Deviation Actions

AmericanDreaming's avatar

The Kingdoms With Open Borders

From "Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow" (2015) by Yuval Noah Harari. See my review Here.

If religion and science are two separate kingdoms, then the borders have been shifting, and science keeps steadily gaining territory. Reflect for a moment on the fact that every incursion of religion in scientific territory has ended in retreat. Religion still holds territory to be sure, but the repeated collisions have been rather one-sided.

EDIT 5/22/21: cleaned up some blotches in the background.

See more in my Yuval Noah Harari folder.
Image details
Image size
1920x1080px 1.28 MB
© 2018 - 2021 AmericanDreaming
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Orcsattack's avatar

Pardon me, but does Yuval Noah Harari actually consider those statements as 100 % facts, or is he ridiculing religious fanatics for believing that way?

Snyarhedir's avatar

I am spiritual and scientific, and all I can say is, they had me until, "The Bible was written by a deity rather than by humans." (If it were possible to lose me even more, it was with, "The Pope is never wrong.") What a crackpot.

GreenandBlueStorys's avatar

The funny thing is science says Gravity is only an 2000 year old invention despite the Romans knowing of it hundreds of years before... And in the Tankakh Genesis predicts it's invention by a thousand years by predicts the formation of the solar system and Earth... I never heard a non religious scientist acknowledge it or how Universes are formed.

JuniorS89's avatar
Me, being a Protestant, would never agree with ‘the pope is never wrong’ attitude. This is especially true, when what the Pope says goes against Scripture. This was why the Protestant Reformation happened in the first place. The Pope was getting too power hungry and Martin Luther had to put him in his place. In all honesty, I think there shouldn't even be a Pope. The Pope can most certainly be wrong and has been wrong on multiple occasions, in fact there probably are some Popes that have died that didn't make it to heaven after passing.

I agree with your other three points: ‘God exists’, ‘the soul is punished for its sins in the afterlife’, ‘the Bible was written by a deity rather than by humans’; I don't have a problem with. It's that fourth point that I disagree with. The Pope can be wrong, has been wrong, is currently wrong, and will be wrong in the future. In fact, I think The Pope shouldn't exist and needs to be done away with. That's how I feel about it.

Those are not the only truth claims that Christianity makes. It makes other truth claims, like: ‘the study of nature and the study of Scripture should agree with each other’. That would've been a better fourth one than ‘the pope is never wrong’. Just saying. Okay!!

Good quote and I hope you don't mind my friendly criticism of it. Not trying to be mean, just being critical and skeptical.
I am always open-minded and changes do still need to be made to the Catholic Church. Amen!!
Changes need to be made to the Protestant and Orthodox churches too. Amen!!
I would like to own a copy of *Mere Christianity* by CS Lewis
---------------------------------------------------------------------- with love from a fellow (nerdy) Christian. 
LordDarkfinst's avatar
That is a beautiful citation.
I totally agree with this!
pperelman's avatar
First: If there WERE a god, there would be only ONE religion, ONE belief. Not hundreds of denominations and religions that currently exist today!  

Factual claims are not facts! 

Religion will change with time science will NOT. 

Quote from a song by Theater of Tragedy.
"If you believe...

Believe?! If you believe you are... gullible.
Can you look around this world and believe
in the goodness of a god who rules it?
Famine, Pestilence, War, Disease and Death!
They rule this world.

There is also love and life and hope.

Very little hope I assure you. No. If a god
of love and life ever did exist... he is long
since dead. Someone... something rules in his

Famine, Pestilence, War, Disease and Death! - these are FACTS. God existence -  it is a claim.  
GreenandBlueStorys's avatar

Why? Do you claim to know God's motives?

FoxGrins's avatar
I see what you are trying to say in regards to the "one god/one religion" thing but thats not neccisarily so. See, different cultures will percieve a god or gods as different things or their language barrier may make it so that they mean the same god entirely but have given it a different name, i find this true for many pagan religions where they worship more than one diety.

I do agree though, that if god was the way the abrahamic faiths paint him out to be and everything, he wouldnt have to hide behind his irritating little mouth pieces on earth and have people all live by a very demented messed up man made book.

To me, there are gods, but they aren't entirely dogmatic and are rather the greater aspects of nature we as humans can't overcome, such as forces of life, death, disaster. And i associate these aspects of our world with traditionally pagan gods simply because that is more rational given human and earthly records than, one massive temper tantrum throwing abrahamic 'god"
pperelman's avatar
ONE god "created" this planet inhabited by different races of people. ONE god "created" people of different races. ONE god "controls" it all. 
Please do NOT tell me different people see god through different lens.
There is no god as we NEED to it be . There is god  that we WANT it to be. There is a huge difference between need and want. 
If god truly existed all our NEEDS would have been slaked.
Wants can NOT ever be slaked.  
FoxGrins's avatar

There's zero reason why one god is more logical than multiple gods, if they exist.

