[SEQ RERUN] Religion's Claim to be Non-Disprovable

post by Tyrrell_McAllister · 2011-06-28T02:54:09.504Z · score: 5 (6 votes) · LW · GW · Legacy · 3 comments

Today's post, Religion's Claim to be Non-Disprovable, was originally published on 04 August 2007. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

Religions used to claim authority in all domains, including biology, cosmology, and history. Only recently have religions attempted to be non-disprovable by confining themselves to ethical claims. But the ethical claims in scripture ought to be even more obviously wrong than the other claims, making the idea of non-overlapping magisteria a Big Lie.

Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).

This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, in which we're going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order, so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Belief as Attire, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.

Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.

3 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by [deleted] · 2011-06-28T16:30:16.213Z · score: 5 (5 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

There is a broken link when Eliezer links to scientific claims (the section where is talking about the Bible making falsifiable claims that are, in fact, falsified). There is no cached Google copy of this, but the Internet archive has a copy here.

comment by zntneo · 2011-06-28T18:03:51.090Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

This is one of the posts that i wish everyone in the skeptical community would read.

comment by [deleted] · 2011-06-28T03:20:00.668Z · score: 4 (6 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

This is one of my favorite posts in the MAMQ sequence. If there were one improvement I would make it would be this: explicitly state (and repeat several times) that religious beliefs must make predictions or else they aren't really explaining anything and are just empty Mysterious Answers. This is heavily implied and even mentioned, but for the sake of clarity I wish it were stated outright.