Neil deGrasse Tyson on religion and ..

[John Dule]

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 ?

This discussion isn't about Catholicism or even Christianity. It's about religion in general and the fact that creation myths seek to explain elements of the natural world. I give Catholicism a lot of credit in terms of how open it is to scientific pursuits (at least when compared to, say, modern Islam). I have also argued in the past (including on this site) that the Catholic Church was at times a force for good in Medieval Europe, not only as a patron of the arts and sciences, but also as a node of power separate from the kings that contributed massively to the emergence of egalitarian and inclusive political systems in Europe. This cannot be said of the Orthodox churches, for example.

Having said all this, the fact remains that you cannot handwave away the historical tension between Catholicism and scientific pursuits, much of which was motivated by a literal interpretation of scripture. The entire basis for the Church's persecution of Galileo was a literal interpretation that arrived at the conclusion of geocentrism. There are many other examples.

[jojoju1998]

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 ?

This discussion isn't about Catholicism or even Christianity. It's about religion in general and the fact that creation myths seek to explain elements of the natural world. I give Catholicism a lot of credit in terms of how open it is to scientific pursuits (at least when compared to, say, modern Islam). I have also argued in the past (including on this site) that the Catholic Church was at times a force for good in Medieval Europe, not only as a patron of the arts and sciences, but also as a node of power separate from the kings that contributed massively to the emergence of egalitarian and inclusive political systems in Europe. This cannot be said of the Orthodox churches, for example.

Having said all this, the fact remains that you cannot handwave away the historical tension between Catholicism and scientific pursuits, much of which was motivated by a literal interpretation of scripture. The entire basis for the Church's persecution of Galileo was a literal interpretation that arrived at the conclusion of geocentrism. There are many other examples.

The bolded part is Pop History. There's new historical scholarship in the last decade or so that gives a far more nuanced view of what happened with Gaileo.

1. For one thing, for one thing, the Geocentrism belief was not based off the Bible. It was a given belief for thousands of years, going back to the ancient greeks and Romans. The Greek Philosopers And given, the lack of the technology at the time, well... it was natural that people were going to believe Geocentrism. Much of the scientists including the Jesuits up until the 17th century, worked off this assumption. Because they didn't have the technology. 17th century telescopes weren't that great.

2. The Heliocentrism theory was not the only alternative. Tychus Brache's theory was far more popular as a " alternative " to the geocentric model. And given, the scientific instruments at the time, it was easier to prove. The Catholic Church was leaning towards Brache's theory, including many Jesuits. Actually, there were from what I read 8 different models of how the sun and earth moved.

3. When Galieli first started off, the Catholic Church didn't care. The theory was around for several decades already, and the Church saw it as a non issue. Many of his early works were approved by the Church. They didn't see it as an issue. So what happened ? He presented it as fact. Without the advances in technology however, it could not be proved. That was the sticking point. Many of the prominent scientists at the time saw serious scientific flaws with the idea including Giovvani Battisa Riccioli, who wrote a book on Heliocentrism, and it's supposed flaws.


There was also politics, petty drama, personal name calling, innuendo, typical of 17th century Italy.


Mariano Artigas and William R. Shea, Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius (2003)

Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (1991)

Christopher Graney, Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science against Copernicus in the Age of Galileo, (2015)

Pietro Daniel Omodeo, Copernicus in the Cultural Debates of the Renaissance: Reception, Legacy, Transformation, (2014)

4. Of course all of this was made mute when James Bradley several decades later discovered Light aberration, which proved Heliocentrism 100 percent. Thanks to the advancements in technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)#Discovery_and_first_observations

[John Dule]

The bolded part is Pop History. There's new historical scholarship in the last decade or so that gives a far more nuanced view of what happened with Gaileo.

1. For one thing, for one thing, the Geocentrism belief was not based off the Bible. It was a given belief for thousands of years, going back to the ancient greeks and Romans. The Greek Philosopers And given, the lack of the technology at the time, well... it was natural that people were going to believe Geocentrism. Much of the scientists including the Jesuits up until the 17th century, worked off this assumption. Because they didn't have the technology. 17th century telescopes weren't that great.

2. The Heliocentrism theory was not the only alternative. Tychus Brache's theory was far more popular as a " alternative " to the geocentric model. And given, the scientific instruments at the time, it was easier to prove. The Catholic Church was leaning towards Brache's theory, including many Jesuits. Actually, there were from what I read 8 different models of how the sun and earth moved.

3. When Galieli first started off, the Catholic Church didn't care. The theory was around for several decades already, and the Church saw it as a non issue. Many of his early works were approved by the Church. They didn't see it as an issue. So what happened ? He presented it as fact. Without the advances in technology however, it could not be proved. That was the sticking point. Many of the prominent scientists at the time saw serious scientific flaws with the idea including Giovvani Battisa Riccioli, who wrote a book on Heliocentrism, and it's supposed flaws.


