What Do the Inquisition and Modern Science have in Common?

[newgodthinker]

I'd say human arrogance. The Church could not accept that God just MAY have made the world differently than they had expected and now some scientists claim that just because the old scriptures don't accord with new scientific findings that there is no God. Perhaps the humbler view is that the human intellect should get out of the way of the intuitions of God that we have. Maybe as we learn more about the world and grow up as a species we learn God and God's work better? God isn't unchanging, but human culture is?!

 

[technomage]

I'd say human arrogance. The Church could not accept that God just MAY have made the world differently than they had expected and now some scientists claim that just because the old scriptures don't accord with new scientific findings that there is no God. Perhaps the humbler view is that the human intellect should get out of the way of the intuitions of God that we have. Maybe as we learn more about the world and grow up as a species we learn God and God's work better? God isn't unchanging, but human culture is?!

Wonderful opinion piece. However, unlike the Inquisition (or the Church that sponsored it), science actually gets results.

 

[9Westy9]

Last time I checked Scientific findings don't make any claims about god(s). Sure some of the scientists claim he's dead but I haven't seen a scientific finding that declares god(s) is(are) dead.

 

[newgodthinker]

Wonderful opinion piece. However, unlike the Inquisition (or the Church that sponsored it), science actually gets results.

Thank you!
But God gives results where science can't. The holy grail of science, to explain the world we see around us in terms of plausible random chance happenings and 'spontaneous symmetry breaking' would never make for a worldview that adds up or feels complete.
I do believe it is stupid to think that God can get results in the scientific realm, but I also think it is arrogant to think that science has the answers that God has traditionally, and continues to, answer.

 

[technomage]

I do believe it is stupid to think that God can get results in the scientific realm, but I also think it is arrogant to think that science has the answers that God has traditionally, and continues to, answer.

You have some who _claim_ that science has "disproven God" or such nonsense. Nothing of the sort is true. Science says absolutely nothing about supernatural claims.

Science can, however, refute some claims that religion makes about the natural world. Some Christians claim that the universe, and the earth, are only around 6000 years old--that's not only false, it's been repeatedly demonstrated as false.

But no, if someone tells you "Science has disproven God," it's nonsense.

 

[yoda89]

Its difficult to compare the two. Given one is a historical event and the other is a wide branch of different theories and thoughts. What's important to realize and differentiate is the human aspect in modern science.

 

[Badran]

I'd say human arrogance. The Church could not accept that God just MAY have made the world differently than they had expected and now some scientists claim that just because the old scriptures don't accord with new scientific findings that there is no God. Perhaps the humbler view is that the human intellect should get out of the way of the intuitions of God that we have. Maybe as we learn more about the world and grow up as a species we learn God and God's work better? God isn't unchanging, but human culture is?!

There are at least two problems with what you're saying:

1) You said "some scientists claim" but yet your title says "Modern Science".

2) You're talking about human arrogance in making assumptions, but are excluding the assumption that there actually is a god. It seems to be a given in your premise.

 

[newgodthinker]

There are at least two problems with what you're saying:

1) You said "some scientists claim" but yet your title says "Modern Science".

2) You're talking about human arrogance in making assumptions, but are excluding the assumption that there actually is a god. It seems to be a given in your premise.

Fair enough on #1. On #2 I would say that in myself I see my intellectual mind as different from my emotional world. My intelligence can see God as an assumption just as you do but my emotions see it more as an intuition. My intellect has chosen to let me emotional life have the connection it wants with that intuition. Hopefully it'll keep me from being a dick about it or from it blinding me to reason. So again, I think God and science or reason or intellect belong to two separate realms.

 

[Badran]

Fair enough on #1. On #2 I would say that in myself I see my intellectual mind as different from my emotional world. My intelligence can see God as an assumption just as you do but my emotions see it more as an intuition. My intellect has chosen to let me emotional life have the connection it wants with that intuition.

That's cool.

Hopefully it'll keep me from being a dick about it or from it blinding me to reason. So again, I think God and science or reason or intellect belong to two separate realms.

Well the problem is that your emotions were basically rubbing in on the argument. You've chosen to have two separate approaches in your mind, or to indulge in certain emotions and still recognize intellectually what you're doing, but then when you want to talk about the subject, you inevitably have to use reason, and so when you do you need to keep that distinction in mind.

So basically like i said the problem is you were trying to criticize certain assumptions using reason, but were not excluding your own.

 

[McBell]

I'd say human arrogance. The Church could not accept that God just MAY have made the world differently than they had expected and now some scientists claim that just because the old scriptures don't accord with new scientific findings that there is no God. Perhaps the humbler view is that the human intellect should get out of the way of the intuitions of God that we have. Maybe as we learn more about the world and grow up as a species we learn God and God's work better? God isn't unchanging, but human culture is?!

At the risk of sounding cliche... which "god"?

It is interesting how the god of the gaps keeps getting smaller and smaller.
Even more interesting how people (in general) have replaced the god of the gaps with other gods.

What I am wondering is why you are trying to compare the Inquisition with Modern Science only to back peddle from your Thread Title in the Opening Post?

 

[McBell]

Thank you!
But God gives results where science can't. The holy grail of science, to explain the world we see around us in terms of plausible random chance happenings and 'spontaneous symmetry breaking' would never make for a worldview that adds up or feels complete.
I do believe it is stupid to think that God can get results in the scientific realm, but I also think it is arrogant to think that science has the answers that God has traditionally, and continues to, answer.

