Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9023 total)
49 online now:
AZPaul3, CosmicChimp, jar, PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 44 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 882,693 Year: 339/14,102 Month: 339/294 Week: 95/136 Day: 14/33 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Catholics are making it up.
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 878 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 12 of 506 (768149)
09-08-2015 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
09-08-2015 3:47 AM



The current pope is making changes to the rules of being a Catholic.

Last week he said that priests could forgive those who have had abortions - previously impossible; this week he says that divorced Catholics can remarry; previously impossible without a papal annulment, remember Henry VIII?

Catholics now allow married priests that have switched from other beliefs of the Christian franchise into the Catholic priesthood - though existing Catholic priests may not marry (but for how long, given the massive decline in new priest recruits?) Many years ago it stopped being a 'sin' to eat meat on friday and it became a matter of 'conscience' whether a Catholic used birth control - but only in the educated West of course.

Back in 2007, the then pope did the most extraordinary thing of abolishing limbo - the place where babies that haven't been baptised had been sent for over 800 years instead of heaven, hell or purgatory.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...-of-limbo-after-800-years.html

So, religions make stuff up and change their beliefs to suit the times they operate in. What pragmatic, flexible corporations, these religions are. One wonders just what else they might have made up......


One big problem is that Roman Catholicism has proclaimed Tradition (including official prououncements of the RCC) to be authoritative and inerrant, on an equal footing with Scripture. If RCC proclamations are inerrant, they shouldn't change over time. Yet they do.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 09-08-2015 3:47 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Dredge, posted 09-28-2017 6:15 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 878 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 38 of 506 (768199)
09-09-2015 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tangle
09-09-2015 4:59 AM


Tangle writes:

NoNukes writes:


Yes, the argument is serious. I want to know why for you the abandonment of the plumb pudding model as completely wrong headed is not worthy of the same ridicule as the abandonment of Limbo? Why is it reasonable not to question the entire scientific edifice when a strongly held idea is discarded.
There is nothing inherently wrong with abandoning an idea that turns out to be wrong regardless of how long it was held or how preciously it was respected. Yes, we should question why a wrong headed belief was held for so long, but the mere fact that things have changed is alone no indictment of the current state.

The entire premise for science is that it's only what we know so far - it's always subject to change when better evidence is found. Religion on the other hand claims to be the 'truth', popes are claimed to be infallible. Well some truths appear not so true and popes are, after all just people. Game over.


But the whole purpose of religion is to know and relate to a God who cannot be fully known; there is always something new to learn about God. And the three "revealed" religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam work from Scriptures which cannot be fully known; there are always new truths hidden in their depths. Just as science progresses and improves its understanding of nature, so theology progresses and improves its understanding of Scripture.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tangle, posted 09-09-2015 4:59 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Tangle, posted 09-09-2015 9:53 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 878 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(3)
Message 52 of 506 (768226)
09-09-2015 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Tangle
09-09-2015 9:53 AM


Tangle writes:


Nothing can be learned about God - no-one has exceptional knowledge or even *any* knowledge of god.


Says you.
Tangle writes:


Revealed religion is not knowledge, it's subjective opinion. The point this thread is making is that religions make stuff up to suit them - as is demonstrated when they change their minds about it. Scripture is not immune to this process, it too is manmade, made up and changed and interpreted to suit.


Says you.

But you have not addressed my point, which was a tag-on to NoNukes. You have no problem with science changing, and probably even consider this to be a good thing (as do I). So why do you object to change in theology?


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Tangle, posted 09-09-2015 9:53 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 09-09-2015 3:45 PM kbertsche has responded
 Message 58 by Tangle, posted 09-10-2015 4:08 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 878 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 56 of 506 (768233)
09-09-2015 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Taq
09-09-2015 3:45 PM


Taq writes:

kbertsche writes:

But you have not addressed my point, which was a tag-on to NoNukes. You have no problem with science changing, and probably even consider this to be a good thing (as do I). So why do you object to change in theology?


I find it strange that the words of an omnipotent and omniscient deity would turn out to be wrong.

I agree with you. This would not only be strange, it would be self-contradictory.

Taq writes:

At least with science we admit that we are not all knowing nor all powerful, and build skepticism right into the process.


Agreed, at least in principle. (In practice, scientists like Richard Dawkins are often overly dogmatic and do not convey a sense of skepticism or tentativeness.)

Taq writes:

However, religion claims absolute morality based on absolutely being right, and in the most dogmatic sense.


Perhaps, to varying degrees in various religions.

But I don't see how your comments have any bearing on my point. To oversimplify a bit, theology is our human interpretation of divine revelation. If we decide that a previous interpretation was wrong, and we change our interpretation, why do you find this objectionable? Especially if you praise the same process in science?