There was also politics, petty drama, personal name calling, innuendo, typical of 17th century Italy.


Mariano Artigas and William R. Shea, Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius (2003)

Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (1991)

Christopher Graney, Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science against Copernicus in the Age of Galileo, (2015)

Pietro Daniel Omodeo, Copernicus in the Cultural Debates of the Renaissance: Reception, Legacy, Transformation, (2014)

4. Of course all of this was made mute when James Bradley several decades later discovered Light aberration, which proved Heliocentrism 100 percent. Thanks to the advancements in technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)#Discovery_and_first_observations

"Pop history?" These are the Bible quotations at issue:

Chronicles 16:30: "Tremble before him, all the earth. The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved."

Psalm 93:1: "He has established the world; it shall never be moved."

Ecclesiastes 1:5: "The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hurries to the place where it rises."

Are you honestly going to tell me that the Church of Galileo's time wasn't motivated at all by a literal interpretation of these passages? That is ahistorical nonsense.

[jojoju1998]

The bolded part is Pop History. There's new historical scholarship in the last decade or so that gives a far more nuanced view of what happened with Gaileo.

1. For one thing, for one thing, the Geocentrism belief was not based off the Bible. It was a given belief for thousands of years, going back to the ancient greeks and Romans. The Greek Philosopers And given, the lack of the technology at the time, well... it was natural that people were going to believe Geocentrism. Much of the scientists including the Jesuits up until the 17th century, worked off this assumption. Because they didn't have the technology. 17th century telescopes weren't that great.

2. The Heliocentrism theory was not the only alternative. Tychus Brache's theory was far more popular as a " alternative " to the geocentric model. And given, the scientific instruments at the time, it was easier to prove. The Catholic Church was leaning towards Brache's theory, including many Jesuits. Actually, there were from what I read 8 different models of how the sun and earth moved.

3. When Galieli first started off, the Catholic Church didn't care. The theory was around for several decades already, and the Church saw it as a non issue. Many of his early works were approved by the Church. They didn't see it as an issue. So what happened ? He presented it as fact. Without the advances in technology however, it could not be proved. That was the sticking point. Many of the prominent scientists at the time saw serious scientific flaws with the idea including Giovvani Battisa Riccioli, who wrote a book on Heliocentrism, and it's supposed flaws.


There was also politics, petty drama, personal name calling, innuendo, typical of 17th century Italy.


Mariano Artigas and William R. Shea, Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius (2003)

Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (1991)

Christopher Graney, Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science against Copernicus in the Age of Galileo, (2015)

Pietro Daniel Omodeo, Copernicus in the Cultural Debates of the Renaissance: Reception, Legacy, Transformation, (2014)

4. Of course all of this was made mute when James Bradley several decades later discovered Light aberration, which proved Heliocentrism 100 percent. Thanks to the advancements in technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)#Discovery_and_first_observations

"Pop history?" These are the Bible quotations at issue:

Chronicles 16:30: "Tremble before him, all the earth. The world is firmly established; it shall never be moved."

Psalm 93:1: "He has established the world; it shall never be moved."

Ecclesiastes 1:5: "The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hurries to the place where it rises."

Are you honestly going to tell me that the Church of Galileo's time wasn't motivated at all by a literal interpretation of these passages? That is ahistorical nonsense.

What you're saying is Ahistorical. Literally, there is new historical scholarship that I have listed. Those books ( I have read in my free time ), that shows more nuances than your black and white pop culture history.

Geocentrism was an accepted belief in Western Civilization before the rise of Christianity from the time of the Greeks. And the Catholic Church absorbed that. Plain and Simple. Yes those Bible verses solidified the belief. But this was the most common belief of how the earth and sun moved for thousands of years. Before Christianity ever came into being.


Heliocentrism was already an idea floating around before Galieo's rise to fame, but the majority of Scientists rejected it. Plain and simple. It was never a majority consensus. Because no one had the ability to prove scientifically the sun was at the center. The technology wasn't there until 100 something years later. Scientists such as Johann Goerg Locher, Christopher Clavius, opposed Heliocentrism not on the basis of those verses but because there wasn't explicit proof. None. The technology wasn't there yet to provide that evidence needed.

The growing scientific Consensus as the time was not for Geocentrism, or for Heliocentrism, it was for Tychus Brache's theory, as I HAVE SAID ALREADY. And once again, given the technology at the time, Brache's theory was more easily proven.




https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/science-against-copernicus-in-the-age-of-galileo/


By the way, Scientist Philloppe Van Lansbergen a non Catholic scientist criticized Galieo for using non scientific arguments to prove Heliocentrism.

