Science and religion

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 12:59 am
@jack phil,
I notice that several of the protagonists in this debate have very clear-cut, dare I say stereo-typical, ideas of what religion is and does. And maybe those ideas are accurate insofar as they apply to many of the social forms that religion takes in the world today, insofar as it consists of 'what goes on in Church'.

But there is something entirely new that is happening. Nobody knows what it is, because nothing like it has ever happened before. Yeah, yeah, New Age, I hear you say. But what if it really is a new age? I mean, humanity is at a crisis point; nothing of what we are seeing now has ever happened before. We're not in the Old Stone Age, where it took several hundred thousand years to work out a different way of chipping flints. Now we have decoded the genome, split the atom, and photographed the Big Bang. Yet most of our ways of thinking about 'science and religion' are rooted firmly in the last several hundred years - mired in it, bogged in it. Most of the belief vs unbelief tennis match is based on an outmoded religiosity which is the target of an outmoded atheism. What is happening is a global change in consciousness. Yeah, yeah, I know, New Age. Crystal stores and 'What the Bleep'.

I suppose that is a digression, or a footnote, to the historical analysis approach. But it needed saying.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 01:14 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;173731 wrote:
I notice that several of the protagonists in this debate have very clear-cut, dare I say stereo-typical, ideas of what religion is and does. And maybe those ideas are accurate insofar as they apply to many of the social forms that religion takes in the world today, insofar as it consists of 'what goes on in Church'.

But there is something entirely new that is happening. Nobody knows what it is, because nothing like it has ever happened before. Yeah, yeah, New Age, I hear you say. But what if it really is a new age? I mean, humanity is at a crisis point; nothing of what we are seeing now has ever happened before. We're not in the Old Stone Age, where it took several hundred thousand years to work out a different way of chipping flints. Now we have decoded the genome, split the atom, and photographed the Big Bang. Yet most of our ways of thinking about 'science and religion' are rooted firmly in the last several hundred years - mired in it, bogged in it. Most of the belief vs unbelief tennis match is based on an outmoded religiosity which is the target of an outmoded atheism. What is happening is a global change in consciousness. Yeah, yeah, I know, New Age. Crystal stores and 'What the Bleep'.

I suppose that is a digression, or a footnote, to the historical analysis approach. But it needed saying.


The digital revolution is something serious. That's clear to me. The speed of information is something. Videos can speak volumes, and now we all can more sensually-emotionally share our experiences. The letter kills. The video gives half-life? Yes, I think we have outmoded religiosity and atheism is some cases. And I have been through both. Thesis : religion. Antithesis: hatred or suspicion of all religion. Synthesis: discovering that religion hides a true kernel beneath the hypocrisy and confusion. Of course the husk is entirely unnecessary really. That stroke victim was simply thrown into the unusual experience and didn't mind leaning on a metaphor (nirvana) while mostly just expressing her experience in terms of brain hemispheres. As you know, her lingual system was impaired. And she experienced the continuity of sensation and emotion. Perhaps a fusion of science and the kernel hidden in religious tradition is ideal. And I don't mean "what the bleep?" Unless something is felt, all the propositions are utterly pointless, or so it seems to me. And those with the experience will want to share the experience, I think, and not just cosmological theories.
Or crystals! Smile
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 01:29 am
@jack phil,
Jeeprs, what did you think I was arguing against earlier in this thread?

jeeprs wrote:
Ah! I get it! This is from the same formidable school of argumentation that compares God to Captain Crunch and Mickey Mouse! What can I do, I can see I am outclassed in all respects. I think I will just declare myself defeated and go off to lick my wounds.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 01:37 am
@jack phil,
I never did work that out. I lost you when you brought up, what was it, 'fairy floss' or 'cotton candy' or whatever it was.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 01:41 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;173745 wrote:
I never did work that out. I lost you when you brought up, what was it, 'fairy floss' or 'cotton candy' or whatever it was.


Is this clear, or doesn't it make any sense? I don't mean that sarcastically. If there is anything you need clarified, I am here.