And what results does "God" give?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What Do the Inquisition and Modern Science have in Common?

I'd say human arrogance. ... some scientists claim that just because the old scriptures don't accord with new scientific findings that there is no God.

Modern Science shares with the Inquisition the trait of human arrogance because of what some scientists claim? Seriously?

 

[newgodthinker]

At the risk of sounding cliche... which "god"?

It is interesting how the god of the gaps keeps getting smaller and smaller.
Even more interesting how people (in general) have replaced the god of the gaps with other gods.

What I am wondering is why you are trying to compare the Inquisition with Modern Science only to back peddle from your Thread Title in the Opening Post?

I don't know what you mean by God of gaps--oh wait. I just figured it out. Well, I don't just put God at the end of marveling at the beauty of science so that I can have a better aesthetic experience. At my best, I see it all as a gift. And let's look beyond pedantic niceties: I was drawing attention to human arrogance both in the inquisitors who thought too highly of their assumptions about what God had revealed to them and in the culturally prevalent attitude that thinks too highly of scientific findings and pits them against God where they should really be pitted against claims within the causal chain and the temporal order. In my view God is outside of the temporal order; he infuses the world morally and aesthetically. Science, much as it may try, will never belong in the realm of beauty, justice or God (try narrowing those down to some scientific formula, what a boring and misguided project!). In that moral realm it's just us, our words and our powers of conviction.
I think I got just a tad nebulous there but all I hope is that I have made my thoughts a little clearer.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I'd say human arrogance. The Church could not accept that God just MAY have made the world differently than they had expected and now some scientists claim that just because the old scriptures don't accord with new scientific findings that there is no God. Perhaps the humbler view is that the human intellect should get out of the way of the intuitions of God that we have. Maybe as we learn more about the world and grow up as a species we learn God and God's work better? God isn't unchanging, but human culture is?!

LMAO! Is there an award for mindless generalizations?

 

[McBell]

I don't know what you mean by God of gaps--oh wait. I just figured it out. Well, I don't just put God at the end of marveling at the beauty of science so that I can have a better aesthetic experience. At my best, I see it all as a gift. And let's look beyond pedantic niceties: I was drawing attention to human arrogance both in the inquisitors who thought too highly of their assumptions about what God had revealed to them and in the culturally prevalent attitude that thinks too highly of scientific findings and pits them against God where they should really be pitted against claims within the causal chain and the temporal order. In my view God is outside of the temporal order; he infuses the world morally and aesthetically. Science, much as it may try, will never belong in the realm of beauty, justice or God (try narrowing those down to some scientific formula, what a boring and misguided project!). In that moral realm it's just us, our words and our powers of conviction.
I think I got just a tad nebulous there but all I hope is that I have made my thoughts a little clearer.

I have noticed you did not answer either of my questions.
I also notice you make many arrogant assumptions yourself.

"moral realm"?

 

[technomage]

"moral realm"?

It's a happty little moral place ... with happy little moral trees. I think Bob Ross did some paintings there....

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

LMAO! Is there an award for mindless generalizations?

Worse: mindless correlation adrift in mindless generalization.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'd say human arrogance.

I by my turn would instead say "wide lack of understanding by the general public".

The Church could not accept that God just MAY have made the world differently than they had expected and now some scientists claim that just because the old scriptures don't accord with new scientific findings that there is no God.

First of all, let me point out that you are making here a statement that I flat out doubt to be accurate. Atheism is rarely if ever quite so futile and capricious. Or coming by the other end, it does not need such an odd justification either. Atheists rarely much care about what you call "the old scriptures", and they certainly have no need to justify disbelief with them.

That said, claiming that there is no God can hardly be compared to claiming that there is a God, far as human arrogance goes.

Particularly when you consider that one of those leads towards personal responsibility, while the other may well lead to self-entitlement.

Belief in God can be a powerful enabler of the worst in human nature, unfortunately. It doesn't always happen, but it is not at all rare, and it can be very nasty. It must be challenged, by healthy believers above all, but also by non-believers, of course.

Perhaps the humbler view is that the human intellect should get out of the way of the intuitions of God that we have.

So it has the power to get in the way? How does that work?

Maybe as we learn more about the world and grow up as a species we learn God and God's work better? God isn't unchanging, but human culture is?!

It is possible, I suppose. Personally, I think God is simply not a very safe or constructive concept, and religious misconceptions enabled by it have caused a lot more trouble than the concept itself eased.

But that is of course a generalization. It will vary a lot among individuals, moments in time, and of course along cultures and moments in History.

 

[Sunstone]

I'd say human arrogance. The Church could not accept that God just MAY have made the world differently than they had expected and now some scientists claim that just because the old scriptures don't accord with new scientific findings that there is no God. Perhaps the humbler view is that the human intellect should get out of the way of the intuitions of God that we have. Maybe as we learn more about the world and grow up as a species we learn God and God's work better? God isn't unchanging, but human culture is?!

Perhaps the humbler view is that one's intuitions just might not be actual cosmic truths.

 

[nazz]

Wonderful opinion piece. However, unlike the Inquisition (or the Church that sponsored it), science actually gets results.

Oh, they got a lot of confessions.