Neil deGrasse Tyson on religion and ..

[jojoju1998]

I've met some of the seminarians who are in the Seminary for the catholic diocese here. And other discerners.

One of them majored in Neurosciences and was in a PHD program before having the call. Another was a Civil Engineering Major. Actually two of them. Two Civil Engineering Majors. Another majored in Chinese and Humanities.


Two priests I know went to UC Davis, and majored in Psychology/Sociology, before having the call. A former priest I knew ( may he RIP ), majored in economics and worked in the agriculture business for 2 decades before entering the seminary.

They seem broadly educated to me. Does it seem to be more of a problem with Evangelical Christians ? Who go to Liberty, and Oral Roberts ?

[RINO Tom]

I've met some of the seminarians who are in the Seminary for the catholic diocese here. And other discerners.

One of them majored in Neurosciences and was in a PHD program before having the call. Another was a Civil Engineering Major. Actually two of them. Two Civil Engineering Majors. Another majored in Chinese and Humanities.


Two priests I know went to UC Davis, and majored in Psychology/Sociology, before having the call. A former priest I knew ( may he RIP ), majored in economics and worked in the agriculture business for 2 decades before entering the seminary.

They seem broadly educated to me. Does it seem to be more of a problem with Evangelical Christians ? Who go to Liberty, and Oral Roberts ?

As for the last part, probably?  But only because there are a disproportionate number of people who believe in a form of Biblical literalism that is practically reconstructionist compared to the perspective of thousands of years of Christian intellectuals and theologians.  Things like dogmatic Young Earth Creationism are relatively NEW philosophies within Christianity, and it is prevalent in those circles.

However, the broader takeaway (IMO) is that belief in some type of first cause/creator is not at all at odds with literally any type of science ... because it's not part of any scientific discipline.  A good Neuroscientist doesn't do his/her job "as a Christian" or "as a theist" ... he/she adheres to the principles of falsifiable science and treats it as separate from the philosophical question of whether or not something created the Universe.

[John Dule]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

Did someone here say that?

This forum has a general obsession with whining about atheists.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

This is textbook whataboutism. "How can you criticize X when Y is worse?"

[John Dule]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

This is textbook whataboutism. "How can you criticize X when Y is worse?"

If someone spends all their time complaining about BLM protestors while ignoring police brutality, or if they constantly criticize western countries for human rights violations while ignoring brutal conditions in Russia and China, can we not make reasonable inferences about their ulterior motives? Of course we can, and the principle is the same here. I won't deny anyone their right to level criticism where it's deserved. But I will reserve the right to question whether they are doing so in an intellectually honest fashion.

A dogmatic belief in science may not be the perfect worldview, but it is (A) Preferable to a dogmatic belief in just about anything else, and (B) Clearly not a major concern in a world where huge portions of the population adamantly refuse to accept basic scientific facts. The idea that the public discourse on these issues is being primarily afflicted by too much faith in science is laughable.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

This is textbook whataboutism. "How can you criticize X when Y is worse?"

If someone spends all their time complaining about BLM protestors while ignoring police brutality, or if they constantly criticize western countries for human rights violations while ignoring brutal conditions in Russia and China, can we not make reasonable inferences about their ulterior motives? Of course we can, and the principle is the same here. I won't deny anyone their right to level criticism where it's deserved. But I will reserve the right to question whether they are doing so in good faith.

So your premise here is that Atlas almost never criticizes Evangelical fundamentalism? You know that's ridiculous. Or if your beef is with a specific poster or two, then you should make that clear.

[John Dule]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

This is textbook whataboutism. "How can you criticize X when Y is worse?"

If someone spends all their time complaining about BLM protestors while ignoring police brutality, or if they constantly criticize western countries for human rights violations while ignoring brutal conditions in Russia and China, can we not make reasonable inferences about their ulterior motives? Of course we can, and the principle is the same here. I won't deny anyone their right to level criticism where it's deserved. But I will reserve the right to question whether they are doing so in good faith.

So your premise here is that Atlas almost never criticizes Evangelical fundamentalism? You know that's ridiculous. Or if your beef is with a specific poster or two, then you should make that clear.

