Rebuffing Science

There are those in the Christian world who strongly refute science and prefer to replace it with a belief in a supernatural creator who, according to them, is in control of everything that happens and/or has happened.

Some go so far as to deny things about this world/earth that science has proven (with incontrovertible evidence) to be true. As an example, they will deny the earth is a sphere or that it revolves around the sun. Further, they will deny evolution and cling to their belief that Adam and his rib-wife were the first humans to exist on this planet.

Yet they take advantage of a world surrounded by the science they rebuff. Nearly everyone drives a car, uses a microwave, makes calls on a cell phone, sends messages via computer, watches television, keeps cool or warm with air conditioning, records events and people with cameras, stays healthy (or gets well) through medicine … and other scientific activities too numerous to mention.

One can’t help but wonder — since so many choose to cling to beliefs prevalent during biblical times, why then do they not live like the Amish people, who reject “modern conveniences” and live a more simple life? Or more to the point, why don’t they take seriously the words found in their revered book, such as

Look at the birds in the sky. They don’t plant or harvest or gather food into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. You are more valuable than they are, aren’t you?

So don’t ever worry by saying, ‘What are we going to eat?’ or ‘What are we going to drink?’ or ‘What are we going to wear?’ … Surely your heavenly Father knows that you need all of them! 

And my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus.

It seems apparent that when push comes to shove,  the primary reason behind a belief in a supernatural entity is because it assuages one’s conscience, i.e., it makes one “feel good.” And so long as it doesn’t take away the enjoyments offered by modern living, it’s totally acceptable to hold onto the archaic beliefs put forth in an 2000+ year old book.

205 thoughts on “Rebuffing Science

  1. Why does this hypocrisy matter?

    Well, the healthy shame that should accompany obvious hypocrisy is completely lacking in many of these individuals. It’s no wonder then that the same individuals can choose to lie and deceive about anything that doesn’t comport with their base assumptions that form their piety and either think well of themselves for doing so, for being a hypocrite in the name of piety, or simply do not care about the moral component of their actions in the name of piety. Placing high confidence in such a hypocritical belief system, one that requires lying and deceiving and rejecting reality to continue to do so, means one is doing so not just to one’s self but is exacerbated by teaching the young and vulnerable to go along with the selected lies and intentional deceptions and embrace the pious hypocrisy as if these were equivalently moral. They’re not. These actions mean such believers give up all claims to holding any moral virtue whatsoever. What they hold in its stead is piety.

    Why does such piety matter?

    Well, such believers either cannot recognize moral virtue or, if some still maintain the capacity, they must reject it out of hand when measured against piety. Gadgets – and almost all scientific applications, therapies, and technologies – don’t bring about the same incompatible concerns. But when the incompatibility is front and center, then the scientific – and the understanding of reality it represents – is sacrificed in the name of morality.

    But this is where the hypocrisy does not end but takes center stage.

    Moral virtue for such believers does not matter if it interferes with the pious beliefs. Neither does honesty nor seeking what’s true. None of this matters, none of the necessary ingredients to establishing a common basis for describing moral virtue independent of the pious beliefs matters to such individuals. What such people think about moral issues, therefore, is null and void by their own decision, their own rejection of anything considered contrary to or incompatible with their piety. No matter what they say they already have rejected any means to honestly compare and contrast moral merit to establish moral virtue. Piety and piety alone is the sum total of their concern. All other grown up issues are irrelevant to such hypocrites and liars and deceivers and so what they have to say about any grown up issue like those with a moral component is therefore equally irrelevant.

    So that’s what such believers offer: nothing of any truth value or moral insight. They are walking, talking throwbacks of ignorance coupled with delusion. That’s why the hypocrisy matters.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. “it assuages one’s conscience, i.e., it makes one “feel good.” This is one of my pet peeves lately. Abolition from personal responsibility by a priest, or by grace through faith, is a cancer to society. Delayed judgement and sins that are wiped clean by confessing belief certainly can make a believer feel better, but in reality this doctrine is the worst part of Christianity. ” I may not be perfect, but I’m forgiven” is a disaster to human potential. Where’s accountability?

    Liked by 7 people

    • This comment seems to contradict a more typical complaint among those who get a kick from complaining about religion: namely, that religion supposedly leaves one wracked by guilt.

      Like

      • Absolutely causes guilt. And Catholics at this very moment are burdened with confessions becoming counseling sessions for these repeat offenders that have yet to live responsible for their actions. Yes, I can have it both ways at the same moment by differing, seesawing degrees of Christian faith. The use the system as a placebo to absolve guilt and pass off to Jesus, mostly return to their habitual bad behavior they are racking with guilt, because of the church’s psychology which is counterintuitive to personal growth.

        Liked by 5 people

        • If you don’t carry around a wad of shared guilt, you don’t need a minister or a priest to absolve you of it. And if you don’t need a minister or a priest, then, you don’t need a church or prayers. It’s all sorta connected, like Jim says.

          I suspect that’s what annoys evangelicals the most about non believers: we don’t really care. You can’t guilt someone who refuses to take it seriously.

          Liked by 7 people

            • And that confessional is a guilt trap. It assumes that even though you have been forgiven this week’s sins, well…you have another week to start all over and accrue yet another batch. And if you didn’t have any, well, you made some up. After all, how many sins does a 9 year old have?

              But the carrot on the stick is being forgiven for every one of them. You do your penance, and walk out feeling amazingly lighter.

              The psychology of all of that is perfect. Since we are all sinners, the priest became the vessel you poured your sins into, and he meditated the whole thing and forgave you. Every time.

              Liked by 2 people

            • It is a simple process used by therapists as well. Write (or talk) your problems out at a specific time of day, contemplate what you can do to solve them, then burn it. It works well, and can do wonders to feeling like you’re moving forward. It literally destroys the problems and from scapegoating to repentance to a good therapist, releasing your burdens in this symbolic way is a feel good measure that the churches have capitalized on and it’s nothing more than basic human psychology.

              Liked by 1 person

            • One wonders how those perverted priests absolved themselves of their heinous crimes against children; did they do it in the quiet of their hearts or was their a ring of them absolving each other? Bastards.

              Liked by 2 people

          • Evangelicals certainly don’t believe you need to be (or can be) absolved by a minister or priest (it’s one of the main things that make them Evangelicals). Not sure what your point is then.

            Like

            • But many of them believe that “sins” can be “washed away” by conversion or some other meaningless ritual. And they believe that crimes against real victims can be forgiven by God (an irrelevant third party), whereas in reality only the victim of a crime has any right to decide whether to forgive the perpetrator or not.

              Christianity in any form is a disgusting morass of moral confusion and abdication of responsibility.

              Liked by 1 person

            • @Infidel753: You misunderstand the theology. My personal sins are not forgiven until/unless I have been reconciled with my neighbor. God’s justice requires right relationships with my neighbors.

              (And again, Evangelicals do not believe that sins are forgiven by means of a ritual.)

              Like

            • Loy, as a former Evangelical, I disagree. They most definitely believe in a “ritual.” One MUST “accept Christ” in order to be “born again.” Whether this takes place in the quiet of one’s home or at a noisy, foot-stomping, tongue-talking revival … the prescribed formula is to “confess your sins and ask Christ into your heart.” Unless you perform this ritual, you cannot say you’ve been accepted into “God’s Kingdom.”

              Further, while your perspective related to reconciling with your neighbors is worthy and to be sought-after, one can still claim “salvation” before they have performed one single act of redemption.

              Liked by 2 people

            • Bullshit. There have been plenty of cases of Evangelical preachers / con men claiming that God has forgiven them, without any reference to the women they abused.

              I don’t care about the theology. That’s all crap anyway. I care about what they actually do and say.

              Liked by 6 people

        • Because religion imposes a random taboo system in place of morality, it imposes irrational guilt for things for which no guilt is warranted, such as homosexual attractions, masturbation, failure to perform certain rituals at the prescribed times, etc.

          Because it sets taboo violations on the same level with violations of actual morality, calling them both “sin”, and promotes a doctrine of vicarious forgiveness by confession to a priest or by “washing away” sins (as Jim says), religion also deadens the sense of moral accountability, allowing those who commit real moral abuses such as child molestation or self-enrichment at the expense of gullible followers to escape the guilt feelings and accountability they genuinely should feel.

          So it happens both ways. Religion leaves innocent people full of guilt (useful since it makes them easier to manipulate), while again and again we’ve seen religious organizations excuse clergy guilty of serious crimes and shield them from trial and punishment.

          Liked by 5 people

  3. Your biblical quotation Nan immediately reminded me of the rising and popular “modern” American theology — actually it is merely a radical RE-interpretation of the Gospels ‘moved’ by the Holy Spirit — a theology found primarily throughout the Bible-belt from Texas to Florida up the Carolinas, called Prosperity Theology or The Gospel of Wealth. 🤣 It’s utterly baffling to me because it essentially IGNORES many other ‘opposed’ or contrasting passages and Jesus-teachings (in the canonical Gospels and some non-canonical) of humility, piousness, The Beatitudes, and avoiding the high-risks of idolatry/materialism. From Wikipedia:

    Prominent leaders in the development of prosperity theology include E. W. Kenyon, Oral Roberts, A. A. Allen, Robert Tilton, T. L. Osborn, Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, Jesse Duplantis, Kenneth Copeland, Reverend Ike and Kenneth Hagin.

    Prosperity theology has been criticized by leaders from various Christian denominations, including within the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, who maintain that it is irresponsible, promotes idolatry, and is contrary to scripture. Secular observers have also criticized prosperity theology as exploitative of the poor.

    And so it seems with all of Christendom so glaringly DIVIDED (what? approx 400-2,500 various denominations?). Because all “Christians” and “True Christians” try (in complete futility) to interpret and live by a 4th-century CE Hellenistic Apotheotic Pauline-Christology — that no surprise, took 400-500 years to just “Canonize,” 😄 — that NO ONE on the outside looking in on the “Christian Churches” sees anything other than a litany of convoluted contradictions, can figure out nothing more than a ticket to heaven(?). It is honestly a circus show with a bunch of clowns, Ring-Masters fighting each other over their own “truth,” evangelical monkeys swinging from the rafters, and vulnerable children (boys & girls!) being abused by pedophilic ministers/priests, or illicit closeted sexual infidelity rampant throughout ALL church families. In my 11-years of that life, that’s about all I saw in American Christian churches — and I attended many. Que the circus music please! 🤪 😵 LOL

    “And now ladies and gentlement, put your hands together for the Young Flat-Earthers with their sheep and donkeys!!!” 🤡🎪🤹🏼‍♀️🎭

    Liked by 9 people

  4. This is my own core argument for why science is the only valid way of understanding the world. Science has enabled us to create a vast array of technology which works because it’s designed according to scientific principles. For example, if airplanes weren’t designed on the basis of science’s discoveries about the motion of objects in resisting media and how air pressure is affected by the shape of objects passing through it, they couldn’t fly. No other “way of knowing” has produced practical results with such a track record.

    Many religionists are simply ignorant of the utter dependence of the technology they use all the time upon the science they dismiss. Indeed, they often treat the former as a dispensation from their deity — thanking God for surgery that saves a life, for example, without recognizing the long history of scientific research that made the surgeon’s tools and skills possible.

    Those who reject evolution should logically refuse to accept the need for new antibiotics to treat infections, since the way bacteria evolve resistance to older antibiotics is a textbook example of natural selection in action. Of course, as we’ve seen from some of the religionists’ comments here, their understanding of evolution is so mistaken as to be worse than nonexistent.

    why then do they not live like the Amish people, who reject “modern conveniences” and live a more simple life?