Zetherin wrote:
My point is only that the claim that modern science is related to, or is a direct result of, Christianity, is not supported by modern science becoming popularized in a Christian society. Because, as we know, many things have become popularized in Christian societies, including, I believe, cotton candy. And so to say that all those things are all directly related to Christianity is not only wrong, but silly.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 03:09 am
@jack phil,
I understand the logical fallacy I think you are referring to, which is post hoc ergo propter hoc, roughly, 'after therefore because of'. But I don't think you have presented any kind of argument for it. The Christian intellectual tradition encompassed all aspects of natural philosophy including physics and cosmology. It contained within it most of what we still know about Greek philosophy as well. It was central in the formation of the Universities and played a pivotal role in the whole of Classical education. It was out of this milieu that modern science was born. It is an historical argument rather than a philosophical one but I think a very strong argument nonetheless.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 03:38 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;173754 wrote:
I understand the logical fallacy I think you are referring to, which is post hoc ergo propter hoc, roughly, 'after therefore because of'. But I don't think you have presented any kind of argument for it. The Christian intellectual tradition encompassed all aspects of natural philosophy including physics and cosmology. It contained within it most of what we still know about Greek philosophy as well. It was central in the formation of the Universities and played a pivotal role in the whole of Classical education. It was out of this milieu that modern science was born. It is an historical argument rather than a philosophical one but I think a very strong argument nonetheless.


I thought you were claiming what I said above. But it seems that is not what you are claiming. You have other reasons for why you think modern science has a relationship with theism.

What I think was going on was that, because you think I have a vendetta against theism, I was immediately dismissing the possibility that modern science was influenced, in some way, by religion. Is this right? If so, that was not the case. I was simply pointing out that, because modern science popularized in a Christian society, it doesn't follow that modern science was the result of Christianity.

I do not know the history, so I can't say either way. But I will take your word for it.

Do you still feel anger towards me, or do you understand better now?
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 03:57 am
@jack phil,
Yes I understand. If I feel anger towards anybody, yourself included, it is my bad, as kids say nowadays. I have owned up before, I have a chip on my shoulder in this matter. I will attempt to try and not react like that.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 04:37 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;173760 wrote:
Yes I understand. If I feel anger towards anybody, yourself included, it is my bad, as kids say nowadays. I have owned up before, I have a chip on my shoulder in this matter. I will attempt to try and not react like that.


Nah, it's fine. Personally, I have no problem with people getting hot-headed. I get hot-headed, too, and I would suspect most thinkers from time to time do. You can't expect everyone to be amicable all of the time. But as long as we can continue to talk rationally and maturely, that's all that matters.

Anyway, glad we cleared up that misunderstanding.
 
prothero
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 12:23 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;173754 wrote:
I understand the logical fallacy I think you are referring to, which is post hoc ergo propter hoc, roughly, 'after therefore because of'. But I don't think you have presented any kind of argument for it. The Christian intellectual tradition encompassed all aspects of natural philosophy including physics and cosmology. It contained within it most of what we still know about Greek philosophy as well. It was central in the formation of the Universities and played a pivotal role in the whole of Classical education. It was out of this milieu that modern science was born. It is an historical argument rather than a philosophical one but I think a very strong argument nonetheless.
I think it is really monotheism, the notion of one god, of one unifying force that contributes to modern science.
It is also the Greek notion of logos (reason) being the fundamental principle on which the universe is based.
Most early scientists in studying the universe thought they were doing gods work, discovering the unifying principles god used in making the world.

It should be apparent that animism or polytheism are not as conducive to a scientific quest for unifying principle.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 03:45 pm
@jack phil,
prothero;173846 wrote:
I think it is really monotheism, the notion of one god, of one unifying force that contributes to modern science.
It is also the Greek notion of logos (reason) being the fundamental principle on which the universe is based..


I wonder if you noticed the prior post:
jeeprs;173579 wrote:

So, Prothero, maybe this is what happened to your 'rational, purposeful intelligence'. Such thinking was declared impudent paganism by the nominalists who insisted that God needed in no way to conform to man's sense of what is rational. 'What is good is good not in itself, but simply because God wills it. Thus while today God may save the saints and damn the sinners, tomorrow he may do the reverse' (Gillespie, p23). While faith in the inscrutable, all-powerful God remained, we earthlings simple confined ourselves to the observation of physical realities through natural philosophy, up to the point where God became 'a ghost in his own machine' and his existence was deemed superfluous. Ta-da. Welcome to modernity.


