Evolution

macpatti

You're looking at things through a Judeo-Christian lens.

C.S. Lewis? Seriously? I love Narnia, but he should have stuck to fiction. His non-fiction "philosophy" is terrible. He believes that pride is evil. Sorry...I don't buy into his stuff. Is what you say about nature being there to serve and be manipulated by us part of his theory, or is that your own? Either way, again, there's that Judeo-Christian lens coming into play. I personally don't see nature as something that exists purely to serve and be manipulated by us. A lot of Eastern religions early teachings also do not advocate being "above" nature, but instead, co-existence.

The Western world does in fact rely on religious systems in terms of our laws, principles, etc.That doesn't make it right. Laws change. Nations change. Or, maybe, they EVOLVE.

Of course I'm looking at this through a Judeo-Christian lens, as you are looking at it through your own lens. Do you think your presuppositions don't influence your reasoning? To avoid being arbitrary and uncritical, we should carefully examine our lens and how fully and convincingly it accounts for the data we are observing. I think the Christian one, when correctly understood, works pretty well. I don't find that to be the case with atheism.

Concerning C. S. Lewis, ridiculing him doesn't refute him. Have you read his treatment of pride? I find it quite powerful, actually. In any case, even if you don't like his examination of one subject that doesn't mean you've refuted everything he has written.

I was describing his theory presented in his book, "The Abolition of Man." If you personally "don't see nature" as something to be manipulated by us, how do you see it. Do you accept Eastern religions? Why didn't science arise there? I suggest it is because the far eastern religions see nature as an illusion to be overcome through training the mind to become "one" with the one supreme reality beyond the illusion of this life. No real science can be born there since the world of our experience is not taken as "real." My point in bringing up Lewis' book was to point out the inability of science to ground morality. A major point I made earlier was that science is inherently limited in what it can explain. One of the things it cannot explain is moral value. Why shouldn't the powerful use the weak for those own purposes? However you answer that question you will not be using the scientific method to answer it.

Indeed laws change. I hope the fundamental principles the inform our changing legal codes don't change, however. I hope it never becomes a "value" to kill the innocent, dishonor our commitments, and disrespect our elders.

I'm disappointed that most of the primary points I've raised have been lost. Do you grant that science makes use of presuppositions that it cannot prove (as all serious philosophers of science admit)? If so, what justifies your "faith" in those presuppositions? What about final causality? Why does math work when applied to the sensory world? Why isn't it interesting to you that the world follows the laws of logic? Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that the world is governed by logic? Isn't logic proper to a mind? Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that there is a logical mind governing this world? Why not? Science can't answer these questions.

(sorry for any typos; I'm typing from my phone)

adrian_indy

You're looking at things through a Judeo-Christian lens.

C.S. Lewis? Seriously? I love Narnia, but he should have stuck to fiction. His non-fiction "philosophy" is terrible. He believes that pride is evil. Sorry...I don't buy into his stuff. Is what you say about nature being there to serve and be manipulated by us part of his theory, or is that your own? Either way, again, there's that Judeo-Christian lens coming into play. I personally don't see nature as something that exists purely to serve and be manipulated by us. A lot of Eastern religions early teachings also do not advocate being "above" nature, but instead, co-existence.

The Western world does in fact rely on religious systems in terms of our laws, principles, etc.That doesn't make it right. Laws change. Nations change. Or, maybe, they EVOLVE.

Of course I'm looking at this through a Judeo-Christian lens, as you are looking at it through your own lens. Do you think your presuppositions don't influence your reasoning? To avoid being arbitrary and uncritical, we should carefully examine our lens and how fully and convincingly it accounts for the data we are observing. I think the Christian one, when correctly understood, works pretty well. I don't find that to be the case with atheism.

Concerning C. S. Lewis, ridiculing him doesn't refute him. Have you read his treatment of pride? I find it quite powerful, actually. In any case, even if you don't like his examination of one subject that doesn't mean you've refuted everything he has written.

I was describing his theory presented in his book, "The Abolition of Man." If you personally "don't see nature" as something to be manipulated by us, how do you see it. Do you accept Eastern religions? Why didn't science arise there? I suggest it is because the far eastern religions see nature as an illusion to be overcome through training the mind to become "one" with the one supreme reality beyond the illusion of this life. No real science can be born there since the world of our experience is not taken as "real." My point in bringing up Lewis' book was to point out the inability of science to ground morality. A major point I made earlier was that science is inherently limited in what it can explain. One of the things it cannot explain is moral value. Why shouldn't the powerful use the weak for those own purposes? However you answer that question you will not be using the scientific method to answer it.

Indeed laws change. I hope the fundamental principles the inform our changing legal codes don't change, however. I hope it never becomes a "value" to kill the innocent, dishonor our commitments, and disrespect our elders.

I'm disappointed that most of the primary points I've raised have been lost. Do you grant that science makes use of presuppositions that it cannot prove (as all serious philosophers of science admit)? If so, what justifies your "faith" in those presuppositions? What about final causality? Why does math work when applied to the sensory world? Why isn't it interesting to you that the world follows the laws of logic? Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that the world is governed by logic? Isn't logic proper to a mind? Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that there is a logical mind governing this world? Why not? Science can't answer these questions.

(sorry for any typos; I'm typing from my phone)

Eastern religions did have science. The asians had pyramids, gun powder, steel sword making techinques far superior to the west, agriculture, poetry and ar.....all with out Christianity. 2/3s of all the Stars have arabic names because the center for all science during the European Dark Ages was Bahgdad. They lost science and are in the midst of a long Dark Age because radical muslims declared that Math was the work of the Devil.

And the thought that just because science can't answer a question means there is a God isn't accurate. People used to think that volcanic eruptions and tidal waves were an angry God, so was pestilence. But now we know more about crust displacement and germs. Just because they don't know it yet doesn't prove the supernatural. Not being able to disprove something doesn't automatically mean it exists because we can't disprove Leprechauns, Minitoaurs, Cyclops, Unicorns, Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot, or Chupacabra.

KimmyEB

Of course I'm looking at this through a Judeo-Christian lens, as you are looking at it through your own lens. Do you think your presuppositions don't influence your reasoning? To avoid being arbitrary and uncritical, we should carefully examine our lens and how fully and convincingly it accounts for the data we are observing. I think the Christian one, when correctly understood, works pretty well. I don't find that to be the case with atheism.

I'm trying to NOT look through ANY lens, though. And as far as my "reasoning" goes, I try to see things objectively and REASONABLY, regardless of what I may feel or believe. It doesn't matter that YOU feel the Christian lens is the correct one. Can you prove it? To play Devil's Advocate, no one can, I suppose, prove Atheists have it right, either. But if you leave religion out ENTIRELY, not favoring it or going against it, look what it leaves you, in terms of studying evolution and how human life began. It leaves nothing but the search for the truth.

Concerning C. S. Lewis, ridiculing him doesn't refute him. Have you read his treatment of pride? I find it quite powerful, actually. In any case, even if you don't like his examination of one subject that doesn't mean you've refuted everything he has written.

I unfortunately had to do a paper earlier this year on what C.S. Lewis thought of pride. Researching him further tells me that he's an intelligent man, but guided almost solely by religion and very biased. Not bad traits to have, but he's writing for a target audience. You find his opinion of pride empowering, while I find it borderline insulting to the intelligence of his readers and downright pitiful. Kind of how I look at the hypocrisy of Ayn Rand. Nice when it's put on paper, not so much in the real world, and her bias against homosexuality and sex unravel her. I have no desire to read anything other than the Chronicles of Narnia from Lewis, unless I'm absolutely forced to. I'll try to find a summary of "Abolition of Man" and see how I feel about it, but if it's how you described, I'm pretty sure I won't like it.