    As we all know, there are some sects which reject medical technology and try to use prayer to heal. This, too, is an example of natural selection in action.

    But always remember that our brains did not evolve to perform logical reasoning or to detect conflicts between beliefs. They evolved to keep us alive as hunter-gatherers on the east African plains. Logical thought is a learned behavior pattern, and not everyone learns it equally well.

    Liked by 4 people

    • One thing that always baffles me is when many christians say that the scientific and archaeological ( don’t know why my head added the archaeology part ) means of dating are not correct but accept them, when it dates the bible manuscript closer to the time of Jesus or any dating that “coincidentally” fits with their beliefs

      Like

  5. “why don’t they take seriously the words found [in the Gospel]?”

    Many do. Countless men and women over the last thousand years have renounced personal possessions, desires and ambitions and joined religious orders to devote their lives to serving the poor, sick, old or young.

    Like

    • Not enough do so to be very noticeable. Certainly not among hypocritical modern Evangelicals with their “prosperity gospel”.

      The overwhelmingly dominant passions of Evangelical Christians in America today are harassing gay people and trying to force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Well, that and supporting Donald Trump, the living antithesis of any concept of helping or serving the less fortunate.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Such as the Daughters of Charity who built and ran the hospital where I was born; the Dominican sisters who inspired a mediocre student to learn; the Sisters of St. Joseph who ran the only hospital open to blacks in Selma, Ala., and who treated the marchers beaten by the police; such as Francis of Assisi, Dorothy Day, Solanus Casey, Father Damien, Oscar Romero; the founders of the first universities, hospitals, orphanages and reformatories; and thousands upon thousands of other selfless and heroic women and men over the last ten centuries.

        Like

        • Yes, but Mother Theresa was a truly despicable character.
          And the bible has been used as justification for racism (apartheid) and innumerable horrors throughout human history.
          Need I remind you of Luther and his virulent anti antisemitism and what that led to?
          The Catholic Church and its stance on contraception that has indirectly and directly been responsible for untold HIV/AIDS deaths.

          You are dancing on quick sand my friend, and I suggest you step away while you have the chance.

          Like

          • We’re all dancing on quicksand, my friend.

            And the thing about quicksand is, you can’t just step away. You have to reach out for something or someone beyond it.

            Like

            • Ah …
              So you are going to skirt the issues regarding the church and Christianity and how vile it is and offer the theological two step.
              I see …

              I take it you are a Christian.
              May I ask why?

              Like

            • Like David’s one smooth stone slaying the big dummy with the even bigger arrogant mouth, you have wonderfully put to death the ignorant claims of the godless with this simple observation.

              Well done loy.

              Like

            • Why, Arkenaten? See my comments above — nothing has brought forth as much good, and everything else is quicksand.

              That being said, I’m always in search of a better way of life. If you have some positive, life-enhancing knowledge to impart, please go right ahead.

              Like

            • @ Loy

              Why, Arkenaten? See my comments above — nothing has brought forth as much good, and everything else is quicksand.

              Good? Are you truly deranged?

              You list a few examples that you seem to have a personal interest at some level

              Let’s have a quick look at a few other examples off the top of my head.

              Luther can be directly attributed for continuing Christianity’s endorsement of antisemitism.The legacy this has left speaks for itself.

              The crimes of the Catholic church alone are really too numerous to mention, but we can list its stance on abortion and its treatment of women for a kick off.
              The AIDS pandemic and the deaths of untold numbers which can be indirectly or even directly attributed to its stance on contraception.
              The internecine wars that ravaged Europe for hundreds of years including the liquidation of the Cathars.

              The Inquisition
              The Crusades
              The deaths of untold numbers of South American Indians.

              The attempted genocide of Native Americans in North America largely by Christians. (Ironic in a sense as Christians were fleeing persecution only to perpetuate the same.)
              The American civil war fought between Christians.

              Christianity’s endorsement of slavery – including Apartheid in South Africa.(Yes, they eventually saw the error of their ways …. hurrah!
              Of course World War one was fought between Christians, as for the most part those involved in WWII, where most combatants claiming the Christian god was on their side.

              The crippling effects of denying evolution, teaching Creationism, especially Young Earth Creationism to children including the flagrant lies concerning Hell.

              And this is without even discussing the nonsense and filth of the bible, and the tens of thousands of Christian sects it has spawned.

              So, Loy, tell me again all the good reasons you are a Christian?

              Liked by 2 people

            • Arkenaten: Luther can be directly attributed for continuing Christianity’s endorsement of antisemitism.The legacy this has left speaks for itself.

              Indeed. Hitler was well acquainted with Luther’s writings about the Jews and they may well have been an influence on the formation of his own fanatical hatred.

              It’s beyond ironic that some Christians today blame Nazi beliefs on Darwin, whose works were actually banned under the Nazi regime.

              Liked by 1 person

            • I already answered, dear friend, and now it’s your turn: Have you some positive, life-enhancing wisdom to share? Tell me how atheism can fill my days with joy. (Also why, with all that joy, you are still so darn cranky?)

              Like

            • Atheism is an empty set, Loy. Positive, life-enhancing wisdom can be found from all kinds of sources. In comparison to all these sources, OT and NT scripture that was not stolen from other sources is actually very poor fare indeed. You’d know this if you underwent an honest and open inquiry rather than guard your religious sensibilities in this matter with such vigor.

              Liked by 1 person

            • @ Loy

              As atheism is not a worldview, as well you know, therefore the joy you are demanding me to demonstrate from my life is easy to impart. To name a few things ….
              Wife, children, parents, family, home, health, dogs, cats, photography, being vegetarian, our business, gardening, writing, blogpals, Jimi Hendrix, my guitars, Liverpool FC, funny movies, South Africa, sunshine, rain … oh and sex of course, and although I hardly touch alcohol any more these days, the occasional glass of Boddingtons beer or a decent red wine is a nice treat.

              And while it might not be regarded as ”Good Form” … laughing at indoctrinated religious Nobs like you.

              Here’s a song by the late great Alvin Less, called; Religion

              ”Never really understood religion,
              Except it seemed a good excuse to kill.”

              Maybe that line alone might ring some bells?

              Have a marvelous day!

              Liked by 2 people

        • Ironically, all of this is do-goodery advertised on behalf of the religious is contrary to the immeasurable injustice and suffering that this world contains according to the Christian God’s plan, contrary to Jesus’ suffering on our behalf, contrary to our ‘need’ for redemption. Reducing the world’s injustice and suffering reduces the ‘need’ for the afterlife as the supposed elixir of this one! Such selfless actions are obviously contrary to God’s plan.

          Of course, few Christians advertise this central tenet but we see it emerge in the celebration of self-flagellation and adulation for ‘Suffering for God’ – what the deplorable Mother (now Saint) Teresa called the ‘gift’ from God by those cancer patients in terrible pain who cried the ‘tears of Jesus’ – that so many Christians applaud as a sign of piety.

          There really should be a special section of the DSM V for this kind of mental condition that believes religious incoherence as ‘moral’ and accepts the cognitive dissonance necessary that constitutes piety. It’s really quite irrational.

          Liked by 2 people

  6. “why don’t they take seriously the words found [in the Gospel]?”

    A good question, many go out of their way to rubbish scientific advancements and continue to live in the modern high tech world. They should be forced to go into the desert in sandals and loin cloths back to the times of the Bible to live out their dreams.

    Liked by 4 people

    • the hypocrisy of people like this is amazing. As they settle in with their smart phone to revile those non-believers, as they drive (drive, not walk or ride that mule) to religious events, they use microphones to denounce modern science (hello, whatever happened to shouting) and computers to compose their diatribes. They ignore the fact that science, not prayers, has saved their children, their spouses, their own lives, more times than they can ever know, from antibiotics to operations, to laser surgery and drugs for diseases.

      Because of science we are living longer and in better shape than even our parents did. Prayers just don’t cut it. And if these modern gospel slappers had to survive in the desert environment so prevalent in the Bible, they’d not last a week. If the sand and heat didn’t kill them, probably an enraged camel would.

      Science is progress forward. Religion is progress backwards.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. “Well, that and supporting Donald Trump, the living antithesis of any concept of helping or serving the less fortunate.”

    Since a high percentage of evangelicals put tRump in office, they should all be hanging their heads in shame.

    Like

    • If you ever do find some honest-to-god shame (see what I did there?) in the evangelical community please let me know. I’ve been looking and have yet to find any.

      Like

    • The end goal of these people is to stop abortion under any circumstance, end gay marriage, stop affirmative action and keep minorities low, so they can maintain their majority. That is it!

      They would support anyone,
      even if he were the devil himself or an admitted mass murderer and rapist of children, if this person could accomplish their goals. They want trump strictly for his Supreme Court picks because the “goal” is the only thing that counts.

      And trump courts them in return, to stay in power. He couldn’t care less about these issues. It’s all a lie on his part. They each use each other. The power grabbers taking advantage of these fools and the fools obsessing over things that will not matter in the long run.

      It disgusts me.

      Like

      • It disgusts me as well … but let’s try and stick to the topic of this post. 😀 There’s plenty of other places to criticize tRumpsky and his faithful followers.

        Thanks.

        Liked by 2 people

        • I dunno Nan, what are the two most serious threats facing humankind? Let me answer that for you – global warming and the threat of nuclear war. Who has a problem with the realization that global warming is a legitimate threat to our continuing existence on this planet? Science deniers. What group of people are most likely to be science deniers? Fundagelical christians –the ones responsible for the election of the present leader in the USA. Who is also a well-known climate change denier. The one who is precariously poised to start a world war. So I’m not entirely certain that the topic of this post is very far away from Mary’s assertions. Depressing so, I might add. 😦 . . . sigh. . .

          Liked by 2 people

          • Yes … and no.

            The core of my post was how Christians deny science. Yes, their denial affects the “Big Picture.” But as I said to Mary, there are tons of blogs discussing tRumpsky and all the dangers he presents. I was hoping to avoid “him” in this post. But … sigh … I suppose it’s inevitable that he gets dragged in.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Here’s why it’’s inevitable. I think everyone has known about science deniers for quite some time, and that among evangelicals it was a prevalent belief. But until their political clout was established – with their endorsement of tRump – they were viewed as outliers; even the butt of ridicule.

              Now – to everyone’s chagrin – they’ve got power .

              Like

  8. As I said couple of times earlier about I feel more insecure with our so-called educated class than religious leaders- below link proves again.
    https://scroll.in/article/888185/meet-the-indian-priest-scientist-who-recently-discovered-that-milky-way-had-a-sibling-galaxy

    In a simple way as usual, I call it as muddling.
    Here is the interesting part from that link:
    Q:
    The Catholic Church has historically taken a stance that is somewhat antithetical to science. It is unusual, though not unheard of, to have scientists who are also priests. How do your religious and scientific beliefs interact?
    Ans:
    It is rather unfortunate that the Catholic Church has historically made a number of mistakes with regards to the sciences, especially when it felt its power and doctrine threatened. However, it must also be emphasised that the Catholic Church in its own way through the development of Universities in Europe but also through the number of its clergy actively involved in the sciences down the centuries has contributed to its development. This part of the narrative does get left out!

    I do not see any fundamental contradiction between my religious and scientific beliefs. They actually go hand in hand. My religious beliefs tell me that God created the world as something good according to some laws. This fundamental assumption assures me that the laws of nature are constant, and are actually worthy of being studied. This is why the sciences prospered in the West, as opposed to other cultures where the gods and hence one’s understanding of reality were more capricious and whimsical. For me studying the Universe helps me learn more about its creator. Hence for me, studying astronomy, the stars and the galaxies is an ultimate form of worship.

    Like

    • This is why the sciences prospered in the West, as opposed to other cultures where the gods and hence one’s understanding of reality were more capricious and whimsical.

      No. The fact that the laws of nature work in a consistent way was fairly easy to find out by observation once people started paying serious attention to the world around them — you don’t need any particular assumptions about the nature of “God” to see it. There were substantial scientific achievements during the Greek Hellenistic period (Aristotle and later), in a culture not influenced at all by Abrahamic monotheism. Science in the West collapsed and retrogressed with the rise of Christianity and the beginning of the Dark Ages, revived and flourished in the Middle East during the resurgence of interest in Greek culture and philosophy under early Islamic rule, collapsed and retrogressed again with the victory of reactionary Islamic theology in the early 12th century, then revived in Europe when the Renaissance began to liberate European intellectual culture from the iron grip of Christian dogma. Since then science has advanced in the West in lockstep with increasing secularization and weakening religious resistance; institutional Christianity has fought science every step of the way, from the persecution of Galileo to the modern opposition to evolution and climate science. The data don’t support any claim that religion favors science or is even compatible with it at all. Just the opposite.

      The fact that some scientists were religious believers or even clergy does not change the fact that there is a fundamental clash between religion and science. It merely demonstrates that human minds are capable of holding conflicting ideas at the same time.

      The reason for that fundamental clash isn’t difficult to see. Most religions make testable claims about reality, such as the description of the creation of the world and life in Genesis. Since most holy books were written by grossly ignorant primitives, almost all those testable claims are wrong. Science is the method by which we discover that they are wrong. Thus it is a threat to religious dogma. Science also requires an open-minded skeptical way of thinking which attaches weight only to evidence, not to arguments from authority or tradition. Religion demands respect for authority and tradition, and can’t really survive when those things are devalued. Almost everything about science and religion makes any reconciliation between them untenable.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Science measures, explains and predicts patterns in observable phenomena. That’s useful. But science alone doesn’t show us what matters — or why we matter, or how to create lives that matter. Observation and experiment produce data, not wisdom. By design, they are oblivious to meaning. The knowledge we derive from observation and experiment can inform our stories, but it’s not the whole story, or the whole truth.

        Liked by 1 person

        • The topic raised by the post here is religion’s rejection of science and of its conclusions about the questions it can answer, so that’s what I’m addressing.

          Science generally can’t answer questions like “what matters — or why we matter, or how to create lives that matter”, for the same reason it can’t answer the question of whether tea tastes better than coffee — because these are questions about personal preferences and opinion, not objective reality. They’re also highly viewpoint-dependent. Much of my life’s value and “meaning” to me stems from the fact that I’m free to choose for myself what to do with it — it isn’t cluttered up with some “higher purpose” imposed by a supreme being. Another person might well have a very different view of what gives his life “meaning”. Science can’t answer the question of which kind of “meaning” is “right” because that question is just a matter of personal preference and opinion — it can’t be settled by examining evidence.

          No one ever claimed that science can answer questions which, by their nature, don’t have objective “answers” at all. But it’s the only real tool we have for discovering truths which are objective.

          Liked by 4 people

        • “But science alone doesn’t show us what matters — or why we matter, or how to create lives that matter.”

          Fine. But neither does religion! Science does have the benefit of being very helpful once we select something to provide a method that allows us to pursue it in a reasonable and evidence-adduced way. Religion fails on this account.

          Liked by 2 people

            • We seem to be in agreement on the role of science, so that leaves the question of religion.

              There is no such entity called “religion” that has the capacity to reject science and its conclusions. Now, there are some people who do reject science and its conclusions for various reasons, and some of these folks claim to be influenced by their religious beliefs. But on the other hand, there are a great many more people who enjoy a full and rich life of the mind that harmoniously integrates religion, philosophy and science.

              You acknowledge as much, but then rather churlishly insist on some kind of conflict. Wouldn’t a more intellectually honest response actually be to investigate this, and risk learning something that might undermine your own dogma?

              Like

            • “There are no questions to which religion can give worthwhile answers.”

              That depends on what you mean by “worthwhile” and what you mean by “answers”. And what you mean by “religion” (Where is this mysterious entity whereof you speak?)

              Like

            • There is no such entity called “religion” that has the capacity to reject science and its conclusions.

              But there are entities called “the Catholic Church”, the various Evangelical churches and organizations, Islamic schools of theology, etc., which do reject science and its conclusions. There is the fact that institutional Christianity has fought science every step of the way, from the persecution of Galileo to the modern opposition to evolution and climate science. I don’t care about abstractions and redefinitions contrived to rule all the actual data out of bounds. I care about what has actually happened in real history and what is actually happening today.

              Now, there are some people who do reject science and its conclusions for various reasons, and some of these folks claim to be influenced by their religious beliefs.

              No, they are religious nuts who do, in fact, reject science because of their religious beliefs.

              But on the other hand, there are a great many more people who enjoy a full and rich life of the mind that harmoniously integrates religion, philosophy and science.

              Yes, but anybody who claims science and religion can be reconciled with each other is objectively wrong, for reasons I’ve already explained in some detail. And I don’t think people like that are anything like as numerous as the creationists and global-warming denialists and so on who do reject science because of religion.

              You acknowledge as much, but then rather churlishly insist on some kind of conflict.

              See above. I’ve already explained why 2,300 years of human history show that the conflict is real and irreconcilable.

              Wouldn’t a more intellectually honest response actually be to investigate this, and risk learning something that might undermine your own dogma?

              I’ve been “investigating” this for decades. I’m simply describing the inescapable conclusions of that investigation. Conclusions derived from evidence are not “dogma” — you’re just trying to lower them to the level of religious bullshit by using that word.

              Like most religionists who pop up in these discussions, you disregard the fundamental difference between an assertion supported by evidence and an assertion which is just an assertion. The meat of my comments here is not the conclusions I’ve come to, but the reasons I give for coming to them. You ignore that and attack my conclusions as if they were unsupported. You aren’t really saying anything.

              Liked by 2 people

            • That depends on what you mean by “worthwhile” and what you mean by “answers”. And what you mean by “religion”

              You’re just playing word-games now. Everybody here understands what I mean except for those who are determined not to understand it.

              Science can’t answer every question. Religion can’t validly answer any question. Because religion has no substance to it. No evidence, no objective method for assessing evidence, no track record of verifiable results that justify its claims, nothing. There is simply nothing there.

              Liked by 3 people

            • I treat your conclusions as unsupported, because they are unsupported. Trotting out a hobby horse like dear Galileo is not evidence for “what is actually happening today”. Your other hobby horse (“opposition to evolution and climate science”) is more contemporary, but no more helpful: There is at least as much evidence to the contrary. Major religious leaders including the Pope have spoken out on climate change. (In any case, what evidence is there that “religion” is a main driver of opposition?) As for evolution, it is has long since been settled by mainstream religious leaders and thinkers (starting with Cardinal Newman, a contemporary of Darwin’s).

              Your bald assertion that “Religion demands respect for authority and tradition” is not evidence — especially when it is obvious you have no actual knowledge of how these influences operate in different cultures and groups. Lumping together “the Catholic Church, the various Evangelical churches and organizations, Islamic schools of theology, etc.” is evidence of nothing other than very shallow and confused thinking.

              If decades of research have brought you to the conclusion that those who find harmony among religion, philosophy and science are objectively wrong, while your attitude of disdain for religion is objectively right, I’d love to learn more about that methodology. Ultimately, though, it not an empirical question at all, but a logical one.

              Like

            • “(In any case, what evidence is there that “religion” is a main driver of opposition?)”

              Do you even care? What evidence might convince you?

              Like

          • @tildeb
            infidel
            nan
            atheists 1 thru 12
            etc

            Did the thought ever cross your mind that the account in Genesis regarding creation, especially 1 and 2 are factually and historically correct? Or are you merely happy in your assuming it is not true?

            I can say with all the candor of heaven that if you are honest, and you lay your pre-conceived assumptions aside, you will find more TRUE SCIENCE than in your hero’s borrowed ‘Origins.’ Notice I said true science, and not pretended guesswork of endless theories which have more holes than a bucket of sponges.

            True science fears no scrutiny and laughs at all petty attempts to dismiss it. For you see, to understand science, one must engage the brain, that little inconvenient tool which holds more code than IBM, courtesy of He who made it, and the One that confirms that Genesis is accurate, reliable,, and truthful.

            But you already know that, it’s just that stubborn heart thing.

            Like

            • Did the thought ever cross your mind that the account in Genesis regarding creation, especially 1 and 2 are factually and historically correct?

              Yes, it did. But I immediately dismissed it as absurd.

              I thought to myself “surely, my pastor doesn’t expect me to take this part as literal truth.” So I didn’t bother to ask him.

              Liked by 1 person

            • ‘Immediately’ Neil?

              And therein lies your weakness of intellectual honesty. You have just admitted that the greatest account of creation believed by billions of people, BECAUSE it is true, is not worthy of your attention.

              There is more science………aw nevermind.

              Like

            • That seems to be a failed attempt at mind reading.

              I did not say it was unworthy of attention. I gave it attention before I dismissed it.

              A already knew some of the science, and Genesis 1 was clearly false. My conclusion was that Genesis was not intended to be a science text.

              Genesis 2 moves on to a completely separate creation story. And it obviously has the genre of a fable.

              That billions of Christians are unable to see this, is their problem.

              Liked by 1 person

            • You go ahead and live in your godless hope of cosmic serendipity. As for me, i’ll Take Genesis as perfect fact, just as a wise and loving Creator would have creatures with intelligence to understand.

              And btw, if you were honest with yourself and did not care what others thought of you, agreement would follow.

              Like

            • Of course! That’s why I took the claims seriously and than allowed reality to arbitrate them. The conclusion was the Genesis 1 and 2 do not align so either the claims are factually and historically incorrect or reality is wrong. Unlike you, I decided reality had the stronger case.

              Liked by 2 people

            • No tildeb, you personally decided the claimns of scripture have no merit, because the content stuns you. Youi have designed a false reality.

              In a court of law where common sense is the judge, you would be found a criminal in a New York minute.

              Your intellect will not admit one greater. The account IS scientifically accurate from which springs all else. Youi know, the ‘kinds,’ flora and fauna, the lights above, not rocks, and all that.

              Admit it tildeb, you are god, and you despise God. Period. True science always bows down to Genesis. The sounds of a running brook testifies to Genesis Darwin be damned. 😉

              Like

            • Dearest CS …

              In answer to your question — Did the thought ever cross your mind that the account in Genesis regarding creation, especially 1 and 2 are factually and historically correct? … of course it did. I was a Christian at one time, if you recall.

              As to your remark about “TRUE SCIENCE,” it would seem you must be a member/supporter of “The Institute for Creation Research” as they adamantly claim that All true science is creation science. *snicker … snicker*

              Tell you what, CS … when the day comes that you can prove to me (and others) that your Creator God exists beyond a shadow of any doubt, I’ll accept your “True Science” as being valid and accurate. And don’t load up your response with your usual attempts to belittle those of us who either deny or have strong misgivings about this being. Simply take the challenge and present your results.

