Found interesting interpretation: Is Satan a biblical metaphor for science?

[DetlefK]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-compelling-reasons-to-consider-switching-to-satan/

6 reasons to worship Satan: #1: He's maybe a metaphor for science.



This got me thinking:

1. If he was indeed the serpent in the Garden Eden, he's the reason why we are capable of critical thinking and know the difference between good and evil. He is the reason why we are capable of questioning God, of looking for alternate explanations, of shedding the protected, static life of a pet in Garden Eden for the risky, exciting life of a self-determined intelligent being in the real world.

2. What about the story of Job?
Jehovah: "Hey Satan, this Job is a really big fan of mine."
Satan: "He only likes you because you gave him all this stuff."
Jehovah: "No way, he likes me for my personality."
Satan: "Let's test this."
It is Satan who proposes a test to determine whether someone else's claim is true. Jehovah is the establishment, the tried and true, the old way, the unquestioning belief. Satan is the one whose curiosity shakes this up.

3. The temptation of Christ:
- Satan tempts Jesus Christ to turn stones into bread. This might be hint to a cultural meme that was, back then, only a few millennia old: The beginning of an agrarian society. In the past, people had to forage for food. With the agrarian society, barren earth (stone) was turned into food. (Jesus' answer: That would be futile. Man needs physical and spiritual food.)
- Satan tempts Jesus Christ to test whether God would save him if he jumped of a roof. (Jesus' answer: You are not supposed to test God.)
- Satan tempts Jesus Christ to break with God and worship Satan by promising him rulership over all kingdoms of Earth. How is Satan even capable of making that offer? By what authority? Unless... Unless the kingdoms are a metaphor for the material realm, for the world of the mortals. Satan is capable of offering the material realm to Jesus Christ because he's a metaphor for something deeply connected to the material realm, whereas Jehovah represents the spiritual realm. Satan promises Jesus Christ rulership over the material realm if he worships science and abandons spirituality.

[cbayer]

1. Sometimes cracked gets it right, but this is just lame.

The basic premise that there is some huge conflict between religion and science is so faulty that the rest of the article is just silly.

But it is humorous in parts.

[trotsky]

2. I don't think it's productive to simply put on blinders and say there is no conflict...

between religion and science.

Science is simply a method of acquiring knowledge. It's never going to accept the answer of "because god did it." Yet at the core of any religion that postulates a creator type god, that's the ultimate answer. That's a conflict, and to pretend that it doesn't exist, as you do, is pretty naive.

[zazen]

5. but it accepts "because the big bang did it". . . which is a faith-based first cause

I think you're confusing the conflict between particular adherents of fundamentalist faiths and critical thinkers throughout the ages (who may have identified as 'natural philosophers' before the 20th century), as well as contemporary confrontational atheistic apologia, with the relationship between faith and critical inquiry (what you call religion and science).

The two are not only compatible but interrelated to many of us, so essays like this seems kind of silly. Science is ideological too (and an incredible human achievement) and requires a lot of faith, as most philosophers, rhetoricians and sociologists of science will tell you.

And I don't know of any vibrant faith that accepts an ultimate answer as "because god did it" and stops there. Faith is a living, daily, present kind of thing. Anything that rests on a presumed certainty without openness to faith/god/flow/inspiration/ in the present moment is dead, be it what you call science or what you call religion. In fact, methodological openness, particularly in qualitative research, is much like active spiritual faith. Read something on phenomenological research methods and it sounds like Buddhist or Christian mystical meditation in terms of being open to what you don't yet know (which some call that God's will or infinite reality or scientific truth). All entail suspending assumptions while accepting that you're fallibly, inevitably blind in some ways and always will be. But you keep trying, in the present. That's why atheistic certainty is as dead, and boring, as Pat Robertson and the 700 Club. Bleh.

But as to historical conflict among people doing all sorts of things in the name of one thing or another--no question that's real.

[trotsky]

7. Thanks for your post.

This is a great book that addresses some misunderstandings about science and the big bang you may have:
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168

[zazen]

3. +1; I usually like Cracked too and wonder how this high school piece made it through n/t

[DetlefK]

4. Of course there is a conflict between science and religion!

There are no limitations to the religious beliefs a person holds or to the total number of religions in a population. Indeed it seems to me that each believer has his individual set of beliefs and only uses "official" religion as a backdrop when he's forced to deliver a justification for this or that part of his beliefs.

However there are limitations to the overall number of scientific theories (mathematical constraints) and to the number of scientific theories that can be considered true at a given time ("correspondence-principle", all scientific theories are connected).



Two members of two religions make two conflicting religious claims. How can this conflict be settled? There are two ways: 1. Ignore each other. 2. Kill each other.

