Science does nullify religion, because it keeps pushing it to the boundaries. Scientific progress forces religion to continuously change its discourse and even its most basic definitions, like "God". I have never heard two Christians give the same definition of that very fundamental concept (supposedly).
Lately I've posted a couple of times about the trick that religious intellectuals like Jordan Peterson use nowadays. That is, they use in their discourse the most sophisticated and abstract conceptualizations and explanations to justify religion and God, as a device to produce the headline "It's hereby demonstrated", so the common believer who didn't understand anything and doesn't really want to anyway, can simply applaud and quote when confronted. Even though he is really being told that his idea and belief in god as learnt from his family and his church is completely false.
Jordan Peterson's argument is that atheists like Dawkins are dishonest because they attack a series of strawmen, namely, the anthropomorphic god that intervenes in human affairs, and the belief in the scriptures as literal. Peterson's argument is that because those two things are false, the atheist argument is moot.
I would say sustaining that there is no such thing as a human-like interventionist god, and that the Bible is just a bunch of metaphors that talk about psychology and should never be read as literal, are pretty much classic anti-religious ideas, and closer to what atheists have been saying forever than to what the vast majority of religious people believe.
If instead of religious types, it was some other group who acted like that, we would dismiss them as dishonest for "moving the goalposts". But because Americans, basically, still drag around this cultural bag, we continue to tiptoe around the idea and intellectuals keep torturing their discourse to avoid making the US mainstream upset.
It is possible to hold beliefs that are not scientifically provable while still acknowledging and respecting the role of science in understanding the natural world. Thus science may nullify religion, but it doesn't mean there is now superintelligence or religious power. Thinking science can nullify religion, basically means that science is a religion.
Thread collapsed
The part of the episode that touched on god was very short.
Thread collapsed
That is because the modern single-god religions are about control. They justify the control buy explaining reality. That naturally clashes with science and common sense. A religion should be focused instead on the common values, virtues and culture. That is not something that has a quantifiable truth.
Thread collapsed
