Does religion deny science?

[TimHauck 2,858]

@jerryskids how was your class?

Figured this deserved it’s own thread.

I think yes.

on this subject, this tweet from 2 days ago went viral and of course all the conservative x posters jumped all over it. I also think it’s odd the guy is bragging about being the “IQ record holder”

https://x.com/yhbryankimiq/status/1935171190827667641

 

 

[Strike 5,538]

The answer is no.  For one thing, nothing prevented God from creating the world to adhere to scientific rules/principles.

[TimHauck 2,858]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

The answer is no.  For one thing, nothing prevented God from creating the world to adhere to scientific rules/principles.

Prior to the invention of artificial insemination, was there anything in science that could explain someone being born with no biological father?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,414]

6 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Prior to the invention of artificial insemination, was there anything in science that could explain someone being born with no biological father?

Why wouldn’t someone created via artificial insemination have a biological father? It’s the insemination that’s artificial, not the semen. 🪖

[seafoam1 3,017]

This very question asked, shows that the OP doesn't know what the hell he is even talking about. 

[jerryskids 6,790]

31 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

@jerryskids how was your class?

Figured this deserved it’s own thread.

I think yes.

on this subject, this tweet from 2 days ago went viral and of course all the conservative x posters jumped all over it. I also think it’s odd the guy is bragging about being the “IQ record holder”

https://x.com/yhbryankimiq/status/1935171190827667641

 

 

Thanks, I saw that video this morning. Concepts like quantum entanglement and the multiverse are mind blowing and introduce so many opportunities. 

Short answer is the class was pretty good. I'm on my phone waiting for an appointment, so I'll type more later.

[MDC 7,407]

I’d say no unless you’re a Bible literalist. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,348]

yes but so do libtards

[TimHauck 2,858]

7 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

yes but so do libtards

Agree

[Kopy 568]

I say whoever created beer.

That scientific god is awesome.

[The Real timschochet 6,758]

The answer is yes and no. 

Yes at first always. But eventually the smart religions, the ones that last, accept the science and find a way to work it in. Of course sometimes there’s a lot of drama in between, people get murdered, etc. Heretics are put to the stake. Eventually though it gets absorbed. 
 

Christianity brilliantly solved this dilemma with something called the Enlightenment which basically means “hey if the scientists say it’s true, God must have wanted it all along! When we thought differently it wasn’t God who was wrong; we just misunderstood Him.” This excuse cleverly allows everyone but the absolute literalists to adopt every discovery no matter how much it might contradict Scripture. 
 

Islam didn’t have any Enlightenment and so they’ve struggled a little more with this. 

[Alias Detective 1,399]

Here we go.  I know for fact a guy born with a twig and berries can’t be a woman.  So who is denying science?

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

@jerryskids how was your class?

Figured this deserved it’s own thread.

I think yes.

on this subject, this tweet from 2 days ago went viral and of course all the conservative x posters jumped all over it. I also think it’s odd the guy is bragging about being the “IQ record holder”

https://x.com/yhbryankimiq/status/1935171190827667641

 

 

 

[TimHauck 2,858]

12 minutes ago, Alias Detective said:

Here we go.  I know for fact a guy born with a twig and berries can’t be a woman.  So who is denying science?

 

Hey @EternalShinyAndChrome you better call this guy out for changing the subject!!

[jerryskids 6,790]

@TimHauck, I'm at my desk so here is a summary:

The instructor was a biology professor and nominally Lutheran, although he said he associates more with Buddhism on this topic (perhaps explained at the end).  He started by presuming there is often a dichotomy of hard core people on both sides who refuse to see the other side.  The religious side, he mostly conflated with Christianity.  

[Side note:  he referred this side as "MAGA" which I found at best lazy and at worst bigoted.  At one point he said "believe it or not I have a harder time discussing this with the hard-core science folks vs. MAGA," I presume because MAGA folks are stoopid.  More side note:  this was at a retirement home.  Between the head nodding at the MAGA comment and the attendance at the no-kings protests, I'm wondering what's happening to our elderly?  Are they entering some phase like the movie "Cocoon" where they mentally go back to their early 20s and lose all their wisdom?]

Back on topic:  He spent most of the class showing why each side of the dichotomy is wrong.  Starting with the religious side, he said that the word "day" in Genesis comes from "yowm" in the original language (Greek?  Hebrew?  I missed it.)  Anyway, the word more accurately refers to an indeterminate period of time.  He also showed why evolution has been proven.  Frankly, I personally found this track uninteresting because I know the basics of these arguments.