My premise is that if you look at modern discourse and conclude that "scientism" is the major (or even a major) problem in our society, that has more to do with your preconceived notions than it does with anything else.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

This is textbook whataboutism. "How can you criticize X when Y is worse?"

If someone spends all their time complaining about BLM protestors while ignoring police brutality, or if they constantly criticize western countries for human rights violations while ignoring brutal conditions in Russia and China, can we not make reasonable inferences about their ulterior motives? Of course we can, and the principle is the same here. I won't deny anyone their right to level criticism where it's deserved. But I will reserve the right to question whether they are doing so in good faith.

So your premise here is that Atlas almost never criticizes Evangelical fundamentalism? You know that's ridiculous. Or if your beef is with a specific poster or two, then you should make that clear.

My premise is that if you look at modern discourse and conclude that "scientism" is the major (or even a major) problem in our society, that has more to do with your preconceived notions than it does with anything else.

Except no one actually said that. This particular thread just happens to be a critique of scientism, and you don't like that, so you're trying to shift the conversation to something else.

If you have substantive arguments, make them. If you find the whole topic uninteresting, don't post about it. But please save us this spineless bullsh*t. You're better than this, Dule.

[John Dule]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

This is textbook whataboutism. "How can you criticize X when Y is worse?"

If someone spends all their time complaining about BLM protestors while ignoring police brutality, or if they constantly criticize western countries for human rights violations while ignoring brutal conditions in Russia and China, can we not make reasonable inferences about their ulterior motives? Of course we can, and the principle is the same here. I won't deny anyone their right to level criticism where it's deserved. But I will reserve the right to question whether they are doing so in good faith.

So your premise here is that Atlas almost never criticizes Evangelical fundamentalism? You know that's ridiculous. Or if your beef is with a specific poster or two, then you should make that clear.

My premise is that if you look at modern discourse and conclude that "scientism" is the major (or even a major) problem in our society, that has more to do with your preconceived notions than it does with anything else.

Except no one actually said that. This particular thread just happens to be a critique of scientism, and you don't like that, so you're trying to shift the conversation to something else.

If you have substantive arguments, make them. If you find the whole topic uninteresting, don't post about it. But please save us this spineless bullsh*t. You're better than this, Dule.

You said that in the first comment you wrote in this thread. Don’t play dumb.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

This is textbook whataboutism. "How can you criticize X when Y is worse?"

If someone spends all their time complaining about BLM protestors while ignoring police brutality, or if they constantly criticize western countries for human rights violations while ignoring brutal conditions in Russia and China, can we not make reasonable inferences about their ulterior motives? Of course we can, and the principle is the same here. I won't deny anyone their right to level criticism where it's deserved. But I will reserve the right to question whether they are doing so in good faith.

So your premise here is that Atlas almost never criticizes Evangelical fundamentalism? You know that's ridiculous. Or if your beef is with a specific poster or two, then you should make that clear.

My premise is that if you look at modern discourse and conclude that "scientism" is the major (or even a major) problem in our society, that has more to do with your preconceived notions than it does with anything else.

Except no one actually said that. This particular thread just happens to be a critique of scientism, and you don't like that, so you're trying to shift the conversation to something else.

If you have substantive arguments, make them. If you find the whole topic uninteresting, don't post about it. But please save us this spineless bullsh*t. You're better than this, Dule.

You said that in the first comment you wrote in this thread. Don’t play dumb.

No I didn't. You might want to read that again.

For such a tireless advocate of dispassionate rationality, you're coming off awfully clouded by your own emotions on this particular matter.

[John Dule]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

This is textbook whataboutism. "How can you criticize X when Y is worse?"

If someone spends all their time complaining about BLM protestors while ignoring police brutality, or if they constantly criticize western countries for human rights violations while ignoring brutal conditions in Russia and China, can we not make reasonable inferences about their ulterior motives? Of course we can, and the principle is the same here. I won't deny anyone their right to level criticism where it's deserved. But I will reserve the right to question whether they are doing so in good faith.

So your premise here is that Atlas almost never criticizes Evangelical fundamentalism? You know that's ridiculous. Or if your beef is with a specific poster or two, then you should make that clear.

My premise is that if you look at modern discourse and conclude that "scientism" is the major (or even a major) problem in our society, that has more to do with your preconceived notions than it does with anything else.