I was describing his theory presented in his book, "The Abolition of Man." If you personally "don't see nature" as something to be manipulated by us, how do you see it. Do you accept Eastern religions? Why didn't science arise there? I suggest it is because the far eastern religions see nature as an illusion to be overcome through training the mind to become "one" with the one supreme reality beyond the illusion of this life. No real science can be born there since the world of our experience is not taken as "real." My point in bringing up Lewis' book was to point out the inability of science to ground morality. A major point I made earlier was that science is inherently limited in what it can explain. One of the things it cannot explain is moral value. Why shouldn't the powerful use the weak for those own purposes? However you answer that question you will not be using the scientific method to answer it.

I can't explain adequately how I see nature. But I can say for sure I don't see it as a toilet for humanity, and I know I'm not alone in that. I'm okay with manipulating nature to survive. I'm not okay with destroying it to the point that it's devoid of life. I LIKE a lot about Buddhism and Taoism, and agree with a lot of their teachings and theories and principles on a personal level, but I don't subscribe to everything from either of them. I personally don't know why science did not arise there, but at the same time, I doubt they were without any scientific thinking and reasoning, or that they didn't contribute. Also, to say that they see nature as an illusion is not entirely correct. It can be taken that way, but that's putting it far too simply. I do agree with your overall reasoning of why a lot of Eastern nations never "made it big" in science until relatively recently.

Indeed laws change. I hope the fundamental principles the inform our changing legal codes don't change, however. I hope it never becomes a "value" to kill the innocent, dishonor our commitments, and disrespect our elders.

Killing innocent people is murder. You're infringing on their right to life and harming them. Dishonoring commitments...that's personal for everyone. Disrespecting elders? Ehh. That's an opinion, that elders should be respected. There is no set law that you must respect your elders, nor should there be.

I'm disappointed that most of the primary points I've raised have been lost. Do you grant that science makes use of presuppositions that it cannot prove (as all serious philosophers of science admit)? If so, what justifies your "faith" in those presuppositions? What about final causality? Why does math work when applied to the sensory world? Why isn't it interesting to you that the world follows the laws of logic? Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that the world is governed by logic? Isn't logic proper to a mind? Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that there is a logical mind governing this world? Why not? Science can't answer these questions.

SCIENCE makes no use of presuppositions, proven or not. SCIENTISTS...as in PEOPLE, make presuppositions. And yes, a lot of people do it all the time. My "faith" isn't in someone's presuppositions, unless I can follow their reasoning and I'm able to come to the same conclusion. I also don't claim to know the answers. But when I learned about evolution in the classroom, I wasn't told "here's how we THINK this might have worked..." we were taught only what was already proven. I don't know if that's how every school works, and I'm not AGAINST them teaching unbiased theories.

macpatti

Of course I'm looking at this through a Judeo-Christian lens, as you are looking at it through your own lens. Do you think your presuppositions don't influence your reasoning? To avoid being arbitrary and uncritical, we should carefully examine our lens and how fully and convincingly it accounts for the data we are observing. I think the Christian one, when correctly understood, works pretty well. I don't find that to be the case with atheism.

I'm trying to NOT look through ANY lens, though. And as far as my "reasoning" goes, I try to see things objectively and REASONABLY, regardless of what I may feel or believe. It doesn't matter that YOU feel the Christian lens is the correct one. Can you prove it? To play Devil's Advocate, no one can, I suppose, prove Atheists have it right, either. But if you leave religion out ENTIRELY, not favoring it or going against it, look what it leaves you, in terms of studying evolution and how human life began. It leaves nothing but the search for the truth.

Concerning C. S. Lewis, ridiculing him doesn't refute him. Have you read his treatment of pride? I find it quite powerful, actually. In any case, even if you don't like his examination of one subject that doesn't mean you've refuted everything he has written.

I unfortunately had to do a paper earlier this year on what C.S. Lewis thought of pride. Researching him further tells me that he's an intelligent man, but guided almost solely by religion and very biased. Not bad traits to have, but he's writing for a target audience. You find his opinion of pride empowering, while I find it borderline insulting to the intelligence of his readers and downright pitiful. Kind of how I look at the hypocrisy of Ayn Rand. Nice when it's put on paper, not so much in the real world, and her bias against homosexuality and sex unravel her. I have no desire to read anything other than the Chronicles of Narnia from Lewis, unless I'm absolutely forced to. I'll try to find a summary of "Abolition of Man" and see how I feel about it, but if it's how you described, I'm pretty sure I won't like it.

I was describing his theory presented in his book, "The Abolition of Man." If you personally "don't see nature" as something to be manipulated by us, how do you see it. Do you accept Eastern religions? Why didn't science arise there? I suggest it is because the far eastern religions see nature as an illusion to be overcome through training the mind to become "one" with the one supreme reality beyond the illusion of this life. No real science can be born there since the world of our experience is not taken as "real." My point in bringing up Lewis' book was to point out the inability of science to ground morality. A major point I made earlier was that science is inherently limited in what it can explain. One of the things it cannot explain is moral value. Why shouldn't the powerful use the weak for those own purposes? However you answer that question you will not be using the scientific method to answer it.

I can't explain adequately how I see nature. But I can say for sure I don't see it as a toilet for humanity, and I know I'm not alone in that. I'm okay with manipulating nature to survive. I'm not okay with destroying it to the point that it's devoid of life. I LIKE a lot about Buddhism and Taoism, and agree with a lot of their teachings and theories and principles on a personal level, but I don't subscribe to everything from either of them. I personally don't know why science did not arise there, but at the same time, I doubt they were without any scientific thinking and reasoning, or that they didn't contribute. Also, to say that they see nature as an illusion is not entirely correct. It can be taken that way, but that's putting it far too simply. I do agree with your overall reasoning of why a lot of Eastern nations never "made it big" in science until relatively recently.

Indeed laws change. I hope the fundamental principles the inform our changing legal codes don't change, however. I hope it never becomes a "value" to kill the innocent, dishonor our commitments, and disrespect our elders.

Killing innocent people is murder. You're infringing on their right to life and harming them. Dishonoring commitments...that's personal for everyone. Disrespecting elders? Ehh. That's an opinion, that elders should be respected. There is no set law that you must respect your elders, nor should there be.

I'm disappointed that most of the primary points I've raised have been lost. Do you grant that science makes use of presuppositions that it cannot prove (as all serious philosophers of science admit)? If so, what justifies your "faith" in those presuppositions? What about final causality? Why does math work when applied to the sensory world? Why isn't it interesting to you that the world follows the laws of logic? Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that the world is governed by logic? Isn't logic proper to a mind? Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that there is a logical mind governing this world? Why not? Science can't answer these questions.

SCIENCE makes no use of presuppositions, proven or not. SCIENTISTS...as in PEOPLE, make presuppositions. And yes, a lot of people do it all the time. My "faith" isn't in someone's presuppositions, unless I can follow their reasoning and I'm able to come to the same conclusion. I also don't claim to know the answers. But when I learned about evolution in the classroom, I wasn't told "here's how we THINK this might have worked..." we were taught only what was already proven. I don't know if that's how every school works, and I'm not AGAINST them teaching unbiased theories.

This is all very convoluted. I will be happy to address all your points, but I'm not sure what we will accomplish. I will reply when I get home. I will also be happy to discuss CS Lewis, but this isn't the thread topic for that discussion.

macpatti

Of course I'm looking at this through a Judeo-Christian lens, as you are looking at it through your own lens. Do you think your presuppositions don't influence your reasoning? To avoid being arbitrary and uncritical, we should carefully examine our lens and how fully and convincingly it accounts for the data we are observing. I think the Christian one, when correctly understood, works pretty well. I don't find that to be the case with atheism.