              Oh and by the way … you are totally free to continue taking “Genesis as perfect fact.” What’s that old saying? If it feels good … 😉

              Liked by 1 person

            • Thx nan but to be fair, one hardly needs to be ‘Christian’ to believe Genesis.

              Can I refer you to that great scientist and agriculturalist and botanist and economist and draftsman and engineer and sage and king? Solomon.

              I’m sure you have no further interest in hearing from people much smarter than you who have known Genesis is fine and dandy.

              The good king and genius was hardly Christian. You need to release the bubble you live in.

              Like

            • one hardly needs to be ‘Christian’ to believe Genesis. … You’re kidding, right? Genesis is part of the CHRISTIAN bible. It is not found anywhere else so yes, it’s quite evident you need to be a Christian (or a Jew) to believe it.

              And Solomon? Again … he’s found only in the BIBLE, which is the “textbook” of Christians (and their predecessors, the Jews).

              Tell you what … when the bubble YOU are living in finally bursts (and it will), then we’ll sit down and have an intelligent conversation. 🙂

              Liked by 1 person

            • Sorry nan, admit your assertion was wrong. You Assumed incorrectly that only Christians believe Genesis.

              I pointed out tha Jews have long known the biblical account is truthful.

              Now you are doubting the life and tunes of Solomon?

              I feel sorry for you nan: your lostness is palpable that even history is rejected by you.

              Like

            • Of course I disagree … but as you know, this conversation could go on all day and I don’t have the time, interest, or energy to squabble with one who is so solidly entrenched in tales of “divine” imagination.

              Have a nice day, CS. Although I think you’re way off-base, I do appreciate your contributions.

              Liked by 2 people

            • A new thumbnail (picture) I see CS.

              I struggled for years to try to reconcile Genesis with science.

              So which should I have believed? Eventually I concluded that science made more sense of explaining the world I observed. No doubt you consider the Bible better explains the world that you experience. So be it.

              Once I concluded that science better explained the world I experienced I was free to question whether or not the Bible came from a divine source. My conclusion was that the Bible makes more sense if one concludes it is a human rather than a divine book. I don’t expect you to agree with my assessment.

              Liked by 2 people

            • Your entire premise pete is built on the
              fallacy that Genesis 1.1 is incorrect.

              Rest assured the error is on your end, and not God’s. He made the flora and fauna not Darwin….

              God misted the young ground, not atheists parades and their rain.

              He made the stars, not hubble. Too bad you are sitting in judgment of Him, instead of bowing to His handiwork.

              But you keep studying your science,, and at the end of the day, God will still be God, and His word correct, and oh, btw, did you ever study the life and times of believing scientists and their contributions to the world at large?

              Like

            • ColorStorm, I don’t expect you to understand the science if you were able to mistake the role of cell phone towers and GPS satellites
              True Science knows that many of the predictions of einstein relativity have been proven ( unlike what a cat that thinks he is a lion says )
              True science knows that you are talking nonsense

              Liked by 1 person

  9. Little typo mistake was happened in earlier comment, hence posting again after few correction, as didn’t get option to edit or modify.

    As I have said couple of times earlier about how I feel more insecure with our so-called educated class than religious leaders- below link proves again.
    https://scroll.in/article/888185/meet-the-indian-priest-scientist-who-recently-discovered-that-milky-way-had-a-sibling-galaxy

    In a simple way as usual, I call it as muddling.
    Here is the interesting part from that link:
    Q:
    The Catholic Church has historically taken a stance that is somewhat antithetical to science. It is unusual, though not unheard of, to have scientists who are also priests. How do your religious and scientific beliefs interact?
    Ans:
    It is rather unfortunate that the Catholic Church has historically made a number of mistakes with regards to the sciences, especially when it felt its power and doctrine threatened. However, it must also be emphasised that the Catholic Church in its own way through the development of Universities in Europe but also through the number of its clergy actively involved in the sciences down the centuries has contributed to its development. This part of the narrative does get left out!

    I do not see any fundamental contradiction between my religious and scientific beliefs. They actually go hand in hand. My religious beliefs tell me that God created the world as something good according to some laws. This fundamental assumption assures me that the laws of nature are constant, and are actually worthy of being studied. This is why the sciences prospered in the West, as opposed to other cultures where the gods and hence one’s understanding of reality were more capricious and whimsical. For me studying the Universe helps me learn more about its creator. Hence for me, studying astronomy, the stars and the galaxies is an ultimate form of worship

    Like

  10. Seriously nan? Christians refute Science? I dare say you must be clueless. How many times ie, have I brought to the table the OBSERVABLE truths of the level, the plumb line, the compass, the plane, arithmtic, yet in all this, your usual customers have ignored the scientific implications which annihilates ‘cosmic serendipity aka godlessness.

    It is the atheist who fears true science. Get your facts straight.

    Like

        • Colorstorm, there are few people on this thread who would take anything you say with any less than a grain of salt. Newcomers need a ‘heads up’.

          Like

          • Oh I see, so you are the gatekeeper lest they actually see my exposing of false Professors, lying ‘scholars,’ and atheistic math majors who boast of billions and billions of unprovable years of guesswork, while they are blind as to knowing WHY 2 plus 2 equals 4. Hilarious but pathetic.

            Like

            • carm-

              Your inability to see that both of these can be true is exactly why you cannot possibly conceive that the Creator has designed the conscience————not to worship science as you do, but as to know that as the carpenter made the wooden table, so did the Creator make the tree. Both are true.

              It’s really not that difficulty to comprehend, it’s just that stubborn heart thing that people will not face. And I gladly and confidently say this before a worldwide audience: let God be true, and every man a liar.

              Like

          • Yes CS is at the more extreme end of science deniers apparently believing the earth is flat.

            Though some speculate that belief in a flat earth is so easily refuted that he must be trolling us.

            Liked by 1 person

    • First, CS, you need to pay more attention to what I write, i.e., There are those in the Christian world … I did not make an all-encompassing statement. I purposely limited it because there are actually some believers who use reason and logic to form their ideas about the world.

      And your “observable truths” are hardly the science I’m talking about … and you know it. In fact, I thought I was fairly explicit when I mentioned Christians that “deny the earth is a sphere or that it revolves around the sun.”

      If you’re trying to covertly substitute “god” for “true science” when you say atheists fear true science … I think you know better.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I am all about science nan, true science that is. You know, observable, testable, repeatable; not ‘useless theories’ which Tesla dubbed as beggars dressed in purple, which ignorant people take as kings.

        Modern so-called science is a complete failure which lacks common sense and promotes fraud as intellectual progress, yet, the eagle flies as it has been, with no need or desire to change, and the grizzly bear with tear off your head and sleep like a baby.

        Science should pay attention to common sense. Many a PhD is an adult idiot.

        Like

        • one more note to careful readers:

          this is all coming from a man who believes that the earth is flat, and surrounded at the edges by frozen waterfalls to protect us from falling off. He cannot tell me how thick the earth actually is, or how he deduces that the sun revolves around the earth without ever appearing to set.

          Liked by 2 people

          • hey jude- – do you enjoy making your sad song?

            If you are going to assign things to me, try to get your story straight. Where did I mention frozen waterfalls, etc etc.

            And no, don’t go asking me to ‘explain myself,’ in areas in which you have already proved yourself clueless.

            But that was awful nice of you to warn readers since I am that much of an intellectual threat to science and atheism..

            You wouldn’t want people to actually think for themselves now would you, Btw, look at my recent post, I quoted you exactly, (something you cannot do) nd how I laid waste to your myopic claims.

            (and no I won’t link here out of respect to the host)

            Like

    • Need I remind you, CS that you were the one that some how stated that cell phone towers proved that gps satellite was fake, CS you were the one ignorant of strides in physics when you said that none of general and special relativity predictions have been proven
      CS you have only brought your ignorance and complete lack of understanding of what science is to all these discussions

      ColorStorm, learn what science is and maybe you would be taken seriously

      Like

      • 5 sighs and forty yawns jon.

        The trinity of the compass, the plumbline, and the compass, condemns all pseudo science and laughs at the idiotic attempts that try to prove a man can walk upside down on a basketball or on a ceiling like an ant.

        But wow, what great faith you must have, to have seen the earth hurling through space at 67,000 mph, a number so bizarre that even the sun and moon hide their face in shame at the lying science of godlessness.

        Like

          • jon-

            Do you have any idea what the word ‘plane’ means?’

            I suggest that you take about 30 years of your short life and actually study the word. Hint:

            ‘airplane.’

            And please, try to avoid help from ‘bastards’ who would gladly give the dictionary meaning another father………….

            Like

            • CS, I suggest you take just one week of your life and get acquainted with the workings of the compass and air plane navigation
              If you do you would see why the compass and air plane laughs at your flat earth

              Like

        • I am wondering what lies you would have told yourself if you had been with us last Friday night, CS. A group of us gathered to watch the meteor shower in the dark, with powerful field glasses. We had someone with us (a professor at Columbia University) who explained what was happening, and how the earth was moving through the ‘meteor ring’ around the earth, which was why we were able to see so much activity. I wonder what your explanation would have been if you’d been able to see another galaxy – Andromeda – through the field glasses. (which is visible to the naked eye, by the way it’s just very cloudy) It was nothing short of amazing, and thoroughly intriguing.

          Science is like that, CS.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Carmen, you know of course what kind of response you’ll get … a bunch of words that go nowhere but seemingly satisfy CS’s need to counter anyone who believes in Science.

            Wait for it …

            Liked by 2 people

            • Oh! Oh! Oh! Gosh A-mighty, CS! Do tell me where you saw the “Creator” so many talk about. Please! Tell me where to look. I’d really like to see what he/she/it looks like! 😀

              Liked by 1 person

            • I understand if the glory of God is out of reach for you, but rest assured your heart knows what your conscience speaks.

              insanitybytes just wrote a wonderful treatise on the thievery of atheism. I dare you to read it.

              Like

            • If you mean ‘brainwashed’ as in cleansed by common sense, facts, logic, the truth of nature, wisdom, love, grace, mercy, then yes.

              But pity the gal whose brain needs washed by Bill Nye the science clown, with apologies to Bozo.

              Like

            • Oh CS … I tried. I really tried! But I just couldn’t do it!

              I simply couldn’t get past such misguided thinking as … “Non belief, non hope, non purpose, non meaning, takes its toll on people” OR “When we abandon purpose and meaning, when our shelves are filled with empty things, when we begin to see ourselves as just pointless creatures hurling towards nothingness, it causes pain, despair, depression, anger, addiction …”

              If that’s the image you see when you view a non-believer, you are blind. So very, very blind.

              Read the testimonies of people who have recognized the futility of worshiping an unseen, mute, and deaf entity and THEN you will truly understand the pointlessness, the pain, the despair, the depression, and the anger that Christianity generates.

              (Oh, and BTW … you’ve obviously been checking out the wrong store. The one I shop at is FULL of good things!)

              Liked by 1 person

            • Nope, not the image of a non believer nan. I have many friends who while being non believers,, do not share the theft of good things from good people such as the rabid (and you know this is true) atheist who does nothing but to steal, kill, and destroy; and I mean kill in the sense of snuffing out any virtue found in people because of the word of God.

              God’s word works, The proof is in the consistent lives of people who worship and serve the Creator, rather than the creature. And scripture has written not only about them, but their predicable reactions.

              The heroes of the new age (blechhhkkk) such as Nye, Sagan, Darwin, Hawkins, Degrasse Maher, pick one, they are all the same) are all lying thieves. Sorry, it’s a fact.

