Science and the gods -- a match not made in heaven

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The great scientist JBS Haldane once wrote that, “There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god.”

The wonderful comedian Ricky Gervais once said: "Science speaks the truth, and it does not discriminate. For better or worse, it finds things out. Science is humble; it knows what it knows, and it knows what it doesn't know. It bases its conclusions and its belief on hard evidence -- evidence that is constantly updated and upgraded. It doesn't get offended when new facts come along. It embraces the body of knowledge, it doesn't hold on to medieval practices because they are "tradition."

I do not think that the same could be said of religion.

Ricky also made the following observation: "The existence of God is not subjective: He either exists or He doesn't. It's not a matter of opinion: you can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts."

I am speaking here, of course, from the non-theist side of the eternal argument, but I think these few lines sum up what I find so frustrating about why the argument continues, and seemingly will never end.

 

[sun rise]

The Lights Of Kabbalah

"You don't learn by having faith. You learn by questioning, by challenging, by re-examining everything you've ever believed.
And yet, all this is a matter of faith
—the faith that there is a truth to be found.
It is another paradox: To truly question, you must truly have faith."
Rabbi Tzvi Freeman

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am speaking here, of course, from the non-theist side of the eternal argument, but I think these few lines sum up what I find so frustrating about why the argument continues, and seemingly will never end.

Perhaps "the argument continues, and seemingly will never end" because people keep bringing it up?

 

[Regiomontanus]

The great scientist JBS Haldane once wrote that, “There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god.”

The wonderful comedian Ricky Gervais once said: "Science speaks the truth, and it does not discriminate. For better or worse, it finds things out. Science is humble; it knows what it knows, and it knows what it doesn't know. It bases its conclusions and its belief on hard evidence -- evidence that is constantly updated and upgraded. It doesn't get offended when new facts come along. It embraces the body of knowledge, it doesn't hold on to medieval practices because they are "tradition."

I do not think that the same could be said of religion.

Ricky also made the following observation: "The existence of God is not subjective: He either exists or He doesn't. It's not a matter of opinion: you can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts."

I am speaking here, of course, from the non-theist side of the eternal argument, but I think these few lines sum up what I find so frustrating about why the argument continues, and seemingly will never end.

Quoting Gervais on science. Uhhh...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Quoting Gervais on science. Uhhh...

You do realize that that is essentially nothing more than an ad hominem attack on somebody who is not even involved in the argument. Was it worth it?

I'm no more brilliant on science than Gervais is. But I'm a lot smarter than the twits who say "if we're descended from apes, why are there still apes?"

The point is not about his (or my) science credentials, but about whether we can take what little we know -- and still think with it.

So, since you've decided to engage on that point -- please tell us all what Gervais said in the quotes that I presented that is incorrect, wrong, ignorant, or what-have-you, that caused you to raise that flag.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Quoting Gervais on science. Uhhh...

He's not even a good comedian.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

He's not even a good comedian.

You do realize that that is an esthetic judgment -- and your esthetic judgment does not necessarily apply to everybody (or anybody) else, I hope?

Also, he has won seven BAFTA Awards, five British Comedy Awards, two Emmy Awards, a Golden Globe Award, and the Rose d'Or twice (2006 and 2019), as well as a Screen Actors Guild Award nomination. In 2007, he was placed at No. 11 on Channel 4's 100 Greatest Stand-Ups[6] and at No. 3 on the updated 2010 list.[7] In 2010, he was named to the Time 100 list of the world's most influential people.

How do you compare yourself to that record, that you feel you can sit in judgment over him?

But I can see that anyone who says something with which you disagree, on whatever basis, you could never consider funny. Just wrong. (About exactly, I think, what they might think of you, really.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Quoting Gervais on science. Uhhh...

By the way, although not directed at me, that still counts as an ad hominem argument. I'd still like to know what it was in the quote that you think deserves your implied criticism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

By the way, although not directed at me, that still counts as an ad hominem argument.

Actually, it was not. It was simply a suggestion that your argument was underwhelming.

 

[stvdv]

The wonderful comedian Ricky Gervais once said: "Science speaks the truth, and it does not discriminate. For better or worse, it finds things out. Science is humble; it knows what it knows, and it knows what it doesn't know. It bases its conclusions and its belief on hard evidence -- evidence that is constantly updated and upgraded. It doesn't get offended when new facts come along. It embraces the body of knowledge, it doesn't hold on to medieval practices because they are "tradition."

Well said and I agree, as seen from a dualistic POV. It's not true when seen from Advaitic POV

I do not think that the same could be said of religion.