I'm trying to NOT look through ANY lens, though. And as far as my "reasoning" goes, I try to see things objectively and REASONABLY, regardless of what I may feel or believe. It doesn't matter that YOU feel the Christian lens is the correct one. Can you prove it? To play Devil's Advocate, no one can, I suppose, prove Atheists have it right, either. But if you leave religion out ENTIRELY, not favoring it or going against it, look what it leaves you, in terms of studying evolution and how human life began. It leaves nothing but the search for the truth.

Concerning C. S. Lewis, ridiculing him doesn't refute him. Have you read his treatment of pride? I find it quite powerful, actually. In any case, even if you don't like his examination of one subject that doesn't mean you've refuted everything he has written.

I unfortunately had to do a paper earlier this year on what C.S. Lewis thought of pride. Researching him further tells me that he's an intelligent man, but guided almost solely by religion and very biased. Not bad traits to have, but he's writing for a target audience. You find his opinion of pride empowering, while I find it borderline insulting to the intelligence of his readers and downright pitiful. Kind of how I look at the hypocrisy of Ayn Rand. Nice when it's put on paper, not so much in the real world, and her bias against homosexuality and sex unravel her. I have no desire to read anything other than the Chronicles of Narnia from Lewis, unless I'm absolutely forced to. I'll try to find a summary of "Abolition of Man" and see how I feel about it, but if it's how you described, I'm pretty sure I won't like it.

I was describing his theory presented in his book, "The Abolition of Man." If you personally "don't see nature" as something to be manipulated by us, how do you see it. Do you accept Eastern religions? Why didn't science arise there? I suggest it is because the far eastern religions see nature as an illusion to be overcome through training the mind to become "one" with the one supreme reality beyond the illusion of this life. No real science can be born there since the world of our experience is not taken as "real." My point in bringing up Lewis' book was to point out the inability of science to ground morality. A major point I made earlier was that science is inherently limited in what it can explain. One of the things it cannot explain is moral value. Why shouldn't the powerful use the weak for those own purposes? However you answer that question you will not be using the scientific method to answer it.

I can't explain adequately how I see nature. But I can say for sure I don't see it as a toilet for humanity, and I know I'm not alone in that. I'm okay with manipulating nature to survive. I'm not okay with destroying it to the point that it's devoid of life. I LIKE a lot about Buddhism and Taoism, and agree with a lot of their teachings and theories and principles on a personal level, but I don't subscribe to everything from either of them. I personally don't know why science did not arise there, but at the same time, I doubt they were without any scientific thinking and reasoning, or that they didn't contribute. Also, to say that they see nature as an illusion is not entirely correct. It can be taken that way, but that's putting it far too simply. I do agree with your overall reasoning of why a lot of Eastern nations never "made it big" in science until relatively recently.

Indeed laws change. I hope the fundamental principles the inform our changing legal codes don't change, however. I hope it never becomes a "value" to kill the innocent, dishonor our commitments, and disrespect our elders.

Killing innocent people is murder. You're infringing on their right to life and harming them. Dishonoring commitments...that's personal for everyone. Disrespecting elders? Ehh. That's an opinion, that elders should be respected. There is no set law that you must respect your elders, nor should there be.

I'm disappointed that most of the primary points I've raised have been lost. Do you grant that science makes use of presuppositions that it cannot prove (as all serious philosophers of science admit)? If so, what justifies your "faith" in those presuppositions? What about final causality? Why does math work when applied to the sensory world? Why isn't it interesting to you that the world follows the laws of logic? Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that the world is governed by logic? Isn't logic proper to a mind? Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that there is a logical mind governing this world? Why not? Science can't answer these questions.

SCIENCE makes no use of presuppositions, proven or not. SCIENTISTS...as in PEOPLE, make presuppositions. And yes, a lot of people do it all the time. My "faith" isn't in someone's presuppositions, unless I can follow their reasoning and I'm able to come to the same conclusion. I also don't claim to know the answers. But when I learned about evolution in the classroom, I wasn't told "here's how we THINK this might have worked..." we were taught only what was already proven. I don't know if that's how every school works, and I'm not AGAINST them teaching unbiased theories.

Brett~ forgive the lack of quoting here. I don't have the time to do all that right now!



How do you know that by leaving out religion you are not leaving out a crucial source of information to explaining the big questions that humans want to understand? I know you are not trying to make use of a "lens" to understand reality but you still do so. Because you do not have all the relevant data all at once, you adopt some framework for interpreting/understanding everything. You can't technically "prove" world-view frameworks since they are theories of everything. In order to test them you would have to stand outside all reality and judge whether or not your worldview adequately accounts for everything. We can judge a worldview, though, in respect to its coherence and power to explain what we do know. That is what I meant when I said the Christian worldview explains reality quite well while I find atheism does not. The problem with atheism is not what can be explained by science but what cannot be explained without including principles or aspects of human experience that are beyond the methodology of science. I believe Christianity, when correctly understood, is the best theory of everything that we have and therefore I believe it is true. In order to get me to rethink that, you would have to show me an explanation that has greater explanatory power. Atheism is most definitely will not qualify for all the reasons I've indicated before (and more).

Concerning C. S. Lewis and pride, he uses the example of someone being upset because another person is noticed at a party. Do you think it is "good" for a person to be envious of those who are noticed? Do you think it is morally praiseworthy for a person to want to be the center of attention and be seen as "better" than everyone else? That, it seems to me, is what Lewis is focusing on in his treatment of pride. To argue that it is morally praiseworthy that a person always want to be seen as greater than what they really are seems highly objectionable.

On eastern religions, I understand why you want to believe "by faith" that they contributed to the rise of science, etc., but that is simply an ahistorical position. Science arose within western civilization permeated by Christian theological beliefs. I'm convinced that these beliefs provided the principles that allow for science (as already indicated) and have seen no historical "fact" that would indicated this is wrong.

The most interesting thing you said in your reply had to do with murder. You speak of a "right to life". Where does this "right" come from? Does science establish this "right"? How? I don't see how science can do any more than describe the functions of life. It certainly is incapable of explaining why life of any sort has a "right" to be. This is a perfect example of how science is limited and, in this case, incapable of grounding moral values. It is also a great example of how even atheists make use of moral principles that their worldview is incapable of justifying. You might revisit C. S. Lewis', "Mere Christianity," especially the first section, where he deals with this issue. I have never seen an atheist give a convincing answer to his moral argument. Am I also to assume that your reply indicates that you agree that the prohibition against murdering the innocent is a moral law that should always be valued?

Please think more about your claim that science does not make use of presuppositions. It most definitely does as philosophers of science readily admit. As already indicated, science uses induction and deduction as logical tools but does not first prove them to be valid. Science also assumes the accuracy of sense experience in giving us information about the world outside ourselves. Science cannot prove this before using the senses. How can you prove the senses give us accurate information without already using them? Science assumes the world is knowable, regular, orderly, predictable. Without this assumption the scientific method collapses. Your assertion that science does not use presuppositions is an assertion not supported by the evidence.

LuckyLeprechaun

we can't disprove Leprechauns

Ahem. I EXIST.

That is all. :laugh:

adrian_indy

Of course I'm looking at this through a Judeo-Christian lens, as you are looking at it through your own lens. Do you think your presuppositions don't influence your reasoning? To avoid being arbitrary and uncritical, we should carefully examine our lens and how fully and convincingly it accounts for the data we are observing. I think the Christian one, when correctly understood, works pretty well. I don't find that to be the case with atheism.

I'm trying to NOT look through ANY lens, though. And as far as my "reasoning" goes, I try to see things objectively and REASONABLY, regardless of what I may feel or believe. It doesn't matter that YOU feel the Christian lens is the correct one. Can you prove it? To play Devil's Advocate, no one can, I suppose, prove Atheists have it right, either. But if you leave religion out ENTIRELY, not favoring it or going against it, look what it leaves you, in terms of studying evolution and how human life began. It leaves nothing but the search for the truth.

Concerning C. S. Lewis, ridiculing him doesn't refute him. Have you read his treatment of pride? I find it quite powerful, actually. In any case, even if you don't like his examination of one subject that doesn't mean you've refuted everything he has written.

I unfortunately had to do a paper earlier this year on what C.S. Lewis thought of pride. Researching him further tells me that he's an intelligent man, but guided almost solely by religion and very biased. Not bad traits to have, but he's writing for a target audience. You find his opinion of pride empowering, while I find it borderline insulting to the intelligence of his readers and downright pitiful. Kind of how I look at the hypocrisy of Ayn Rand. Nice when it's put on paper, not so much in the real world, and her bias against homosexuality and sex unravel her. I have no desire to read anything other than the Chronicles of Narnia from Lewis, unless I'm absolutely forced to. I'll try to find a summary of "Abolition of Man" and see how I feel about it, but if it's how you described, I'm pretty sure I won't like it.

I was describing his theory presented in his book, "The Abolition of Man." If you personally "don't see nature" as something to be manipulated by us, how do you see it. Do you accept Eastern religions? Why didn't science arise there? I suggest it is because the far eastern religions see nature as an illusion to be overcome through training the mind to become "one" with the one supreme reality beyond the illusion of this life. No real science can be born there since the world of our experience is not taken as "real." My point in bringing up Lewis' book was to point out the inability of science to ground morality. A major point I made earlier was that science is inherently limited in what it can explain. One of the things it cannot explain is moral value. Why shouldn't the powerful use the weak for those own purposes? However you answer that question you will not be using the scientific method to answer it.

I can't explain adequately how I see nature. But I can say for sure I don't see it as a toilet for humanity, and I know I'm not alone in that. I'm okay with manipulating nature to survive. I'm not okay with destroying it to the point that it's devoid of life. I LIKE a lot about Buddhism and Taoism, and agree with a lot of their teachings and theories and principles on a personal level, but I don't subscribe to everything from either of them. I personally don't know why science did not arise there, but at the same time, I doubt they were without any scientific thinking and reasoning, or that they didn't contribute. Also, to say that they see nature as an illusion is not entirely correct. It can be taken that way, but that's putting it far too simply. I do agree with your overall reasoning of why a lot of Eastern nations never "made it big" in science until relatively recently.

Indeed laws change. I hope the fundamental principles the inform our changing legal codes don't change, however. I hope it never becomes a "value" to kill the innocent, dishonor our commitments, and disrespect our elders.

Killing innocent people is murder. You're infringing on their right to life and harming them. Dishonoring commitments...that's personal for everyone. Disrespecting elders? Ehh. That's an opinion, that elders should be respected. There is no set law that you must respect your elders, nor should there be.

I'm disappointed that most of the primary points I've raised have been lost. Do you grant that science makes use of presuppositions that it cannot prove (as all serious philosophers of science admit)? If so, what justifies your "faith" in those presuppositions? What about final causality? Why does math work when applied to the sensory world? Why isn't it interesting to you that the world follows the laws of logic? Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that the world is governed by logic? Isn't logic proper to a mind? Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that there is a logical mind governing this world? Why not? Science can't answer these questions.

SCIENCE makes no use of presuppositions, proven or not. SCIENTISTS...as in PEOPLE, make presuppositions. And yes, a lot of people do it all the time. My "faith" isn't in someone's presuppositions, unless I can follow their reasoning and I'm able to come to the same conclusion. I also don't claim to know the answers. But when I learned about evolution in the classroom, I wasn't told "here's how we THINK this might have worked..." we were taught only what was already proven. I don't know if that's how every school works, and I'm not AGAINST them teaching unbiased theories.

Brett~ forgive the lack of quoting here. I don't have the time to do all that right now!



How do you know that by leaving out religion you are not leaving out a crucial source of information to explaining the big questions that humans want to understand? I know you are not trying to make use of a "lens" to understand reality but you still do so. Because you do not have all the relevant data all at once, you adopt some framework for interpreting/understanding everything. You can't technically "prove" world-view frameworks since they are theories of everything. In order to test them you would have to stand outside all reality and judge whether or not your worldview adequately accounts for everything. We can judge a worldview, though, in respect to its coherence and power to explain what we do know. That is what I meant when I said the Christian worldview explains reality quite well while I find atheism does not. The problem with atheism is not what can be explained by science but what cannot be explained without including principles or aspects of human experience that are beyond the methodology of science. I believe Christianity, when correctly understood, is the best theory of everything that we have and therefore I believe it is true. In order to get me to rethink that, you would have to show me an explanation that has greater explanatory power. Atheism is most definitely will not qualify for all the reasons I've indicated before (and more).

Concerning C. S. Lewis and pride, he uses the example of someone being upset because another person is noticed at a party. Do you think it is "good" for a person to be envious of those who are noticed? Do you think it is morally praiseworthy for a person to want to be the center of attention and be seen as "better" than everyone else? That, it seems to me, is what Lewis is focusing on in his treatment of pride. To argue that it is morally praiseworthy that a person always want to be seen as greater than what they really are seems highly objectionable.

On eastern religions, I understand why you want to believe "by faith" that they contributed to the rise of science, etc., but that is simply an ahistorical position. Science arose within western civilization permeated by Christian theological beliefs. I'm convinced that these beliefs provided the principles that allow for science (as already indicated) and have seen no historical "fact" that would indicated this is wrong.

The most interesting thing you said in your reply had to do with murder. You speak of a "right to life". Where does this "right" come from? Does science establish this "right"? How? I don't see how science can do any more than describe the functions of life. It certainly is incapable of explaining why life of any sort has a "right" to be. This is a perfect example of how science is limited and, in this case, incapable of grounding moral values. It is also a great example of how even atheists make use of moral principles that their worldview is incapable of justifying. You might revisit C. S. Lewis', "Mere Christianity," especially the first section, where he deals with this issue. I have never seen an atheist give a convincing answer to his moral argument. Am I also to assume that your reply indicates that you agree that the prohibition against murdering the innocent is a moral law that should always be valued?

Please think more about your claim that science does not make use of presuppositions. It most definitely does as philosophers of science readily admit. As already indicated, science uses induction and deduction as logical tools but does not first prove them to be valid. Science also assumes the accuracy of sense experience in giving us information about the world outside ourselves. Science cannot prove this before using the senses. How can you prove the senses give us accurate information without already using them? Science assumes the world is knowable, regular, orderly, predictable. Without this assumption the scientific method collapses. Your assertion that science does not use presuppositions is an assertion not supported by the evidence.

Science did not arise because of Christianity. That is completely false. Logic, mathmatics, sciences, all Greek, Egyptian, Summerian, Babylonian, Middle Eastern, South American, all developed different sciences independently and often before Christianity, and in some cases before Judiasm. I'm not putting the blame on Christianity wholly, all religious extremism retards science.

macpatti

Science did not arise because of Christianity. That is completely false. Logic, mathmatics, sciences, all Greek, Egyptian, Summerian, Babylonian, Middle Eastern, South American, all developed different sciences independently and often before Christianity, and in some cases before Judiasm. I'm not putting the blame on Christianity wholly, all religious extremism retards science.

