WearingglassesOf the friendly neighborhood varietyRegistered Userregular
I totally thought at first The Problem With Jon Stewart was a series of thoughtpieces against him (because I don't watch those videos), then turns out it was a pune, or play on words (him hosting a show basically titled 'The Problem').
They twist the words of the Bible around so much trying to justify what God does. They can't just accept that it is wrath. It is supposed to scare people.
Old testament God was not so good. I remember in Bible school they had a hard time justifying it.
I take issue with this, because judgements of "good" are informed by contemporary morality, which in turn has been influenced by millenia of evolution in religious theology stemming from the very same source
now I am not espousing moral relativism, in fact I am very much opposed to it. But the understanding of what a God ought to be was vastly different in the bronze-to-early-iron-age mediterranean basin. People there realized life was harsh and unfair, and so the gods they worshiped were harsh and unfair to reflect that, from Judea to Greece to Egypt. That is not to say Old Testament God was without mercy; but said mercy was rare and precious, and therefor all the more celebrated when it happened.
Now, if we were to look at more modern interpretations of Judeo-Christian faith: The Creed of Christ is based on love. This was a revolutionary concept at the time, and I mean that with the modern connotations of the word. That the least shall be first, that the rich will not get into heaven, that compassion ought come first; I cannot stress what an upheaval it was in the spiritual sense. And even if we put aside this canon that we now consider tired dogma, it influenced every western concept regarding the nature of the divine, its engagement with the earthly, and how human morality ought reflect that. A loving God, and a loving world, are novelties.
And if we might say Christianity is a religion that is fundamentally based around Love (even if it was twisted and abused through time to enact truly hateful acts), then Judaism is fundamentally based around Justice. It is not about an answer - through the love of Christ shall you enter the Kingdom of Heaven; but of the continuing question - why do the travails of life occur as they do? And the (many, often contradictory) answers to that are all attempts to define and divine this Justice. Christ's mercy was, in fact, simply another one of those answers, before Paul came in the mix and adulterated it with Hellenic aesthetics.
Here is a scientist that started believing in God. The thing is about science is that are some things they are stuck on. Evolution and chemical reactions are not explaining everything. They really don't know the origin of the first cells. It just kind of happened. Somehow, the chemicals made the cells. https://youtu.be/OMBQwGzn_TE
Evolution isn't about the origin of life. That's abiogenesis. Evolution is change over time via environmental selection pressures. It's not designed to explain "everything"
If you want a theory of everything, go ask the physicists.
Evolution isn't about the origin of life. That's abiogenesis. Evolution is change over time via environmental selection pressures. It's not designed to explain "everything"
If you want a theory of everything, go ask the physicists.
What he was talking about is that it seems like there are thresholds to evolution. Animals evolve in certain ways.
Really, I probably should have not said "everything".
0
Tynnanseldom correct, never unsureRegistered Userregular
I am immediately and intensely suspicious of any and all "science can't explain literally everything, therefor god did it" framing
What I got from the video is that he suspects something else is at work. He is jumping to God because he is baffled.
In actual scientific research, we do not accept lack of evidence as proof that something is happening. Quite the opposite, really.
+5
Indie Winterdie KräheRudi Hurzlmeier (German, b. 1952)Registered Userregular
The assumption that everything can be explained by measuring the material universe is borne out of us only being able to empirically measure the material universe. It is teleological, a cyclical self-affirming logic, not making any theoretical space for things which we are unable to measure or sense as limited beings in a vast reality.
I'm not saying the answer is God either, but refusing to consider the nigh infinite possibilities which we are now and might forever be unable to determine with quote unquote scientific accuracy is petulant
The assumption that everything can be explained by measuring the material universe is borne out of us only being able to empirically measure the material universe. It is teleological, a cyclical self-affirming logic, not making any theoretical space for things which we are unable to measure or sense as limited beings in a vast reality.
I'm not saying the answer is God either, but refusing to consider the nigh infinite possibilities which we are now and might forever be unable to determine with quote unquote scientific accuracy is petulant
I think that was what the guy in my video was realizing. I doubt they will kick him out of the scientific community for believing in God.