My Master taught me similar (but more nuanced, with both (non) dualism POVs), but He did explicitly say "I have not come to start a new religion".
I do believe that mistakes are made in science, as well as in Religion, as in both humans are involved and errors also snuck into religion, over time

Ricky also made the following observation: "The existence of God is not subjective: He either exists or He doesn't. It's not a matter of opinion: you can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts."

Makes sense to me. It also makes sense to me that Science will never be able to prove the existence of God, given how God is defined

I am speaking here, of course, from the non-theist side of the eternal argument, but I think these few lines sum up what I find so frustrating about why the argument continues, and seemingly will never end.

Hence I NEVER indulge in debates about whether God exists or not, as it is impossible to prove such by debate, given how God is defined

 

[SomeRandom]

He's not even a good comedian.

Aww I kind of liked him in The Office (UK)

 

[Twilight Hue]

You do realize that that is an esthetic judgment -- and your esthetic judgment does not necessarily apply to everybody (or anybody) else, I hope?

Also, he has won seven BAFTA Awards, five British Comedy Awards, two Emmy Awards, a Golden Globe Award, and the Rose d'Or twice (2006 and 2019), as well as a Screen Actors Guild Award nomination. In 2007, he was placed at No. 11 on Channel 4's 100 Greatest Stand-Ups[6] and at No. 3 on the updated 2010 list.[7] In 2010, he was named to the Time 100 list of the world's most influential people.

How do you compare yourself to that record, that you feel you can sit in judgment over him?

But I can see that anyone who says something with which you disagree, on whatever basis, you could never consider funny. Just wrong. (About exactly, I think, what they might think of you, really.)

He's been hyped up desperately by the media to make him something he isn't.


Golden Globes 2020: Ricky Gervais’s Fifth Turn as Host Was Just So Boring


If you want actual funny, Billy Connelly is the real deal. :Op

 

[Sunstone]

I think we good people tend to become polarized over the relationship of the sciences and the religions without quite understanding that when we allow ourselves to become polarized over any issue we sacrifice our understanding of it. In other words, the more polarized we become, the blinder we become -- especially to the larger picture. So far as I know Spinoza was the first person in the Western philosophical tradition to notice that judging something and understanding it are at odds with each other.

Might I suggest the reason the religion vs science debate is endless is precisely because we are reducing it to a value judgement by treating it as a matter of which tops the other? As everyone knows, value judgements cannot be decided by facts.

 

[Regiomontanus]

You do realize that that is essentially nothing more than an ad hominem attack on somebody who is not even involved in the argument. Was it worth it?

I'm no more brilliant on science than Gervais is. But I'm a lot smarter than the twits who say "if we're descended from apes, why are there still apes?"

The point is not about his (or my) science credentials, but about whether we can take what little we know -- and still think with it.

So, since you've decided to engage on that point -- please tell us all what Gervais said in the quotes that I presented that is incorrect, wrong, ignorant, or what-have-you, that caused you to raise that flag.

No.

I have heard him talk about (mostly attack) religion a couple of times. He is a fool. I actually felt sorry for him because he was so clueless. His characterization of much of theology was childish; he has this cartoon like idea of God as some kind of creature 'up there' doing magic tricks.

I will say, though, that the guy can be very funny.

 

[Native]

I think the very OP is a dualistic contradiction as "gods" ARE maden in heaven and as the context of Creation Stories in ancient religions DOES content "heavenly" astronomical and cosmological informations.

Ricky also made the following observation: "The existence of God is not subjective: He either exists or He doesn't.

In most of the ancient religions there also was a prime "She" deity. It´s just in the patriarchal Abrahamic traditions which don´t like to worship the womans - from whom they themselves are born.

 

[Valjean]

He's not even a good comedian.

But which of his points in Evangelicalhumanist's post do you disagree with?

Gervais' quote wasn't scientific. It was a historical and epistemic comment.

 

[Valjean]

No.

I have heard him talk about (mostly attack) religion a couple of times. He is a fool. I actually felt sorry for him because he was so clueless. His characterization of much of theology was childish; he has this cartoon like idea of God as some kind of creature 'up there' doing magic tricks.

I thought that was the common theistic conception.
How is he clueless? How is his view on theology childish?

 

[Twilight Hue]

But which of his points in Evangelicalhumanist's post do you disagree with?

Gervais' quote wasn't scientific. It was a historical and epistemic comment.

I actually agree with Gervais on his assessment that God either exists or God dosent, with a slight variation to which one is entitled to one's opinion but not one's facts in terms that facts are fickle, and requires establishing first.

An example could be someone actually came across something factual, but would have a hard time proving if it can't be verified and established.

 

[Audie]

Perhaps "the argument continues, and seemingly will never end" because people keep bringing it up?

The rong ones never learn