Two adherents of conflicting scientific theories make two conflicting claims. How can this conflict be settled? There is one way: They make an experiment. The guy who was wrong admits that he was wrong.



Religion depends on faith. Faith depends on the innecessity of outside-input.

Science depends on doubt. Science stagnates without permanent outside-input.



Religion claims to have all the answers but doesn't permit questions.

Science has all the questions but is never satisfied with an answer.

[cbayer]

6. I agree that each individual believer has their individual set of beliefs.

Why would that be a problem? I think the same holds for non-believers.

Just because science is limited (a position you are taking with which I don't necessarily agree) and you see religion as unlimited does not mean they are in conflict. They are just very different constructs

There is is third option when two members of two religions make conflicting religious claims. They can recognize that religious views can be very different and very individual, shake hands and then try to find their common ground. I like to use the blind men and elephant analogy here.

And as I am sure you know, there can be a very solid scientific finding that is completely reversed by new data. It's not nearly as absolute as you paint.

Faith and doubt can go hand in hand and can be found in both religion and science. Both stagnate without outside input.

Your definitive statements about religion and science are quite dogmatic and fail because they are so rigid. In fact, your ideas are much more inline with religious beliefs than with science, which would allow for outside input and never be satisfied with an answer.

[trotsky]

8. The nature of a religious claim is different than the nature of a scientific claim.

If you don't (or won't) see a difference there, there isn't much else to be said.

Not every claim to knowledge is equal, no matter how much you wish that could be the case.

[DetlefK]

11. Please cite examples.

"They can recognize that religious views can be very different and very individual, shake hands and then try to find their common ground."

Please cite an example where members of a religion have modified their religion to accommodate members of another religion in order to achieve a peaceful co-habitation.



Religion knows doubt only as an obstacle to be overcome, while science holds doubt as a permanent virtue. I don't know one religious story where a character switches from belief to doubt and stays there.

[cbayer]

14. I did not say that they modified their beliefs, only that they recognize

that others have differing, but valid, religious beliefs.

Now, I know that is hard for some people who look at religion in a fundamentalist way to understand that, but it's the case.

There are many interfaith groups, some of which include believers and non-believers, who are working together to accomplish common goals.

I grew up in a community where people of different religions worked together both formally and informally.

You speak so definitively about what religion is, yet you are so wrong.

Where did those ideas come from? Do you have a lot of experience and exposure to a variety of religions and religious people?

Doubt is a critical part of religion for many. They don't see is as an obstacle, they see it as a challenge and an opportunity to explore and grow. For many, including some who post here, doubt is a permanent virtue.

Finally, there are stories posted here all the time about people who have deconverted. There is a very active national group that provides support and other things to clergy who have become non-believers (called the Clergy Project). You don't need a story, there are actual individuals out there, and many here.

[okasha]

24. The Episcopal Church is now in full communion

with the Eastern Orthodox and Lutheran (ELCA) Churches.

[Act_of_Reparation]

9. I'm pretty sure Satan wasn't a metaphor.

People felt the need to explain why bad shit happened to good people. Your options were, I suppose, accept that the universe is chaos and that tragedy is essentially unavoidable, or you could chalk it up to an entity who, at best, is a kind of indifferent prosecutor.

[DetlefK]

13. You overlooked one thing: Satan does not do evil deeds.

Satan is declared evil for being in opposition to God. What other evil deeds can you bank on him?

God is the one responsible for death, genocide, destroying cities, ruining people's lifes, killing babies...

[Act_of_Reparation]

25. No, I haven't.

I never said Satan was evil. Though he is characterized differently throughout the different books of the Bible, he was for a time, in the Jewish tradition, seen as something more akin to a prosecutor than a malefactor. This is especially the case in the Book of Job, wherein Satan stands alongside God and makes the case for mankind's unworthiness. At Satan's challenge, God runs Job through the ringer.

The character you describe is Lucifer. Though Satan and Lucifer are often used interchangeably, this is a relatively recent and decidedly Christian invention, dating to around the 4th century or so.

[SheilaT]

10. Ummm, back when that stuff was written

science as we know it simply did not exist. So suggesting Satan as a metaphor for science is betraying a profound ignorance of the history of science. Unless it's intended to be tongue-in-cheek.

[DetlefK]

12. "Science as we know it."

What is at the heart of science? Critical thinking, doubt, independent analysis. That is exactly what the biblical teachings are fighting.
- "Knowing the difference between good and evil is bad."
- "Don't doubt God."
- "Don't try to verify what I told you about God."

[SheilaT]

15. My point is, the sort of critical thinking

we know of as science really wasn't around a couple of thousand years ago, and more when the collection of writings, originally oral traditions, that we now call the Bible, came about.