[John Dule]

What you're saying is Ahistorical. Literally, there is new historical scholarship that I have listed. Those books ( I have read in my free time ), that shows more nuances than your black and white pop culture history.

Geocentrism was an accepted belief in Western Civilization before the rise of Christianity from the time of the Greeks. And the Catholic Church absorbed that. Plain and Simple. Yes those Bible verses solidified the belief. But this was the most common belief of how the earth and sun moved for thousands of years. Before Christianity ever came into being.


Heliocentrism was already an idea floating around before Galieo's rise to fame, but the majority of Scientists rejected it. Plain and simple. It was never a majority consensus. Because no one had the ability to prove scientifically the sun was at the center. The technology wasn't there until 100 something years later. Scientists such as Johann Goerg Locher, Christopher Clavius, opposed Heliocentrism not on the basis of those verses but because there wasn't explicit proof. None. The technology wasn't there yet to provide that evidence needed.

The growing scientific Consensus as the time was not for Geocentrism, or for Heliocentrism, it was for Tychus Brache's theory, as I HAVE SAID ALREADY. And once again, given the technology at the time, Brache's theory was more easily proven.




https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/science-against-copernicus-in-the-age-of-galileo/


By the way, Scientist Philloppe Van Lansbergen a non Catholic scientist criticized Galieo for using non scientific arguments to prove Heliocentrism.

Who cares whether geocentrism existed prior to the Catholic Church or not? That is completely unrelated to the question of whether church teachings have historically come into direct conflict with science.

Here is the exact wording of the reasoning why the Catholic Church began its inquisition of Galileo, taken verbatim from the time:

[Galileo's proposition is] "formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture."

If you are not going to engage with basic facts, I am not going to waste my time responding to a Christian trying to retroactively justify something his church did 400 years ago. There is no point in getting bogged down in this one example. I could just as easily have cited the fact that Catholic bishops in the 21st Century have spread fearmongering falsehoods about condoms being ineffective against HIV-- a deliberate lie in direct contradiction to established medical science, done for the sole purpose of preventing what church doctrine considers a sin.

This conversation is not about specifics. It is about the general conflict between religion and science. And my only contention in my response to Antonio was that this conflict exists. Please limit all future replies to responding to that proposition. My mother also said she will take away my phone if I debate abortion.

[jojoju1998]

What you're saying is Ahistorical. Literally, there is new historical scholarship that I have listed. Those books ( I have read in my free time ), that shows more nuances than your black and white pop culture history.

Geocentrism was an accepted belief in Western Civilization before the rise of Christianity from the time of the Greeks. And the Catholic Church absorbed that. Plain and Simple. Yes those Bible verses solidified the belief. But this was the most common belief of how the earth and sun moved for thousands of years. Before Christianity ever came into being.


Heliocentrism was already an idea floating around before Galieo's rise to fame, but the majority of Scientists rejected it. Plain and simple. It was never a majority consensus. Because no one had the ability to prove scientifically the sun was at the center. The technology wasn't there until 100 something years later. Scientists such as Johann Goerg Locher, Christopher Clavius, opposed Heliocentrism not on the basis of those verses but because there wasn't explicit proof. None. The technology wasn't there yet to provide that evidence needed.

The growing scientific Consensus as the time was not for Geocentrism, or for Heliocentrism, it was for Tychus Brache's theory, as I HAVE SAID ALREADY. And once again, given the technology at the time, Brache's theory was more easily proven.




https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/science-against-copernicus-in-the-age-of-galileo/


By the way, Scientist Philloppe Van Lansbergen a non Catholic scientist criticized Galieo for using non scientific arguments to prove Heliocentrism.

Who cares whether geocentrism existed prior to the Catholic Church or not? That is completely unrelated to the question of whether church teachings have historically come into direct conflict with science.

Here is the exact wording of the reasoning why the Catholic Church began its inquisition of Galileo, taken verbatim from the time:

[Galileo's proposition is] "formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture."

If you are not going to engage with basic facts, I am not going to waste my time responding to a Christian trying to retroactively justify something his church did 400 years ago. There is no point in getting bogged down in this one example. I could just as easily have cited the fact that Catholic bishops in the 21st Century have spread fearmongering falsehoods about condoms being ineffective against HIV-- a deliberate lie in direct contradiction to established medical science, done for the sole purpose of preventing what church doctrine considers a sin.

This conversation is not about specifics. It is about the general conflict between religion and science. And my only contention in my response to Antonio was that this conflict exists. Please limit all future replies to responding to that proposition. My mother also said she will take away my phone if I debate abortion.