Except no one actually said that. This particular thread just happens to be a critique of scientism, and you don't like that, so you're trying to shift the conversation to something else.

If you have substantive arguments, make them. If you find the whole topic uninteresting, don't post about it. But please save us this spineless bullsh*t. You're better than this, Dule.

You said that in the first comment you wrote in this thread. Don’t play dumb.

No I didn't. You might want to read that again.

For such a tireless advocate of dispassionate rationality, you're coming off awfully clouded by your own emotions on this particular matter.

You said that “arrogant scientism” is a problem with public discourse. My point is that it is the exact opposite of “scientism” that is the problem with public discourse around science. Can you address that argument, or will this exchange continue its devolution into useless pedantry?

[James Monroe]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

Did someone here say that?

This forum has a general obsession with whining about atheists.

The discourse here surrounding people who are atheist/agnostic/skeptics has led me to browsing the forum less often. We don't need to be scapegoating as the meanies who are stumping on the religious folks doorsteps and covert to our beliefs. Much of us on this forum just want to have rational understanding of how people become religious in a scientific age that surpassed the need for spirituality.

[°Leprechaun]

My view on religion can be summed up with three words.
Nobody needs religion.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

This is textbook whataboutism. "How can you criticize X when Y is worse?"

If someone spends all their time complaining about BLM protestors while ignoring police brutality, or if they constantly criticize western countries for human rights violations while ignoring brutal conditions in Russia and China, can we not make reasonable inferences about their ulterior motives? Of course we can, and the principle is the same here. I won't deny anyone their right to level criticism where it's deserved. But I will reserve the right to question whether they are doing so in good faith.

So your premise here is that Atlas almost never criticizes Evangelical fundamentalism? You know that's ridiculous. Or if your beef is with a specific poster or two, then you should make that clear.

My premise is that if you look at modern discourse and conclude that "scientism" is the major (or even a major) problem in our society, that has more to do with your preconceived notions than it does with anything else.

Except no one actually said that. This particular thread just happens to be a critique of scientism, and you don't like that, so you're trying to shift the conversation to something else.

If you have substantive arguments, make them. If you find the whole topic uninteresting, don't post about it. But please save us this spineless bullsh*t. You're better than this, Dule.

You said that in the first comment you wrote in this thread. Don’t play dumb.

No I didn't. You might want to read that again.

For such a tireless advocate of dispassionate rationality, you're coming off awfully clouded by your own emotions on this particular matter.

You said that “arrogant scientism” is a problem with public discourse. My point is that it is the exact opposite of “scientism” that is the problem with public discourse around science. Can you address that argument, or will this exchange continue its devolution into useless pedantry?

I said arrogant scientism was a presence in public discourse, which it objectively is (in fact, my exact word choice was "limping around", which hardly makes it sounds like the Major Issue like you claimed I said). I am not contractually obligated to only talk about major societal problems, nor is anyone else on this forum. I try to put some degree of thought in my word choice and I'd appreciate if you stopped putting words in my mouth. If not wanting to be reduced to a strawman is pedantry, then so f**king be it, I'll be as "pedantic" as I need to be for you to acknowledge what I actually did and did not say. And again, if you have substantive objections to critiques of scientism, it is incumbent on you to make these objections. Otherwise this is, once again, merely whataboutism and a complete waste of both of our times.

But if you want me to spoon-feed you a substantive disagreement you're unable to provide yourself, fine, here's one for you. Scientism and fundamentalism are fundamentally (no pun intended) two sides of the same coin, in that they rest on a broken conceptual foundation that implies that science and religion are competing worldviews, rather than separate domains of human thinking that exist to answer entirely separate questions. The idiots who claim the earth is 6000 years old because "muh Bible says so" old and the idiots who claim "modern science disproves God" are making the same basic mistake. If you're truly interested in rooting out religious obscurantism, then, perhaps you should be willing to recognize this mistake and call it out whenever it rears its ugly head.

[jojoju1998]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

This is textbook whataboutism. "How can you criticize X when Y is worse?"

