Religion Makes Another Concession to Science
Pope Francis says so: "God isn't 'a magician with a magic wand."
www.independent.co.uk/news/wor…
This is yet another example of the god-of-the-gaps, where (as we learn more about the mechanics of our world) the existence of a divinity is not required to explain the day-to-day events that occur in the natural world. Where we needed a god to explain everything 2000 years ago, we now discover that there are immuable mechanics that rule our universe, and the intervention of a personal god to explain them keeps shrinking. It certainly casts some doubt as to the necessity of a god to explain what currently seems unexplained; give it time, we'll probably figure out a naturalistic explanation, as we've done hundreds (thousands?) of times before. That's the god of the gaps: the divinity that hides in the ever-shrinking space of the unexplained. It's a god that keeps getting smaller as we're becoming more educated and savvy about the natural world.
At this rate, it's just a matter of time before all gods will retreat into the world of the supernatural or the speculative.
www.independent.co.uk/news/wor…
This is yet another example of the god-of-the-gaps, where (as we learn more about the mechanics of our world) the existence of a divinity is not required to explain the day-to-day events that occur in the natural world. Where we needed a god to explain everything 2000 years ago, we now discover that there are immuable mechanics that rule our universe, and the intervention of a personal god to explain them keeps shrinking. It certainly casts some doubt as to the necessity of a god to explain what currently seems unexplained; give it time, we'll probably figure out a naturalistic explanation, as we've done hundreds (thousands?) of times before. That's the god of the gaps: the divinity that hides in the ever-shrinking space of the unexplained. It's a god that keeps getting smaller as we're becoming more educated and savvy about the natural world.
At this rate, it's just a matter of time before all gods will retreat into the world of the supernatural or the speculative.
Comments266
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Fortunately or unfortunately, the unknown expands at twice the rate it vanishes.
The more we see, the less we know.
The only time there will be no need for gods are when we've evolved to such a perfect state that we ourselves embody them.
The more we see, the less we know.
The only time there will be no need for gods are when we've evolved to such a perfect state that we ourselves embody them.
"The only time there will be no need for gods are when we've evolved to such a perfect state that we ourselves embody them."
I'm curious as to how you reached that conclusion. What is the need for gods now?
I'm curious as to how you reached that conclusion. What is the need for gods now?
Solace for the masses, mainly.
What Pope Francis said isn't really new. Church officials have been saying things like this for centuries.
Actually, they've subtly pretended to agree while adding layers of concepts that contradict evolution (not just adding to the theory, but outright contradicting it). Guided evolution, for example, blatantly opposes the theory of evolution, but most theists turn a blind eye to that.
"At this rate, it's just a matter of time before all gods will retreat into the world of the supernatural or the speculative."
Kinda makes me wish that we lived in a D&D like world (Forgotten Realm as an example) where a pantheon of deities have been proven to exist so denying their presence would be virtually impossible. Then again religious folk would be way more dangerous considering the fact that they gain their special abilities from a token god.
Kinda makes me wish that we lived in a D&D like world (Forgotten Realm as an example) where a pantheon of deities have been proven to exist so denying their presence would be virtually impossible. Then again religious folk would be way more dangerous considering the fact that they gain their special abilities from a token god.
But then you would have deities like Sune you could openly worship without getting side-eyed.
I kinda wish for the same thing. If gods DID exist, I'd be the first one in line to interact with them. I mean, SERIOUSLY?! If divinities were real and had dominion over your afterlife, how could there be something more important to talk about?!
Though for the most part, D&D deities tend to be similar to the ones in most polytheistic religions: they are generally childish and immature by definition, and resemble more our barbaric Bronze Age ancestors than creatures of infinite love and wisdom that we should be worshipping.
Though for the most part, D&D deities tend to be similar to the ones in most polytheistic religions: they are generally childish and immature by definition, and resemble more our barbaric Bronze Age ancestors than creatures of infinite love and wisdom that we should be worshipping.
Your post is entirely irrelevant to be honest. Religion is concerned with spirituality, just as science is concerned with understanding the tangible elements of the environment around us. The two in their proper place coincide with one another. The fact that there are people who do take issue with the concept does not give you warrant to stick us all in the same bunch.
You're free to patronize people for accepting and giving credibility to scientific knowledge, but you have nothing to gain from it other than a superficial ego-boost beyond your own means of maintaining.
"This just in, atheists are continuing to embrace freedom in modern-day America after several decades of killing and enslaving themselves in Communist Russia and Red China. Turns out, those warmongers are finally getting it into their heads."