1. My point was; the accepted scientific consensus. ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. Up until the 1700s was Geocentrism. Plain and Simple. How can an scientific proposal conflict with " faith ", if the science itself did not fully support it ? The technology was not there to prove Heliocentrism. Plain and Simple.


If Heliocentrism was such a threat, the Catholic Church should have shut it down several decades before. Instead, it was allowed to fester and grow behind the scenes.


Gaileo's mistake was that he treated the theory as fact. It wasn't yet. Most historians of science agree that Heliocentrism wasn't explicitly proven until several decades after Gailei's death.


I'm a history major. I read books. What I'm saying isn't pro christian propaganda. Literally, what you're doing is what you accuse the Fundamentalists of doing. Taking quotes out of context, and refusing to read the sources. The scientific pushback against Galiei's ideas were there. THIS IS BASIC FACTS.


ACTUAL HISTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP ! Someone who accuses others of being anti intellectual, but who doesn't read the new updated historical scholarship is being quite hypocritical don't you think?


2. Also, the issue of condoms is not Church Dogma. It's a tradition. Upheld by the Popes. Wrongly ? Sure. There are still a vast number of theologians, normal catholics, who disagree with this ban. Heck, Pope Francis might change the church's teachings on Humane Vitae......





I need a vodka.

[John Dule]

What you're saying is Ahistorical. Literally, there is new historical scholarship that I have listed. Those books ( I have read in my free time ), that shows more nuances than your black and white pop culture history.

Geocentrism was an accepted belief in Western Civilization before the rise of Christianity from the time of the Greeks. And the Catholic Church absorbed that. Plain and Simple. Yes those Bible verses solidified the belief. But this was the most common belief of how the earth and sun moved for thousands of years. Before Christianity ever came into being.


Heliocentrism was already an idea floating around before Galieo's rise to fame, but the majority of Scientists rejected it. Plain and simple. It was never a majority consensus. Because no one had the ability to prove scientifically the sun was at the center. The technology wasn't there until 100 something years later. Scientists such as Johann Goerg Locher, Christopher Clavius, opposed Heliocentrism not on the basis of those verses but because there wasn't explicit proof. None. The technology wasn't there yet to provide that evidence needed.

The growing scientific Consensus as the time was not for Geocentrism, or for Heliocentrism, it was for Tychus Brache's theory, as I HAVE SAID ALREADY. And once again, given the technology at the time, Brache's theory was more easily proven.




https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/science-against-copernicus-in-the-age-of-galileo/


By the way, Scientist Philloppe Van Lansbergen a non Catholic scientist criticized Galieo for using non scientific arguments to prove Heliocentrism.

Who cares whether geocentrism existed prior to the Catholic Church or not? That is completely unrelated to the question of whether church teachings have historically come into direct conflict with science.

Here is the exact wording of the reasoning why the Catholic Church began its inquisition of Galileo, taken verbatim from the time:

[Galileo's proposition is] "formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture."

If you are not going to engage with basic facts, I am not going to waste my time responding to a Christian trying to retroactively justify something his church did 400 years ago. There is no point in getting bogged down in this one example. I could just as easily have cited the fact that Catholic bishops in the 21st Century have spread fearmongering falsehoods about condoms being ineffective against HIV-- a deliberate lie in direct contradiction to established medical science, done for the sole purpose of preventing what church doctrine considers a sin.

This conversation is not about specifics. It is about the general conflict between religion and science. And my only contention in my response to Antonio was that this conflict exists. Please limit all future replies to responding to that proposition. My mother also said she will take away my phone if I debate abortion.

1. My point was; the accepted scientific consensus. ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. Up until the 1700s was Geocentrism. Plain and Simple. How can an scientific proposal conflict with " faith ", if the science itself did not fully support it ? The technology was not there to prove Heliocentrism. Plain and Simple.


If Heliocentrism was such a threat, the Catholic Church should have shut it down several decades before. Instead, it was allowed to fester and grow behind the scenes.


Gaileo's mistake was that he treated the theory as fact. It wasn't yet. Most historians of science agree that Heliocentrism wasn't explicitly proven until several decades after Gailei's death.


I'm a history major. I read books. What I'm saying isn't pro christian propaganda. Literally, what you're doing is what you accuse the Fundamentalists of doing. Taking quotes out of context, and refusing to read the sources. The scientific pushback against Galiei's ideas were there. THIS IS BASIC FACTS.


ACTUAL HISTORICAL SCHOLARSHIP ! Someone who accuses others of being anti intellectual, but who doesn't read the new updated historical scholarship is being quite hypocritical don't you think?


2. Also, the issue of condoms is not Church Dogma. It's a tradition. Upheld by the Popes. Wrongly ? Sure. There are still a vast number of theologians, normal catholics, who disagree with this ban. Heck, Pope Francis might change the church's teachings on Humane Vitae......