If someone spends all their time complaining about BLM protestors while ignoring police brutality, or if they constantly criticize western countries for human rights violations while ignoring brutal conditions in Russia and China, can we not make reasonable inferences about their ulterior motives? Of course we can, and the principle is the same here. I won't deny anyone their right to level criticism where it's deserved. But I will reserve the right to question whether they are doing so in good faith.

So your premise here is that Atlas almost never criticizes Evangelical fundamentalism? You know that's ridiculous. Or if your beef is with a specific poster or two, then you should make that clear.

My premise is that if you look at modern discourse and conclude that "scientism" is the major (or even a major) problem in our society, that has more to do with your preconceived notions than it does with anything else.

Except no one actually said that. This particular thread just happens to be a critique of scientism, and you don't like that, so you're trying to shift the conversation to something else.

If you have substantive arguments, make them. If you find the whole topic uninteresting, don't post about it. But please save us this spineless bullsh*t. You're better than this, Dule.

You said that in the first comment you wrote in this thread. Don’t play dumb.

No I didn't. You might want to read that again.

For such a tireless advocate of dispassionate rationality, you're coming off awfully clouded by your own emotions on this particular matter.

You said that “arrogant scientism” is a problem with public discourse. My point is that it is the exact opposite of “scientism” that is the problem with public discourse around science. Can you address that argument, or will this exchange continue its devolution into useless pedantry?

I said arrogant scientism was a presence in public discourse, which it objectively is (in fact, my exact word choice was "limping around", which hardly makes it sounds like the Major Issue like you claimed I said). I am not contractually obligated to only talk about major societal problems, nor is anyone else on this forum. If you have substantive objections to critiques of scientism, it is incumbent on you to make these objections. Otherwise this is, once again, merely whataboutism and a complete waste of both of our times.

But if you want me to spoon-feed you a substantive disagreement you're unable to provide yourself, fine, here's one for you. Scientism and fundamentalism are fundamentally (no pun intended) two sides of the same coin, in that they rest on a broken conceptual foundation that implies that science and religion are competing worldviews, rather than separate domains of human thinking that exist to answer entirely separate questions. The idiots who claim the earth is 6000 years old because "muh Bible says so" old and the idiots who claim "modern science disproves God" are making the same basic mistake. If you're truly interested in rooting out religious obscurantism, then, perhaps you should be willing to recognize this mistake and call it out whenever it rears its ugly head.

I don't even know if this dichotomy is that common anymore in academia.

https://stanforddaily.com/2021/04/20/constructive-science-and-religion-dialogues-at-the-university/

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2022/06/bishop-barron-says-intersection-of-faith-science-important-part-of-new-ministry

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I can't believe atheists feel persecuted on a site where they're about half if not a majority of posters -- and even most of the Christians are not these rabid fundamentalists who say you must believe to avoid Hell.

Come on, Dule. You're starting to sound just like Fuzzy Bear when he does his thing.

[jojoju1998]

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

Did someone here say that?

This forum has a general obsession with whining about atheists.

The discourse here surrounding people who are atheist/agnostic/skeptics has led me to browsing the forum less often. We don't need to be scapegoating as the meanies who are stumping on the religious folks doorsteps and covert to our beliefs. Much of us on this forum just want to have rational understanding of how people become religious in a scientific age that surpassed the need for spirituality.

Tyson might be annoying and pedantic, but I'm instinctively skeptical of anyone who considers a fairly harmless pop scientist to be more worthy of criticism than the multitudes of dangerous fundamentalists who continue to afflict our society.

This is textbook whataboutism. "How can you criticize X when Y is worse?"

If someone spends all their time complaining about BLM protestors while ignoring police brutality, or if they constantly criticize western countries for human rights violations while ignoring brutal conditions in Russia and China, can we not make reasonable inferences about their ulterior motives? Of course we can, and the principle is the same here. I won't deny anyone their right to level criticism where it's deserved. But I will reserve the right to question whether they are doing so in good faith.

So your premise here is that Atlas almost never criticizes Evangelical fundamentalism? You know that's ridiculous. Or if your beef is with a specific poster or two, then you should make that clear.

My premise is that if you look at modern discourse and conclude that "scientism" is the major (or even a major) problem in our society, that has more to do with your preconceived notions than it does with anything else.