My main concern with the “Maybe God fills the gaps?” is that it is very close minded and adheres to the particular cultural constrains of the questioner. The equal opposite to science isn’t one religion. Branch out, maybe the universe is the dead body of Ymir, you know? Perhaps there are a billion asura and deva in constant battle? Do the research, maybe a good night’s sleep can be gained by sacrificing a goat to Hypnos.
Most of the scientific community believe in the median thing their culture believes because that's how being in a culture works.
It's no more or less interesting when someone with a PhD does or does not profess a belief that's gotta kind of fundamentally be only mildly related to their field. And considering the broad range "science" covers it'd be weird to have your journey be like I used to believe in an intercessory god but now that I understand how to make aluminum at an industrial scale I must turn to face the void.
I guess I would find it kind of weird if someone was like Young-Earth Creationist but also an expert in a scientific field because it's like what you're unwilling to give any colleagues outside of your field of study the benefit of the doubt? But a sort of vaguely christian-influenced nondenominational belief seems like it'd be easy to square with stuff.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson used to believe we were in a simulation because of the weird behavior of modern physics.
I forgot what happened that stopped him from believing that. It is on a talk show somewhere.
I am immediately and intensely suspicious of any and all "science can't explain literally everything, therefor god did it" framing
What I got from the video is that he suspects something else is at work. He is jumping to God because he is baffled.
In actual scientific research, we do not accept lack of evidence as proof that something is happening. Quite the opposite, really.
I guess that's the whole point though, scientific research almost always reaches a limit, a wall in every field where the answer tends to be "we don't know and can't explain it". Now, you can respond to this by saying we will eventually figure it out because the scientific method and its progression encompass everything because the things the scientific method encompasses ARE everything (that pesky cyclical logic again). Or, alternatively, entertain the possibility that some things, abstract or "spiritual", cannot and might never be scientifically accounted for.
I don't actually think the experience of a lot of people working in the sciences is that there's steady progress toward a wall. Usually there are just a lot of things that can't be adequately explained, and a lot of people arguing about which set of models will work best. "This might be fundamentally impossible to explain" isn't a model that allows anyone to do any interesting work.
I am immediately and intensely suspicious of any and all "science can't explain literally everything, therefor god did it" framing
What I got from the video is that he suspects something else is at work. He is jumping to God because he is baffled.
In actual scientific research, we do not accept lack of evidence as proof that something is happening. Quite the opposite, really.
I guess that's the whole point though, scientific research almost always reaches a limit, a wall in every field where the answer tends to be "we don't know and can't explain it". Now, you can respond to this by saying we will eventually figure it out because the scientific method and its progression encompass everything because the things the scientific method encompasses ARE everything (that pesky cyclical logic again). Or, alternatively, entertain the possibility that some things, abstract or "spiritual", cannot and might never be scientifically accounted for.
The response more often tends to be, "we don't know and we can't explain it yet, but we've got some ideas on how to try"
Often at the same time as there's a handoff to the applied science folks and engineers of "see what you can make out of what we've already found"
The physicist won’t be pissed off in so much as they don’t have the years of time required to get you up to speed on the foundations to ask that question. Unless they’re a teacher, at which point they’ll lock the door and get out the magnets.
But yeah, they won’t have the absolute answer to everything, but we as a species are getting closer rather than further away from the answers.
+5
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
The assumption that everything can be explained by measuring the material universe is borne out of us only being able to empirically measure the material universe. It is teleological, a cyclical self-affirming logic, not making any theoretical space for things which we are unable to measure or sense as limited beings in a vast reality.