I need a vodka.

Do you understand that my point doesn’t even depend on whether Galileo was right? All I need to show is that the Church’s persecution of him was motivated by biblical literalism and your argument is disproved. You are completely obfuscating the subject of discussion.

[jojoju1998]

What you're saying is Ahistorical. Literally, there is new historical scholarship that I have listed. Those books ( I have read in my free time ), that shows more nuances than your black and white pop culture history.

Geocentrism was an accepted belief in Western Civilization before the rise of Christianity from the time of the Greeks. And the Catholic Church absorbed that. Plain and Simple. Yes those Bible verses solidified the belief. But this was the most common belief of how the earth and sun moved for thousands of years. Before Christianity ever came into being.


Heliocentrism was already an idea floating around before Galieo's rise to fame, but the majority of Scientists rejected it. Plain and simple. It was never a majority consensus. Because no one had the ability to prove scientifically the sun was at the center. The technology wasn't there until 100 something years later. Scientists such as Johann Goerg Locher, Christopher Clavius, opposed Heliocentrism not on the basis of those verses but because there wasn't explicit proof. None. The technology wasn't there yet to provide that evidence needed.

The growing scientific Consensus as the time was not for Geocentrism, or for Heliocentrism, it was for Tychus Brache's theory, as I HAVE SAID ALREADY. And once again, given the technology at the time, Brache's theory was more easily proven.




https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/science-against-copernicus-in-the-age-of-galileo/


By the way, Scientist Philloppe Van Lansbergen a non Catholic scientist criticized Galieo for using non scientific arguments to prove Heliocentrism.

Who cares whether geocentrism existed prior to the Catholic Church or not? That is completely unrelated to the question of whether church teachings have historically come into direct conflict with science.

Here is the exact wording of the reasoning why the Catholic Church began its inquisition of Galileo, taken verbatim from the time:

[Galileo's proposition is] "formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture."

If you are not going to engage with basic facts, I am not going to waste my time responding to a Christian trying to retroactively justify something his church did 400 years ago. There is no point in getting bogged down in this one example. I could just as easily have cited the fact that Catholic bishops in the 21st Century have spread fearmongering falsehoods about condoms being ineffective against HIV-- a deliberate lie in direct contradiction to established medical science, done for the sole purpose of preventing what church doctrine considers a sin.

This conversation is not about specifics. It is about the general conflict between religion and science. And my only contention in my response to Antonio was that this conflict exists. Please limit all future replies to responding to that proposition. My mother also said she will take away my phone if I debate abortion.

Also, the " Conflict " Thesis has been rejected by most historians of science. And has been rejected for the last 70 years. Go through Academia my friend. The Conflict Thesis has been debunked by most historians ( not all of them Christian ), including Ronald Numbers, David C. Lindberg, Bernard Goldstein, and so many others.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

I'm sorry you were unable to state your position in such a way as to make the disagreement clear and instead had to resort to cheap strawmanning to engineer something to be mad about. I'm sure you can do better next time.

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.

Of course plenty of religious people have used religion as the basis for making empirical claims. And people like NdGT use science as the basis for making metaphysical claims. My point is that they're both epistemically incorrect in doing so, and their mistake is fundamentally the same even if it leads in opposite direction. So your argument boils down to the fact that a lot of people make this mistake, and therefore their framing should be taken as normative even though it's conceptually unsound. An oddly democratic position coming from you!

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.

Or we could, you know, resolve these conflicts based on the actual merits of the specific claims involved? I've always taken the side of "science" when it comes to making testable, replicable predictions about empirical phenomena, and nothing I've posted here in any way undermines that. That's what science is for - no more and no less. What more do you want exactly? If you're looking for some dogmatic allegiance to "science" as the only source of truth, then I'm afraid you're exactly the kind of person this thread is for.

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.

Uh, didn't Sam Harris write a whole book about exactly that?

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.

His main thing seems to be blithely dismissing the value of philosophy. I don't have quotes on hand but from what I've heard before he seemed anything but humble on the matter. If there's any specific claim of his you want to bring up, I'm happy to discuss it, but I'm not that interested in the topic to dig it up myself.

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.

Yes, and I've criticized them plenty of times. Your point?

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.

This is a deeply ignorant (and laughably America-centric) understanding of the relationship between religion and science, which have enjoyed a productive relationship with religious structures in many civilizations across centuries. That aside, once again, I've not exactly been kind to religious fundamentalists who deny scientific findings, so all you're doing here is concern trolling.

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.

