[bondarchuk]

I feel like a bit of a dick pointing this out, but I think everyone should realize this magazine (as well as Nautil.us by the way) is funded by the Templeton Foundation, which has quite a strong focus on religion (eh, sorry, "the intersection of religion and science"). On the one hand I feel it shouldn't really matter and we can all judge an article by its contents, but on the other hand some of the articles that show up here are really just a religious wolf in a scientific sheep's clothing, and I don't think many here would give them more than 2 seconds of their day if they knew this upfront.

[acqq]

Yes, and with that attitude they and the people that write for them to match the agenda aren't different from the producer of "Ancient Aliens" who has a very specific agenda: to train the viewers to not believe the science (1) and "look for God", in his own words:

"It’s really a show about looking for God. Science would have you believe we are the result of nothing more than a chance assemblage of matter. The real truth is we don’t know."

It's one thing to positively promote your beliefs, what's from a humanistic point very wrong is intentionally sowing confusion and spreading doubt in what is already known (and demotivating people to even attempt to learn something right). Time and again we see how the people eventually suffer from such actions.

Also, "If Life Were Only Like This" (2) I wish I could pull Thomas Kuhn to every writer who mentions him around just to promote his own agenda: "I heard what you're saying, you know nothing of my work, how you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing."

1) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/style/ancient-aliens.html

2) https://www.openculture.com/2017/05/woody-allen-gets-marshal...

[paganel]

> The real truth is we don’t know

I'm an agnostic person but isn't that the present (scientific) consensus right now?

That doesn't necessarily mean that there was a "God" that was behind of it all, but I was left with the impression that the whole "everything happened by chance and chance only" discussion was more common 15-20 years ago compared to now, when we have other agnostic people seriously proposing the "we live in a simulation" theory or the "multiverse/multi-world" theories, both options which are not necessarily random (especially the "simulation" one).

Just to make clear, I'm no scientist and I didn't follow this conversation ("what are the origins of the world/universe?") that closely because I don't find it to be that interesting, so if I'm talking non-sense maybe some other more knowledgeable people can correct me.

[acqq]

We do know that what all famous religions promote is a complete nonsense, as in, what's in the religious books which claim to be fundamental truth just isn't scientific, but instead matches exactly what the humans of the times in which the books were written understood about the world around them. But the humanity learned much more since then.

And it's not a new phenomenon. As the American continent was discovered by Europeans, with all the vegetables never before seen in Europe, it was already completely obvious that the world as described in the "holy" texts doesn't match the facts. America just doesn't exist in the Bible or in Koran, and neither do most of the products we eat today. (2) And then the Mormons, being in America, filled that gap with their "newer" "holy" text again delivered by an angel.

It's so completely not fitting what we scientifically know that the detractors can't argue at that level at all, trying instead to place their god in the "gaps" (1) which became immensely smaller as the scientific knowledge progressed.

The spreaders of doubt can't increase the "gaps" the science already narrowed down, but work day and night to increase the number of people whose own perception of the world around them has bigger gaps, especially by maintaining the false associations in their minds ("when you hear this think instead about that"). That's doable and that's good enough for them. But it's bad for humanity. That's how we have people drinking bleach and spreading such ideas to others. They just remain confused and demotivated to learn consistently ("we should doubt everything especially the science"). And by the same principles, we get the text we all comment here and your response too, hanging exactly to these words.

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

2) https://www.britannica.com/list/18-food-crops-developed-in-t... -- there's no: beans, corn (maize), peanut, peppers, potato, sunflower or tomato in the Bible and, of course, no American continent. Both in the Bible and in the Koran the Earth is flat, under the solid firmament (the original word meant something like "the thinly beaten firm dome" as the metal bowls were made) to which the stars are attached. In Koran, moreover, the "god" shoots the devils with the shooting stars.

Edit: a response to the "god is unknown" reply: yes, "god" can be "unknown", and I agree that those who argue should first precisely define their "god", what is however known is that whatever the religious books tell you that god is -- just can't be true, and the stories are on the level of simple child stories, from the today's perspective. My definition therefore is "all the appearances and acts of god in the holy texts." If you are ready to throw away everything in the "holy" texts and still believe in "something" that is not against what is already scientifically known, I surely have no problem with that. But a jealous god demanding a firstborn son to be ritually sacrificed, or sending bears to maul children who mocked his prophet, or sacrificing himself on the cross in spite of being almighty and being able to do any simpler intervention, or giving exclusive prophecies to an illiterate caravan robber allowing him to have as many wives as he wants and commanding him to kill all unbelievers? Forgetaboutit.