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 09-09-2015 3:45 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 878 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 81 of 506 (768294)
09-10-2015 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Tangle
09-10-2015 4:08 AM


Tangle writes:

The point I'm making is that when religions drop long held doctrines, they expose themselves to the obvious criticism that they were wrong about what they previously described as a truth. The comparison with science is not valid - science is a search for knowledge from evidence and its finding are admitted to be tentative and subject to change. Religions are dogmatic - believe this or go to hell.


You've never come across scientists who are dogmatic?!?
You've never come across religious believers who are humble?!?

Science is man's attempt to understand nature. Theology is man's attempt to understand God and holy Scripture. Both understandings are necessarily incomplete and subject to correction and improvement. Serious students of both disciplines readily admit this.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Tangle, posted 09-10-2015 4:08 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 09-10-2015 3:18 PM kbertsche has responded
 Message 91 by Tangle, posted 09-10-2015 4:50 PM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 878 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 95 of 506 (768316)
09-10-2015 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
09-10-2015 3:18 PM


Faith writes:

kbertsche writes:


You've never come across scientists who are dogmatic?!?
You've never come across religious believers who are humble?!?


In the case of Biblical revelation it is NOT humble to subject it to fallible human scrutiny. THat's in fact the opposite of humility.

Agreed; I was not trying to imply this. Humility is a Christian virtue and a fruit of the Spirit. True Christian believers should have an attitude of humility.

Faith writes:

kbertsche writes:


Science is man's attempt to understand nature. Theology is man's attempt to understand God and holy Scripture.


I don't think so. Not Christian theology. It's an attempt to understand what God has revealed in scripture. Your way of putting it implies something more like working in the dark to come up with something that convinces us.

I'm not trying to imply that Christians are working in the dark; I certainly don't believe this. I agree with you that Christian theology is our "attempt to understand what God has revealed in Scripture". I was trying to word things a bit more generally, to include other religions as well as Christianity.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 09-10-2015 3:18 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 878 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 96 of 506 (768318)
09-10-2015 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Tangle
09-10-2015 4:50 PM


Tangle writes:

kbertsche writes:


You've never come across scientists who are dogmatic?!?


Huh? It's irrelevant how individual scientists behave; the practice and strucure of the discipline are built around knowledge being tentatively aquired and subject to better information based on evidence.

Have you never come across entire scientific sub-disciplines which exhibit extreme dogmatism? Individual behavior often carries over to groups. The history of science is full of examples. Nearly every scientific revolution has had to fight dogmatic resistance from those who held to the old paradigm.

Tangle writes:

kbertsche writes:


Both understandings are necessarily incomplete and subject to correction and improvement. Serious students of both disciplines readily admit this.


That is completely wrong. The religious have certainty of belief. Have you never read Faiths posts? The bible is the inerrant word of god, the church's teaching are correct and you err at the peril of your soul.

Don't scientists have certainty of some things as well? Do you think that scientists are certain of nothing?!?

I don't think Faith would say that any church's teachings are necessarily correct, even her own. History teaches us otherwise. No church has ever been completely correct.

Religious believers may be certain about some foundational elements of their faith, just as scientists are certain about some foundational elements of their science. But if they are honest and thoughtful, religious believers will also admit that some of their views may be wrong and may change in the future.

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Tangle, posted 09-10-2015 4:50 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2015 8:57 PM kbertsche has responded
 Message 111 by Tangle, posted 09-11-2015 2:39 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 878 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 99 of 506 (768330)
09-10-2015 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by NoNukes
09-10-2015 8:57 PM


NoNukes writes:

Scientists and science branches that behave in this way are rightly criticized.


Agreed; I'm just trying to point out that dogmatism exists in science as well as in religion.

NoNukes writes:


Tangle has expressed the idea that religious doctrines must be nothing short of the absolute truth at all times. He also leaves no room for any legitimate way for religion to progress towards truth. In my view, both prepositions are simply preposterous standards to set for any human endeavor and I reject them out of hand absent an argument to the contrary.


Agreed. He wants to apply very different standards to each endeavor.

NoNukes writes:


We don't condemn all of physics simply because, for example, Einstein was resistant to quantum mechanics, or because his peers were reluctant to let go of Galilean time-space concepts. But there is also no need to elevate poor behavior either.


I am certainly not trying to elevate poor behavior. Rather, I'm trying to point out that poor behavior exists in science as well as in theology. Tangle seems to have an unrealistically high view of science and an unrealistically low view of theology and religion.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2015 8:57 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 878 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 109 of 506 (768379)
09-11-2015 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Faith
09-10-2015 10:09 PM


Re: TRVTH?
Coyote writes:

Tangle has expressed the idea that religious doctrines must be nothing short of the absolute truth at all times.


