Science and Religion Have Never Been Enemies
williampoulos.substack.com
williampoulos.substack.com
One can make the argument that science and religion occupy disparate spheres of interest, as Gould did with his “non-overlapping magisteria,” but it ignores the fact that religion as it is practiced often makes claims about material reality, claims that can be put to scientific scrutiny.
The historical record is interesting, and I appreciate the details presented in TFA. But I’m concerned with the practicalities of religious practice and those of science and the “constantly-overlapping magisteria” of material claims.
And perhaps those Fundamentalists felt that the anti-religious atheists needed an appropriate foil. Certainly some of the noisiest people have come from both camps and made their presence and beliefs known. I believe there is a silent majority on both sides that sees no conflict between science and religion, because this lack of conflict has existed for 2,000 years, and it will continue to exist, because Christianity is the source of spiritual truth, and science seeks to explain physical truths.
the source?
I'll give you a source (for some) .. but there are a lot of religions across the globe and Christianity is just one of several in the Abrahamic family.
Fair point about Galileo though - his trial was principally due to him being a delibrately provocative giant pain in the butt to all the wrong people.
Other so-called Abrahamic religions are beliefs tossed in a blender with some of this and some of that, sometimes ethic emphasis, sometimes syncretism. But no serious reader should consider them “Abrahamic.”
When people refer to the Abrahamic religions they are usually thinking of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
There are, in fact, more Abrahamic religions, such as the Baha’i Faith, Yezidi, Druze, Samaritan and Rastafari, ...
You're certainly entitled to your opinion just as the British Libray (above link) is entitled to theirs.
It's not like serious readers bother much with the British Library.
The British Library is a research library in London that is the national library of the United Kingdom.
It is one of the two largest libraries in the world, along with the Library of Congress.
Your other examples, which are copy-pasted from other sites, are in fact, religions of syncretism.
They are obviously not Abrahamic.
If we created a new religion right here in this HN thread and combined Abrahamic precepts with some blend of western Buddhism and secular thought, does it make it an “Abhramic” religion? No it makes it a syncretic religion.
It’s irrelevant what the size of an institution says. This is just an example of an argument from authority fallacy. You’re not making an actual point.
It’s a poor reference to authority, too. If you wanted good cookware, would you go to Walmart or Williams Sonoma? Why of all places would The British Library be an institution for religious authority as compared to actual religious history schools?
As for Abrahamic faiths, the obvious criteria to decide if it is Abrahamic or not is to see if they claim to worship the God of Abraham, which a quick Wikipedia check indicates they all do. What criteria do you believe correct and includes Judaism and Christianity but not any other?
Some of it is straight up wrong, or edited by people with particular editorial priorities.
In the case of religious readings from Wikipedia, much of it written from the secular perspective is straight up wrong. You could simply ask an educated, practicing Jew about Judaism and be more informed. They’d obviously be a practitioner anyway.
In the case of these so-called “Abrahamic” religions, the scriptures of said origin religions talk about false gods, yet some of the ones you claim believe in multiple gods. So which is it? Do you believe in the god of Abraham alone or not?
This is just a casual example of scriptural violation. It’s trivial to point this out.
You can’t be a serious scholar of faiths and consider such points of view without labeling them as syncretic religions.
The jewish faith once had a pantheon of gods. You've "no true scottsman"ed your way into saying the jewish faith is not Abrahamic.
You're referring to Yahwism, which is a name and concept given by secular scholars trying to understand the origins of Judaism, but no such religion in-and-of-itself ever existed.
It would be like national historians grouping the histories of Canada, The United States of America, and Mexico into some sort of "Peoples of Northern America" nation, which does not exist.
Note that this is a complaint Muslims, some Jews, and some others direct at the Trinity, so...
Non-Christian Abrahamic monotheists often strenuously disagree.
EDIT: to be clear, I am a Christian and believe the Trinity isn't multiple Gods (and neither is, say, the veneration of saints.) But I am also not gatekeeping clearly Abrahamic-in-descent faiths from the Abrahamic family tree on the basis of whether or not they posit the existence of entities that I consider incompatible with monotheism (both because “monotheism” is a separate descriptor from Abrahamic, and because evaluated monotheism is slippery.)
There is still no Jewish faith to my knowledge that is polytheistic. If you have material to share that provides evidence otherwise, I’d be interested in reading it, but Judaism isn’t Yahwism. That’s not gatekeeping, that’s… reading.