I think the book I mentioned, Theological Origins of Modernity, gives a very convincing account of the historical development of materialism.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 03:53 pm
@jack phil,
I think any time I hear someone argue that modern science has religion (mostly Christianity) as it's basis and that modern science never would have originated without christian influence is simply a fallacy.

There have been scientists that were either murdered or imprisoned for making discoveries that contradicted the biblical beliefs. I think at certain times, you were forced to claim you were christian or faced prosecution. Or you couldn't publish anything unless you professed that you were christian. So I don't think chrisitanity influenced modern science but instead it was people questioning the validity of christian thought and discovering that the beliefs were inaccurate. But would this of happened without Christianity? Of course it would because we want to know how and why things happen in the ways that they do. The only difference is, Christianity tries to claim it has knowledge of how and why, but time and time again it is proven wrong.
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 04:03 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;173908 wrote:
I think any time I hear someone argue that modern science has religion (mostly Christianity) as it's basis and that modern science never would have originated without christian influence is simply a fallacy.


But it's true Krumple. Just like the reform of oil well safety originated in the oil spill in the gulf.

(what cultural elements lead to innovation is an interesting and complicated study. China was incredibly innovative for a long time, but shut itself off. Other cultures didn't have the necessary resources. Europe's innovation was driven by constant infighting. In any case I don't see how it is a feather in the cap of Christianity that modern day science had its roots in Europe. And anyway, didn't they base a lot on the Greeks, Romans, and Muslims? I remember reading that the discovery of classical writings and books brought back from the Crusades sparked the Renaissance in Europe)
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 04:04 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;173915 wrote:
But it's true Krumple. Just like the reform of oil well safety originated in the oil spill in the gulf.

(what cultural elements lead to innovation is an interesting and complicated study. China was incredibly innovative for a long time, but shut itself off. Other cultures didn't have the necessary resources. Europe's innovation was driven by constant infighting. In any case I don't see how it is a feather in the cap of Christianity that modern day science had its roots in Europe. And anyway, didn't they base a lot on the Greeks, Romans, and Muslims? I remember reading that the discovery of classical writings and books brought back from the Crusades sparked the Renaissance in Europe)


It's true that modern science never would have come to be without Christianity?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 04:06 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;173915 wrote:
But it's true Krumple. Just like the reform of oil well safety originated in the oil spill in the gulf.

(what cultural elements lead to innovation is an interesting and complicated study. China was incredibly innovative for a long time, but shut itself off. Other cultures didn't have the necessary resources. Europe's innovation was driven by constant infighting. In any case I don't see how it is a feather in the cap of Christianity that modern day science had its roots in Europe. And anyway, didn't they base a lot on the Greeks, Romans, and Muslims? I remember reading that the discovery of classical writings and books brought back from the Crusades sparked the Renaissance in Europe)


Well the point I was making is that if a majority of the people (who are recognized as early scientists) were Christians then no matter what form of thinking arises would be considered to have christian influence. It is not christian influence that causes scientific endeavors, it's the lack of support to the christian claims which motivates people into researching the support. But this would have happened regardless of Christianity.
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 04:08 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173916 wrote:
It's true that modern science never would have come to be without Christianity?


That was sarcasm ;p
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 04:12 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;173920 wrote:
That was sarcasm ;p


Oh, sorry, didn't see it! Got me. Damnit, see how easy tone can be misinterpreted?!
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 04:13 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173923 wrote:
Oh, sorry, didn't see it! Got me. Damnit, see how easy tone can be misinterpreted?!


Yeah I didn't catch it either.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 06:21 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;173908 wrote:
There have been scientists that were either murdered or imprisoned for making discoveries that contradicted the biblical beliefs. I think at certain times, you were forced to claim you were christian or faced prosecution.



Got any examples?
 
reasoning logic
 
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 06:29 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;173973 wrote:
Got any examples?


I do not know this to be a fact but I suspect that it may even be present today. [you were forced to claim you were christian or faced prosecution]

This may be a poor example but I doubt that a president could be elected if s/he said he was a atheist. Would you vote for him?:surrender:
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/22/2024 at 03:06:28