The science side was more interesting.  He explained inductive reasoning and, during the Enlightenment, the introduction of the scientific method (deductive reasoning).  We broke into small groups and analyzed a picture with two chairs to identify differences -- the size difference was an optical illusion; we assumed they were different without measuring them.  He then went through in more detail an experiment/paper he led studying tiger beetles in SE Arizona (fascinating creatures, I'll skip details).  Despite all efforts to measure and account for what couldn't be measured, the team inevitably made assumptions.  Which led to his takeaway:  assumptions are basically faith.  Citations of earlier experiments are also faith; faith that the experiment was accurate and the scientists were honest. (We did talk about dishonest scientists, but it wasn't that relevant IMO).  Ergo, scientists have no problem with faith in their assumptions, or the work of peers, so it is not unreasonable to have faith in God.

The best thing IMO that came out of the class was a comment by a woman in the audience during Q&A.  She described a letter that Galileo wrote to the Grand Duchess Christina (can size unknown), in which he describes his belief that science can not only co-exist with faith, but is part of God's gift to us, to discover his creation.  The awesome quote from this:  "That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven. not how heaven goes."

Full letter: https://web.stanford.edu/~jsabol/certainty/readings/Galileo-LetterDuchessChristina.pdf

Wiki summary:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_the_Grand_Duchess_Christina

I walked away feeling it was a bit of a yin/yang thing, which I guess is Taoist or perhaps somewhat Buddhist in thinking.  

Final note:  I'm slow-watching Dexter while I do some short exercises and/or stretches.  I'm on season 6 which is a religious theme.  Yesterday morning before class, they introduced the concept of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy:  energy moves towards a state of increasing randomness/disorder) and how it is inconsistent with life and its increasing organization.  I've since researched and found that the answer was proposed by Schroedinger:

Quote

The problem of organization in living systems increasing despite the second law is known as the Schrödinger paradox.^[7] In his note to Chapter 6 of What is Life?, however, Schrödinger remarks on his usage of the term negative entropy:

Let me say first, that if I had been catering for them [physicists] alone I should have let the discussion turn on free energy instead. It is the more familiar notion in this context. But this highly technical term seemed linguistically too near to energy for making the average reader alive to the contrast between the two things.

This, Schrödinger argues, is what differentiates life from other forms of the organization of matter. In this direction, although life's dynamics may be argued to go against the tendency of the second law, life does not in any way conflict with or invalidate this law, because the principle that entropy can only increase or remain constant applies only to a closed system which is adiabatically isolated, meaning no heat can enter or leave, and the physical and chemical processes which make life possible do not occur in adiabatic isolation, i.e. living systems are open systems. Whenever a system can exchange either heat or matter with its environment, an entropy decrease of that system is entirely compatible with the second law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life

[BudBro 181]

JK, you may find Genesis Unbound by John Sailhamer interesting.

The premise is that Gen 1:1 is a complete statement, standing alone.  Gen 1:2 forward is the creation of the promised land within the creation.

 

Quote

"That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven. not how heaven goes."

I'd rather lend that the Holy Spirit infills us to become more human, like Jesus.  The vocation is to bring heaven to earth.  

[BiPolarBear 485]

I never worry about what our 6,000 plus religions are spewing. 

[Voltaire 5,315]

The best religions can incorporate science in seamlessly while the best scientists, including atheists, have an ethical underpinning.

[TimHauck 2,858]

On 6/19/2025 at 2:18 PM, jerryskids said:

@TimHauck, I'm at my desk so here is a summary:

The instructor was a biology professor and nominally Lutheran, although he said he associates more with Buddhism on this topic (perhaps explained at the end).  He started by presuming there is often a dichotomy of hard core people on both sides who refuse to see the other side.  The religious side, he mostly conflated with Christianity.  

[Side note:  he referred this side as "MAGA" which I found at best lazy and at worst bigoted.  At one point he said "believe it or not I have a harder time discussing this with the hard-core science folks vs. MAGA," I presume because MAGA folks are stoopid.  More side note:  this was at a retirement home.  Between the head nodding at the MAGA comment and the attendance at the no-kings protests, I'm wondering what's happening to our elderly?  Are they entering some phase like the movie "Cocoon" where they mentally go back to their early 20s and lose all their wisdom?]

Back on topic:  He spent most of the class showing why each side of the dichotomy is wrong.  Starting with the religious side, he said that the word "day" in Genesis comes from "yowm" in the original language (Greek?  Hebrew?  I missed it.)  Anyway, the word more accurately refers to an indeterminate period of time.  He also showed why evolution has been proven.  Frankly, I personally found this track uninteresting because I know the basics of these arguments.