Im telling you people see it differently because they do. Some cultures view gods as simply powerful forces of nature and dont have dogmatic principles. Others believe in god which is highly dogmatic, others believe in karmatic god(s) that judge their actions in life, etc.

I was simply giving you cultural fact. Not trying to say you are right or wrong for your belief. Just that you were factually wrong.
GreenandBlueStorys's avatar

Also why can't they coexist? ... study it long enough like I have and you'll see most religions are right in there own why. It's just most people don't want to see the whole picture only there part of it.

AnduRoYT's avatar
some religions will not change , certain religions say , that their book is in the final form (nothing can be chaged ) (as far as i know) , but let's assume that they will.

Science will change , A century ago , science thought that radioactivity was not dangerous , it was used in medicine , but now , we know it is dangerous
pperelman's avatar
Do not exaggerate science and make it sound like it a fool's game. 
Science gave human the ability to recognize god and make his THE source of FEAR. 
The science will NEVER change. 
The 2+2 will ALWAYS = 4. Remember that!  
AnduRoYT's avatar
Well science DOES change , now a long time it thought radiom was good to drink , now well... NO . many scientific facts (what we thought was happening ) have changed 

Why does it change , becouse it is self-correcting
FoxGrins's avatar
The point is though, with your example alone, that radioactivity has always been dangerous, it wasn't dangerous one day and then suddenly stopped when we said "oh hey thats not a good idea" or on the other side it was never safe and then suddenly became dangerous to us.

Facts are what they are in standalone scenarios regardless of whether humans want to take those facts or not. The earth is still a sphere and has always been a sphere despite the fact early man claimed it flat and ignorant delusional humans today still try to claim that.
AnduRoYT's avatar
i think i exprimed myself worng , i meant : "Science thought that radioactivity it was harmless , but now it it does not ,even if it was always harmfull"
FoxGrins's avatar need to stop thinking of science as a human creation. Science is just the study of present facts/ using observable methods to study the natural world. 

-Humans- thought radioactivity was safe at one point, not science. it was through human realization after studying what was already there that -humans- came to the conclusion radioactivity is not safe. 

There's a reason science doesn't prove god, because god doesn't exist. 
AnduRoYT's avatar
Well science & the scientific method IS a human creation/discovery . but ill give you the point.

Science IS self-correcting , science said that it is good , but it has self-corrected , and now , it does not say that it is good . if it was not ,  we whould still have radium drinks…
FoxGrins's avatar
Ok thats better than saying science is made up at least. But facts will be facts and that doesn't change. Our discovery of them may, but what was already there never does. Unlike god and religion.
AnduRoYT's avatar
I dont think you get my point , science can change and self-correct , maybe even the scientific method if we find a better one. the facts don't change , but science discovers the truth (or something close to it , because we can't be 100% sure) 

Now tell me , does the bible (or any religiuos book) change it's words , from magic? NO.

But science does self-correct , like the radioactivity case 
View all replies
You know whats funny that alot of renown scientist are in fact religous. But to me well science its just a answer as to how god created the world not from nothingness.
Greatkingrat88's avatar
That's a common claim by apologists. Which, of course, ignores that most of these renowned scientists lived in a time where it was socially or even legally unacceptable to not be religious, in a time when religion was the only game in town when it came to explaining the world.
You are right sir this reminds me of the anti -protestant era where chatolics where pissed at christians for not following the pope so they decided to persecute all who where crishtians who denounced the pope and its teachings. You may be asking why did i gave you that info right? Many countries are different some were crazy others not, heck even albert einstein was a believer in some sort of religion and he had a choice lol
Greatkingrat88's avatar
I'm familiar with the catholic-protestant struggle, which is at its heart deeply political. The kings of Europe wanted the riches and lands of the church and resented its control over them, and as such chose the teachings of Martin Luther over the catholic church; a reform spurred by politics moreso than the religion itself. It started with Henry VIII of England and spread quickly across the northern half of Europe, although ironically it was not until the cruel treatment of protestants by Queen "Bloody" Mary I of England, a catholic, that protestantism took deep roots in the country (she had them burned at the stake).

As for Einstein, he deeply resented the appropriation of his words by religious apologists. He used god as a metaphor, not one of literal belief in a deity.
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In