Sulphur on 27/10/2022 at 16:52
Well, if you're going to invite that comparison: science prefers to work with testable hypotheses and falsifiability. The problem with the religious argument, especially for Christianity, is that it more often than not closes off reasoning at 'all-powerful entity whose ways are beyond us is responsible, you cannot question this further', and while both might arrive at the same conclusion (however improbable), the religious method of getting there is methodologically suspect to a rational mind.
This is not to say that all religions deal with the matter in the same way - Hinduism and Buddhism have something to say about the nature of existence being cyclical, which implies there may not have been a beginning, and that's certainly one way to think about it that doesn't necessarily have the same pratfalls as depending on an anthropomorphic deity.
heywood on 27/10/2022 at 18:25
Yes, exactly. Science prefers to work with testable hypotheses. I'm not claiming that cosmology is equivalent to religion, but cosmology sometimes blurs the line between science and philosophy. I suspect there is an overlap between the motivations of cosmology students and theology students in wanting to know how we got here. You're right that science will keep going when the answer isn't certain, not just stop when the Pope says there's your answer. But over time, religion does bend to science.
Also, there are things such as electricity, magnetism, and the aurora that have scientific explanations today, but in the past they were considered supernatural. They're not supernatural anymore because they've been substantiated.
RippedPhreak on 27/10/2022 at 18:55
You guys still obsessing over Christianity after all these years is amusing. It's a dead religion, so your OWNING the CHRISTOFASCISTS with FACTS and LOGIC is really just pumping bullet after bullet into a corpse that stopped twitching years ago. I know you go after Christianity because it's a safe, easy target that's already defeated. You'd never have the courage to mock a Muslim about his "sky daddy" to his face, for example.
But the new real religion is Globalist Leftism, and it tolerates zero heresies to be spoken. Instead we have to nod along with fixed smiles on our faces as you rant about how tossing tomato soup on old paintings will fix the weather, millions of people died because Trump didn't wear a mask, and other such tenets of the New Faith.
Nicker on 28/10/2022 at 01:38
Quote:
"(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."
That's a very big OR, heywood. Just because something doesn't exactly fit our current laws of nature, in our local, post inflationary cosmic neighbourhood, doesn't mean that it flaunts the laws of nature.
Besides, existence can just exist and be a mystery, without breaking any laws.
When I use the supernatural as litmus test for religious claims, I am clearly talking about human history, well within the inflation era. I am talking about talking donkeys, levitation, special creation and reanimated corpses. Miracles. These are some of the supernatural claims which form the basis for any religion's assertion of its validity and its authority.
It is these events which have never, ever ever ever been credibly supported by evidence.
Aja on 28/10/2022 at 16:52
Quote Posted by RippedPhreak
But the new real religion is Globalist Leftism, and it tolerates zero heresies to be spoken. Instead we have to nod along with fixed smiles on our faces as you rant about how tossing tomato soup on old paintings will fix the weather, millions of people died because Trump didn't wear a mask, and other such tenets of the New Faith.
I think it's time we bring back the thread where we read peoples' posts aloud because you're providing us with so many gems.
Harvester on 28/10/2022 at 17:56
Also, the world’s largest religion is apparently dead.
heywood on 28/10/2022 at 19:01
Quote Posted by Nicker
That's a very big OR, heywood. Just because something doesn't exactly fit our current laws of nature, in our local, post inflationary cosmic neighbourhood, doesn't mean that it flaunts the laws of nature.
Cosmic inflation does flaunt the laws of nature. All attempts so far to fit it into existing theories have failed. I remember Guth saying it was caused by the Higgs field, which was an unfalsifiable claim at the time. But now we know a little more about the Higgs and that's not it. I think there are hopes the string theorists will be able to explain it. There are various mathematical models for inflation, any they behave chaotically. I hope you're not suggesting that the laws of nature change over time and space.
Quote:
Besides, existence can just exist and be a mystery, without breaking any laws.
When I use the supernatural as litmus test for religious claims, I am clearly talking about human history, well within the inflation era. I am talking about talking donkeys, levitation, special creation and reanimated corpses. Miracles. These are some of the supernatural claims which form the basis for any religion's assertion of its validity and its authority.
It is these events which have never, ever ever ever been credibly supported by evidence.
Except the things that got explained and are no longer considered supernatural.
Most Christians accept the big bang theory, at least in general terms, and reject the literal interpretation of Genesis. Even the Pope came out and said the big bang theory is real, and evolution too.
Religious people (and you) shouldn't get hung up on the storytelling. We're talking about really old books, written long before the scientific method was invented, written by people trying to interpret and piece together traditional stories that have been passed on verbally for generations. Do you remember this line from Monsters Inc? "Well, a kid flew right over me and blasted a car with it's laser vision." If you pass a story around long enough, some of that will work its way in. Also, we have explanations now for many strange things that ancient people didn't know about, like extreme weather, earthquakes, tsunamis, vulcanism, shooting stars, static electricity. I believe several biblical miracles and acts of God have been hypothesized to be natural disasters.
All I'm saying is that people make shit up to fill in the gaps of their understanding, and it's not just religions doing it.
Nicker on 28/10/2022 at 20:24
Sorry but incomplete cosmological models and claims that immaculately conceived wizards can reanimate putrefying corpses, are not comparable categories. And to my knowledge, no cosmologist has claimed that if you so much as doubt their hypothesis, you are doomed to eternal torment, whereas if you do believe them, you must tithe one tenth of your earnings to their lab every year.
The point is, anthrocentric annecdotes about divine acts have never been substantiated and they don't even have an honest, internal protocol for assessing or correcting them, unlike science. They are baseless, untestable claims.
"I hope you're not suggesting that the laws of nature change over time and space."
No, but you are. "We're quick to criticize religion for not explaining its miracles. So I thought it fair to point out that science's best explanation for creation still requires a couple of miracles of its own."
You seem immune to your gross and repeated category errors.
Another example: "I'm not claiming that cosmology is equivalent to religion... VS "All I'm saying is that people make shit up to fill in the gaps of their understanding, and it's not just religions doing it."
Again, religion is a post-big-bang phenomenon so let's focus on the man made hocus-pocus being bogus aspect.
heywood on 28/10/2022 at 20:47
You're simply cherry picking.
If we can't explain why something happened by following the known laws of nature, it is by definition supernatural. I don't care if you call it dark energy or the hand of God, it's the same.
Briareos H on 28/10/2022 at 21:33
Quote Posted by heywood
If we can't explain why something happened by following the known laws of nature, it is by definition supernatural.
I really have a problem with this quote. I feel like you are abusing your definition: "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" to define any unexplained observation as supernatural. As per this definition, the scientific process does not need a supernatural element: you have a set of axioms and models, that you rewrite or extend in order to newly explain a set of observations, and you establish your proposal by making new predictions and verifying them. At no point do you attribute observations to a force beyond scientific understanding, because the new "force" that you are proposing comes with its own scientific understanding, and you are always aiming not to contradict the known laws of nature.
The only connection to religion is when you make pseudo-scientific arguments, for example by proposing theories that are demonstrably (or expected to be) untestable. This can still be a good thing -- as long as you don't try to evangelize it like a religion would -- because it can help you structure your way of thinking and later make what you have learned more useful for real science. Nevertheless, only this fringe case can be described as pseudo-scientific/supernatural.