Two questions. First, did any of the civilizations you listed produce the scientific method? The answer is simply no. That is what I meant by "modern science." Ancient civilizations did discover particular scientific insights but they all lacked a method that allowed for a systematic scientific analysis of nature, hence their demise and highly limited scientific discoveries. That is why the modern scientific method is so dispoportionately greater in its positive effects than all prior scientific discoveries. Second, are any of the civilizations you mentioned secular or atheistic? You know they are not. What is your historical evidence for religion "retarding" scientific progress if every society you mentioned is steeped in religious beliefs? Doesn't it count that people like Newton and Kepler and countless others (that provide the foundation of modern science) linked their scientific discoveries to their belief in God as the cause of the orderliness and mathematical structure of nature? They explicitly make this link in their writings.

adrian_indy

Science did not arise because of Christianity. That is completely false. Logic, mathmatics, sciences, all Greek, Egyptian, Summerian, Babylonian, Middle Eastern, South American, all developed different sciences independently and often before Christianity, and in some cases before Judiasm. I'm not putting the blame on Christianity wholly, all religious extremism retards science.

Two questions. First, did any of the civilizations you listed produce the scientific method? The answer is simply no. That is what I meant by "modern science." Ancient civilizations did discover particular scientific insights but they all lacked a method that allowed for a systematic scientific analysis of nature, hence their demise and highly limited scientific discoveries. That is why the modern scientific method is so dispoportionately greater in its positive effects than all prior scientific discoveries. Second, are any of the civilizations you mentioned secular or atheistic? You know they are not. What is your historical evidence for religion "retarding" scientific progress if every society you mentioned is steeped in religious beliefs? Doesn't it count that people like Newton and Kepler and countless others (that provide the foundation of modern science) linked their scientific discoveries to their belief in God as the cause of the orderliness and mathematical structure of nature? They explicitly make this link in their writings.

First, as a matter of fact, when Newton was trying to account for all of the gravity in the Solar Sytem, he became stuck on one mathmatical problem that he came to think was an impossiblity to solve. He therefore announced that it was because God had designed it that way and gave up. Some one else soon solved the problem.

Second, there could have been no scientific method without these previous civilizations to build upon.

Third, the historical evidence of religious extremism leading to the retardation of science is
A: The European Dark Ages
B: The modern Middle East, a place where they lead Europe in scientific endeavors until Muslim Extremsim declared Mathmatics evil.
C. The current United States where modern religious zealots oppose the teaching of evolution, stem cell research, and want to teach children that man and dinosaurs walked together.

macpatti

First, as a matter of fact, when Newton was trying to account for all of the gravity in the Solar Sytem, he became stuck on one mathmatical problem that he came to think was an impossiblity to solve. He therefore announced that it was because God had designed it that way and gave up. Some one else soon solved the problem.

Second, there could have been no scientific method without these previous civilizations to build upon.

Third, the historical evidence of religious extremism leading to the retardation of science is
A: The European Dark Ages
B: The modern Middle East, a place where they lead Europe in scientific endeavors until Muslim Extremsim declared Mathmatics evil.
C. The current United States where modern religious zealots oppose the teaching of evolution, stem cell research, and want to teach children that man and dinosaurs walked together.

You are correct about Newton's attributing gravitational relationships to God but this is not what I was speaking of in my comments. I was talking about his overall orientation to reality that included a belief in a God who governs the world and this, for him, explained the mathematical ordering of the world. His particular explanations of gravity, etc., are not relevant to my point.

Your second point has nothing to do with what I was arguing. I don't know that the scientific foundations of prior civilizations were relevant at all to the emergence of the western scientific tradition but, even if they were, those civilizations did not produce the modern scientific method or approach to science. That was my point. Also, you didn't deny that these civilizations were also religious ones; they were not secular/atheistic.

Your third point is simply unfair. Are you willing to take responsibility for everything that has been said and done in the name of atheism? If you are claiming that religion can be abused, you will get no argument from me. To argue that religion necessarily retards science is to argue nonsense, I think.

Concerning "A," "Dark Ages" is a modern label that must ignore the insights of the Middle Ages to survive as a generalization. Many important "scientific" discoveries were made in the Middle Ages (just look at the still-standing Gothic Cathedrals). I don't know of any serious scholar of modern thought who does not acknowledge the deep debt of modern science to the great thinkers of the so-called "Dark Ages." The line between the "Dark Ages" and the Modern world is an arbitrary one, typically drawn with Descartes, Hobbes, Bacon and others. It is impossible to understand any of these thinkers without seeing the thinkers upon whom they depended, all from the Middle Ages.

Concerning "B," I have no interest in defending Islam. I am not a Muslim. I'm arguing for the positive influence of the Judeo-Christian tradition on the rise of modern science.

Concernign "C," again, how can you hold me responsible for all the so-called "zealots"? Do you want to defend Marx and his defenders, since he was an atheist? You must show that religion, by its very nature, is opposed to and hinders science. I deny that is the case. I argue the opposite. Religion, Christianity in particular, provides the worldview that provides the necessary foudational assumptions that allow science to appear and grow. If those principles are removed, the theoretical bases of science evaporate. I see nothing in what you have presented that undermines any major point I've made. I won't hold you responsible for the ignorant, ideological atheists I've met since I know that refuting such people does not mean atheism is false. If you show there are ignorant, inconsistent, and otherwise inconsistent Christians you have certainly not refuted Christianity. You've only shown that Christians can be ignorant and inconsistent. That's not really news, though.

adrian_indy

First, as a matter of fact, when Newton was trying to account for all of the gravity in the Solar Sytem, he became stuck on one mathmatical problem that he came to think was an impossiblity to solve. He therefore announced that it was because God had designed it that way and gave up. Some one else soon solved the problem.

Second, there could have been no scientific method without these previous civilizations to build upon.

Third, the historical evidence of religious extremism leading to the retardation of science is
A: The European Dark Ages
B: The modern Middle East, a place where they lead Europe in scientific endeavors until Muslim Extremsim declared Mathmatics evil.
C. The current United States where modern religious zealots oppose the teaching of evolution, stem cell research, and want to teach children that man and dinosaurs walked together.

You are correct about Newton's attributing gravitational relationships to God but this is not what I was speaking of in my comments. I was talking about his overall orientation to reality that included a belief in a God who governs the world and this, for him, explained the mathematical ordering of the world. His particular explanations of gravity, etc., are not relevant to my point.

Your second point has nothing to do with what I was arguing. I don't know that the scientific foundations of prior civilizations were relevant at all to the emergence of the western scientific tradition but, even if they were, those civilizations did not produce the modern scientific method or approach to science. That was my point. Also, you didn't deny that these civilizations were also religious ones; they were not secular/atheistic.

Your third point is simply unfair. Are you willing to take responsibility for everything that has been said and done in the name of atheism? If you are claiming that religion can be abused, you will get no argument from me. To argue that religion necessarily retards science is to argue nonsense, I think.

Concerning "A," "Dark Ages" is a modern label that must ignore the insights of the Middle Ages to survive as a generalization. Many important "scientific" discoveries were made in the Middle Ages (just look at the still-standing Gothic Cathedrals). I don't know of any serious scholar of modern thought who does not acknowledge the deep debt of modern science to the great thinkers of the so-called "Dark Ages." The line between the "Dark Ages" and the Modern world is an arbitrary one, typically drawn with Descartes, Hobbes, Bacon and others. It is impossible to understand any of these thinkers without seeing the thinkers upon whom they depended, all from the Middle Ages.

Concerning "B," I have no interest in defending Islam. I am not a Muslim. I'm arguing for the positive influence of the Judeo-Christian tradition on the rise of modern science.

Concernign "C," again, how can you hold me responsible for all the so-called "zealots"? Do you want to defend Marx and his defenders, since he was an atheist? You must show that religion, by its very nature, is opposed to and hinders science. I deny that is the case. I argue the opposite. Religion, Christianity in particular, provides the worldview that provides the necessary foudational assumptions that allow science to appear and grow. If those principles are removed, the theoretical bases of science evaporate. I see nothing in what you have presented that undermines any major point I've made. I won't hold you responsible for the ignorant, ideological atheists I've met since I know that refuting such people does not mean atheism is false. If you show there are ignorant, inconsistent, and otherwise inconsistent Christians you have certainly not refuted Christianity. You've only shown that Christians can be ignorant and inconsistent. That's not really news, though.