Faith writes:

Tangle is right. But EvC is full of "liberal" religionists who are always willing to change God's revelation to suit their version of science or political correctness or whatever. Or even not bother to change it, just ignore it.


Faith, consider the following:
1) Luther made strong statements in support of geocentrism. Calvin arguably also supported geocentrism. But nearly all Christians today deny geocentrism.
2) John Whitcomb was comfortable with a creation as much as 10,000-15,000 years old. But nearly all YECs today insist that it can't be much more than 6,000 years old.
3) Many of the pro-YEC arguments that I heard as a youngster are now on ICR's and AIG's lists of "arguments that should not be used".
4) B.B. Warfield supported a version of theistic evolution. But most reformed believers today who are his theological descendants completely deny theistic evolution.
5) Serious Christians (even in your own Reformed branch of Christendom) have different views on a huge variety of topics: eschatology, types of music allowed in worship, role of women in church leadership, etc.

The fundamental, primary, essential doctrines of the Christian faith don't change. But secondary, non-essential doctrines DO change. This is not necessarily a bad thing.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 09-10-2015 10:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 09-11-2015 12:08 PM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 2:08 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 878 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 136 of 506 (768586)
09-12-2015 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
09-12-2015 2:08 AM


Re: TRVTH?
Faith writes:

I don't think any of those ideas can be convincingly defended from scripture but are imposed on it by one degree or another of self-deception due to worldly influences.


I agree. But we all live in the world and are subconsciously influenced by it in many ways.

In Galileo's day, the academic establishment held to geocentrism due to their reliance on Plato and Aristotle. Everyone "knew" that geocentrism was true. So the theologians saw geocentrism in Scripture as well. Galileo caused both the academy and the church to re-examine their views, and both decided that their previous interpretations were wrong.

The Reformation likewise caused a re-examination of previous biblical interpretations and a conclusion that some interpretations had been incorrect.

Isn't it possible that we still hold to some wrong interpretations through subconscious worldly influences, and that we will eventually decide these interpretations are incorrect? Haven't you seen this in your own life as you've grown in faith?


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 2:08 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 10:23 PM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 878 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 139 of 506 (768681)
09-13-2015 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Faith
09-12-2015 10:23 PM


Re: TRVTH?
Faith writes:


I'm not getting you KB.


That's because you've got it in your mind that I'm "liberal". I'm not.

Faith writes:


How can you agree that self-deception is the explanation of liberal positions you yourself hold? For instance you certainly disagree with the 6000 year old earth, and I forget how you put it all together but you apparently accept some form of evolution, oh yes, I think I remember: the death of animals before Adam and Eve? But those would of course be the liberal deceptions I'm talking about.


If this is your measure of "liberal", then I am less "liberal" than B.B. Warield. And about as "liberal" as Charles Hodge and James Boice. I don't think one's view of the age of creation is a very good metric by which to gauge "liberal" or "conservative".

Faith writes:


You also think Kim Davis should issue licenses for gay marriage as if there is no conflict with biblical revelation in your mind. That's a boggler to me of course and a clear case of being guided by worldly influences rather than scripture.


If issuing licenses would truly violate her conscience, then she should resign rather than issuing the licenses. But if she can do it without violating her conscience, she should probably do so.

I view civil marriage as mainly a civil contract, with rules set by the state. Civil marriage is not necessarily biblical marriage. Most Christians view their public church wedding, not the signing of civil papers, as their "real" wedding. (I would strongly oppose any efforts to force churches to officiate gay weddings, of course.)

I think my position on this is a "boggler" to you because you have accepted Calvin's view of church and state, which would put the state under biblical law. My own view is more along the lines of Luther and Augustine; we are members of two separate "kingdoms".

Incidentally, the Puritans had seen the problems that Calvin's view caused in England and (fortunately) broke from their theological forebear when they set up the US as a secular state, specifically NOT under any church.

Faith writes:


So, sure, I can agree in principle that any of us could be deceived by worldly influences but there isn't any problem judging which is biblical and which is worldly influence in the examples so far given and I can't even think of another that might be questionable.


I'm not sure that Warfield, Hodge, or Boice would agree with you that their views were "worldly" rather than "biblical".

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 10:23 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 09-13-2015 2:12 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 878 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 176 of 506 (768827)
09-14-2015 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
09-14-2015 4:17 AM


Re: The Delusions of Religion's Accomodation
Faith writes:

All I'm going to say is that there would not have been universities or universal education if it hadn't been for Christianity. All the great universities of Europe for instance, and Harvard was founded to train Christian pastors, and most of the other great universities of America were founded for Christian education as well. The education of children was begun in America to teach them to read so that they could read the Bible.