I'm not saying the answer is God either, but refusing to consider the nigh infinite possibilities which we are now and might forever be unable to determine with quote unquote scientific accuracy is petulant
There is a difference between considering something, believing in something, and asserting it as evidenced reality. I consider a great deal of possibilities about how the universe might work, I believe very few of them, and as a non expert I assert even fewer myself.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Posts
Tumblr | Twitter PSN: misterdapper Av by Satellite_09
I take issue with this, because judgements of "good" are informed by contemporary morality, which in turn has been influenced by millenia of evolution in religious theology stemming from the very same source
now I am not espousing moral relativism, in fact I am very much opposed to it. But the understanding of what a God ought to be was vastly different in the bronze-to-early-iron-age mediterranean basin. People there realized life was harsh and unfair, and so the gods they worshiped were harsh and unfair to reflect that, from Judea to Greece to Egypt. That is not to say Old Testament God was without mercy; but said mercy was rare and precious, and therefor all the more celebrated when it happened.
Now, if we were to look at more modern interpretations of Judeo-Christian faith: The Creed of Christ is based on love. This was a revolutionary concept at the time, and I mean that with the modern connotations of the word. That the least shall be first, that the rich will not get into heaven, that compassion ought come first; I cannot stress what an upheaval it was in the spiritual sense. And even if we put aside this canon that we now consider tired dogma, it influenced every western concept regarding the nature of the divine, its engagement with the earthly, and how human morality ought reflect that. A loving God, and a loving world, are novelties.
And if we might say Christianity is a religion that is fundamentally based around Love (even if it was twisted and abused through time to enact truly hateful acts), then Judaism is fundamentally based around Justice. It is not about an answer - through the love of Christ shall you enter the Kingdom of Heaven; but of the continuing question - why do the travails of life occur as they do? And the (many, often contradictory) answers to that are all attempts to define and divine this Justice. Christ's mercy was, in fact, simply another one of those answers, before Paul came in the mix and adulterated it with Hellenic aesthetics.
Or his podcast, Resident:
https://podcast.hernancattaneo.com/mobile/
If you want a theory of everything, go ask the physicists.
What I got from the video is that he suspects something else is at work. He is jumping to God because he is baffled.
"Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop."
What he was talking about is that it seems like there are thresholds to evolution. Animals evolve in certain ways.
Really, I probably should have not said "everything".
In actual scientific research, we do not accept lack of evidence as proof that something is happening. Quite the opposite, really.
I'm not saying the answer is God either, but refusing to consider the nigh infinite possibilities which we are now and might forever be unable to determine with quote unquote scientific accuracy is petulant
Well, I guess this guy is not a scientist anymore. Someone should tell him. He is a Dr. and is writing papers. Doing the research.
So was Andrew Wakefield, for example. Getting a PhD just means you're a stubborn person. It doesn't prove that you can actually do good work.
I think that was what the guy in my video was realizing. I doubt they will kick him out of the scientific community for believing in God.
It's no more or less interesting when someone with a PhD does or does not profess a belief that's gotta kind of fundamentally be only mildly related to their field. And considering the broad range "science" covers it'd be weird to have your journey be like I used to believe in an intercessory god but now that I understand how to make aluminum at an industrial scale I must turn to face the void.
I guess I would find it kind of weird if someone was like Young-Earth Creationist but also an expert in a scientific field because it's like what you're unwilling to give any colleagues outside of your field of study the benefit of the doubt? But a sort of vaguely christian-influenced nondenominational belief seems like it'd be easy to square with stuff.
I forgot what happened that stopped him from believing that. It is on a talk show somewhere.
I guess that's the whole point though, scientific research almost always reaches a limit, a wall in every field where the answer tends to be "we don't know and can't explain it". Now, you can respond to this by saying we will eventually figure it out because the scientific method and its progression encompass everything because the things the scientific method encompasses ARE everything (that pesky cyclical logic again). Or, alternatively, entertain the possibility that some things, abstract or "spiritual", cannot and might never be scientifically accounted for.
That is for philosophers.
The response more often tends to be, "we don't know and we can't explain it yet, but we've got some ideas on how to try"
Often at the same time as there's a handoff to the applied science folks and engineers of "see what you can make out of what we've already found"
But yeah, they won’t have the absolute answer to everything, but we as a species are getting closer rather than further away from the answers.
There is a difference between considering something, believing in something, and asserting it as evidenced reality. I consider a great deal of possibilities about how the universe might work, I believe very few of them, and as a non expert I assert even fewer myself.