It's worthy of discussion because I (and other posters) am interested in discussing it. Period. If you aren't, you're welcome to f**k off from this thread. But I don't need to justify my personal gripes based on how much social harm they might cause. As if you yourself didn't constantly bring up petty bullsh*t with no real world implications on this forum. Get over yourself.

[John Dule]

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.

I'm sorry you were unable to state your position in such a way as to make the disagreement clear and instead had to resort to cheap strawmanning to engineer something to be mad about. I'm sure you can do better next time.

Where's the strawman? You just stated a more up-front version of what you'd implied from the beginning of this thread, and I responded to it. I'm not understanding this comment.

Of course plenty of religious people have used religion as the basis for making empirical claims. And people like NdGT use science as the basis for making metaphysical claims. My point is that they're both epistemically incorrect in doing so, and their mistake is fundamentally the same even if it leads in opposite direction. So your argument boils down to the fact that a lot of people make this mistake, and therefore their framing should be taken as normative even though it's conceptually unsound. An oddly democratic position coming from you!

Who are these people using science as the basis for metaphysical claims? Tyson wasn't doing this in the video that was linked in the OP. I know that he's said in the past that philosophy is dumb (and I'm not gonna defend him on that point whatsoever), but that's not the same thing as claiming that science can derive the ought from the is, which is what you said he was doing.

Or we could, you know, resolve these conflicts based on the actual merits of the specific claims involved? I've always taken the side of "science" when it comes to making testable, replicable predictions about empirical phenomena, and nothing I've posted here in any way undermines that. That's what science is for - no more and no less. What more do you want exactly? If you're looking for some dogmatic allegiance to "science" as the only source of truth, then I'm afraid you're exactly the kind of person this thread is for.

I'll repeat myself to be even more clear: The only times when science and religion conflict are in the areas of predicting and explaining natural phenomena. We should defer to science in those areas because it is the discipline that is best suited to answer them.

I have no "allegiance to science" that extends outside its purpose, and I never suggested I did. Where are you getting the idea that I consider science "the only source of truth?" The "scientism" boogeyman isn't real, dude. Men in lab coats are not going to break into your house and burn your Hegel collection.

Uh, didn't Sam Harris write a whole book about exactly that?

I've literally never read anything by Sam Harris. You seem to think I know a lot about him, but that is only because I said he wasn't "alt-right." If he's out there making such arguments, feel free to enlighten me-- though I don't see how that's relevant to your initial claim in this thread, which was that Tyson adheres to that worldview.

His main thing seems to be blithely dismissing the value of philosophy. I don't have quotes on hand but from what I've heard before he seemed anything but humble on the matter. If there's any specific claim of his you want to bring up, I'm happy to discuss it, but I'm not that interested in the topic to dig it up myself.

I'm well aware of this tendency of his and I find it stupid. That doesn't change the fact that this does not fit the definition of "scientism" you provided, because he is not "using science as the basis for making metaphysical claims," but rather denying the utility of metaphysics.

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.

Yes, and I've criticized them plenty of times. Your point?

1) Religion, in its day-to-day application, constantly encroaches on the realms of human inquiry that are the purview of science.
2) Science does not encroach on the realms of human inquiry that are the purview of philosophy/religion (at least, apparently outside of a book written by a frequent Bill Maher guest and a few Reddit fedoras).

Given these two facts, it's hard for me to comprehend how someone could call religious fundamentalism and "scientism" "two sides of the same coin." Maybe in a fantasy world where "scientism" was a commonly held belief leading to incalculable social costs and widespread public ignorance about other areas of life, this would be true. In reality the two are completely incomparable when it comes to their effects on society.

This is a deeply ignorant (and laughably America-centric) understanding of the relationship between religion and science, which have enjoyed a productive relationship with religious structures in many civilizations across centuries. That aside, once again, I've not exactly been kind to religious fundamentalists who deny scientific findings, so all you're doing here is concern trolling.

All of my posts on this forum are America-centric.

It's worthy of discussion because I (and other posters) am interested in discussing it. Period. If you aren't, you're welcome to f**k off from this thread. But I don't need to justify my personal gripes based on how much social harm they might cause. As if you yourself didn't constantly bring up petty bullsh*t with no real world implications on this forum. Get over yourself.

You're really mean sometimes when we have our conversations. It makes me sad.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Where's the strawman? You just stated a more up-front version of what you'd implied from the beginning of this thread, and I responded to it. I'm not understanding this comment.

No, this is a completely separate point from the one you made initially. I refuse to believe you're actually that stupid, so you must be lying to my face here. You came into this discussion accusing me of having said, and I quote you, "that "scientism" is the major (or even a major) problem in our society" when I'd said nothing of the sort, and have still never said anything of the sort. I'm more than happy to move on to more productive topics of discussion, but you first have to acknowledge that you were full of sh*t.