I'm not holding you accountable for the immorality of zealot Christians, but if you want proof that Christianity is more about obedience than free thinking, you have no further to look than Genesis. The first two humans big sin was gaining knowledge. You don't get much more anti-intellectual than that.

ninerbuff

Again with the bible...Christianity is NOT the only religion. And as far as failing to carefully read the bible? I've never read the bible. I tried to read the first couple of page and got bored. Doesn't mean I fail to have a general understanding of Christianity. Also, bringing religion into a science classroom? Why?? Religion does not belong in public schools. Religious schools? Sure, yes, fine...that's a choice for people to make. But sending a child to public school means you're sending them for an education that doesn't rely on religion. I know I'd personally be REALLY angry if I sent my child to a public school and they were being taught about religion outside of an Intro. to Religion or World Religions course.

Again, the bible is something that cannot be proven. WHY in the world should it even be brought up? No religion's creation stories can be proven, nor can any of the supernatural stories be proven...they have no place in a science classroom.
A World Religions course? That's a different story. That's an elective. That's not a required course for an education.

No, Christianity is not the only religion but, interestingly, it does happen to be the one that dominated the culture in which modern science appeared. There are "presuppositions" of science that allow for the scientific mindset to be born. For example, if we do not assume that the world is orderly, regular and predictable, we will never ask scientific questions. It is technically impossible to "prove" the laws of physics will hold tomorrow or in a thousand years but everyone assumes they will. What "grounds" or makes possible this assumption in the orderliness and logically-knowable structure of the world? The answer given by most early modern scientists is that the Creator governs this world according to a "logic" and that we are endowed with the ability to discover and understand that logic. (Newton spoke of astronomy as "thinking God's thoughts after Him.") This is why our "math" works when we apply it to the world. Also, we must "assume" our senses are giving us accurate information about the world. This is another huge philosophical question that scientists largely ignore and assume the reliability of the senses in order to carry out their work. I could go on. I'm not suggesting science classrooms be a place for teaching the Bible but I do think it is fair that students be taught (a) the limits of science as a method that abstracts away from some aspects of reality and focuses on others (what are traditionally called "efficient causes") and (b) the historical origins of science within the Judeo-Christian world-view that provided an understanding of reality in which science could be born.

Science and religion are mutually exclusive. Science DOES NOT need religion to make discoveries or create. But religion does conform to science.


A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

BrettPGH

Science and religion are mutually exclusive. Science DOES NOT need religion to make discoveries or create. But religion does conform to science.

This is a point I did want to make. Yes the Catholic church, and I'm sure others as well, do accept evolution. Now. It's not like they always did. They fought against it, like all other scientific discoveries that flew in the face of their beliefs, until the evidence was simply overwhelming. Once it was no longer reasonable to deny it they decided to accept it and then give god credit for it. A little disingenous, don't you think?

The same as Copernicus's discoveries that Galileo was locked away for. "No the sun is not the center! The Earth is the center of the entire universe and God made it that way! To say otherwise is blasphemy!" They held this position for centuries, punishing any scientist who dared to speak the truth. But eventually science wins, because science uses facts. Not interpretations or the words of long dead desert shepherds. Eventually religion was proven to be wrong. Then they accept it, reverse their position and STILL say it's the work of God.

Give credit where it is due. Science has progressed IN SPITE of religion. Not because of it.

castadiva

Give credit where it is due. Science has progressed IN SPITE of religion. Not because of it.

Apart, presumably, from the many historical and present-day scientists who were members of religious orders...? Quoting Wiki here as I'm about to be called on stage and am consequently short on time to find a more reliable source, but "Nicolaus Copernicus, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Nicholas Steno, Francesco Grimaldi, Giambattista Riccioli, Roger Boscovich, Athanasius Kircher, Gregor Mendel, Georges Lemaître" are all listed as either priests, or members of religious orders studying and working at primarily Roman-Catholic Universities, who made great discoveries and/or significantly advanced our scientific understanding. Don't forget that the majority of education was Church-based for a very, very long time, in the western hemisphere. Most educated men were in some way affilliated to the Church, latin was the lingua franca of the educated, of science and of religion. Yes, some scientists' work was rejected and villified, but many more were supported and promoted by the Church.

KimmyEB

How do you know that by leaving out religion you are not leaving out a crucial source of information to explaining the big questions that humans want to understand?

I don't really care about "big questions" people want answered when it come to religion. I'm talking 100% exclusively on the origin of man. Devoid of religion. This is specifically what I am saying: finding that origin without religious bias. The end. Religion DOES NOT need to be factor, just because YOU seem to think it should. Tell me how religion has a part in a group of secular humans looking for the origins of man. Because that is what I was proposing in my scenario.

I know you are not trying to make use of a "lens" to understand reality but you still do so. Because you do not have all the relevant data all at once, you adopt some framework for interpreting/understanding everything. You can't technically "prove" world-view frameworks since they are theories of everything. In order to test them you would have to stand outside all reality and judge whether or not your worldview adequately accounts for everything. We can judge a worldview, though, in respect to its coherence and power to explain what we do know. That is what I meant when I said the Christian worldview explains reality quite well while I find atheism does not.

Again, that is YOUR opinion. Others find that being an Atheist, and having a certain outlook, DOES work well for them. Some people find that "being on the fence" in terms of religion works well for them. I'm not saying what "outlook" or "worldview" works best. I'm saying that YOU cannot dictate what YOU think is best for everyone else, in terms of how you want information presented, unless you have some pretty solid proof that what you're saying is fact, and not opinion.

The problem with atheism is not what can be explained by science but what cannot be explained without including principles or aspects of human experience that are beyond the methodology of science. I believe Christianity, when correctly understood, is the best theory of everything that we have and therefore I believe it is true. In order to get me to rethink that, you would have to show me an explanation that has greater explanatory power. Atheism is most definitely will not qualify for all the reasons I've indicated before (and more).

And the problem with Christianity is that it cannot be proven. In order to get me to rethink that, you need to give me some proof that God is real, everything in the Bible happened, and prove to me that Heaven and Hell exist. No offense, but I think we'll find all the missing pieces to evolution before that ever happens.

Concerning C. S. Lewis and pride, he uses the example of someone being upset because another person is noticed at a party. Do you think it is "good" for a person to be envious of those who are noticed? Do you think it is morally praiseworthy for a person to want to be the center of attention and be seen as "better" than everyone else? That, it seems to me, is what Lewis is focusing on in his treatment of pride. To argue that it is morally praiseworthy that a person always want to be seen as greater than what they really are seems highly objectionable.

The problem with Lewis' argument is that HE sees pride as something bad. You're right--it IS objectionable. If I want to take pride in being the winner of a sports competition, that's my business. If I want to take pride in winning a huge contest that I did nothing to do but walk in the door to earn, then that's also my business. Whether I think it's "good" for a person to be envious of those who are noticed means nothing. That isn't my forte, but if it's theirs, then that's THEIR business. Do I think less of them on a PERSONAL level? Sure. But they aren't hurting me, and they aren't affecting me in any way whatsoever for feeling their envy.

Lewis also argued that "the proud man, even when he has got more than he can possibly want, will try to get still more just to assert his power." Assumptions much, Lewis? The problem with Lewis is that he assumes proud people lack humility. And sure, no doubt there's people out there with no humility, just as there are no people with no pride. But you can have both.