              Like

  11. There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot not face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed…..Bertrand Russell

    Liked by 4 people

  12. Excellent t article on the decline in science in the Muslim world and how it came about. To me, it’s important as it could be a mirror to our future in the US with the take over of religion in our government and the people trump is collecting to accomplish this feat.
    This article does speak to the topic of the post, but it also speaks to why the far right religious nuts view trump as God’s choice and will not turn against him.

    If we lose scientific inquiry and rational thought, we will forever lose our status in the world and go into decline.

    https://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/how-the-decline-of-muslim-scientific-thought-still-haunts-1.382129

    Liked by 2 people

  13. It is going to come as a shock to CS and his support team that Christianity is not the only religion in the world.

    There are approximately 4200 worldwide, and 12 recognized major religions. It seems a bit narrow sighted to go on about one without a nod to the others…

    Liked by 1 person

    • … and that many are incompatible with each other… so it’s rather fortuitous that CS has managed to hit upon the only right one.

      1:4200.

      Gosh, those are long odds. I wonder how he did it? Must have been divine revelation, which means the creator of the universe is whispering in CS’ ear but not yours, Judy, and not mine. That’s why he’s such a special fellow and the only one capable of recognizing True Science (TM). God favours him but not us.

      Bummer.

      I guess we’re just going to have to take his word for it because, well, you, god.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Annnd the rug you’re standing on is the Only Rug, the Right Rug, the Supreme Rug, and it’s the Divine Rug and God will help you lift that Rug even whilst you stand on it. yessir. Praise Jesus and pass the syrup.

        Liked by 4 people

  14. That great Christian thinker of the 4th/5th century, Augustine of Hippo, despaired of the science denying Christians of his day, fearing that their ignorant comments on science opened Christianity up to ridicule from people with knowledge.

    Seems nothing much has changed in 1,600 years.

    Neil DeGrasse Tyson observed that throughout history educated people of faith have tended to accept known science, but then leapt to ‘God’ for things that science can’t yet explain. Needless to say this has caused ‘God’ to steadily retreat to the edges.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not an historian. If you look at the totality of theological discourse over the last twenty centuries, including the subjects debated at ecumenical councils or addressed by official documents, they were concerned with spiritual and ecclesial matters, and not with attempting to explain the causes of mundane natural phenomena.

      Like

      • When one assigns all matters human to be ‘spiritual and ecclesial matters’, only then does you assertion make sense. That’s why we find a vast array of explanations for natural phenomena underlying and expressed in many of the bulls, briefs, and encyclicals. To think such vast and influential bodies like the Catholic Church had no role in deciding what explanations of mundane natural phenomena were theologically acceptable is to deny history.

        Liked by 1 person

          • The Church ruled on everything, which is why the Galileo affair was such a watershed moment: it was the beginning of science that produced demonstrable results avaiable to anyone with an eyeglass contrary to and incompatible with Church doctrine.

            Church doctrine in matters of natural philosophy were absorbed wholesale from Aristotelian physics and Ptolemy’s astronomy. Their metaphysical basis (not reality as we have come to understand it) worked nicely with the theological premises of the Church. That’s why the Summa Theologica was later taken on board by the Church and championed as the basis for its teaching Seminaries; it applied the same metaphysical premises using Aquinas’ strong if somewhat opaque logic to ‘explain’ all natural philosophy, all matters human.

            I mention the bulls, briefs, and cyclicals from the Vatican so that you can go ahead and feast your eyes on just how much final judgement and interference the Church ran on ‘mundane’ concerns – especially any new ideas about the world and how it operated – what we would consider natural phenomena but which the Church claimed was a primary ecclesiastical and spiritual concern that it had the authority to rule on. That’s why the Vatican determined which books would be prohibited – right up in the late 1900s! This practice was so well understood that many European people for over a thousand years first asked permission from clerical orders to investigate just about anything and this in turn explains why there was so little actual advancement in human knowledge about the natural world under this yoke that we call it The Dark Ages.

            Even Copernicus – a renowned mathematician and priest – asked that his work calculating orbits and placing the sun and not the Earth at the center (to make sense of the data he collected) not be published until after his death. He knew he would either have to recant or be excommunicated and put to death for heresy. When you live inside such a system, Loy, I think a very strong argument can be made that the Church was very much dedicated to maintaining an ecclesiastic stranglehold over all causes of worldly (mundane) natural phenomena. Dedicated enough to kill people to keep silent on matters we would now consider pretty trivial science.

            Liked by 2 people

            • You acknowledge that medieval science derives from Greek philosophy, and not from hyper-literal readings of scripture. Kudos for perhaps being a bit better informed than many Internet “non-believers”.

              With reference to the Neil DeGrasse Tyson claim that is the subject of this thread, it would be more accurate to say that it is Aristotle who has steadily retreated to the edges. That has no bearing on God — He is who He is.

              Now, you can fault the Church for emphasizing classical philosophy for too long, or you can fault it for being corrupted by worldly power. That just makes you a Protestant.

              Like

            • “That just makes you a Protestant.”

              Ha! There’s more than a little truth to that!

              Because the Church absorbed Aristotelian physics wholesale and Aristotelian physics was demolished as a ‘way of knowing’ (by Galileo’s inclined plane thought experiment) doesn’t mean the theology of Christian, Islamic, and Judaism religions that utilize the same metaphysics is therefore and somehow exempt or defended from its championing, from claiming it as ‘divine’ (we still encounter the identical arguments today in all matter of religious apologetics), and form then enforcing this doctrine (even if implemented by ‘secular’ authorities) as pious. And that’s the point of criticism: that metaphysics itself used to defend and idea about some hypothetical divine agency is no way to learn anything about the universe. It’s a broken method. So any claim using this method about some god is empty of any knowledge value at all. And in this regard, Protestants are as guilty as Catholics as Jews as Muslims. Blame does not reside with Aristotle but belongs to those who continue to use it to justify belief in the unbelievable.

              Liked by 1 person

            • @tildeb: If you choose to believe that “universe” is synonymous with reality, then on those ground rules I would quite agree. However, at best, you have no more justification for that belief than I have for the opposite.

              Like

            • Well, I think I do have far greater reasonable justification for my beliefs about reality, about the universe and how it operates, in the sense that applications, therapies, and technologies that work for everyone everywhere all the time independent of my beliefs, because of the quality and merit of the knowledge claims upon which they are based. In other words, this independent verification of the knowledge merit component is not trivial but a major plank of informing the confidence I hold in beliefs that align with this knowledge versus beliefs that are contrary to it. I do not think these beliefs are equivalent but very heavily weighted to alignment not because I believe so but because all this knowledge-adduced stuff works.

              Like

            • @tildeb: As to how to gain knowledge about the universe and its systems and laws, we’re agreed. We disagree as to whether that suffices for a satisfactory account of reality.

              As stated in an earlier thread, the knowledge we derive from observation and experiment can inform our stories, but it’s not the whole story, or the whole truth. Unaided science doesn’t help us discern what matters — or why we matter, or how to create lives that matter. It produces no wisdom.

              Now, you take the position that “religion” doesn’t either. That’s another point of disagreement, but it’s a separate question.

              Like

            • Oh, I agree fully that science doesn’t produce wisdom about how to live well and/or fully and/or with personal meaning. It produces knowledge about reality; how we apply that knowledge and the meaning we obtain from doing so is completely up to each of us. I think religious belief does not help us, either, because of compelling evidence that it doesn’t do this as advertised. To the contrary, religious belief seems to elevate tribalism and divisions between people. (And isn’t it remarkable that geography – and not any independent truth value – correlates rigorously with which religious belief will be accepted as true by the local population!) But I certainly take exception to the notion that religious belief in supernatural agencies in any way aids scientific inquiry. Quite the opposite; again, there is much compelling evidence that what religion excels at promoting is ignorance masquerading as ‘another way to know’ and remaining a staunch foe of any knowledge that is contrary to certain religious faith-based precepts.

              Liked by 1 person

            • @tildeb: We can further agree that “how we apply that knowledge and the meaning we obtain from doing so is completely up to each of us.” In that light, we who do find a love of truth and wisdom within a religious tradition naturally will take exception to your meaningless generalizations. Your data must be rather biased and of rather poor resolution to produce such a distorted and incomplete picture of reality.

              Like

            • @Loy: Now THIS is funny!! Your data must be rather biased and of rather poor resolution to produce such a distorted and incomplete picture of reality.

              Ever heard the story of the pot and the kettle?

              Like

            • Loy, you say, “In that light, we who do find a love of truth and wisdom within a religious tradition…”

              Firstly, I spoke of individuals finding meaning from knowledge about reality; you change that to say it the same ‘light’ in which individuals can find love of truth and wisdom (from) within a religious tradition. These are not synonyms. Neither you nor I have the right to make up our own facts about reality; that’s reality’s job to arbitrate and yet that’s exactly what religious beliefs overwrite with supernatural causal claims. In other words, if a claim arbitrated by reality to be true is contrary to a religious belief, then religious traditions discard reality. The examples are plentiful, starting with creationism. So religious traditions by practice demonstrate they hold no ‘love of truth’ but try to make its own piety and dogma falsely equivalent to the words. This is a fundamental deceit, a falsehood upon which many religious traditions are built and housed and sold to a credulous audience: often in blatant disregard of what is knowledgeable and true about reality.

              Furthermore, you are assuming the conclusion, that religious traditions possess and provide knowledge, which they do not. That’s not my opinion; that’s simply a fact because there are no examples of religious traditions as the cause of producing knowledge about reality. They produce conflicting and incompatible causal claims even among the various religious traditions themselves PLUS none offer us any means to arbitrate any of their independent truth value compared with others. That’s the beauty of faith: geography is the most highly correlated factor and NOT independent truth value of the particular traditions.

              Not only is there compelling evidence that religious traditions hold piety and adherence to its dogma to be of a ‘higher’ value that reality’s arbitration of its claims, which means a “love of truth” must come from some other source than religion that degrades this to secondary importance, but there is simply no evidence that religious traditions themselves produce wisdom any more than a particular genre of fiction does.

              There is much compelling evidence that religious traditions claim to have truth value about its fundamental precepts by advocating for certain ideas they also claim produces it (say, charity or empathy or compssion, and so on) yet, upon further inquiry, we find wholesale thievery by all kinds of religious traditions making all kinds of ownership claims for the same. We have oodles and oodles of examples where religious authorities steal anything of truth value, arbitrarily assign to their religion beliefs ownership of it, and then claim their religious belief produces it… look no further than the ridiculous claim that religion itself is responsible for producing human morality, a claim so wrong it isn’t even wrong.

              By claiming all of this is simply a “meaningless generalization” that distorts reality because of my bias is simply the only means you have available to wave away reality’s arbitration of the incorrect claims you make about religious traditions possessing love of truth and wisdom. Hand waving. That’s not very wise.

              Liked by 1 person

            • @Nan: Pot and kettle are both black, so you’re implicitly conceding my point that @tildeb’s useless generalizations about “religion” reflect a distorted and incomplete picture derived from biased, low-resolution data.

              I don’t see where I’ve done anything comparable to that, but nonetheless I’m delighted to have you on board with the above point at least.

              Like

            • No, I’m not “implicitly conceding” anything. I’m saying YOU are doing exactly what you’re accusing tildeb of doing … using biased data to produce a “distorted and incomplete picture of reality.”

              And you don’t have me “on board.” This is my blog and I will comment as I see fit.

              Liked by 1 person

            • But that’s what the expression you used means — that both parties are guilty of the supposed offense.