The science side was more interesting.  He explained inductive reasoning and, during the Enlightenment, the introduction of the scientific method (deductive reasoning).  We broke into small groups and analyzed a picture with two chairs to identify differences -- the size difference was an optical illusion; we assumed they were different without measuring them.  He then went through in more detail an experiment/paper he led studying tiger beetles in SE Arizona (fascinating creatures, I'll skip details).  Despite all efforts to measure and account for what couldn't be measured, the team inevitably made assumptions.  Which led to his takeaway:  assumptions are basically faith.  Citations of earlier experiments are also faith; faith that the experiment was accurate and the scientists were honest. (We did talk about dishonest scientists, but it wasn't that relevant IMO).  Ergo, scientists have no problem with faith in their assumptions, or the work of peers, so it is not unreasonable to have faith in God.

The best thing IMO that came out of the class was a comment by a woman in the audience during Q&A.  She described a letter that Galileo wrote to the Grand Duchess Christina (can size unknown), in which he describes his belief that science can not only co-exist with faith, but is part of God's gift to us, to discover his creation.  The awesome quote from this:  "That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven. not how heaven goes."

Full letter: https://web.stanford.edu/~jsabol/certainty/readings/Galileo-LetterDuchessChristina.pdf

Wiki summary:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_the_Grand_Duchess_Christina

I walked away feeling it was a bit of a yin/yang thing, which I guess is Taoist or perhaps somewhat Buddhist in thinking.  

Final note:  I'm slow-watching Dexter while I do some short exercises and/or stretches.  I'm on season 6 which is a religious theme.  Yesterday morning before class, they introduced the concept of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy:  energy moves towards a state of increasing randomness/disorder) and how it is inconsistent with life and its increasing organization.  I've since researched and found that the answer was proposed by Schroedinger:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life

I guess there’s an argument for a God to exist, but I would still say the biggest things about religion (particularly Christianity) that deny science is Jesus being born via divine intervention and that he rose from the dead.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,258]

Because they have become so separated they both deny each other at times.

The modern day father of materialism, Isaac Newton, wrote quite a bit on God and not separating that study from science.

It's all one thing.

[TimHauck 2,858]

On 6/19/2025 at 11:25 AM, TimHauck said:

@jerryskids how was your class?

Figured this deserved it’s own thread.

I think yes.

on this subject, this tweet from 2 days ago went viral and of course all the conservative x posters jumped all over it. I also think it’s odd the guy is bragging about being the “IQ record holder”

https://x.com/yhbryankimiq/status/1935171190827667641

 

 

This dude is definitely a scammer, he definitely makes sure to say “from the world’s highest IQ record holder” as much as possible.  And he apparently doesn’t know what a paragraph is

https://x.com/yhbryankimiq/status/1941706014572806568

https://x.com/yhbryankimiq/status/1941891480186196306

 

 

 

[jerryskids 6,790]

I'm thinking of reading the following book I learned about on The Free Press:  

Quote

TGIF czar Nellie Bowles recommends a book about Jesus that made her feel like a college kid: Miracles and Wonder by Elaine Pagels.

I highly recommend Elaine Pagels’ Miracles and Wonder, a gorgeous new book about the historical Jesus. Pagels is the best living writer on early Christianity, and this book, like her others, is lyrical and warm but also quite brave.

The premise is that you can’t understand a lot of the scriptures without knowing more about that time, and Pagels dives into the era, giving context for the words attributed to Jesus and tackling topics like the virgin birth and resurrection. Each chapter left me sitting back in my seat like a college kid, saying: “Whoa, that makes sense.” She explains how certain phrases Jesus and his followers spoke would be understood at the time—metaphors that were hidden jabs at the Romans, for example.

The result is a pretty radical new vision of Jesus in his era, as a man but also as a political figure. Now, I know this is a summer reading list, and a book of contrarian history isn’t an obvious beach read, but I promise it’s surprisingly breezy and fun.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D9688QGF/?bestFormat=true&k=miracles and wonder elaine pagels&ref_=nb_sb_ss_w_scx-ent-pd-bk-d_de_k0_1_13&crid=IIYMC7JWKY7V&sprefix=miracles and

Not necessarily about science, but it seems like an interesting philosophical exploration.   

[BudBro 181]

18 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I'm thinking of reading the following book I learned about on The Free Press:  

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D9688QGF/?bestFormat=true&k=miracles and wonder elaine pagels&ref_=nb_sb_ss_w_scx-ent-pd-bk-d_de_k0_1_13&crid=IIYMC7JWKY7V&sprefix=miracles and

Not necessarily about science, but it seems like an interesting philosophical exploration.   

She is mentioned as part of gnosticism...

 

[jerryskids 6,790]

16 minutes ago, BudBro said:

She is mentioned as part of gnosticism...

 

Thanks.  I saw that she has written a book on it.  I'm not terribly familiar with gnosticism; your thoughts?

[BudBro 181]

23 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Thanks.  I saw that she has written a book on it.  I'm not terribly familiar with gnosticism; your thoughts? 

