men can aspire to: becoming gods and rulers of planets in their own right, in the celestial kingdom, with their wives by their side.
- LDS use a lot of the same words but with significantly different meanings. It is for this reason that Christians have judged the LDS baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", as a non-Christian, non-Trinitarian ceremony without effect, because even when using the same words, LDS are *saying and believing something entirely different*.
- Joseph Smith established an interesting syncretism among Second Temple Judaism (as he understood it), Restorationist Christianity in the USA, and Freemasonry. Mormonism is Abrahamic, insofar as all those influences are Abrahamic as well, but nobody can rightly call Mormonism "monotheistic", given their doctrine of mortal men becoming gods.
Depending on how the specific questions are asked there's 18% to 39% of survey respondents with some sort of young earth creationist beliefs.[0][1] That's tens of millions of people in the most powerful country in the world. And American Evangelicals seem to be doing quite a bit of evangelizing around the world.
There is a distinction between 'what Christians believe' and 'what the Bible claims'.
The creation narrative in Genesis: either "the Bible is sacred and wholly true/correct" OR "the theory of evolution is true/correct". If the Bible can be wrong about the nature of the universe (as the Church was wrong about heliocentricism during Galileo's time), then surely it can be wrong about any number of issues.
I wouldn't call Genesis "wrong", I'd just call it "describing things from a different perspective". Genesis does not purport to be a science textbook, or a 21st-century historical narrative. If you choose to remain ignorant of that perspective and the literary devices used by the divinely inspired author of Genesis, then I'm afraid you're missing out.
This is what I am getting: it is simply a "matter of perspective"; despite the Bible getting the age of the planet comically wrong (~10,000 years vs ~4,500,000,000 years) , that the life did not progress as claimed (on day 5, God created the birds and sea animals; on day 6, the land animals and humans; which would mean the dinosaurs and humans roamed the planet concurrently, among other absurdities), in a way which is at complete odds with the fields of biology, anthropology, geography, physics etc - the conclusion one should hold is: Genesis is "not wrong".
Correct, yes, because you are wrong in trying to calculate those so-called facts based on your naïve reading of Genesis. As I said, not a science text, not a history report. If you can't interpret Sacred Scripture properly, then of course you will come to absurd conclusions.
That's not a goal of interpretation. You don't start by saying "let me make this compatible with 'modern science', whatever that is." Its chief literary genre is allegory, if that helps.
> That's not a goal of interpretation. You don't start by saying "let me make this compatible with 'modern science', whatever that is." Its chief literary genre is allegory, if that helps.
Perfect. To summarise: the genesis creation narrative can never be wrong. It is an allegorical narrative with no factual value. Despite having no factual value, one can be mistaken about it. The burden of proof lies not with the claimant but the dissenter, if they can overcome their "false perspective", ignorance or naivety that is.
> If the Bible can be wrong about the nature of the universe (as the Church was wrong about heliocentricism during Galileo's time), then surely it can be wrong about any number of issues.
“The Bible can be wrong about any number of issues, just not, when understood properly, about faith and morals” is a not-uncommon Christian position.
That it is simple, self-contained, ibtended literally, and correct on every factual detail is... a rather novel opinion.
The amount of cognitive dissonance required to maintain the beliefs 'the Bible can be mistaken about many issues' and 'it is never mistaken on issues pertaining to faith and morality' never ceases to amaze.
> a rather novel opinion
It's remarkable how one can evade the inherent contradictions in their position while appearing quite righteous about it.
"I never said the Bible is wholly true (and I will not address its inherent contradictions) so the joke's on you!"
Yes, I'm not sure most people realize that it was a Catholic priest (and theoretical physicist, mathematician and astronomer), Georges Lemaître, who was the first to propose the Big Bang theory.
The remainder are just plain crazy of the kind that can rote learn and regurgitate a four year ritual incantation exam course without deviation into critical thinking.
However you specifically asked about Flat Earthers .. and while I won't deny there are some genuine believers in a flat earth out there my experience is that most self described flat earthers with actual university engineering degrees from modern western culture are glorious LARP'ers keeping a straight face and pulling legs.
Much as I believe in a hyperbolic inverted universe within a hollow earth.
( Christian engineers are a whole other ball of wax .. but flat earthers that passed kinematics with varying mass from fuel loss to achieve escape velocity ... c'mon now )
Maybe I should have used a better example then. Like Newton and alchemy maybe? My point was more you can be intelligent, educated, etc. and still have dumb beliefs. I agree with you about the flat earther stuff.