Try that on for constructive conversation. Does that sound fair? It doesn't to me. The fact that some people of a particular viewpoint believe in certain falsities does not of itself mean that all of them do. You will be more prone to doing yourself a disfavor than anyone else when you hyperextend your thesis beyond its known relevant state.
If you were to say that A, B, or C other Christian denomination made this statement, you might have a point depending on the denomination. However, the Catholic Church has never outright condemned or affirmed the concept of (macro)evolution in an authoritative manner, and has actually had lots of people arguing for both sides - which is good and healthy.
You're free to patronize people for accepting and giving credibility to scientific knowledge, but you have nothing to gain from it other than a superficial ego-boost beyond your own means of maintaining.
"This just in, atheists are continuing to embrace freedom in modern-day America after several decades of killing and enslaving themselves in Communist Russia and Red China. Turns out, those warmongers are finally getting it into their heads."
Try that on for constructive conversation. Does that sound fair? It doesn't to me. The fact that some people of a particular viewpoint believe in certain falsities does not of itself mean that all of them do. You will be more prone to doing yourself a disfavor than anyone else when you hyperextend your thesis beyond its known relevant state.
If you were to say that A, B, or C other Christian denomination made this statement, you might have a point depending on the denomination. However, the Catholic Church has never outright condemned or affirmed the concept of (macro)evolution in an authoritative manner, and has actually had lots of people arguing for both sides - which is good and healthy.
If religion was indeed only concerned with spirituality and made no claims about the natural world and those that inhabit it, you would be absolutely right.
Problem being: the Church doesn't make claims that it knows cannot be facilitated by reality. The fact that you have anything negative to say about this topic only calls to question your own motives. There is nothing of worth to be accomplished by pissing on others for doing something right. The viewpoint you've expressed is akin to berating a student for studying. If we're all supposed to be looking for answers to life's questions, this kind of article isn't helping anyone.
the Church doesn't make claims that it knows cannot be facilitated by reality.
The Church's persecution of Galileo must have been imaginary, then.
There is nothing of worth to be accomplished by pissing on others for doing something right.
Kinda hard for Catholicism to claim that. In the past, the church supported the Nazis and other similar dictators. Today, we have the priest sexual abuse scandal and the Magdalene Laundries scandal, all done with the church's blessing.
The Church's persecution of Galileo must have been imaginary, then.
There is nothing of worth to be accomplished by pissing on others for doing something right.
Kinda hard for Catholicism to claim that. In the past, the church supported the Nazis and other similar dictators. Today, we have the priest sexual abuse scandal and the Magdalene Laundries scandal, all done with the church's blessing.
It makes plenty of claims about reality and about us who live in it.
- How things work
- Where things come from
- What happened at certain times
- How we're supposed to behave in certain situations
- How to treat certain people
And what does that have to do with acknowledging what we know to be legitimate scientific data?
How things work - The Church addresses this in philosophical terms only, acknowledging known scientific truth in doing so.
Where things come from - Addressed in spiritual and philosophical terms only, and in accordance with known scientific truth. (Which the article may be considered proof of.)
What happened at certain times - Varied. Ultimately depends on what symbolic, allegorical, literal, or historical teaching you speak of.
How we're supposed to behave in certain situations - Morality.
How to treat other people - Morality.
How things work - The Church addresses this in philosophical terms only, acknowledging known scientific truth in doing so.
Where things come from - Addressed in spiritual and philosophical terms only, and in accordance with known scientific truth. (Which the article may be considered proof of.)
What happened at certain times - Varied. Ultimately depends on what symbolic, allegorical, literal, or historical teaching you speak of.
How we're supposed to behave in certain situations - Morality.
How to treat other people - Morality.
This is where the hand-waving and cherry picking start. Now we're justifying gay-or woman-bashing, our promoting slavery because of morality.
The moment they start telling people how to behave, it's no longer about spirituality but about the real world. And people who oppose any religion's perverted view of morality have an obligation to stand up to it.
This is where the hand-waving and cherry picking start. Now we're justifying gay-or woman-bashing, our promoting slavery because of morality.
Well, when you get back on the Church's official teachings on how to beat women into submission, how to bash gays, and how to buy a slave, I'd be more than happy to have that dialogue. Considering none of those clauses exist however, and considering all three are inherently in conflict with base Catholic morality, there's really nothing to discuss. To boot, if you can't take for granted the fact that I have no interest in persecuting women, gays, or anyone else, then you're really just wasting your time by debating me, aren't you? I'm an ignorant, anti-scientific Papist myself you know. Science? Just can't stand the stuff. Gives me the wooboo-jeebies.
The moment they start telling people how to behave, it's no longer about spirituality but about the real world. And people who oppose any religion's perverted view of morality have an obligation to stand up to it.