[nsomaru]

All religion has two aspects; outer ritual and inner philosophy.

It’s quite sad to me to see a community of freethinkers here so summarily dismiss ideas which do not line up with their world view. It’s like Dawkins who only attacks fundamentalists and never looks at more philosophical interpretations, never mind approaching non-Abrahamic traditions.

So yes, rituals differ, maybe outdated and allegory is difficult to relate to. But people throw around this word “God” without even bothering to define it. It’s like saying the answer to an equation is X. No, the answer is not X, X is a postulation which you are required to solve for.

Similarly merely accepting the existence or non existence of God has no meaning. God is unknown. For anyone interested in further reading, please see “The Monk and the Philosopher” (Rivel & Ricard) which served to properly call into question my materialist, “scientific” view of the world and its nature. If you’re looking to challenge your beliefs in this regard and are similarly persuaded as parent or GP, it’s worth a read.

[naringas]

in my own experience the first 3 of the four noble truths (Buddhist philosophy) are very much onto something...

so I disagree with your statement "all religions only promote complete nonsnese" because of that very specific counter example.

[acqq]

Yes, as far as some schools of thought support irreligion, that I surely don't consider as nonsense:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_India#C%C4%81rv%...

E.g. The followers of Cārvāka school "only accepted pratyakşa (perception) as a valid pramāna (evidence)." They were Buddhism's competitors in the times and areas of its initial development. "Thus, the existence of a soul (ātman) and God were rejected, because they could not be proved by perception." OK. But then: "They also considered everything to be made of four elements: earth, water, air and fire." So the whole still reflect the understanding of the people in the times in which it developed. Well at least they rejected the existence of a soul and god.

Also "Jainism and Buddhism consider atheism to be acceptable." Very good.

But I still make a difference between the religious claims and some irreligious teachings of some schools of thought. Studying that context, Buddhism isn't the most successful in not having nonsense, as it was also a product of the compromises in the times in which it developed (as in, moving more "to the middle" in the spectrum between Cārvāka and the opposite extremes), and the later developments were often in the direction of the religion and ritual.

If somebody can be less attacked by some religious fanatics if claiming that he's simply a Buddhist, I support his/her choice fully. The same way, in the areas occupied by one more recent religion, remaining Christian but acknowledging the supremacy of that newer religion sometimes, but not always, "protected" one from being slaughtered, which also saved many (but that state is never stable, following even the most recent news). I'm surely against any religion claiming its own supremacy and the right to oppress all who aren't their flock.

Also kindly note that I never wrote what you put under the quotes, namely, that "all religions only promote complete nonsnese" -- that's your construction, trying to create a straw man which could be more easily attacked. You disagree with a statement I have never made. Good. But please don't claim it's mine. "Only" is not how I talk about it. Of course, the religious texts and stories also repeat some non-religious messages, which often reflect "common sense" or some practical experiences or provide some useful ideas in approaching some specific problems, and there's what could be learned from these.

Personally I deeply enjoy reading the texts of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuang_Zhou (around 4th century BC). They are so much more satisfying and to me aesthetically pleasing than any in the western world more famous texts written for the religious purposes and therefore more present in people’s minds. I can only recommend Zhuang Zhou. I also thoroughly enjoy works of Homer (8th or 7th century BC) the appearance of gods there as the personified anger or wisdom or lust or the forces of nature are also extremely artistically and intellectually pleasing. We humans do personify everything what we see around us, and on that level, I surely don't have any problem enjoying these stories. The Odyssey is an exceptional work of art, including the acts of all the gods doing what they are doing there. On that level, I claim I believe more in the "gods" of Odyssey than in any other. I surely enjoy when Zeus is mighty, but when he is in Egypt collecting sacrifices, he doesn't have time to help the warriors in Troy which he supports. That's so human and much more easy to relate to, and to believe why he doesn't always "do good." Obviously, he is distracted, and Hera had time to support the warriors she liked! She even distracted him with sex sometimes, if I remember correctly. Pure joy. And when we’re by ancient texts, Gligamesh (2000 years BC) is also a work of geniuses. Written before Bible was written, includes some myths later retold in the Bible, but again still in the form and in the context much more humane than the variants that follow.