Except no one actually said that. This particular thread just happens to be a critique of scientism, and you don't like that, so you're trying to shift the conversation to something else.

If you have substantive arguments, make them. If you find the whole topic uninteresting, don't post about it. But please save us this spineless bullsh*t. You're better than this, Dule.

You said that in the first comment you wrote in this thread. Don’t play dumb.

No I didn't. You might want to read that again.

For such a tireless advocate of dispassionate rationality, you're coming off awfully clouded by your own emotions on this particular matter.

You said that “arrogant scientism” is a problem with public discourse. My point is that it is the exact opposite of “scientism” that is the problem with public discourse around science. Can you address that argument, or will this exchange continue its devolution into useless pedantry?

My view on religion can be summed up with three words.
Nobody needs religion.

Both sides; Scientism and Fundamentalism operate off 20th century tropes regarding evolution, biblical literacy, et cetera. Et Cetera. It's uniquely American. There's nothing else like it.

Europe ( and the Rest of the world ) has moved on. ( There's a reason why I like European Philosophy more than American Philosophy). Science and Faith aren't in conflict. The majority, the vast majority of Academia in this country agree. I have not heard anything disparaging about religion from professors I know and worked with, and vice versa. In fact they encourage religious expression. The University I went to had a foot washing room for Muslim students.

This Book I will share is from a decade ago, But I think the information remains valid. https://archive.org/details/sacredsecularrel00norr_668

" Global studies which have pooled data on religion and science from 1981 to 2001, have noted that countries with greater faith in science also often have stronger religious beliefs, while less religious countries have more skepticism of the impact of science and technology.[235] The United States is noted there as distinctive because of greater faith in both God and scientific progress. Other research cites the National Science Foundation's finding that America has more favorable public attitudes towards science than Europe, Russia, and Japan despite differences in levels of religiosity in these cultures."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#Europe

By the way, Creationism is not a uniquely American thing.

"  A poll on adult Europeans revealed that 40% believed in naturalistic evolution, 21% in theistic evolution, 20% in special creation, and 19% are undecided; with the highest concentrations of young earth creationists in Switzerland (21%), Austria (20%), Germany (18%)." https://finna.fi/Record/vaari.2115147?lng=en-gb

But wait, aren't American Evangelicals/Fundamentalists ( aka Trump voters ) opposed to the critical thinking and all that stuff ?

The missing factor here is that American Evangelicals/Nationalists are less likely to go to Church.

" Christian nationalism is thought to have been an important factor in the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States in 2016—and likely drove many of his supporters to the polls in 2020. Now, new research shows Christian nationalist support of Trump isn’t tied to religious institutions or attending church on a regular basis. Instead, it’s tied to not attending church."


" Detachment from religious communities can also intensify conservative attitudes.
 
“Institutions in general can have a stabilizing effect on people’s lives and ideologies,” Stroope said. “People who want to have their views ‘checked’ might also self-sort into institutions. Furthermore, religious communities can have a stress-buffering effect, so people feel less desperate for an authoritarian figure like Trump.”


https://www.lsu.edu/research/news/2020/1109-unchurched.php

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't even know if this dichotomy is that common anymore in academia.

https://stanforddaily.com/2021/04/20/constructive-science-and-religion-dialogues-at-the-university/

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2022/06/bishop-barron-says-intersection-of-faith-science-important-part-of-new-ministry

Once again, I never claimed it was common. I don't think it needs to be for me to be allowed to call it out when it's directly relevant to the thread I'm posting in.

[jojoju1998]

I don't even know if this dichotomy is that common anymore in academia.

https://stanforddaily.com/2021/04/20/constructive-science-and-religion-dialogues-at-the-university/

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2022/06/bishop-barron-says-intersection-of-faith-science-important-part-of-new-ministry

Once again, I never claimed it was common. I don't think it needs to be for me to be allowed to call it out when it's directly relevant to the thread I'm posting in.

It wasn't directed at you. I was just point out that in the real world, much of Academia has moved on. It's not the same anymore as it was in the 1920s or even the 1980s. We don't live in a Christian majority country anymore. We have people from all religious backgrounds.