He also argues that people who want to make more money than they already do are guilty of "The Great Sin", pride. Lewis can't comprehend that someone may just want more money to enjoy more things in life. He assumes that people only want more money so that they can take pride in being "richer than some other rich man."

On eastern religions, I understand why you want to believe "by faith" that they contributed to the rise of science, etc., but that is simply an ahistorical position. Science arose within western civilization permeated by Christian theological beliefs. I'm convinced that these beliefs provided the principles that allow for science (as already indicated) and have seen no historical "fact" that would indicated this is wrong.

Uhh...actually, I never said they contributed to the rise of science. I said they contributed TO science. adrian_indy did a fine job of stating some facts for you, though. Also, you seem to think science started in Western civilization? I'm not a science person in any way, really, but jeez...that's highly incorrect. Certain things, sure, but not everything. Not even CLOSE to everything.

The most interesting thing you said in your reply had to do with murder. You speak of a "right to life". Where does this "right" come from? Does science establish this "right"? How? I don't see how science can do any more than describe the functions of life. It certainly is incapable of explaining why life of any sort has a "right" to be. This is a perfect example of how science is limited and, in this case, incapable of grounding moral values. It is also a great example of how even atheists make use of moral principles that their worldview is incapable of justifying. You might revisit C. S. Lewis', "Mere Christianity," especially the first section, where he deals with this issue. I have never seen an atheist give a convincing answer to his moral argument. Am I also to assume that your reply indicates that you agree that the prohibition against murdering the innocent is a moral law that should always be valued?

The "right" comes from the fact that I AM ALIVE. It doesn't matter if God or Krishna or Satan or Jesus or some UFOs or absolutely no deity at all started human life. We know one thing: when we die, we cease to exist. Now, whether our souls are floated off to Heaven or Hell or Valhalla or another universe or we obtain nirvana or we just flat out DIE, that is all up to whatever each individual believes. It doesn't matter how it's explained. No one has a right to take what isn't theirs. That's stealing, and murder. And it has nothing to do with religion. That is something that is ingrained in us, barring people with certain mental disabilities.

I'm not arguing against the existence of religion. I don't know how the world started, or how human life started, or why certain things are ingrained in our brains. But they are.

Please think more about your claim that science does not make use of presuppositions. It most definitely does as philosophers of science readily admit. As already indicated, science uses induction and deduction as logical tools but does not first prove them to be valid. Science also assumes the accuracy of sense experience in giving us information about the world outside ourselves. Science cannot prove this before using the senses. How can you prove the senses give us accurate information without already using them? Science assumes the world is knowable, regular, orderly, predictable. Without this assumption the scientific method collapses. Your assertion that science does not use presuppositions is an assertion not supported by the evidence.

I don't understand how something that has no brain can make use of anything, but, that's just me. Or maybe I'm reading it wrong.

KimmyEB

Give credit where it is due. Science has progressed IN SPITE of religion. Not because of it.

Apart, presumably, from the many historical and present-day scientists who were members of religious orders...? Quoting Wiki here as I'm about to be called on stage and am consequently short on time to find a more reliable source, but "Nicolaus Copernicus, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Nicholas Steno, Francesco Grimaldi, Giambattista Riccioli, Roger Boscovich, Athanasius Kircher, Gregor Mendel, Georges Lemaître" are all listed as either priests, or members of religious orders studying and working at primarily Roman-Catholic Universities, who made great discoveries and/or significantly advanced our scientific understanding. Don't forget that the majority of education was Church-based for a very, very long time, in the western hemisphere. Most educated men were in some way affilliated to the Church, latin was the lingua franca of the educated, of science and of religion. Yes, some scientists' work was rejected and villified, but many more were supported and promoted by the Church.

So what? The most devout Christian man in the world can all of a sudden discover the origins of man. Doesn't change anything. If he wants to keep believing, then that's his choice. If he wishes to stop, that's also his choice.

Are you going to deny that scientific advancement has never been hindered by certain religions?

castadiva

Give credit where it is due. Science has progressed IN SPITE of religion. Not because of it.

Apart, presumably, from the many historical and present-day scientists who were members of religious orders...? Quoting Wiki here as I'm about to be called on stage and am consequently short on time to find a more reliable source, but "Nicolaus Copernicus, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Nicholas Steno, Francesco Grimaldi, Giambattista Riccioli, Roger Boscovich, Athanasius Kircher, Gregor Mendel, Georges Lemaître" are all listed as either priests, or members of religious orders studying and working at primarily Roman-Catholic Universities, who made great discoveries and/or significantly advanced our scientific understanding. Don't forget that the majority of education was Church-based for a very, very long time, in the western hemisphere. Most educated men were in some way affilliated to the Church, latin was the lingua franca of the educated, of science and of religion. Yes, some scientists' work was rejected and villified, but many more were supported and promoted by the Church.

So what? The most devout Christian man in the world can all of a sudden discover the origins of man. Doesn't change anything. If he wants to keep believing, then that's his choice. If he wishes to stop, that's also his choice.

Are you going to deny that scientific advancement has never been hindered by certain religions?

Of course not - the occasions when obstacles have been put in the way of scientific advancement by religious institutions in Western Europe and North America are well documented, and have been referred to in many posts on this thread. Just pointing out that science has been helped by the Christian Church at least as much as it has been hindered. I can offer no information on the hindrances created by other world religions as I have little in-depth knowledge of their histories re. science and scientists. In any case, there is no veracity in the suggestion that science has never progressed because of religion. There are, even today, many scientist-priests or -brothers or -sisters of religion whose scientific advancements, often in virology and bacteriology, are funded, supported and published by the Roman Catholic church in particular. In light of this, and many other factors, I do not understand the need to view religion and science as antipathetical and mutually exclusive.

Not sure I understand the argument in your first point - presumably if a devout Christian is researching the origins of man, he, like many other scientists of whatever faith, in whatever field of scientific endeavour, has created for himself an acceptable duality of God and Science. The choice to believe or not believe in a religion is naturally his to make, and his perception of that religion will be entirely personal, as all choices are.

VeganGal84

I believe in it. I guess that I've read enough about it that I have always assumed it was fact, and cannot understand why it's a theory after all the proof that I've seen.

castadiva

It's a theory, ironically, because it's still evolving. Very little of what we erroneously call 'scientific fact' is viewed that way by the scientific community, which acknowledges that scientific knowledge is changing all the time, and things that have previously been viewed as immutable fact (eg. Einstein's Theory of Relativity - have you seen the recent articles about particle speed?) are often challenged and overturned in the fullness of time. One of the things I love most about science is this openness to change, and the acknowledgement that we actually understand very little still about the world we live in.

KimmyEB

I do not understand the need to view religion and science as antipathetical and mutually exclusive.

Why must religion be a part of science?

castadiva

There's no 'must' - religion doesn't have to play a part in science, but equally it can do. The same applies in reverse - there's no reason the two can't coexist!

macpatti

This is a point I did want to make. Yes the Catholic church, and I'm sure others as well, do accept evolution. Now. It's not like they always did. They fought against it, like all other scientific discoveries that flew in the face of their beliefs, until the evidence was simply overwhelming. Once it was no longer reasonable to deny it they decided to accept it and then give god credit for it. A little disingenous, don't you think?

The same as Copernicus's discoveries that Galileo was locked away for. "No the sun is not the center! The Earth is the center of the entire universe and God made it that way! To say otherwise is blasphemy!" They held this position for centuries, punishing any scientist who dared to speak the truth. But eventually science wins, because science uses facts. Not interpretations or the words of long dead desert shepherds. Eventually religion was proven to be wrong. Then they accept it, reverse their position and STILL say it's the work of God.

Give credit where it is due. Science has progressed IN SPITE of religion. Not because of it.