[ceilingcorner]

Religion and science are not, and have never been, antagonists in any real sense.

[tikej]

This is maybe (but it’s heavy maybe) true for the ideas of religion and science.

In reality religious institutions and people opposed and still oppose science and scientific freedom due to their beliefs. Of course other groups of people also do this, but there is a correlation between religion and science opposition (E.g. creationism is heavily tied to Christian religion).

The more science explains the further religion is pushed back.

[dawg-]

I disagree, in fact the history of science and religious institutions dates back to the very beginning of science.

Gregor Mendel, father of modern day Genetics, a Catholic monk. Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest who came up with the Big Bang Theory. Look at all the scientific work of the Jesuits, their big research universities, etc. There are countless examples of groundbreaking science coming from religious institutions - and this is just from one world religion that I am most familiar with. Many Islamic and Jewish scholars have also been scientists.

These deeply religious people believe that naturalistic observations can get us closer to the ultimate truth of God. There is no purely empirical argument that can be made to refute that worldview - you must turn to philosophy and contend in that arena.

[tikej]

Maybe it’s the other way? They were scholars in societies/groups s that were religious.

Also you didn’t mentioned cases of Galileo, Copernicus, Bacon, Ockham, Giordano Bruno and countless other punished for merely presenting views other than official provided by religion.

I’m not saying that religious people can’t contribute to science. Everyone can. It doesn’t change the fact, that in science, contrarily to religion, (besides maybe scientific method) there are no views that are not refutable and cannot change provided enough evidence.

[ceilingcorner]

I don’t think you understand science or religion very well. Religious opinions change all the time; the Christianity of today is not the Christianity of a century or a millennium ago. Many of these changes came from logical analysis, not empirical knowledge (science). Empirical knowledge is not the only form of knowledge.

Most of your examples also were not merely presenting an alternate view, but directly threatening the established political structure. That is nowhere near the same thing.

[tikej]

I don’t think you have enough knowledge about me to judge whether I understand science or religion and such ad personam is unwelcome.

More productive would be to point out what part of, for example Christianity, changed due to logical analysis and not empirical facts.

I agree that there are other types of knowledge that are non-empirical.

Okay they were threatening political structure, but by pointing out things that were factually incorrect. Perhaps I should cite what Galileo was trialed and sentenced for (following Wikipedia and sources therein): In 1633 Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy "for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world" against the 1616 condemnation, since "it was decided at the Holy Congregation [...] on 25 Feb 1616 that [...] the Holy Office would give you an injunction to abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it; and that if you did not acquiesce in this injunction, you should be imprisoned". Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse, and detest" those opinions.

He wasn’t sentenced for threatening political structure but for heresy (even if it had some political motivation). I believe my point still stands as he WAS sentenced, by inquisition, for presenting facts against their dogmas.

[naringas]

a lot of what goes by as 'science' is really just religion with a "this is not religion" facade. (for example all 'science' with a "replication problem").

At the core, both religious people as well as scientific people just want certainty of whatever they believe (also known as 'the truth'). They just go about it in different ways.

[acqq]

Behind claims of the "replication problem" are different phenomena, and some claims there are themselves more wrong than some other. Specifically, one specific person who made his name of claiming "replication problem" as bigger than his peers believed later himself obviously proved to be a tool in promoting unsupported claims under a disguise of scientific work: John Ioannidis, who accepted money from a billionaire to publicly claim, and even write papers, that the pandemics will be magically over in no time.

On another side, there are surely known problems in social "sciences" (which by definition aren't those which establish "hard" physical, chemical or biologic facts, but which can surely be helped by these facts and by the tools developed in the "harder" sciences) but the problems there existed since these areas of study existed and some are inherent to them.

[tikej]

> At the core, both religious people as well as scientific people just want certainty of whatever they believe (also known as 'the truth'). They just go about it in different ways.

There is a tiny difference that you don’t seem to mention. While everyone would like to be right, science people change their views provided with evidence that they are wrong, while religious people don’t, they have dogmas. If someone doesn’t change they only claim to be “scientific people”.

Sure, if science is non-replicable than it can’t and shouldn’t be called science. It bothers me too about social sciences and psychology, but the problem in this disciplines is that objects of their study are extremely complicated.