As I understand it, the Old Testament simply codifies a long oral tradition among a specific group of people. The New Testament, the Koran, and the Book of Mormon are specifically intended to bind together other groups of people in the set of beliefs/teachings set out in each book.

[DetlefK]

17. Critical thinking didn't exist back then?

You assume that people weren't capable of making the thought "I don't believe that, I better find out myself?"

Many ancient religions have some sort of Jester-god, a figure that goes against conventions and is subsequently punished. (Although I can only think of Loki and Prometheus as examples right now.) Satan is a figure like that, a character that allows to explore the anathema to the divine order in a controlled setting.

[Promethean]

18. Sun Wukong

He rebelled, was punished, then reformed.

Coyote and Anansi were tricksters and occasionally fell into their own pranks but were generally regarded as teachers with a sense of humor.

Hindu mythology I suggest looking up the story of Vamana. I forget the name of the demon king he tricked but it fits the theme.

Cu Chulainn (not a god but still fits) started as a violent berzerker but after committing a crime he was sentenced to service and learned discipline.

[SheilaT]

19. Critical thinking as we know it -- as we are both applying in this exchange --

sure as heck didn't exist in any systematic way several thousand years ago. They simply substituted one magical belief for another one, as in when monotheism replaced pantheism, or when one monotheistic religion substituted another.

People did make the thought "I don't believe that, I better find out myself" but they often went to another non-rational concept. It wasn't Jews poisoning the wells, it was bad air that made people ill. It wasn't the dead ancestors who caused disease, but evil spirits not connected to the ancestors. Your crops failed because you made a god angry. No, it was a witch who put a curse on you, causing the crop failure.

A jester god is not the same as rational, scientific thinking. It's just another kind of god who interferes in human lives, making everything that happens random and subject to the whims of some god or jester or spirit or something that the humans have absolutely no power over. Satan is simply another whimsical creature that humans have no control over. He does not represent rational, scientific thinking. Thinking about him is nothing like exploring the divine order in a controlled setting. He is just another one of the things that humans can't hope to control.

We have the germ theory of disease. Many people in Africa do not. Among the reasons Ebola has spread as it has there is that many there believe that disease is a punishment for something you or your ancestors did. They haven't the concept of the germ theory. They don't understand contagion the way we do. They have funeral practices, which include cleaning out all the orifices of the dead person, which are guaranteed to spread Ebola.

When your world view is totally rooted in the idea that you have absolutely no control over things, you have almost no way of stepping outside that and thinking critically, in a way we'd call scientific. Yes, you can try very hard, because you are not stupid, but you just don't have the tools. All you can really do is try to imagine some other thing, over which you also have no control, that explains the world.

Think about astrology. It makes enormous sense if you have no idea just how far away the stars and planets are, or what they actually are in the first place. But you see them every single night of the year, and it's not hard to associate them with events that happen. To move from that association to prediction is quite logical. Now that we understand much more about them, hardly anyone still believes in astrology.

Until we had microscopes, it was just about impossible to understand how diseases happened, and even today there are supposedly educated people who don't "believe in" the germ theory of disease. With all due respect to our ancestors, they really weren't thinking as we do.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. really it did. You should review the history of science in western civ.

Here is a clue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_in_classical_antiquity

[skepticscott]

23. Tell that to Socrates

or Eratosthenes...or Aristarchus...or Hipparchus...or Ptolemy...or Euclid..or Pythagoras...etc., etc.

You weren't really serious, were you? You were just kidding, right?

[Warren Stupidity]

20. You had a marginal point originally.

The current methodology of scientific inquiry, call it "the scientific method" didn't exist circa 100-300ce. However scientific inquiry certainly did, and you blew up your point with your expansionary claim that critical thinking didn't exist.

[Prophet 451]

16. I actually do worship Satan

(although I prefer the name Lucifer). From the beginning, god has wanted to keep us unknowing, shameful, unquestioning, he has viewed us as pets and, more often, as the spouse he can abuse at will, a spouse so psychologically broken that they love their abuser through it all. Like any abusive spouse, he demands the unquestioning adoration of his victim.

Lucifer, as the snake, gifted us the knowledge of good and evil, the capacity for moral self-determination, to make our own decisions and go from "thou shalt not" to "I will not". It is Lucifer who is the light-bringer, the morning star, the bringer of enlightenment. I pray to him for enlightenment every morning and night. Lucifer may or may not be used as a metaphor for science but he is the deity who encourages questions, inquiry, free-thinking.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. If one could manage to convince me that any of this stuff is real, 'God' is not the side I would

choose.

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. and you forgot one other thing...

Eve ate from "the tree of knowledge"....if that isn't a metaphor for science!

[Warpy]

27. And did not die that day

so it seems god lied and Satan told the truth.

[arcane1]

28. Exactly. Pretty much the first thing either of them did.