Funnily enough, I used to work on a project called Hollow Earth. That team loved to joke around with conspiracy theories.
You sure about that though? There was no stone capable of turn base metal into gold - that knowledge of atomic transition via fission and fusion came later - but
( important point here )
a large amount of 'alchemy' worked just fine .. you followed the process and the stuff claimed happened just as the recipe said.
Compartmentalization. I once had physics teacher in senior high school who taught the Scientific Method. And taught it well. I will always be grateful to him for that. But he was deeply religious and led the high school's bible study club.
Unsurprisingly, the author takes a religious approach to proving his point and leans heavily on assertions and anecdotes.
If anyone has any doubts, the scientific method is the foundation of all science. It is completely incompatible with the overwhelming assertions of religious texts. If religions were evaluated within scientific framework, they would be deemed junk and crack pot theories.
This is a great piece and I have bought the book. I'm expecting that in the decades ahead we will begin to see conferences on the conflict between science and atheism. Research into the question of the origin of life has put atheism to bed as a serious hypothesis, but there are still many common uneducated people who think atheism is a scientifically viable stance, and this perspective can even be found among academics who have not kept up with the latest advancements.
>Research into the question of the origin of life has put atheism to bed as a serious hypothesis
This is almost too dumb to respond to, but here goes.
Atheism isn't a hypothesis and never has been. I half-suspect you mean abiogenesis, but even there you'd be dead wrong. Recent research in abiogenesis has continued to make progress and I'd be happy to provide you with some recent citations. As for atheism being "a scientifically viable stance" you sound like you're way overstating the case in the hope that people won't know the difference and will give you really unearned credence. Per Wordnik, in their third definition atheism is "the denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person."
Put in layman's terms, that definition of atheism boils down to disbelief in stories that someone tells you about a supreme creator. Nobody is obligated to listen to or accept somebody else's words, even if they're said at high volume in over a microphone in front of a bunch of people willing to put money in a basket.
Science, on the other hand, is (basically) the "Money talks, bullshit walks" way of trying to filter out the whole host of lies, special pleading, misinformation and plain nonsense that gets bandied about under the "religion" banner.
Yes, the "money talks, bullshit walks" perspective is what is kicking atheism out the door. The existence of life is absolutely overwhelming proof of the existence of a creative God.
I suggest you read the book "The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check" by Tan and Stadler. I'm well aware that you'll be able to try and snow the discussion with two dozen "citations" that will all be dead-end rabbit holes, but you can go ahead and provide them if you'd like.
Let us assume there were no reasonable explanation for the origin of life. Yet, "there is no reasonable explanation of life, hence god exists" would still be a non sequitur. You have to brush up your Logic, and it is not meant as a 'take that'.
If you want to do yourself a favor, try your skills on "there is no reasonable explanation of life, hence Zeus exists". Or Allah, if it helps.
Worse yet, you are peddling the god of the gaps: the god that is supposed to explain things where science cannot. This is exactly the god that is fleeing from science ever since science reared its head. And it is the view of god which the original article tries to refute. As your existence shows, it cannot be entirely right.
There is a reasonable explanation for the origin of life: a creative God. As for Zeus vs Allah, etc, I'm just not interested. Everyone knows God has ten thousand times ten thousand names and is in any case beyond our comprehension.
Of course I'm biting the bullet on God of the Gaps -- the question of the origin of life is the only interesting question in the universe, since without life no other question arises. When I write my book on this subject I will title it "The God of the Gap".
Now explain why you constantly appeal to a materialism of the gaps.
“We don’t know how rna can self replicate” implies “the creator of the universe gave birth to himself and then had himself tortured and killed and then brought back to life because the only conceivable alternative was for him to torture us all forever for being the way he made us”
The purpose of the comment break was to add comedic timing, but I see how it could look like fake additional support for my view. I will stick to one comment going forward.
You don't exactly sound like the type of person who would have needed convincing that atheism is not "a serious hypothesis". So are you really someone who can declare that with any credibility?
This also feels like terminology nitpicking. Plenty of scientists are agnostic instead of explicitly atheists, but they tend to be just as unreligious.
A proof is usually some premises together with a conclusion, such that the premises are true or accepted, and it is not possible that the premises are true while the conclusion is not - usually for formal reasons.
I don't see why "life exists and no god exists" should be a contradiction for formal or other reasons.
Furthermore: the existence of which god? As you know there and have been many religions with different gods.