[John Dule]

I said arrogant scientism was a presence in public discourse, which it objectively is (in fact, my exact word choice was "limping around", which hardly makes it sounds like the Major Issue like you claimed I said). I am not contractually obligated to only talk about major societal problems, nor is anyone else on this forum. I try to put some degree of thought in my word choice and I'd appreciate if you stopped putting words in my mouth. If not wanting to be reduced to a strawman is pedantry, then so f**king be it, I'll be as "pedantic" as I need to be for you to acknowledge what I actually did and did not say. And again, if you have substantive objections to critiques of scientism, it is incumbent on you to make these objections. Otherwise this is, once again, merely whataboutism and a complete waste of both of our times.

But if you want me to spoon-feed you a substantive disagreement you're unable to provide yourself, fine, here's one for you. Scientism and fundamentalism are fundamentally (no pun intended) two sides of the same coin, in that they rest on a broken conceptual foundation that implies that science and religion are competing worldviews, rather than separate domains of human thinking that exist to answer entirely separate questions. The idiots who claim the earth is 6000 years old because "muh Bible says so" old and the idiots who claim "modern science disproves God" are making the same basic mistake. If you're truly interested in rooting out religious obscurantism, then, perhaps you should be willing to recognize this mistake and call it out whenever it rears its ugly head.

It's completely absurd to equate these two. Full stop. That's what I'm getting at with my posts in this thread, and I thank you for outright stating this false equivalency so I can address it without having to make inferences about your position.

It's ridiculous to assert that "science and religion exist to answer entirely different questions." Really? Entirely different? So religion doesn't seek to provide any answers whatsoever about the origins of the natural world or the human race? Myths don't try to explain natural occurrences or the relationship between humankind and the world? I understand that you approach religion from a philosophical perspective because you're more educated on religious philosophy than 99% of people, but it's an extreme and demonstrably incorrect statement to say that there's no overlap whatsoever between the questions science and religion address. It's possible that you personally see science and religion as completely bifurcated, with no conflict between them-- but that is not the way millions of religious people approach their faith, and I'm not going to ignore their worldviews in favor of an (incorrect) analysis of religion as something that is intended to be purely philosophical or metaphorical. Your statement here completely ignores how religion guides people's thinking in the real world.

What I think you mean to say is that they're not mutually exclusive-- which I can agree with, but that's not the same thing as saying they're entirely separate. In short, this is an argument so stupid that only a smart person could possibly make it.

It's a basic truth that there are areas of conflict between science and religion. And once you accept that these conflicts exist, you have to make some kind of judgement about which approach is preferable to solving those conflicts. Saying that science and faith are in any way equivalent when it comes to resolving these conflicts is a false equivalency. Evidence and deductive reasoning are not in any way comparable to faith when it comes to their validity.

Another point: I don't think there are any adherents to "scientism" (insofar as such a thing exists) who actually think that science can answer moral truths or provide us with value judgements. I've certainly never heard Tyson make such a claim-- perhaps I'm not in the right online neckbeard communities to be exposed to these arguments, but I've never thought that anyone would entertain such an idea. On the other hand, there are overwhelming numbers of religious people who would contend that religion can answer the questions that you and I would consider to be within the purview of science-- questions about the laws of nature and natural history. Many of these people do indeed post on this site.

In fact, the only reason people make the argument that "science and religion are not in conflict" is because religion has effectively ceded one of its primary goals-- that of explaining the natural world-- to science (and even then, only in the face of overwhelming evidence). This has precipitated the cowardly attempt by "progressive" religious philosophers to retroactively define their faith as something that is only metaphorical. If anything, this process has not gone far enough. There are still millions of people in this country who refuse to accept the basic reality of evolution and the age of the Earth. Until that is no longer the case, I will continue to mock the assertion that "scientism" is a problem with our society that is worthy of discussion.

[John Dule]

I can't believe atheists feel persecuted on a site where they're about half if not a majority of posters -- and even most of the Christians are not these rabid fundamentalists who say you must believe to avoid Hell.

Come on, Dule. You're starting to sound just like Fuzzy Bear when he does his thing.

Lol, I'm not saying I'm being persecuted or running to the mods. I'm just responding to opinions that I consider wrong. Is that taboo now on this site?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I can't believe atheists feel persecuted on a site where they're about half if not a majority of posters -- and even most of the Christians are not these rabid fundamentalists who say you must believe to avoid Hell.