Mono- and polytheism isn’t slippery. You either believe in one god or multiple gods. There’s little to dissect there.
- LDS claim to be Christian
- LDS claim to believe in the Trinity
- LDS have added to Sacred Scripture and claim that Divine Revelation is ongoing
- LDS are, in fact, henotheistic, which is a little bit of slip between mono- and poly-. LDS believe that God the Father, and Jesus as well, were once mortal beings who achieved *theosis*, becoming gods, and ruling their own planets, which is the same that LDS men can aspire to: becoming gods and rulers of planets in their own right, in the celestial kingdom, with their wives by their side.
- LDS use a lot of the same words but with significantly different meanings. It is for this reason that Christians have judged the LDS baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", as a non-Christian, non-Trinitarian ceremony without effect, because even when using the same words, LDS are *saying and believing something entirely different*.
- Joseph Smith established an interesting syncretism among Second Temple Judaism (as he understood it), Restorationist Christianity in the USA, and Freemasonry. Mormonism is Abrahamic, insofar as all those influences are Abrahamic as well, but nobody can rightly call Mormonism "monotheistic", given their doctrine of mortal men becoming gods.[0] https://ncse.ngo/americans-scientific-knowledge-and-beliefs-...
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/02/06/the-evolutio...
The creation narrative in Genesis: either "the Bible is sacred and wholly true/correct" OR "the theory of evolution is true/correct". If the Bible can be wrong about the nature of the universe (as the Church was wrong about heliocentricism during Galileo's time), then surely it can be wrong about any number of issues.
Perfect. To summarise: the genesis creation narrative can never be wrong. It is an allegorical narrative with no factual value. Despite having no factual value, one can be mistaken about it. The burden of proof lies not with the claimant but the dissenter, if they can overcome their "false perspective", ignorance or naivety that is.
I wrote that your so-called facts have no value in regards to Genesis. Genesis is quite factual--that's why it can never be wrong.
“The Bible can be wrong about any number of issues, just not, when understood properly, about faith and morals” is a not-uncommon Christian position.
That it is simple, self-contained, ibtended literally, and correct on every factual detail is... a rather novel opinion.
> a rather novel opinion
It's remarkable how one can evade the inherent contradictions in their position while appearing quite righteous about it.
"I never said the Bible is wholly true (and I will not address its inherent contradictions) so the joke's on you!"
When one cherry picks evidence like that...
References?
The charge of heresy is for heretic views, such as the Copernican heliocentric model in his case. It threatens to upend the authority of the Church; if the Church can be wrong about the nature of the universe then surely they can be wrong about other matters as well. His Dialogues remain banned by the Church till 1835, ~200 years later. To say that Galileo was convicted of heresy for "bad behaviour" is simply disingenuous.
Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made: offering a sufficient condition for an occurrence does not prove that this condition caused the event. Him being tried and convicted of heresy doesn’t mean that his trial wasn’t politically motivated. Despots make up charges for political enemies constantly throughout history and heresy was an obvious choice
The Pope had been a fan and political ally of his within the church even before his ascension, and Galileo didn’t just disregard his request for a discussion of geocentric theory but did so in a way that specifically called him an idiot and undermined his authority. The Pope, who was essentially the ruler of central Italy, couldn’t let that public ridicule slide whether or not Galileo intended it (historians think the slights were unintentional). This led to his second trial for heresy for which he was convicted.
I am not denying that there were political factors in play. I am saying that the main factor in play was his dissent against the Church.
> valid scientific criticisms of his work. Ironically, what you are arguing is much like the chief scientific error Galileo made
There is a distinction between 'evidence that refutes the geocentric model' and 'evidence that supports the Copernican heliocentric model'.
While the technology available did not allow him conclusively proof the Copernican heliocentric model (there were also issues with the model), the evidence he had strongly refuted the central thesis of the geocentric model - that Earth is the center of the universe and everything in the sky resolves around Earth. That lead him to advocate for the Copernican heliocentric model, inference to the best explanation.
Galileo observed that Venus had phases despite remaining near the Sun in Earth's sky, which proves that Venus revolves the Sun, not the Earth, hence refutes the geocentric model. His discovery of the moons revolving Jupiter further refutes the geocentric model, that not everything in the sky revolves around Earth. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Copernican_sy...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum#Ch...
The argument in the OP isn’t that religion hasn’t opposed or suppressed science. It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science. While some may wield religion to whatever ends suits them, the religion itself was merely the tool of the day. We see evidence of that throughout history, to oppose science or anything else.