And lastly: if it was straightforward, how come so many people fail to see it?
76 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 134 ms ] threadWhen one cherry picks evidence like that...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
References?
The charge of heresy is for heretic views, such as the Copernican heliocentric model in his case. It threatens to upend the authority of the Church; if the Church can be wrong about the nature of the universe then surely they can be wrong about other matters as well. His Dialogues remain banned by the Church till 1835, ~200 years later. To say that Galileo was convicted of heresy for "bad behaviour" is simply disingenuous.
Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made: offering a sufficient condition for an occurrence does not prove that this condition caused the event. Him being tried and convicted of heresy doesn’t mean that his trial wasn’t politically motivated. Despots make up charges for political enemies constantly throughout history and heresy was an obvious choice
The Pope had been a fan and political ally of his within the church even before his ascension, and Galileo didn’t just disregard his request for a discussion of geocentric theory but did so in a way that specifically called him an idiot and undermined his authority. The Pope, who was essentially the ruler of central Italy, couldn’t let that public ridicule slide whether or not Galileo intended it (historians think the slights were unintentional). This led to his second trial for heresy for which he was convicted.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
I am not denying that there were political factors in play. I am saying that the main factor in play was his dissent against the Church.
> valid scientific criticisms of his work. Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made
There is a distinction between 'evidence that refutes the geocentric model' and 'evidence that supports the Copernican heliocentric model'.
While the technology available did not allow him conclusively proof the Copernican heliocentric model (there were also issues with the model), the evidence he had strongly refuted the central thesis of the geocentric model - that Earth is the center of the universe and everything in the sky resolves around Earth. That lead him to advocate for the Copernican heliocentric model, inference to the best explanation.
Galileo observed that Venus had phases despite remaining near the Sun in Earth's sky, which proves that Venus revolves the Sun, not the Earth, hence refutes the geocentric model. His discovery of the moons revolving Jupiter further refutes the geocentric model, that not everything in the sky revolves around Earth. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Copernican_sy...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum#Ch...
The argument in the OP isn’t that religion hasn’t opposed or suppressed science. It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science. While some may wield religion to whatever ends suits them, the religion itself was merely the tool of the day. We see evidence of that throughout history, to oppose science or anything else.
It is often used as an example because it is the prime example of the beginning of The Enlightenment, also known as The Age of Reason, the triumph of reason and evidence over dogma, which gave rise to modernity.
> It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science.
Take the creation narrative in Genesis: the world was created ~10,000 years ago in 6 (or 7, depending on how you count it) days. Is that narrative in fundamental conflict with modern science? Can both the genesis creation narrative and the theory of evolution be right? What and who decides which is correct? Should reason and evidence guide our beliefs or ancient texts proclaimed to be sacred?
But is this reality or just a nice narrative people like to bring up as a "all experts are wrong" dog whistle?
The Galileo thing was about politics, not religion. The pope (who was a good friend of his) gave him permission to write and publish the book, and then Galileo used an exact quote from that friend as a line from a character called "Simplicio" and it turns out spitting in your friend's face when the rest of the elites already hate you is a great way to be censured in a time before "knowledge is power".
It also wasn't scientific.
Moreover, there were valid epistemological criticisms of Galileo’s theory. The scientific method and accepted standards of proof were being developed. This work was also pre-Newton, this physical laws themselves were still not well-understood. Many of his critics were skeptical because, while heliocentric theory simplified the math, Galileo hadn’t disproved geocentricism — he gave a sufficient condition for his data not a necessary one. Thus, they complained he was making claims beyond the scope of his scientific work.
That is incorrect. Galileo observed that Venus had phases despite remaining near the Sun as observed from Earth, which proves that Venus revolves the Sun, not the Earth, hence refutes the geocentric model. His discovery of the moons revolving Jupiter further refutes the geocentric model, that not everything in the sky revolves around Earth.
How is that even remotely related to "all experts are wrong"?
> The Galileo thing was about politics, not religion.
As I said in another comment, the Copernican heliocentric model is at odds with the Church's geocentric doctrine and the Scriptures, hence challenging the Church's and the religion's credibility and authority. To claim that the Galileo affair is simply a "personal feud" is wholly disingenuous.
> It also wasn't scientific.
Galileo used the empirical data (observation of the planets) he obtained through his telescope to test and justify the Copernican heliocentrism model - it is the definition of science.