However that has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic. Your criticism was at first just about the Church being ignorant and blind to scientific knowledge - after citing an article in which the physical head of the Church claimed that there is no conflict to be had with the concept of evolution.
Your criticism of the Church runs deeper though, and I'll try to address that more appropriately. I cannot, nor will I try to prove that Catholics have not and do not oppress women, gays, or other people. I can, however, prove that neither I nor the Church I belong to approve of such actions, and in fact that we actively run contrary to such evils.
The Church is not just priests, and not just laity, nor just the Pope, but all together, unified under a single creed. That creed does not stand for tyranny or for the abuse of human beings. The fact that abuses do occur, however, is not owing to our beliefs so much as how some of us have chosen to practice them (or reject practicing for that matter). The Church's moral code, being of spiritual significance, is not something that can be rightfully forced upon any person, as morality is of an entirely personal nature. That code does, however, serve as a guidance system - a path for us to follow according our own will, as that is what morality essentially is as well. It is not in the Church's proper nature therefore to be oppressive in any manner.
Well, when you get back on the Church's official teachings on how to beat women into submission, how to bash gays, and how to buy a slave, I'd be more than happy to have that dialogue. Considering none of those clauses exist however, and considering all three are inherently in conflict with base Catholic morality, there's really nothing to discuss. To boot, if you can't take for granted the fact that I have no interest in persecuting women, gays, or anyone else, then you're really just wasting your time by debating me, aren't you? I'm an ignorant, anti-scientific Papist myself you know. Science? Just can't stand the stuff. Gives me the wooboo-jeebies.
The moment they start telling people how to behave, it's no longer about spirituality but about the real world. And people who oppose any religion's perverted view of morality have an obligation to stand up to it.
However that has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic. Your criticism was at first just about the Church being ignorant and blind to scientific knowledge - after citing an article in which the physical head of the Church claimed that there is no conflict to be had with the concept of evolution.
Your criticism of the Church runs deeper though, and I'll try to address that more appropriately. I cannot, nor will I try to prove that Catholics have not and do not oppress women, gays, or other people. I can, however, prove that neither I nor the Church I belong to approve of such actions, and in fact that we actively run contrary to such evils.
The Church is not just priests, and not just laity, nor just the Pope, but all together, unified under a single creed. That creed does not stand for tyranny or for the abuse of human beings. The fact that abuses do occur, however, is not owing to our beliefs so much as how some of us have chosen to practice them (or reject practicing for that matter). The Church's moral code, being of spiritual significance, is not something that can be rightfully forced upon any person, as morality is of an entirely personal nature. That code does, however, serve as a guidance system - a path for us to follow according our own will, as that is what morality essentially is as well. It is not in the Church's proper nature therefore to be oppressive in any manner.
View all replies
"At this rate, it's just a matter of time before all gods will retreat into the world of the supernatural or the speculative."
Isn't that where gods exist already?
Isn't that where gods exist already?
Perhaps in your and my mind, but there are people who still firmly believe God (or gods) intervene in our day-to-day lives to perform miracles.
Yeah, I know. But still, can we not only speculate whether or not god (or which god) is doing these things? And what is god if not supernatural, a being that exists outside of the laws of nature?
We can (and, I would think, SHOULD) speculate on who's doing these things. I think it's one of the wonderful things about our intellect: we can imagine things, make shit up, etc. It's one of our greatest tools and we should absolutely embrace it. We just shouldn't let it rule us unchecked.
The thing about purely supernatural beings is that they "exist" completely outside of the natural realm, unable to interact with it. The moment they interact with it, then they have a natural (and, therefore, observable) ability. Assuming they are BOTH of the natural and supernatural world (which, I would assume, is how most people would define gods), we should be able to observe the laws of nature at work, and they'd work 99.99999% of the time as intended, but for that 0.00001%th time, something would occur that is unexplained, as the result of a god's whim/desire.
The problem is that even that tiny fraction doesn't seem to happen. Our models are 100% accurate and nothing ever seems to deviate from the predictions we make (save within the precise error margin we've calculated). Drop a rock from a tower and we can predict how quickly it will reach the ground with great accuracy. You'll never see an object (or a person), not even once in a MILLION attempts, inexplicably fall at half the speed that it should.
So we end up with no evidence that purely or partially supernatural beings are interfering with our reality. In the end, there doesn't seem to be a way to validate those supernatural beings exist. While I wouldn't claim they don't exist, I certainly wouldn't accept claims that they DO exist without sufficient evidence.