It is often used as an example because it is the prime example of the beginning of The Enlightenment, also known as The Age of Reason, the triumph of reason and evidence over dogma, which gave rise to modernity.
> It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science.
Take the creation narrative in Genesis: the world was created ~10,000 years ago in 6 (or 7, depending on how you count it) days. Is that narrative in fundamental conflict with modern science? Can both the genesis creation narrative and the theory of evolution be right? What and who decides which is correct? Should reason and evidence guide our beliefs or ancient texts proclaimed to be sacred?
But is this reality or just a nice narrative people like to bring up as a "all experts are wrong" dog whistle?
The Galileo thing was about politics, not religion. The pope (who was a good friend of his) gave him permission to write and publish the book, and then Galileo used an exact quote from that friend as a line from a character called "Simplicio" and it turns out spitting in your friend's face when the rest of the elites already hate you is a great way to be censured in a time before "knowledge is power".
It also wasn't scientific.
Moreover, there were valid epistemological criticisms of Galileo’s theory. The scientific method and accepted standards of proof were being developed. This work was also pre-Newton, this physical laws themselves were still not well-understood. Many of his critics were skeptical because, while heliocentric theory simplified the math, Galileo hadn’t disproved geocentricism — he gave a sufficient condition for his data not a necessary one. Thus, they complained he was making claims beyond the scope of his scientific work.
That is incorrect. Galileo observed that Venus had phases despite remaining near the Sun as observed from Earth, which proves that Venus revolves the Sun, not the Earth, hence refutes the geocentric model. His discovery of the moons revolving Jupiter further refutes the geocentric model, that not everything in the sky revolves around Earth.
How is that even remotely related to "all experts are wrong"?
> The Galileo thing was about politics, not religion.
As I said in another comment, the Copernican heliocentric model is at odds with the Church's geocentric doctrine and the Scriptures, hence challenging the Church's and the religion's credibility and authority. To claim that the Galileo affair is simply a "personal feud" is wholly disingenuous.
> It also wasn't scientific.
Galileo used the empirical data (observation of the planets) he obtained through his telescope to test and justify the Copernican heliocentrism model - it is the definition of science.
This is almost too dumb to respond to, but here goes.
Atheism isn't a hypothesis and never has been. I half-suspect you mean abiogenesis, but even there you'd be dead wrong. Recent research in abiogenesis has continued to make progress and I'd be happy to provide you with some recent citations. As for atheism being "a scientifically viable stance" you sound like you're way overstating the case in the hope that people won't know the difference and will give you really unearned credence. Per Wordnik, in their third definition atheism is "the denial of theism, that is, of the doctrine that the great first cause is a supreme, intelligent, righteous person."
Put in layman's terms, that definition of atheism boils down to disbelief in stories that someone tells you about a supreme creator. Nobody is obligated to listen to or accept somebody else's words, even if they're said at high volume in over a microphone in front of a bunch of people willing to put money in a basket.
Science, on the other hand, is (basically) the "Money talks, bullshit walks" way of trying to filter out the whole host of lies, special pleading, misinformation and plain nonsense that gets bandied about under the "religion" banner.
I suggest you read the book "The Stairway To Life: An Origin-Of-Life Reality Check" by Tan and Stadler. I'm well aware that you'll be able to try and snow the discussion with two dozen "citations" that will all be dead-end rabbit holes, but you can go ahead and provide them if you'd like.
If you want to do yourself a favor, try your skills on "there is no reasonable explanation of life, hence Zeus exists". Or Allah, if it helps.
Worse yet, you are peddling the god of the gaps: the god that is supposed to explain things where science cannot. This is exactly the god that is fleeing from science ever since science reared its head. And it is the view of god which the original article tries to refute. As your existence shows, it cannot be entirely right.
Of course I'm biting the bullet on God of the Gaps -- the question of the origin of life is the only interesting question in the universe, since without life no other question arises. When I write my book on this subject I will title it "The God of the Gap".
Now explain why you constantly appeal to a materialism of the gaps.
This also feels like terminology nitpicking. Plenty of scientists are agnostic instead of explicitly atheists, but they tend to be just as unreligious.
I don't see why "life exists and no god exists" should be a contradiction for formal or other reasons.
Furthermore: the existence of which god? As you know there and have been many religions with different gods.
And lastly: if it was straightforward, how come so many people fail to see it?
We can determine the truth of this statement empirically due to our understanding of information science, entropy, chemistry, and physics.