              In any case, I’d be very curious to know how or where you imagine I have used biased data in this thread to produce a distorted and incomplete picture of reality as @tildeb has done.

              Like

            • @tildeb: Hang on there, partner. We’ve been over this a couple of times, but let’s recap.

              We agree on the value of observation and experiment to gain reliable knowledge about the physical universe and how it goes.

              At the same time, we agree that (in your words) “science doesn’t produce wisdom about how to live well and/or fully and/or with personal meaning.”

              Further, we agree that (in your words) “how we apply that [scientifically-established] knowledge and the meaning we obtain from doing so is completely up to each of us.”

              Now, I take the last proposition to mean what it says, that is, that every person enjoys complete freedom to pursue truth and wisdom by their own lights, and wherever they lead — incorporating facts derived from observation and experiment, but also recognizing that these facts alone, though necessary, do not suffice.

              I acknowledged that we will have to agree to disagree about the role of religion in that pursuit. But plainly, under the terms agreed to above, that judgement is for each person to make for themselves. Either it’s “completely up to each of us,” or it isn’t.

              Everyone is free to consider whether your complaints about religion provide any useful guidance. But even if we accept your complaints at face value, they are indeed meaningless generalizations. The individual considering particular paths is interested in granular information about those paths, and not in a lot of recycled ax-grinding boilerplate.

              For example, you claim that “religious traditions discard reality”. If that’s the case, then we can agree it would be wise to avoid those particular traditions.

              You claim that “there are no examples of religious traditions as the cause of producing knowledge about reality.” Here you seem to be confusing “reality” with “nature”. Yes, by all means, avoid weird sects that dabble in pseudo-science.

              You claim that “there is simply no evidence that religious traditions themselves produce wisdom any more than a particular genre of fiction does.” Of course, great fiction can be a source of wisdom, so this point isn’t a knock-out argument either.

              You get the point: Even if your claims may sometimes be true, they’re never necessarily true, and therefore are not useful, either universally or particularly. It should take a nanosecond’s reflection to realize the absurdity of making sweeping generalizations across vast swathes of cultural and historical landscape.

              So to what degree are your claims even “mostly” plausible?

              You would have us believe that “examples are plentiful, starting with creationism [by which I assume you mean evolution-opposition].”

              Now, of the 20-plus centuries of the rich history of “religion”, evolution-opposition has only existed for a very small slice of time (something like 7%). Most major world religions and nearly every denomination have substantial numbers of adherents who accept evolution.

              Keep in mind this is not just your prime example, but in fact the only specific example you cite. So yes, with respect and regret, I must say it’s fair to describe your complaints as meaningless, useless and unsubstantiated generalizations.

              Like

            • Loy, it’s apparent you spent some time reviewing tildeb’s comments. And that’s good. It shows a better-than-average willingness to look at both sides.

              However, your last statement is a very poor way to end the discussion because you know tildeb … and/or ANYONE who has offered a perspective different from yours … is going to find it offensive.

              As a result, any future comments from you will be moderated. I have no problems with discussions in which individuals disagree — in fact I welcome them. However, there are ways to state one’s case without using words that are certain to bring a negative response. Sorry … but that’s the way it is.

              Liked by 2 people

            • “every person enjoys complete freedom to pursue truth and wisdom by their own lights, and wherever they lead — incorporating facts derived from observation and experiment, but also recognizing that these facts alone, though necessary, do not suffice.”

              No. That’s why I say we don’t have the right to make up our own facts. And this first part matters so let me expound so that we can then move on to the second part that puts your claim that these facts do not suffice when they have to!

              The method of science is based on allowing reality to arbitrate claims made about it. This is not practiced by religious believers regarding their religious beliefs! For example, anyone who thinks any form of divine creationism regarding any biological life on Earth is compatible with reality’s arbitration of this claim are – simply put – making up their own facts. Evolution is not an opinion; it is a fact and its scientific meaning is a mechanism of how life changes over time (to produce all the ‘kinds’ we have of life on Earth) that is both UNGUIDED and NATURAL. No divine tinkerer. No POOF!ing of ‘kinds’ into existence. At no point in this fact of evolution does creationism fit reality’s arbitration of the claim. You will have a hard time – impossible, actually – finding creationism without its religious impetus.This means that reality’s arbitration of this central claim of almost all religions – especially as an explanation for human exceptionalism – is waved away by the religious in order to maintain the deceit that knowledge of reality isn’t enough to produce wisdom.

              But because religion does not create or discover knowledge but actively works to supplant it with Just So stories that align with its doctrines, means that religion’s core tenets are not compatible with knowledge. If it were, you would find no belief in creationism. But we do, Loy, and it exists in the vast majority of believers in the 3 Abrahamic faiths, which bolsters my argument that religion and science are incompatible ways of knowing.

              Why does this matter and what does it have to do with wisdom?

              Science produces knowledge; religion does not. Yet this creationism/evolution divide is a really good example of religious folk pretending some of the anti-factual core tenets of their religious beliefs are fully compatible with the method we call science (allowing reality to arbitrate claims made about it) when they are not. The religious core tenet of creationism is held in spite of it being factually wrong. Furthermore, this kind of imposition of religious assumption in place of facts (as determined by reality’s arbitration of these core claims) demonstrates the lack of regard the religious must maintain for knowing what is ‘true’ about the universe. In addition, the conflicting assumption will be upheld as if also true when it is clearly in opposition to it, which demonstrates my charge of necessary deceit to maintain religious beliefs incompatible with reality’s arbitration of them (ie ‘science’).

              This informs the second part of why wisdom does not come from religious belief. Allowing reality to arbitrate our beliefs about it has everything to do with compatible wisdom about our place in reality. Wisdom means experience, knowledge, and good judgement. Religion is not a source for any of this but is almost always an opponent of it if reality’s arbitration is contrary to the religious doctrine being presented as if equivalently true. (That’s certainly true of the historical record I’ve mentioned upthread, as well.)

              So what?

              Well, allowing reality to arbitrate our beliefs about it has everything to do with this necessary component of knowledge and it is central tenet of wisdom. What’s a believer to do?

              To get around this thorny problem, religious people pretend there’s some ‘other’ kind of knowledge that relates to some ‘other’ realm of reality. In metaphysical terminology, this idea is captured by assuming things have ‘natures’ rather than the scientific understanding that things only have ‘properties’. So the religious navigate their rationalizations between these two – allowing reality to arbitrate beliefs held about it and imposing religious beliefs on reality when reality fails to comport – in order to arrive at the conclusion they want and then claim that this arduous path <i.also produces experience, knowledge, and good judgement. But it’s turtles all the way down in the sense that this religious method never produces belief about reality that reality arbitrates as true. In fact, the metaphysical component is a guarantee that no knowledge can be found because it starts with this broken method of imposing on reality the conclusion that is pious. Piety is wqhat matters most and not truth, not wisdom. Piety. Using metaphysics short circuits any pretense of ‘respecting’ what’s true. And so, by default, it has already removed one of the pillars for wisdom, namely, knowledge. That’s why even if science does not produce wisdom, religion is guaranteed to fail. It’s a matter of epistemology.

              Liked by 1 person

            • @tildeb: As I said, you’re confusing reality with nature — or rather, are simply asserting your own metaphysics that equates them.

              We already agreed that science does not produce wisdom. Wisdom encompasses knowledge of many things about which science is serenely oblivious — human rights and Euclidean geometry, for instance. Science certainly can’t tell us who has the right metaphysics.

              We’ve already agreed that science alone does not help us know what matters — or why we matter, or how to create lives that matter. It can inform our stories, but it’s not the whole story, or the whole truth.

              As I carefully explained last time, creationism is not a “core tenet” of “religion”. Or perhaps you can explain what you mean by that term, since it seems to be the core of your argument.

              Like

            • Aristotelian physics asserts that things have a ‘nature’. That is not true (Galileo’s contribution is the benchmark for dismantling exactly this primary assumption for Aristotelian physics, also know as natural philosophy) yet it forms the basis of religious metaphysics. Things do not have natures; they have properties and properties operate by the chemicals and compounds of their constituent parts and the fields they exert and respond to by operation. As far as we can tell, this is what constitutes reality. All ‘things’ have such properties. Emergent properties come also from these interactions and reciprocal effects. That’s what science reveals, by allowing reality to arbitrate our claims about it and helps us to create ‘knowledge’, meaning understanding, of how reality operates and by what mechanisms… operations that we can figure out
              and use for their reliability and consistency. Anything is else is not knowledge.

              You say wisdom encompasses knowledge science knows nothing about. Either this sentence is incoherent or you are introducing the term ‘knowledge’ to mean something other than understanding how reality operates. Your two examples – human rights and Euclidean geometry – are not examples of ‘knowledge’. They are examples of ethics for the former and an axiomatic system of measurement. These are handy templates we can utilize to better compare and contrast relationships but they are not examples of another kind of ‘knowledge’. To be useful in pursuing knowledge, each would have to be applicable to reality’s arbitration of beliefs about them to inform our understanding of how they operate. But note: neither are things. That’s why they don’t have independent properties but are terms we use by informing them with specific imported meaning. We can’t extract meaning from them; we can only compare and contrast by value imported effects when we implement them with an imported set of values for their definition. Of course science ‘knows’ nothing about human rights: human rights, for example, says nothing about reality! We are the ones that have to supply a meaning to the term and so we cannot extract any knowledge from it that isn;t determined by what we import to it.

              Religion is the same way. And that’s my point.

              Liked by 1 person

            • “Piety is what matters most and not truth, not wisdom. Piety.”

              If you find yourself in a religion that values piety above truth and wisdom, then join a different one, or start one. It’s not a fixed, inherent feature of “religion.”

              Like

            • Of course it is, Loy, or you wouldn’t need faith above all other – and obviously – secondary considerations… like allowing reality to arbitrate your beliefs about it and respecting the results.

              Like

            • @tildeb: You’re perfectly free to believe that your marriage is not real, but good luck explaining that to your spouse!

              The idea that it’s impossible to “know” anything about geometry is obviously absurd. We acquire such knowledge by studying real non-physical objects.

              The problem with your extreme form of physicalism (as you know, or would know if it were possible to know) is that it’s self-refuting: If it were true, then by its own logic it would not be real!

              Like

      • they were concerned with spiritual and ecclesial matters,

        In other words, discussions of the exact color and style of the Emperor’s new clothes.

        and not with attempting to explain the causes of mundane natural phenomena.

        Very wise, since historically religion’s efforts to explain those things have been roughly on a par with a baboon’s ability to explain celestial mechanics.

        Liked by 3 people

        • I gather you slept through the lesson, so I’ll repeat it: Historical data do not support the assertion that explaining the causes of mundane natural phenomena was a primary preoccupation of recognized Western religious thinkers and leaders over the last twenty centuries.

          Indeed, one of the most learned and revered scholars of the Middle Ages, St Albert the Great, clearly articulated the distinction between science and theology back in the 13th century: “In studying nature we have not to inquire how God the Creator may, as He freely wills, use His creatures to work miracles and thereby show forth His power; we have rather to inquire what Nature with its immanent causes can naturally bring to pass.”

          If you can make a credible case to the contrary citing documented facts and sources, please do.

          Like

      • @ Loy

        Peter was quite specific when he wrote: Neil DeGrasse Tyson observed that throughout history educated people of faith have tended to accept known science, but then leapt to ‘God’ for things that science can’t yet explain.