One can make the argument that science and religion occupy disparate spheres of interest, as Gould did with his “non-overlapping magisteria,” but it ignores the fact that religion as it is practiced often makes claims about material reality, claims that can be put to scientific scrutiny.
The historical record is interesting, and I appreciate the details presented in TFA. But I’m concerned with the practicalities of religious practice and those of science and the “constantly-overlapping magisteria” of material claims.
And perhaps those Fundamentalists felt that the anti-religious atheists needed an appropriate foil. Certainly some of the noisiest people have come from both camps and made their presence and beliefs known. I believe there is a silent majority on both sides that sees no conflict between science and religion, because this lack of conflict has existed for 2,000 years, and it will continue to exist, because Christianity is the source of spiritual truth, and science seeks to explain physical truths.
the source?
I'll give you a source (for some) .. but there are a lot of religions across the globe and Christianity is just one of several in the Abrahamic family.
Fair point about Galileo though - his trial was principally due to him being a delibrately provocative giant pain in the butt to all the wrong people.
Other so-called Abrahamic religions are beliefs tossed in a blender with some of this and some of that, sometimes ethic emphasis, sometimes syncretism. But no serious reader should consider them “Abrahamic.”
You're certainly entitled to your opinion just as the British Libray (above link) is entitled to theirs.
It's not like serious readers bother much with the British Library.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_LibraryYour other examples, which are copy-pasted from other sites, are in fact, religions of syncretism.
They are obviously not Abrahamic.
If we created a new religion right here in this HN thread and combined Abrahamic precepts with some blend of western Buddhism and secular thought, does it make it an “Abhramic” religion? No it makes it a syncretic religion.
It’s irrelevant what the size of an institution says. This is just an example of an argument from authority fallacy. You’re not making an actual point.
It’s a poor reference to authority, too. If you wanted good cookware, would you go to Walmart or Williams Sonoma? Why of all places would The British Library be an institution for religious authority as compared to actual religious history schools?
As for Abrahamic faiths, the obvious criteria to decide if it is Abrahamic or not is to see if they claim to worship the God of Abraham, which a quick Wikipedia check indicates they all do. What criteria do you believe correct and includes Judaism and Christianity but not any other?
Some of it is straight up wrong, or edited by people with particular editorial priorities.
In the case of religious readings from Wikipedia, much of it written from the secular perspective is straight up wrong. You could simply ask an educated, practicing Jew about Judaism and be more informed. They’d obviously be a practitioner anyway.
In the case of these so-called “Abrahamic” religions, the scriptures of said origin religions talk about false gods, yet some of the ones you claim believe in multiple gods. So which is it? Do you believe in the god of Abraham alone or not?
This is just a casual example of scriptural violation. It’s trivial to point this out.
You can’t be a serious scholar of faiths and consider such points of view without labeling them as syncretic religions.
The jewish faith once had a pantheon of gods. You've "no true scottsman"ed your way into saying the jewish faith is not Abrahamic.
You're referring to Yahwism, which is a name and concept given by secular scholars trying to understand the origins of Judaism, but no such religion in-and-of-itself ever existed.
It would be like national historians grouping the histories of Canada, The United States of America, and Mexico into some sort of "Peoples of Northern America" nation, which does not exist.
Note that this is a complaint Muslims, some Jews, and some others direct at the Trinity, so...
Non-Christian Abrahamic monotheists often strenuously disagree.
EDIT: to be clear, I am a Christian and believe the Trinity isn't multiple Gods (and neither is, say, the veneration of saints.) But I am also not gatekeeping clearly Abrahamic-in-descent faiths from the Abrahamic family tree on the basis of whether or not they posit the existence of entities that I consider incompatible with monotheism (both because “monotheism” is a separate descriptor from Abrahamic, and because evaluated monotheism is slippery.)
There is still no Jewish faith to my knowledge that is polytheistic. If you have material to share that provides evidence otherwise, I’d be interested in reading it, but Judaism isn’t Yahwism. That’s not gatekeeping, that’s… reading.
Mono- and polytheism isn’t slippery. You either believe in one god or multiple gods. There’s little to dissect there.
[0] https://ncse.ngo/americans-scientific-knowledge-and-beliefs-...
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/02/06/the-evolutio...
The creation narrative in Genesis: either "the Bible is sacred and wholly true/correct" OR "the theory of evolution is true/correct". If the Bible can be wrong about the nature of the universe (as the Church was wrong about heliocentricism during Galileo's time), then surely it can be wrong about any number of issues.