In fact, screw it, I made a mistake by even responding to your substantive points before I actually got you to own up to that. There is just no point to arguing with someone who can't show a baseline level of intellectual honesty. If I have to be "really mean" to get that out of you, then so be it.

[°Leprechaun]

There's a big difference between "scientism" and "fundamentalism".
The former is (or should be) based on things like common sense, logic, facts, reason, etc.
The latter seems to be based more on an extremely literal interpretation of the Bible.
A literal interpretation is obviously easily refuted.
If anyone wants to challenge the previous statement bring it on.

I would add that science has been misused for evil purposes.

One problem that I have with religion in the US, has to do with language. Certain words are much more ambiguous and abstract than some people realize.
There are a lot, so I am not going to list all of them.

Take the word "Christian". There is no commonly agreed upon definition.

"The infinite" can't be defined.
"The infinite" can't be limited and to define something is to limit it. (although one can take exception to that statement)

Then there's the word "atheist". It can mean someone who doesn't believe in God (includes agnostics) or someone who believes that God does not exist (does not include agnostics).

I would be interested in definitions of "pantheist" and "panentheist" .
I would interested in discussions of pantheism and deism, but perhaps not in this thread since such a discussion would likely interfere with what is currently being discussed.

[jojoju1998]

There's a big difference between "scientism" and "fundamentalism".
The former is (or should be) based on things like common sense, logic, facts, reason, etc.
The latter seems to be based more on an extremely literal interpretation of the Bible.
A literal interpretation is obviously easily refuted.
If anyone wants to challenge the previous statement bring it on.

I would add that science has been misused for evil purposes.

One problem that I have with religion in the US, has to do with language. Certain words are much more ambiguous and abstract than some people realize.
There are a lot, so I am not going to list all of them.

Take the word "Christian". There is no commonly agreed upon definition.

"The infinite" can't be defined.
"The infinite" can't be limited and to define something is to limit it. (although one can take exception to that statement)

Then there's the word "atheist". It can mean someone who doesn't believe in God (includes agnostics) or someone who believes that God does not exist (does not include agnostics).

I would be interested in definitions of "pantheist" and "panentheist" .
I would interested in discussions of pantheism and deism, but perhaps not in this thread since such a discussion would likely interfere with what is currently being discussed.

That's not what Scientism is.

Scientism is when science is excessively used for fields, it was never meant to be used in. The Humanities, philosophy ( things like existentialism, so on and so forth), Literature, the arts, and yes Religion. These fields are meant to answer things, that science can't answer. Things like,



In metaphysics: what is a cause?
In logic: is modus ponens a type of valid inference?
In epistemology: is knowledge “justified true belief”?
In ethics: is abortion permissible once the fetus begins to feel pain?
In aesthetics: is there a meaningful difference between Mill’s “low” and “high”
pleasures?
In philosophy of science: what role does genetic drift play in the logical structure of
evolutionary theory?
In philosophy of mathematics: what is the ontological status of mathematical objects, such as numbers?


It's a form of Logical positivism, a belief that that all genuine knowledge is either true by definition or positive—meaning a posteriori facts derived by reason and logic from sensory experience

This wipes out not just religion ( but Humanities in general ), because what's the point of philosophy, Metaphysics, the arts, if science is the answer for everything ?

People like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, are playing for a uniquely Anglo-Americ centric audience; where the humanities has been cut in the last 2 decades or so in public schools and Universities, and this affects how both Christian Fundamentalists and the " new atheists "have viewed this debates, Neil DeGrasse Tyson included.

And this isn't just a criticism from a religious point of view by the way, many atheist philosophers ( many in Europe, a growing number in America ) have criticized Scientism for basically replacing the humanities in society.

People like Mary Midgley, Hilary Putnam, Tzvetan Todorov, Paggimo Pucciluci,


Sam Harris is one of the only " popular " atheists with a PHD in Philopshy. But I won't choose him as a prime example of what an atheist thinker is. Embracing things like Race and IQ, and islamophobia.  Literally, the Southern Poverty Law Center ( a well respected think tank ) has said that the " new atheists " have driven many people in the far right. https://www.splcenter.org/20180419/mcinnes-molyneux-and-4chan-investigating-pathways-alt-right#race-realism

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/28/alt-right-online-poison-racist-bigot-sam-harris-milo-yiannopoulos-islamophobia

https://www.e-ir.info/2012/05/22/sam-harris-liberal-masquerade/

All under the guise of being pro secular, science, and anti religion.

Is this where you want to go down ? Huh ? The FAR RIGHT ? Come on. It should be noted that Adolf Hitler destested religion, and the humanities in general.

They're two sides of the same coin. Without that strong foundation in the humanities ( which is basically mandated in most European high schools ), the American ( and increasingly British ) population starts to lose..... perspective.