Come on, Dule. You're starting to sound just like Fuzzy Bear when he does his thing.

Lol, I'm not saying I'm being persecuted or running to the mods. I'm just responding to opinions that I consider wrong. Is that taboo now on this site?

In fairness to you, James Monroe is mostly being a baby about this. But just as the old fedora memes get annoying, so does the "We're RATIONAL in a SCIENTIFIC Age" shtick.

[jojoju1998]

I said arrogant scientism was a presence in public discourse, which it objectively is (in fact, my exact word choice was "limping around", which hardly makes it sounds like the Major Issue like you claimed I said). I am not contractually obligated to only talk about major societal problems, nor is anyone else on this forum. I try to put some degree of thought in my word choice and I'd appreciate if you stopped putting words in my mouth. If not wanting to be reduced to a strawman is pedantry, then so f**king be it, I'll be as "pedantic" as I need to be for you to acknowledge what I actually did and did not say. And again, if you have substantive objections to critiques of scientism, it is incumbent on you to make these objections. Otherwise this is, once again, merely whataboutism and a complete waste of both of our times.

But if you want me to spoon-feed you a substantive disagreement you're unable to provide yourself, fine, here's one for you. Scientism and fundamentalism are fundamentally (no pun intended) two sides of the same coin, in that they rest on a broken conceptual foundation that implies that science and religion are competing worldviews, rather than separate domains of human thinking that exist to answer entirely separate questions. The idiots who claim the earth is 6000 years old because "muh Bible says so" old and the idiots who claim "modern science disproves God" are making the same basic mistake. If you're truly interested in rooting out religious obscurantism, then, perhaps you should be willing to recognize this mistake and call it out whenever it rears its ugly head.

It's completely absurd to equate these two. Full stop. That's what I'm getting at with my posts in this thread, and I thank you for outright stating this false equivalency so I can address it without having to make inferences about your position.

It's ridiculous to assert that "science and religion exist to answer entirely different questions." Really? Entirely different? So religion doesn't seek to provide any answers whatsoever about the origins of the natural world or the human race? Myths don't try to explain natural occurrences or the relationship between humankind and the world? I understand that you approach religion from a philosophical perspective because you're more educated on religious philosophy than 99% of people, but it's an extreme and demonstrably incorrect statement to say that there's no overlap whatsoever between the questions science and religion address. It's possible that you personally see science and religion as completely bifurcated, with no conflict between them-- but that is not the way millions of religious people approach their faith, and I'm not going to ignore their worldviews in favor of an (incorrect) analysis of religion as something that is intended to be purely philosophical or metaphorical. Your statement here completely ignores how religion guides people's thinking in the real world.

What I think you mean to say is that they're not mutually exclusive-- which I can agree with, but that's not the same thing as saying they're entirely separate. In short, this is an argument so stupid that only a smart person could possibly make it.

It's a basic truth that there are areas of conflict between science and religion. And once you accept that these conflicts exist, you have to make some kind of judgement about which approach is preferable to solving those conflicts. Saying that science and faith are in any way equivalent when it comes to resolving these conflicts is a false equivalency. Evidence and deductive reasoning are not in any way comparable to faith when it comes to their validity.

Another point: I don't think there are any adherents to "scientism" (insofar as such a thing exists) who actually think that science can answer moral truths or provide us with value judgements. I've certainly never heard Tyson make such a claim-- perhaps I'm not in the right online neckbeard communities to be exposed to these arguments, but I've never thought that anyone would entertain such an idea. On the other hand, there are overwhelming numbers of religious people who would contend that religion can answer the questions that you and I would consider to be within the purview of science-- questions about the laws of nature and natural history. Many of these people do indeed post on this site.