Perfect. To summarise: the genesis creation narrative can never be wrong. It is an allegorical narrative with no factual value. Despite having no factual value, one can be mistaken about it. The burden of proof lies not with the claimant but the dissenter, if they can overcome their "false perspective", ignorance or naivety that is.
I wrote that your so-called facts have no value in regards to Genesis. Genesis is quite factual--that's why it can never be wrong.
“The Bible can be wrong about any number of issues, just not, when understood properly, about faith and morals” is a not-uncommon Christian position.
That it is simple, self-contained, ibtended literally, and correct on every factual detail is... a rather novel opinion.
> a rather novel opinion
It's remarkable how one can evade the inherent contradictions in their position while appearing quite righteous about it.
"I never said the Bible is wholly true (and I will not address its inherent contradictions) so the joke's on you!"
how do you explain recent prominent scientists, including Nobel Laureates whao are also committed Christians?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_...
These are peak scientists who have reconciled internally what you believe to be conflicting opposites.
Genius spruikers, exuberant showmen, I-can't-believe-you-fell-for-their-spiel operators.
For the most part.
The remainder are just plain crazy of the kind that can rote learn and regurgitate a four year ritual incantation exam course without deviation into critical thinking.
However you specifically asked about Flat Earthers .. and while I won't deny there are some genuine believers in a flat earth out there my experience is that most self described flat earthers with actual university engineering degrees from modern western culture are glorious LARP'ers keeping a straight face and pulling legs.
Much as I believe in a hyperbolic inverted universe within a hollow earth.
I mean, the math checks out, right?
https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:14770298
( Christian engineers are a whole other ball of wax .. but flat earthers that passed kinematics with varying mass from fuel loss to achieve escape velocity ... c'mon now )
Funnily enough, I used to work on a project called Hollow Earth. That team loved to joke around with conspiracy theories.
> dumb beliefs.
You sure about that though? There was no stone capable of turn base metal into gold - that knowledge of atomic transition via fission and fusion came later - but
( important point here )
a large amount of 'alchemy' worked just fine .. you followed the process and the stuff claimed happened just as the recipe said.
It did transform into what we now call chemistry.
If anyone has any doubts, the scientific method is the foundation of all science. It is completely incompatible with the overwhelming assertions of religious texts. If religions were evaluated within scientific framework, they would be deemed junk and crack pot theories.
username checks out
This is almost too dumb to respond to, but here goes.
Atheism isn't a hypothesis and never has been. I half-suspect you mean abiogenesis, but even there you'd be dead wrong. Recent research in abiogenesis has continued to make progress and I'd be happy to provide you with some recent citations. As for atheism being "a scientifically viable stance" you sound like you're way overstating the case in the hope that people won't know the difference and will give you really unearned credence. Per Wordnik, in their third definition atheism is "the denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person."
Put in layman's terms, that definition of atheism boils down to disbelief in stories that someone tells you about a supreme creator. Nobody is obligated to listen to or accept somebody else's words, even if they're said at high volume in over a microphone in front of a bunch of people willing to put money in a basket.
Science, on the other hand, is (basically) the "Money talks, bullshit walks" way of trying to filter out the whole host of lies, special pleading, misinformation and plain nonsense that gets bandied about under the "religion" banner.
I suggest you read the book "The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check" by Tan and Stadler. I'm well aware that you'll be able to try and snow the discussion with two dozen "citations" that will all be dead-end rabbit holes, but you can go ahead and provide them if you'd like.
If you want to do yourself a favor, try your skills on "there is no reasonable explanation of life, hence Zeus exists". Or Allah, if it helps.
Worse yet, you are peddling the god of the gaps: the god that is supposed to explain things where science cannot. This is exactly the god that is fleeing from science ever since science reared its head. And it is the view of god which the original article tries to refute. As your existence shows, it cannot be entirely right.
Of course I'm biting the bullet on God of the Gaps -- the question of the origin of life is the only interesting question in the universe, since without life no other question arises. When I write my book on this subject I will title it "The God of the Gap".
Now explain why you constantly appeal to a materialism of the gaps.
This also feels like terminology nitpicking. Plenty of scientists are agnostic instead of explicitly atheists, but they tend to be just as unreligious.
I don't see why "life exists and no god exists" should be a contradiction for formal or other reasons.
Furthermore: the existence of which god? As you know there and have been many religions with different gods.
And lastly: if it was straightforward, how come so many people fail to see it?
We can determine the truth of this statement empirically due to our understanding of information science, entropy, chemistry, and physics.