So you have both the new atheists, the people who promote scientism, and the Christian Fundamentalists ( Ron DeSantis ) hate and spit on the humanities.


You ever wonder why Catholic Priests in Seminary have to undergo 2 years of philosophy ?

[jojoju1998]

Oh yeah, and how Richard Dawkins has questioned Gender Theory, because it's not " scientific ", his discriminatory comments towards Women,


https://www.salon.com/2021/06/05/how-the-new-atheists-merged-with-the-far-right-a-story-of-intellectual-grift-and-abject-surrender/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/04/20/richard-dawkins-stripped-of-top-humanist-award-for-using-science-to-demean-marginalized-groups/?sh=3015d26c1224


They sound a lot like the Christian Fundamentalists who they profess to oppose, do they ? Hating on minorities, talking about race as a science, Fighting against Critical race theory,

Huh ?

[jojoju1998]

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/30/17936564/new-atheism-religion-science-god-john-gray

[°Leprechaun]

That's not what Scientism is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I didn't quote your entire post because it's long, but I really appreciate the work that you put into it.

If I get a chance today or tomorrow I will respond further.
Call this post a first but not last draft. I may create another post rather than editing this one.. idk

I don't think Harris or others on the metaphorical coin believe that science has all the answers. I certainly don't. It's quite possible it never will. Perhaps,  it is an unfair grotesque generalization but I tend to think the belief that the Bible is the inerant word of God is to authoritarian for me. Certainly I am not suggesting that the majority of Christians believe that.

[jojoju1998]

That's not what Scientism is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I didn't quote your entire post because it's long, but I really appreciate the work that you put into it.

Hot Take : The New Atheists have more in common with the Christian Fundamentalists than people think.

[°Leprechaun]

That's not what Scientism is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I didn't quote your entire post because it's long, but I really appreciate the work that you put into it.

Hot Take : The New Atheists have more in common with the Christian Fundamentalists than people think.

I think that is a false equivalency, although if you mean only that there is some commonality, that's another matter. I don't think that they are two sides of the same coin. I tend to think it a mistake to compare such different world views. I'll be back later to see where this thread is headed.

[jojoju1998]

That's not what Scientism is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I didn't quote your entire post because it's long, but I really appreciate the work that you put into it.

Hot Take : The New Atheists have more in common with the Christian Fundamentalists than people think.

I think that is a false equivalency, although if you mean only that there is some commonality, that's another matter. I don't think that they are two sided of the same coin. I tend to think it a mistake to compare such different world views.

Both sides reject the Fullness of Philosophical thinking, that was the basis for the actual serious debates over religion and God in the last 400 years in Europe at least. Atheist existentialists such as Jean Paul Sartre. Albert Camus. Socialists like  Karl Marx. Yes him. And so many others. And the Christian’s such as Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger,  Henri De Lubac, Karl Barth, Karol Wotijya.





Richard Dawkins can’t compare with these people. He’s not serious. He retreats to science. Same goes for the Fundamentalists. They retreat to the literal words on the Bible.

This is why Bishop Barron has refused to debate any of the famous atheists. His framework is distinctly European. His training was in Europe. Anglo- American tropes don’t apply to him.

[°Leprechaun]

At this point this thread doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

For the moment, things are quiet, maybe the discussion has ended.

So, I am not sure if I want to add anything at this point in time.

Regardless of what one's view of science and scientism is, I know science has brought about immense change, some good and some bad.

[John Dule]

That's not what Scientism is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I didn't quote your entire post because it's long, but I really appreciate the work that you put into it.

Hot Take : The New Atheists have more in common with the Christian Fundamentalists than people think.

Cold take: No they don't.

[jojoju1998]

That's not what Scientism is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

I didn't quote your entire post because it's long, but I really appreciate the work that you put into it.

Hot Take : The New Atheists have more in common with the Christian Fundamentalists than people think.

Cold take: No they don't.

Both sides rely on 20th century Anglo-Americ centric tropes, while Europe and the rest of the world has moved on.

There’s no legitimate discussion about Metaphysics, Philosophy, the arts, and humanities, Scientism and Biblical fundamentalism both reject these topics.



I would much rather have discussions about faith, science, modernity, with excellent atheist philosophers such as Jurgen Habermass, Albert Camus, Frederick Niezsche, or see them debate equally excellent Christian thinkers such as Karol Wotijya, Joseph Ratzinger, Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, Henri De Lubac,

In fact……

https://www.amazon.com/Dialectics-Secularization-Reason-Religion/dp/1586171666

I often find American conversations about religion, science, modernity, to be lacking because it has basically avoided the 150 years of the new thoughts that Europe has developed, to our detriment.