In fact, the only reason people make the argument that "science and religion are not in conflict" is because religion has effectively ceded one of its primary goals-- that of explaining the natural world-- to science (and even then, only in the face of overwhelming evidence). This has precipitated the cowardly attempt by "progressive" religious philosophers to retroactively define their faith as something that is only metaphorical. If anything, this process has not gone far enough. There are still millions of people in this country who refuse to accept the basic reality of evolution and the age of the Earth. Until that is no longer the case, I will continue to mock the assertion that "scientism" is a problem with our society that is worthy of discussion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Creationism and Fundamentalism was not a thing in Christianity until the 19th century, with rise of Higher Biblical Criticism and all of that stuff, and then with the evolution stuff adding it's mix in. And it was mostly based in America, for many reasons.



https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/#HisCre


Many Christian thinkers have thought of the Bible as more metaphorical dating back to the 400s AD. Way before any scientific revolution happened, way before Charles Darwin.  People like Origen, Augustine,

" Catholics, especially dating back to Saint Augustine around 400 AD, and even to earlier thinkers like Origen, have always recognized that at times the Bible needs to be taken metaphorically or allegorically. Augustine was particularly sensitive to this need, because for many years as a young man he was a Manichean and hence denied the authenticity and relevance of the Old Testament for salvation. When he became a Christian he knew full well the problems of Genesis and hence was eager to help his fellow believers from getting ensnared in the traps of literalism."

[John Dule]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Creationism and Fundamentalism was not a thing in Christianity until the 19th century, with rise of Higher Biblical Criticism and all of that stuff, and then with the evolution stuff adding it's mix in. And it was mostly based in America, for many reasons.



https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/#HisCre


Many Christian thinkers have thought of the Bible as more metaphorical dating back to the 400s AD. Way before any scientific revolution happened, way before Charles Darwin.  People like Origen, Augustine,

" Catholics, especially dating back to Saint Augustine around 400 AD, and even to earlier thinkers like Origen, have always recognized that at times the Bible needs to be taken metaphorically or allegorically. Augustine was particularly sensitive to this need, because for many years as a young man he was a Manichean and hence denied the authenticity and relevance of the Old Testament for salvation. When he became a Christian he knew full well the problems of Genesis and hence was eager to help his fellow believers from getting ensnared in the traps of literalism."

Emphasizing the operative words here. Sure, there are parts of the Bible that have historically been considered metaphorical-- but to assert that Biblical scripture never attempted to provide any explanations of the natural world, and that people have always recognized the text as metaphorical, is absurd.

[jojoju1998]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Creationism and Fundamentalism was not a thing in Christianity until the 19th century, with rise of Higher Biblical Criticism and all of that stuff, and then with the evolution stuff adding it's mix in. And it was mostly based in America, for many reasons.



https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/#HisCre


Many Christian thinkers have thought of the Bible as more metaphorical dating back to the 400s AD. Way before any scientific revolution happened, way before Charles Darwin.  People like Origen, Augustine,

" Catholics, especially dating back to Saint Augustine around 400 AD, and even to earlier thinkers like Origen, have always recognized that at times the Bible needs to be taken metaphorically or allegorically. Augustine was particularly sensitive to this need, because for many years as a young man he was a Manichean and hence denied the authenticity and relevance of the Old Testament for salvation. When he became a Christian he knew full well the problems of Genesis and hence was eager to help his fellow believers from getting ensnared in the traps of literalism."

Emphasizing the operative words here. Sure, there are parts of the Bible that have historically been considered metaphorical-- but to assert that Biblical scripture never attempted to provide any explanations of the natural world, and that people have always recognized the text as metaphorical, is absurd.

Catholics and much of the liturgical churches like Eastern Orthodoxy, do not solely rely on the Bible. Hence, your biggest mistake in my view, is assuming all Christians hold on to Sola Scriptura. Which I think is at the crux of this issue we're having.

America is majority protestant. Right ? And what do protestants believe ? Sola Scriptura. Bible alone contains truth. That raises a lot of issues. Especially when it comes to Science. If one is going to read the Bible literally without any philosophical underpinnings, of course, they're going to believe in Creationism. I don't myself.  I actually find Creationism to be contrary to Christian thought about the nature and meaning of god, because it reduces the essence of God to a human, basically.



Catholics on the other hand take a look at a variety of sources, including Church Tradition, natural philosophy, and science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc The Bible is not a science book. It's not supposed to be a science book. It's theology.

John, ask yourself this, if Fundamentalism, and Literalism was so common in Christianity, why did it only begin to pop up in America in the late 1800s and early 1900s ? And in Protestant circles ?