        Where in Peter’s his statement did he refer to any ecumenical council?
        Were you throwing this in as a bt of a straw man to deflect?

        He said educated people of faith, and having listened to a couple of discourses by Tyson on this very subject, I am quite sure he was referring to people such as Newton, and not a bunch of (primarily) ignorant power hungry clerical jackasses.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Reality can be a scary thing. The first aborigines must have been terrified of planes when they saw them overhead, and their rationale was, undoubtedly, ‘big silver bird” or “silver dragon”. Close, but no banana.

      If you don’t have the knowledge/sophistication/understanding to draw from, you tend to walk right past science (the unfamiliar, i.e., periodic tables, atoms, invisible black holes) and clutch your bible a bit tighter, for the familiarity it gives you. New is not necessarily comforting, and understandably any animal, human or otherwise, tends to mistrust “new’ since it could be hostile, dangerous, or hungry.

      Liked by 2 people

  15. Hi Nan’s Notebook. I am a christian, I believe in God but I do not deny the discoveries of science. I have a blog and I would like you to check my blog out and follow me if you would like to learn what a Christian person thinks. Maybe this will help you to get a clearer picture of who we are. Maybe you will be pleasantly surprised. I would like to have a dialogue with you so we both can hear and learn from each other. Looking for you on my blog Nan’s Notebook.

    Like

    • I appreciate you stopping by my blog, Jodi, and for leaving a comment.

      I hope you won’t be offended but I won’t be visiting your blog. I know very well what Christians think as I was one for over 15 years … and the way they think is the main reason I left.

      Of course you’re always welcome to stop by again and share your thoughts. But be prepared as most of my regular visitors are deconverts and/or non-believers.

      Liked by 3 people

      • That’s fine Nan. I am not put off at all. I appreciate the response; it was kind of you to do it. The thing about Christianity is its diversity. One group can believe somethings other groups do not but what holds us together is our belief that we are not perfect but Jesus fill that gap for us. So even though your perception is you know I am coming with the same old story, it may not be so. But I respect your honest. I like an honest person.
        I do understand fully your rejection of Christianity, I have had my issues with things I have seen in the church and I guess we both found different ways to deal with that. One thing I have learned, people have faults, big massive faults that can hurt and destroy the lives of others. My heart goes out to you and I apologize for whatever pain or ambiguity you have seen by us who should know better. But I want to say in my mind this does not migrate the truth of God’s word; it only proves it more.
        Thank you again for your response, I appreciate your honesty. You are still invited though if you are curious at any point and would like to see what my blog is about.

        Like

        • Jodi, it continues to puzzle me why Christians assume individuals leave the faith because of “pain or ambiguity” or hurt feelings. Many, many leave simply because they saw the fallacies that make up Christianity. Including myself.

          Contrary to your beliefs, there simply is no “God’s word.”

          Liked by 2 people

          • Since Jodi is so anxious for all your blog responders to learn what Christians think, perhaps she won’t mind hearing from non-believers as to what they think. I’m assuming, by commenting on a non-believer’s blog, she must be curious.
            Well, Jodi, not only is there no such thing as ‘God’s word’ – only MEN’s word – it can also be suggested that the only place your god exists is in your imagination.

            Liked by 2 people

            • Carmen please share more with me what you think. If you believe God only exist in my mind that’s fine because you have free will and a choice. You can choose to believe whatever you choose as I also choose to believe what I want to believe; and I have no issues with that. Is my curious of what you think offensive to you? What would you suggest I do hate you and be nasty to? How do you suggest people with different beliefs co-exist?

              Like

          • Would you consider “fallacies that make up Christianity” an ambiguity? If not please explain so I can understand. If possible please give me example(s) of exactly what you mean. This will help me understand. Thanks 🙂

            Like

            • Jodi, I’m currently traveling and using my iPad to respond. If you don’t mind, I’ll try to expand on my meaning later this week (if I don’t forget!).

              Like

            • @Jodi

              Because such conversations go go off in several directions it would probably be best for all concerned if you were to explain exactly why you became a Christian ( presuming you are born again)

              Liked by 1 person

            • I am. The conversation I seek to have is not so much me telling you what I believe, I am sure if you do not believe what I believe you have no intentions of changing that believe so this is not an effort to “save” so you need not to worry. I honestly think hearing the points of view of others helps you to understand and see why they hold the position they do. I genuinely would like to hear your points of view to understand why you have come to that conclusion. I am not afraid of your point of view being different. Those who refuse to learn some outside of their views are not wise so I am not afraid to understand your view point.

              Like

            • @Jodi
              My question was why you became a Christian. I don’t think you actually answered it.
              I am more than willing to have any such conversation but as I said, for me at least, it is important to understand why you decided to become Christian.

              Liked by 1 person

            • Hi Jodi … I’m baaack. 🙂

              Quite simply, I left Christianity because there were simply too many unanswered questions. When I asked those who should have been able to provide answers (e.g., Christian leaders), no one could provide valid and “faith-enhancing” responses. Instead, they either quoted scripture or referred me to the bible (scripture) … which is where the confusion originated!

              Naturally, there is much, much more to my “story” — which you can read about it in my book if you’re interested.

              As for my comment about there being “no God’s word” — IMO, the bible is not the “heavenly-sent” collection of stories that Christians believe it is. Rather, I see it as full of myths, legends, and stories collected over many centuries. It has no credibility in that there is no one who can validate that any of the recorded events took place. What you see in the bible is what you have been taught to see.

              Scriptural authority (again something I address in my book) is weak, at best, since it was put together by humans, edited by humans, and ratified by humans. And humans are not infallible.

              I hope this answers your questions. Certainly we do not see things through the same lens, but I hope something I’ve said helps you to better understand my position towards Christianity.

              Like

            • Hey Nan just seeing your reply. Thanks for taking the time to reply. So are you saying, if proof is shown to you that backs up the Bible you would accept it? Of course you said your story is more than that but I take it that proof that shows the authenticity of the Bible is one of the major sticking point for you, since this is the one you choose to share with me here. I could be wrong in my assumption, if I am please let me know and explain. What if there is archaeological evidence that shows the events in the Bible took place from other societies around at the time?
              I have three questions for you:
              Do you believe in science?
              Do you discredit science because human beings are used to proof a hypothesis?
              Do you think science is faulty because human is involved in the process? Because what every standard you judge one by you have to judge the other also by. Maybe I am too simple minded. Looking forward to your reply. 🙂

              P.S. Nan your reply to me did not show up in my inbox so that is why I am just replying.

              Like

            • What if there is archaeological evidence that shows the events in the Bible took place from other societies around at the time?

              For one we have a lot of archaeological evidence and surviving egyptian texts that show that the exodus as described in the bible did not take place. The conquest narrative in the book of Joshua has been disproven to be historical events. The bible states that “Darius the Mede” captured Babylon in the sixth century BC ( Daniel 5:31 ), whereas historians know it to be Cyrus of Persia
              We also have scientific evidence that shows that genesis account of creation is nonsense

              Now I am not trying to say that the bible does not contain historical truth. Actually some things in the bible are set in actual historical places and at actual historical times. But much of the bible garbles with what we know as “Historical fiction”.

              We have evidence for Homer’s Troy, the trojan war, validating some names, places and events in the Iliad. The fact that the Iliad correctly records that there was a city called Troy that was attacked by the Greeks does not give credibility to the claim that the various gods fought alongside the Greeks and Trojans, that the was an “invulnerable” Achilles etc.

              Just like if evidence proves an article in an academic journal, that does not make all other articles to be automatically proven so also even if archaeological evidence proves one part of the bible that does not automatically prove all other parts

              Do you discredit science because human beings are used to proof a hypothesis?

              If by this you mean human beings serve as evidence, then science only use human beings as evidence depending on the hypothesis in question, and in some other theories and hypotheses human beings don”t serve as evidence. If what you mean is that human beings are the ones finding the evidence then we don’t discredit science because of that afterall it is still human beings that are asking the questions and looking for the answers so we expect humans to find it
              We ultimately don’t discredit science because human beings are involved in the process because scientific journals and articles don’t state that the information presented here is passed to us by a diety. Science doesn’t state that what it says is the words of a diety so we judge it passed on the standards we give to works of human. And science is open to dumping any theory when the evidence is against it

              But many religion texts claim to be the works, the divine message of a diety, but if when subjected to investigations and we find out it was the result of a human process, a natural process then. It’s supernatural origin is discredited

              Because what every standard you judge one by you have to judge the other also by.

              If we judge the bible based on the same way we judge the Iliad, the vedas, we judge all other mythologies and also how we judge scientific and academic literature, then the bible has been incorrect in many places

              If we are to subject the god hypothesis to the same way every other hypotheses in science are subjected to then, the “god hypothesis” has fall short. But just like every other hypothesis in science, if the are conclusive evidence to support it, then it will no longer be a hypothesis but will be “the god theory”

              Jodi, I would suggest you subject all god(s) myths to the same standard you subject christianity to or you subject christianity to the same standard you subject other myths to

              Liked by 1 person

            • Jonathan: “For one we have a lot of archaeological evidence and surviving egyptian texts that show that the exodus as described in the bible did not take place. The conquest narrative in the book of Joshua has been disproven to be historical events. The bible states that “Darius the Mede” captured Babylon in the sixth century BC ( Daniel 5:31 ), whereas historians know it to be Cyrus of Persia.”
              I am interested in learning about this information I quoted you on above saying. Please direct me to where I can find the information so I can read it for myself. Thanks.

              Like

            • Some books on the subject matter
              Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2002). The Bible Unearthed
              Dever, William (2001). What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It?
              Dever, William (2003). Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?
              Finkelstein, Israel. The Quest For The Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and The History Of Early Israel

              For a start you can read this
              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity
              and the sources that are referenced there

              You could also start here

              Like

            • Jonathan: “If by this you mean human beings serve as evidence, then science only use human beings as evidence depending on the hypothesis in question, and in some other theories and hypotheses human beings don”t serve as evidence. If what you mean is that human beings are the ones finding the evidence then we don’t discredit science because of that after all it is still human beings that are asking the questions and looking for the answers so we expect humans to find it
              We ultimately don’t discredit science because human beings are involved in the process because scientific journals and articles don’t state that the information presented here is passed to us by a diety. Science doesn’t state that what it says is the words of a diety so we judge it passed on the standards we give to works of human. And science is open to dumping any theory when the evidence is against it
              But many religion texts claim to be the works, the divine message of a diety, but if when subjected to investigations and we find out it was the result of a human process, a natural process then. It’s supernatural origin is discredited
              Because what every standard you judge one by you have to judge the other also by.
              If we judge the bible based on the same way we judge the Iliad, the vedas, we judge all other mythologies and also how we judge scientific and academic literature, then the bible has been incorrect in many places
              If we are to subject the god hypothesis to the same way every other hypotheses in science are subjected to then, the “god hypothesis” has fall short. But just like every other hypothesis in science, if the are conclusive evidence to support it, then it will no longer be a hypothesis but will be “the god theory”
              Jodi, I would suggest you subject all god(s) myths to the same standard you subject christianity to or you subject christianity to the same standard you subject other myths to”

              I do not want to respond to this part of your post with just my opinion which is subjective as is yours. I am going to do some research on how scientific findings are presented to the public in the media and publication. I am going to research and see if it is presented to the public as the end all and be all of knowledge and get back to you on this one. I am going to comb through and see if your opinion is correct. Because I want to be thorough my response will take some time. This will also be an opportunity for me to increase, learn and understand.