More to the point, it can be argued that there would not be modern science without Christianity. Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Maxwell, Faraday, etc. were motivated by their Christian convictions to develop modern science. Without Christianity we would arguably still be stuck with Greek science.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 09-14-2015 4:17 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Faith, posted 09-14-2015 12:23 PM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 180 by Omnivorous, posted 09-14-2015 12:40 PM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 878 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 185 of 506 (768854)
09-14-2015 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Omnivorous
09-14-2015 12:40 PM


Re: The Delusions of Religion's Accomodation
Omnivorous writes:

kbertsche writes:


More to the point, it can be argued that there would not be modern science without Christianity. Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Maxwell, Faraday, etc. were motivated by their Christian convictions to develop modern science. Without Christianity we would arguably still be stuck with Greek science.

They stood on the shoulders of Greek giants, and the Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers who rescued those thinkers from the church, as well as the contributions of Islamic scholars.


Yes, I agree.

Omnivorous writes:


What the scientists you named most enjoyed was a lack of suppression from religious authority.


This grossly understates the situation. As I said, these pioneers of modern science were motivated by their Christian convictions to develop modern science. It's not just that they had a conducive environment to pursue science (which they did); they also had strong personal Christian convictions which motivated them to do science.

As Ian Barbour wrote (Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966), 48):

quote:
Without belittling advances that occurred elsewhere, one can say that seventeenth-century England was the turning point in the history of science, and that the Puritans were its chief agents. Seven out of ten members of the Royal Society were Puritans--a ratio far out of proportion to the population as a whole; most of the virtuosi were active churchmen, and many of the clergy encouraged or themselves took part in scientific pursuits.

(note: "virtuosi" was the term used for "scientists" in the seventeenth century)

Edited by kbertsche, : Added Barbour quote


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Omnivorous, posted 09-14-2015 12:40 PM Omnivorous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Omnivorous, posted 09-14-2015 1:48 PM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 878 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 187 of 506 (768859)
09-14-2015 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Omnivorous
09-14-2015 1:48 PM


Re: The Delusions of Religion's Accomodation
Omnivorous writes:


Scientists of many faiths do brilliant work, and I'm sure many of them will describe their passion for knowledge in spiritual or near-spiritual terms; members of your list, as men of their time and place, would have spoken in Christian terms.


But these early scientists were not simply products of their environment. They tended to be MORE devout that their contemporaries, as Barbour's quote shows. Newton, for example, wrote more on theology than he did on science. He did not just use Christian terminology; he spent considerable time and effort to do theology.

Omnivorous writes:


Now, more than ever, science is international and cosmopolitan. I see no reason to believe that Christian scientists out-achieve those of other faiths or atheists.

All successful scientists have strong convictions which motivate them to do science. Even if you demonstrate the scientists on your list had strong Christian convictions, you won't have demonstrated that those motivations were the sine qua non of their achievements.


Agreed.

Omnivorous writes:


This is a silly game, played out of parochial pride, and unworthy of the labors and sacrifices of all great thinkers, Christians or not. I'll not play it further.


I'm not playing a "game". I am reminding folks of the history of modern science. It is a historical fact that modern science arose based in part on the convictions of devout Christians.

We can't say for sure what science would look had Christianity not arisen. This is hypothetical and speculative. But what we CAN say for sure is that modern science DID arise from Christianity.

The history of modern science clearly counters AZPaul3's claim that "the history of religion, all religion, is one of poisoning relationships between individuals, communities and nations, stifling intellect and advancement and enslaving the mind, the spirit and the soul of all humanity."


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Omnivorous, posted 09-14-2015 1:48 PM Omnivorous has acknowledged this reply

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 878 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 197 of 506 (768907)
09-14-2015 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Faith
09-14-2015 3:38 PM


Re: western science
Faith writes:


As I've always understood it, the biblical framework, which presents a law-giving God and a basically RATIONAL understanding of nature, history and reality, contrary to popular prejudice today, was both a motivator and the catalyst to the DEVELOPMENT of the empirical and experimental approach to scientific questions. Once the perspective and the method were established others could also do it and do it well.

Yes, I think that's part of it. They expected an unchanging, faithful God to be consistent in the way He operated His creation; they expected the creation to follow laws that God had set up.

In Barbour's book, "Issues in Science and Religion" (pp. 44-50), he details a number of unique, biblically-motivated attitudes which the Puritan "virtuosi" had:
1) “interest in nature for its own sake,” as coming from the hand of a rational God.
2) the conviction that “the details of nature can only be known by observing them.” Since God was free to create nature in any way He wished, it is impossible to know its details by philosophical arguments from first principles (as the Greeks tried to do).
3) “an affirmative attitude toward nature,” believing that there is something good about the world which God so purposefully created.
4) “the Protestant ethic” which was the Reformation view that “secular” work was no lesser in the eyes of God than purely “religious” vocations.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 09-14-2015 3:38 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021