Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I would disagree with your statement about religion, on the grounds that Cosmos itself is inherently religious. The word religion just means the search for our origins, which is exactly what Cosmos (and science in general) is all about. There is nothing supernatural or mythological implied, and the failure of rational, scientifically-oriented people to embrace the term only further encourages its abuse by extremists.


I refuse to get dragged into a silly debate about semantics; the context of my use of the word religion is quite clear and is well-accepted meaning as the word relates to organized religions which believe in the mythological.


This is one of the things that bothers me about HN. 'silly debate about semantics'. The meaning of words are important. Especially here on HN and on the internet in general where the meaning of words is all we have.

The religion v science dichotomy is quite prevalent here. Your suggestion that 'science' isn't belief in the mythological might not hold up so well given that 'science' today means expecting what comes from 'scientists' and bears little resemblance to classical science where anyone could reproduce the results.

Science has become so specialized, so expensive that you have to accept on faith that studies are true, or accept on faith the studies supporting the original or refuting it. Almost no one has the actual means to verify what we call science now.

If religion is based on faith, then it is hard to argue that science hasn't become a religion.


Sure Science has become where spezialized and you personally can't reproduce every result from every sientist but what we can do is WAY WAY WAY better than just accepting it on faith the same way some people accept that god created earth in 7 days. What I mean is that we have to use the same word for both things but that does not mean that the two things are the same.


I understood what you meant. That said, there are good reasons for why most contemporary religious scholars don't use the word that way. Besides the political reasons I mentioned, it also prevents one from understanding the majority of the world's religious traditions and modern religious movements. To think about the word the wrong way leads one to completely misunderstand (or worse, ignore) large swaths of the human experience, and some very important parts at that. (E.g. rock concerts, festival culture, entheogenic drug use, etc.)

I know you can get away with it on HN because most people don't actually care, but there legitimate reasons for why it actually matters.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: