Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: 10 biblical-era discoveries of 2018 + If sci & relig are at war, sci is winning
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
10 Fascinating Biblical-Era Discoveries from 2018
https://www.livescience.com/64305-biblic...-2018.html

INTRO: With signs of human settlement dating back at least 10,000 years, the Holy Land is a fertile ground for archaeologists. Hardly a month seems to go by without constructions workers building a new road or housing development stumbling upon some evocative evidence of a past civilization.

The past year was no exception. In 2018, archaeologists found the face of Jesus, discovered the visage of an ancient king, and might have uncovered a long-lost kingdom. These are the stories of some of this year’s most intriguing Biblical-era discoveries....

COVERED: First Jesus [painting] in Israel; Biblical spies; Naming Jerusalem; An ancient king?; Ships in the desert?; World's oldest beer?; Secret message on Dead Sea Scrolls ; New caves; Gruesome death; King David's lost kingdom

MORE (details): https://www.livescience.com/64305-biblic...-2018.html



If Science and Religion are at War, Science is Winning
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018...s-winning/

EXCERPT: The conflicts between religion and science have existed and been well studied for generations, yet many people deny they exist at all. As someone who studied religion in college, I’ve seen both sides of this. On one hand, it’s true that many people apply religion and science in different ways, meaning they don’t always conflict. But on another hand — a much bigger hand — it’s impossible to ignore the war that has been waged between science and religion throughout human history.

Jerry Coyne, who literally wrote the book on this subject in Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible, has a piece up at the Conversation pointing out how science and religion actually “represent incompatible ways of viewing the world”....

MORE: https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2018...s-winning/
If you deny that science and religion cover different domains, which aren't necessarily incompatible at all, I can only assume you are intellectually dishonest.
From article:

"There are over 4,000 religions on this planet, and their “truths” are quite different. (Muslims and Jews, for instance, absolutely reject the Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God.) Indeed, new sects often arise when some believers reject what others see as true. Lutherans split over the truth of evolution, while Unitarians rejected other Protestants’ belief that Jesus was part of God.

And while science has had success after success in understanding the universe, the “method” of using faith has led to no proof of the divine. How many gods are there? What are their natures and moral creeds? Is there an afterlife? Why is there moral and physical evil? There is no one answer to any of these questions. All is mystery, for all rests on faith.

The “war” between science and religion, then, is a conflict about whether you have good reasons for believing what you do: whether you see faith as a vice or a virtue."
There is no "method" of faith, nor it is meant to lead to "proof". "Good reasons for believing what you do" is subjective, whether religious or scientific beliefs. People debate religious truths just like some people debate loop quantum gravity versus string theory. They can do that because neither is definitive nor compelling. But everyone can make arguments to justify their own beliefs, scientific or religious.
Quote:There is no "method" of faith, nor it is meant to lead to "proof". "Good reasons for believing what you do" is subjective

When it comes to religion, people pretty much choose to believe what they want to. Among those 4000 faiths, there is something that is bound to appeal to someone. That's what faith is. Believe according to how it makes you feel. If it feels good, it must be true. If it doesn't, it must be false. Hence the disaster of relying on subjective feelings to decide what is truth. Science otoh is based on evidence and logic. There is no room for subjective feeling in arriving at what is scientifically true. It just is what it is. You have to change yourself to adapt to it.
(Dec 26, 2018 11:37 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:There is no "method" of faith, nor it is meant to lead to "proof". "Good reasons for believing what you do" is subjective

When it comes to religion, people pretty much choose to believe what they want to. Among those 4000 faiths, there is something that is bound to appeal to someone. That's what faith is. Believe according to how it makes you feel. If it feels good, it must be true. If it doesn't, it must be false. Hence the disaster of relying on subjective feelings to decide what is truth. Science otoh is based on evidence and logic. There is no room for subjective feeling in arriving at what is scientifically true. It just is what it is. You have to change yourself to adapt to it.

I'm sure there are plenty of religions that people believe just because they're easy, like leftism, humanism, or Rastafarianism. But many require self-control and abstaining from what feels good. Many religious people can justify their beliefs with more than just feelings, often including natural law.

OTOH, people often believe science can determine/know many things it cannot, due to quasi-religious scientism. No one disputes what can be compellingly demonstrated as scientifically true, and the rest is up for interpretation, which is why science and religion are not at odds. There are plenty of things science has no means of determining, and quite a few it outright states it cannot.
Quote:But many require self-control and abstaining from what feels good.

The pleasure of a comforting belief as in being loved by a God or of going to heaven can often outweigh the pleasure of sex or eating or having lots of possessions. That's why people give up those things. It's not like they're into pain and masochism.
(Dec 27, 2018 11:45 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:But many require self-control and abstaining from what feels good.

The pleasure of a comforting belief as in being loved by a God or of going to heaven can often outweigh the pleasure of sex or eating or having lots of possessions. That's why people give up those things.  It's not like they're into pain and masochism.

Really? Obviously that wasn't comforting enough for you. So on what basis are you making that claim? Are you saying that the mere fact that people are religious must mean they find it more pleasurable than things they abstain from? If so, that's obviously just you interpreting everything through a hedonistic lens. But again, if that's the case, why wasn't it comforting enough for you?

And considering that the secular believe that morals either come from reason, culture, or that man is inherently good, why would the religious need a comfort motive, when those same sources would be sufficient to explain religiosity? Sounds like a special pleading...or a presumption that hedonism is the only morality.

Exercising self-discipline is not painful. Maybe try it occasionally.
Quote:Are you saying that the mere fact that people are religious must mean they find it more pleasurable than things they abstain from?

Yes..I just said that. And I'm not going to repeat my point endlessly while you deny it either. Comforting beliefs give people alot of pleasure and peace of mind. It's all part of the faith package--believe in what makes you feel good, even if it means denying yourself other more transient pleasures.
(Dec 28, 2018 01:29 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Are you saying that the mere fact that people are religious must mean they find it more pleasurable than things they abstain from?

Yes..I just said that. And I'm not going to repeat my point endlessly while you deny it either. Comforting beliefs give people alot of pleasure and peace of mind. It's all part of the faith package--believe in what makes you feel good, even if it means denying yourself other more transient pleasures.

Then, again, why didn't you find it comforting?
Pages: 1 2