The thing about purely supernatural beings is that they "exist" completely outside of the natural realm, unable to interact with it. The moment they interact with it, then they have a natural (and, therefore, observable) ability. Assuming they are BOTH of the natural and supernatural world (which, I would assume, is how most people would define gods), we should be able to observe the laws of nature at work, and they'd work 99.99999% of the time as intended, but for that 0.00001%th time, something would occur that is unexplained, as the result of a god's whim/desire.
The problem is that even that tiny fraction doesn't seem to happen. Our models are 100% accurate and nothing ever seems to deviate from the predictions we make (save within the precise error margin we've calculated). Drop a rock from a tower and we can predict how quickly it will reach the ground with great accuracy. You'll never see an object (or a person), not even once in a MILLION attempts, inexplicably fall at half the speed that it should.
So we end up with no evidence that purely or partially supernatural beings are interfering with our reality. In the end, there doesn't seem to be a way to validate those supernatural beings exist. While I wouldn't claim they don't exist, I certainly wouldn't accept claims that they DO exist without sufficient evidence.
The thing about purely supernatural beings is that they "exist" completely outside of the natural realm, unable to interact with it. The moment they interact with it, then they have a natural (and, therefore, observable) ability.
your comments here make me wonder: would you consider yourself a materialist? i mean, what do you think of the mind versus brain? are they one in the same to you?
if so, what do you think of emergent properties (from Systems Theory)?
your comments here make me wonder: would you consider yourself a materialist? i mean, what do you think of the mind versus brain? are they one in the same to you?
if so, what do you think of emergent properties (from Systems Theory)?
I'm not familiar enough with the label "materialist" to answer without tripping over some technicality I'm not aware of, but I suppose in essence, I would share much with that philosophy, yes. Materialism, however, seems to have some negative connotations that I might not be comfortable with--that "we" only care about things and not people, that we deny the existence of things like ideas and emotions, etc. That sounds silly to me. But I do believe the material world exists, operates according to fixed rules (many of which we don't know yet), and that it seems (so far) to be the only thing out there.
I'm not an expert on systems theory, so I'll limit my comments to what little I know. Emergent properties occur in large systems. I'm not sure what causes them (I suppose it depends on each system). I would hesitate to "explain" those with something supernatural. We've done this time and again in the past, only to discover (once our knowledge and tools were sufficiently advanced) that it was something perfectly natural. Not sure if that answers your question, but that's where I stand on it: prudent ignorance.
I'm not an expert on systems theory, so I'll limit my comments to what little I know. Emergent properties occur in large systems. I'm not sure what causes them (I suppose it depends on each system). I would hesitate to "explain" those with something supernatural. We've done this time and again in the past, only to discover (once our knowledge and tools were sufficiently advanced) that it was something perfectly natural. Not sure if that answers your question, but that's where I stand on it: prudent ignorance.
"so, i think it's fair to use the term metaphysics, here (in place of supernatural or paranormal). "
So long as this is not a mere semantic substitution and there's agreement here that metaphysics have no supernatural components or explanations, I'm fine with that premise.
Emergent properties are to systems what molecules are to chemistry. We don't quite understand why combining 2 molecules of hydrogen (a highly flammable substance) with one molecule of oxygen (also highly flammable) results in water (non-flammable), but there you have it. It's what we observe. It's a clunky metaphor, but the same goes for the emergent properties of our brains. They are rooted in physicality; remove some parts of the systems and there's a risk the emergent property disappears. That's how we know they are rooted in reality, in fact. Our conscience is a great example of this: when the brain stops functioning, the conscience disappears.
On the topic of human conscience (and I'm going off on a slight tangent, here), there's a fantastic video by Sam Harris talking about consciousness: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZ…
He makes a strong case on the illusoin of free will, and while I don't quite accept some of his premises or conclusions, there's some great food for thought in there.
So long as this is not a mere semantic substitution and there's agreement here that metaphysics have no supernatural components or explanations, I'm fine with that premise.
Emergent properties are to systems what molecules are to chemistry. We don't quite understand why combining 2 molecules of hydrogen (a highly flammable substance) with one molecule of oxygen (also highly flammable) results in water (non-flammable), but there you have it. It's what we observe. It's a clunky metaphor, but the same goes for the emergent properties of our brains. They are rooted in physicality; remove some parts of the systems and there's a risk the emergent property disappears. That's how we know they are rooted in reality, in fact. Our conscience is a great example of this: when the brain stops functioning, the conscience disappears.
On the topic of human conscience (and I'm going off on a slight tangent, here), there's a fantastic video by Sam Harris talking about consciousness: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZ…
He makes a strong case on the illusoin of free will, and while I don't quite accept some of his premises or conclusions, there's some great food for thought in there.