              Liked by 1 person

            • You could also see
              William Denver. Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel
              Finkelstein Israel. David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition

              Like

            • Is this in response to the state you made about other ancient societies “mythical” stories being more believable than the Christian Bible? If not please let me know what these books will tell me so I know what is my reference point when reading them? As Jonathan if I misquoted what you said to me earlier about “other ancient societies” please clarify. Thanks.

              Like

            • Those books are about biblical archaeology

              Is this in response to the state you made about other ancient societies “mythical” stories being more believable than the Christian Bible

              I wasn’t stating that the other mythical stories were more believable than the bible. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

              Sometime this year in a blog I followed, someone literally stated that because the bible was correct when it said that the sun and day was brighter than the moon and night, therefore the bible was scientifically accurate which implied a divine origin
              Another one I have come across, was along the lines of when god talked about quarantining lepers in Leviticus 13:2-5, Numbers 5:2 that medicine has proven that to be a good measure in preventing the spread of leprosy, therefore the bible had to be divine
              ( Though I know some christians who don’t say things like this )

              Now I’m not assuming that this is your beliefs, there is no way for me to know your beliefs
              But what I was saying when I compared other mythical stories with the bible. Was that in both cases the sometime got some things right and sometimes did not.
              If our basis of proving the divine nature of the bible based on things like these 2 cases, then many myths would pass the test as most of them occasionally got things about nature right

              Like I said I don’t know what your beliefs are, so I can’t tell if you agree with the people in these 2 cases or not. Just wanted to make that clear

              Another reason I had mentioned other mythical stories was that. Since the bible is what was to be proven right and other mythical stories would therefore be wrong, we show therefore see how other stories would fare when we test them against reasons used to justify the bible

              Because what every standard you judge one by you have to judge the other also by.

              I forgot to add this to my response to one of your previous comment

              Sometimes, I do feel I am asking too much of the bible and I showed give the bible the benefit of doubt and take the erroneously part as due to man made errors and judge it based on the same level I do to other human works ( that don’t claim a divine source ). But then if I give the bible this privilege , i would also have to give the same to all other god stories I come across on.
              If I did this, almost any god story could be accepted as true

              Like

          • Also please clarify what you mean by “contrary to your beliefs, there simply is no God’s word”? And if you mean that you do not believe the Bible is inspired by God that is fine. I would not expect you to believe that if you are being true to Atheist views. I would not engaging you in conversation in this because there would be no end to it because it comes down to what we each believe. If you believe differently that is also fine. You have the power to do so likewise me.

            Like

            • A brief history of the bible shows its human development. They are no signs that point to a supernatural origin especially when compared with the mythologies and text of other ancient societies

              Liked by 1 person

            • Just reread my comments and I saw that I wasn’t clear

              A brief history of the bible shows its human development. They are no signs that point to a supernatural origin especially when compared with the mythologies and text of other ancient societies

              What I meant was looking at the history of the bible. The bible shows it had a human development and they are no signs that the bible had a supernatural origin other than its human origin especially when compared with the mythologies and text of other ancient societies
              I wasn’t talking about man’s origin I was referring to the bible’s origin

              Like

            • The scientific methods we use that pulls imperial evidence that gives science its credibility comes from the mind of human beings, does this mean science is falls not credible because it came from the minds of human beings?

              Like

            • The scientific methods we use that pulls imperial evidence that gives science its credibility comes from the mind of human beings, does this mean science is false, not credible, because it came from the minds of human beings?

              Like

            • Ok. Please state one text of other ancient society that has a supernatural origin and also included an example of what you speak. Please provide me with where you get this information from and refer me preferably to a book so I can go and read it for myself. This is great! 🙂

              Like

            • Jodi “Please state one text of other ancient society that has a supernatural origin and also included an example of what you speak. Please provide me with where you get this information from and refer me preferably to a book so I can go and read it for myself.” This statement was in response to what Jonathan said about so this is not my position I was just asking for examples and information as to what ancient societies. As my quote above shows.

              Like

            • Jodi “Please state one text of other ancient society that has a supernatural origin and also included an example of what you speak. Please provide me with where you get this information from and refer me preferably to a book so I can go and read it for myself.”

              This statement was in response to what Jonathan replied to me and said; this is not my position I was just asking for examples and information as to what ancient societies. As my quote above shows.

              Like

            • Umm… I know this sounds cheeky but it’s rather obvious when one is asked to supply specifics that there’s this thing called the internet? If actually curious, the usual procedure is to want to try, say, creation stories? If you did and entered it into a search engine, you might get something like this, which could keep you busy for many a year checking out all the source materials… Or, your question might simply be to overwhelm the person offering other considerations to get plowed under doing all this work on your behalf, so that their failure to do enough is the reason why you don;t have to question your <i.a priori beliefs. This is a tactic I’ve seen used all the time by religious apologists who really don’t wish to engage, wish to learn, wish to find out what informs opinions and beliefs different from one’s own.

              Almost every culture has a creation myth with a supernatural origin and supernatural elements. Of course, if you studied mythology itself as a communication/teaching medium, you’d be introduced to the idea that supernatural entities are signposts for the reader/listener to supply a meaning so that the symbolic representation teaches something important about what it means to be human. This seems to be the case across the board of cultures that use myths. The Genesis myths are no different than the thousands of others readily available for you to study if you really wish to do so and can actually offer a tremendous lesson on leaving the family basement and saying ‘Yes’ to the adventure and trials and suffering that is life as a grown up.

              Of course, Christianity gets the myths exactly backwards in that the ‘lesson’ so to speak, the ‘explanation’ to interpret the myth correctly. This only becomes available thousands of years after it was introduced… only after JC arrives and is crucified and then is raised and then becomes the Redeemer and then that supernatural element that is Christ becomes the ‘answer’ to the Genesis myths (explaining why we all need redemption, you see), which is a pretty strong indication the Christian interpretation of what amounts to the Gilgamesh creation myth is not correct. There would be absolutely no reason for people to pass the myth along from generation to generation to generation to generation all the while waiting patiently for its explanation to suddenly arrive. That’s not how aural and oral history is undertaken. But Christians who read Genesis today do so through the framework of this rather silly but ubiquitous interpretation and so many of them presume it’s a history book, that the supernatural entities were historical that occurred in a real place at a real time. That just sucks the myth dry of it being any value at all and raises the question why so many people today don’t have the same level of common sense of their ancient ancestors knowing that supernatural critters aren’t real but intentionally used as a literary device. See Star Wars to see its latest rendition. And the clue that one is approaching a myth is usually right off the bat: once upon a time, far, far away, in the deep dark forest, in the beginning, when the world was young, before recorded history, yada, yada, yada. This, too is a signpost so that when the first supernatural critter raises its head and speaks, one is supposed to know to supply that symbol, that representation, with meaning associated with both the critter and a person, one that metaphorically represents a human trait or element that one will question in life. That’s why myths teach.

              So let’s see if you actually are interested or if this series of questions was simply another religious apologetic tactic to avoid having to think outside the indoctrinated religious framework.

              Liked by 1 person

            • I thank you for your opinion on my real intention Tilded but only one issue, only I know if my intentions are as I say they are, just as how only you know what your intentions are, that is the power of being individuals. Please do not judge me, take my word for what I say and even if I am being malicious use facts, evidence and not personal attacks. I do not want to get into personal attacks, it does not help with learning and it makes us stuck in the weeds. I like the fruit more than the weeds, fruit I can eat. Also if you look at another reply I gave to Jonathan (I believe) he stated somethings and I instead of just going of my opinion said I would do some research to see if what was said is true. I sincerely though thank you for your response (please believe me)  Just to be clear I am playing around and not taking this serious.

              Liked by 2 people

            • Could you specify the personal attack in Tildeb’s comment, Jodi? I’ve read through the reply twice and have yet to find it. Could it be that anyone who doesn’t agree with you has that insult levied? If you came here to get answers and repeatedly deflect, handwave, and accuse others of personally attacking you, don’t be surprised if your credibility takes a nose dive.

              Like

            • Carmen, tildeb has a tendency to get “in your face” when he disagrees with a person. This approach is often seen/felt as a personal attack even though it may not be tildeb’s intent. There’s no doubt he has the ability and knowledge to counteract many of the claims of Christianity, but too often his style of writing comes across as harsh and judgmental.

              Like

            • Please state one text of other ancient society that has a supernatural origin and also included an example of what you speak

              There is no text that we have ( atleast the ones i’m aware off ) that has a supernatural origin. All texts both ancient and modern has been as a result of Humans writing down things

              What elements or narratives are in any texts in the bible that shows that, the book in question has a non-human origin.
              Each texts in the bible was written by humans, the information the wrote were originally passed orally before they were written down. The different books in the bible have been subject to recopying, editing, further recopying. The process of people passing the bible orally before scribes wrote it down and other human beings edited and recopied is clearly a human process and not a supernatural process

              Almost every cultures that time had some form of mythology, the jews included and the transmission of all their stories followed the same process

              Even the bible that is circulation today. Many scholars and translators had to pick pieces of new testament manuscripts and compare them to have an idea of what the original manuscripts could have looked like. This process of textual comparison is clearly a human process. The first complete new testament manuscripts we have are a couple of centuries after the events were said to have occurred. The Masoretic Text which is what the old testament in the current bible is primarily based on was copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries AD

              The are many mistakes between the different manuscripts that we have. Add that to scribes erroneously copying and portions of the bible that were later added
              If you look at the dead sea scrolls which is one of the oldest old testament manuscripts and close to 1000 years older than the Masoretic text, you would see a lot of differences that paint Yahweh in a different light

              Please provide me with where you get this information from and refer me preferably to a book so I can go and read it for myself

              Are you referring to where I got my information concerning the bible transmission

              Liked by 1 person

  16. I met someone recently who claimed to believe in a flat Earth — or at least some version of it, which he thought he got from the Bible. He found his way to my office using GPS.

    I did not engage him on the matter, as we had serious business to attend to. But I wouldn’t want to depend on this person’s decision-making skills.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Also in the Bible “the whole world” encompassed a very small amount of actual real estate, and I suspect falling off the edge of it was not in their litany of concerns at that point. That is a funny point. Mr. Flat-earther and his GPS.

    Like

  18. Rightly said.
    Same I have already written in my other blog for exclusive choose, let me recall once here and simplify.
    Can we choose exclusively between Science and Religion for living?
    As an atheist, we will be happy to live with Science only, can we expect religious person or religious scientist or person from scientific religion(or any other similar form) to rely only on Religion while rejecting Science completely?

    Liked by 4 people

  19. This is just my opinion but, I really do think that what was written in the bible is true. It’s just that, there is a different interpretation because the bible was written in deep words and needs to be deciphered. Those who have taken the bible literally word per word might have a misunderstanding. One of the the things that I thought be true is “By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” -Genesis 3:19 I believe that we are made from dust because, we were not humans right from the start. We had to start in an organic material into a bacteria and through the process of evolution, it becomes a eukaryote and then, comes the organisms. But we think of those minute things as dust. Religion is established to bring just and righteousness, not to destroy the world. It is not the religion’s fault that it has brought problems to the world. Therefore I believe that piety does matter.

    Like

    • To each his own, John.

      IMO, the bible is simply a recording of myths and legends that were shared among people who needed a way to explain things they didn’t understand. And as far as “piety” (religious devotion, spirituality, or both), it may matter to some but not to everyone.

      In any case, I do appreciate you stopping by and offering your thoughts and hope you’ll stop by again.

      Like

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.