Self-discovery, self-help religion, no need for redemption, Jesus was a good teacher.  Paul preached against the gnostics in his writings of Galatians and Colossians, and their denial of Jesus' humanity and the need of the sacrifice He provided.  

In the Gospel of Thomas, one of the gnostic gospels, Jesus is said to say, ‘If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."

[Hardcore troubadour 15,414]

On 6/19/2025 at 11:46 AM, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why wouldn’t someone created via artificial insemination have a biological father? It’s the insemination that’s artificial, not the semen. 🪖

Hack didn’t reply. 

[TheNewGirl 1,489]

On 6/19/2025 at 8:38 AM, TimHauck said:

Prior to the invention of artificial insemination, was there anything in science that could explain someone being born with no biological father?

Wait, what? 

Artificial insemination = no biological dad? 

Seriously? 

[jerryskids 6,790]

1 hour ago, BudBro said:

Self-discovery, self-help religion, no need for redemption, Jesus was a good teacher.  Paul preached against the gnostics in his writings of Galatians and Colossians, and their denial of Jesus' humanity and the need of the sacrifice He provided.  

In the Gospel of Thomas, one of the gnostic gospels, Jesus is said to say, ‘If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."

Thanks again.  I had heard of the apocryphal gospels, which in the context I read them include some you mentioned (Thomas, also Mary Magdalene).  But I hadn't known anything about the gnostic movement.  Seems kinda like Jesus meets Buddhism.  I've always wondered if Jesus studied Buddhism.

I like the meditation of Buddhism, as it most closely resembles the Catholic practice of meditative and mantra prayer, which have been shown to have beneficial effects.

Anyway, I appreciate your insights.   

[TimHauck 2,858]

24 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

Wait, what? 

Artificial insemination = no biological dad? 

Seriously? 

Sorry, worded that incorrectly. You got me!

[iam90sbaby 2,610]

Do metal helmets stop concussions?

[seafoam1 3,017]

23 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Do metal helmets stop concussions?

Tim made the mistake of putting his metal helmet on AFTER he was concussed beyond repair. 

[TheNewGirl 1,489]

15 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Sorry, worded that incorrectly. You got me!

I got you around literally basic biology? That wasn't my goal....but a piece of your conversation was literally using this as an argument. 

And you're saying it was  "worded incorrectly." 

Okay. 

[TimHauck 2,858]

10 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

I got you around literally basic biology? That wasn't my goal....but a piece of your conversation was literally using this as an argument. 

And you're saying it was  "worded incorrectly." 

Okay. 

I didn’t mean to say that I thought artificial insemination meant there was “no biological father,” but I understand that’s what I wrote. I was wrong, and I don’t actually think artificial insemination means there is no biological father.

My point was that believing that Jesus was born from a virgin denies science.  I could imagine posters here saying “maybe he was born via artificial insemination!” but obviously that didn’t exist back then.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,414]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

I didn’t mean to say that I thought artificial insemination meant there was “no biological father,” but I understand that’s what I wrote. I was wrong, and I don’t actually think artificial insemination means there is no biological father.

My point was that believing that Jesus was born from a virgin denies science.  I could imagine posters here saying “maybe he was born via artificial insemination!” but obviously that didn’t exist back then.

🪖

[BudBro 181]

On 7/9/2025 at 9:50 AM, TimHauck said:

My point was that believing that Jesus was born from a virgin denies science.  

The placebo effect denies science.

Dark matter that holds the universe together is unexplainable.

[TimHauck 2,858]

3 minutes ago, BudBro said:

The placebo effect denies science.

Dark matter that holds the universe together is unexplainable.

Are you really comparing the placebo effect to the birth of a child?

[TimHauck 2,858]

Doesn’t the Bible say you should be humble?  I guess the “IQ world record holder” didn’t read that part

https://x.com/yhbryankimiq/status/1943109195865428086

 

 

[BudBro 181]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Are you really comparing the placebo effect to the birth of a child?

Not "a" child.  Your scepticism was regarding one particular child.

[BudBro 181]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Doesn’t the Bible say you should be humble?  I guess the “IQ world record holder” didn’t read that part

https://x.com/yhbryankimiq/status/1943109195865428086

You seem animus.

[TimHauck 2,858]

8 minutes ago, BudBro said:

Not "a" child.  Your scepticism was regarding one particular child.

I’m skeptical about any child born from a virgin prior to the invention of artificial insemination.  Are there any others?

[BudBro 181]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I’m skeptical about any child born from a virgin prior to the invention of an artificial insemination.  Are there any others?

Meh.  There are written accounts from witnesses to the birth, to include the mother and the earthly father of Jesus.  It isn't something we can recount for you outside of your interest in pursuing the case.  I think you were a believer that the covid jabs were actual vaccinations.  So, it's wise we not spend too much time indulging your inner troll.