I feel like I keep saying the same things but you are not getting the point. Did you know that Copernicus was a priest? Did you know that his book on heliocentrism was dedicated to the pope? The book was well-received simply because Copernicus presented his theory as a theory. The whole thing with Galileo was filled with personal insults and claims that reached beyond what Galileo could demonstrate. In fact, there are various details of his theory that have subsequently been proven false (like the planets move in perfect circular orbits around the sun). In any case, the Church has never claimed to be an expert on the specifics of science. The Church speaks up when scientific theories reach beyond their legitimate bounds and try to solve the great theological and philosophical questions that it has no power to answer. As someone else has pointed out, most of the great names in early modern science were names attached to Christianity. You insist Christianity is a hindrance to science while the facts suggest otherwise. When Darwin's theory was presented, the Church looked at it suspiciously and called it a hypothesis (as it was). The Church marked out the limits of such a theory but did not declare it was false.

You still have not taken seriously the point I keep making about the presuppositions of science. Science is based on presuppositions that cannot be proven by science but must be true if science is to survive. Among the points I keep making are (a) the trustworthiness of inductive and deductive reasoning, (b) the reliability of sense perception, and (c) the predictable, consistent regularity of nature (including the future). You have not acknowledged any of these points as scientifically unproven presuppositions. The Christian worldview provided a transcendent basis for each of these assumptions and that empowered the modern scientists to look at the world in such a way that it could be understood scientifically. You are simply ignoring reality and also failing to give credit where it is due.

castadiva

Beautifully expressed, if I may say so, macpatti. :flowerforyou: You are absolutely right - all science is fundamentally based on unproven, and in some cases, unprovable, suppositions, that we (or the scientists) choose to accept on the basis of faith. Another area in which science and religion have common ground.

macpatti

KimmyEB~
This is a reply to your last long comment. I didn't want to take the space necessary to quote both of us again.

1. If humans were ultimately made by God and are the result of God's providential guidance of an evolutionary process, by leaving out religious answers you can't help but have an inaccurate and incomplete understanding of human beings. Religion, by definition, has no place in "secular" humans seeking for human origins but if secular humans have defined their search too narrowly they will not be open to dimensions of human nature that are essential to the true story.

2. Atheism might "work" on the subjective level for some people but it is a necessarily incomplete and unsatisfactory account of things for most human beings and it is also objectively incapable of answering questions that most humans find crucial to life in this world. Morality, for example, cannot be adequately grounded in an atheistic view of the world. More on that later. There are many other features of human experience that atheism cannot take seriously or must simply assume without explanation or grounding (i.e., the moral sense, mystical experience, transcendent principles of logic, the longing for unending love, etc.).

3. I've already given good reason to believe in God that you haven't answered. The world functions according to rational principles (not random ones), our rationality therefore can "know" and understand the world (including mathematically), therefore the world is governed by principles of rationality. The governing rationality according to which the world operates is what we call God. Concerning the Bible, you well know that asking me to prove everything in the Bible in an email is unfair (since we could go from point to point forever). I hestitate to even address your questions only because they will take us far afield from the subjects at hand (which are already quite scattered). Let's stick with Jesus. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and Savior of the world. He rose from the dead to prove it. Christianity was born and survived based on the claim of the resurrection. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus are sufficient reasons to believe in Jesus. The evidence for heaven is that we all long for unending love and union; this world doesn't satisfy for what we most deeply desire; therefore we are made for something that we can only have beyond this life. Hell is a consequence of human freedom. If God's invitation to uneding love and union is a call for a free response, we can say "no" and the consequence is to exist without hope of achieving final loving union with God. I think all of this is reasonable to persons "open" to it. It will obviously not persuade those who don't want to be open to it but that only proves human freedom. Most humans are and have been open to these ideas.

4. I think you are reading Lewis in an uncharitable way. You didn't directly reply to my question. Do you think it is morally "good" to envy others and think you should always be the center of attention?

5. You are still missing my point about science. I am specifically talking about the rise of modern science, not specific, individual scientific discoveries. Every historian of science I know of distinguishes between modern science and other ancient attempts at science. None of the others discovered a systematic method for understanding the world in a scientific way and that is why the modern explosion of scientific discoveries never happened before. The modern method was based on an understanding of nature that allowed for science while the other more ancient views were hindered by presuppositions that were at odds with it.

6. I find your comments on morality interesting. Most interesting is your admission that you don't know how things became ingrained in us, how human life started, etc. Wow. That's essentially what I've been arguing all along; science has not provided answers to these most basic questions. I'm claiming it has not because it cannot; they are issues that lie beyond the scientific method because they have to do with either immaterial aspects of our experience (freedom and morality are aspects of our conscious life and power of self-determination, neither of which can be reduced to matter in motion unless you change their nature) or topics so ultimate that you must transcend science to explained them (where did energy come from? what is the origin of the Big Bang? etc.). Even though morality is central to our everyday experience of the world, science is clueless about how to ground this most important part of our lives. Your comments about "right to life" are simply unconvincing. You think that the fact that you exist is sufficient to justify a "right" to exist? Can you say that about an ant or a blade of grass? Is it wrong to kill a weed or a roach? This is the classic "is-ought" fallacy. You simply can't prove a moral obligation from a "fact" of nature alone. This is a huge problem for people committed to "scientism" (i.e., science is the only allowable method to answer everything). Since your scientific method is based on empirical/factual observation alone and consciously abstracts away from introspective, interior "evidence", you are left to decide what is right and wrong based on empirical observation alone. Go ask a physicist or biologist to explain to you how their scientific method will enable them to answer the question: "Is it morally wrong for human beings to want to be the center of attention at all times?" My guess is they will laugh and say their method says nothing at all about such questions. That is my point.

7. On the final point, I certainly don't think you see the point yet. Science cannot exist without the power to rationally know and understand the world around us. That power to know includes logical powers and sensory powers that give us access to the world and enable us to think about it. Science assumes these powers are accurate but cannot even question these powers without using them. They are more fundamental than science. This point demonstrates that your claim that science proves everything and has no presuppositions is absolutely false.

TheRoadDog

These boards aren't evolving. Same arguments over and over.

adrian_indy

And once again, for all the wordiness and big words, I just keep hearing that if science has yet to prove it, it must be God. That's not how it works. And lets just keep this to science and evolution. If we are going to go off the deepend and talk about morality and values, we might as well start another thread.

macpatti

These boards aren't evolving. Same arguments over and over.

Maybe not for those reading, but for some of us these discussions/debates are worthwhile, even when they seemingly don't "evolve".

adrian_indy

These boards aren't evolving. Same arguments over and over.

Maybe not for those reading, but for some of us these discussions/debates are worthwhile, even when they seemingly don't "evolve".

Nice one!

castadiva

And once again, for all the wordiness and big words, I just keep hearing that if science has yet to prove it, it must be God. That's not how it works. And lets just keep this to science and evolution. If we are going to go off the deepend and talk about morality and values, we might as well start another thread.

Science has already discovered or proven many things that can also, simultaneously, be attributed to a divine creator, by those who hold this belief, with no inherent contradiction. The existence of one facet does not necessarily cancel out the other. That is the point I am trying to make, though I can't speak for others. The same applies to evolution, which is where we began this subject.

Evolution exists, visibly, all around us, and I don't think anyone here has even attempted to deny that, although some in the wider public sphere hold very strong views and refuse to acknowledge this on religious grounds. They are not commenting on this thread, as far as I can see. What I am trying to suggest, and I think others are essentially on the same track, though I can't speak for them, is that the theory of evolution as applied to life on this planet does not automatically remove the possibility of God from the equation. But yes, we have rather veered off-topic - perhaps we should rename the thread Science v. Religion - can they coexist?!

castadiva

These boards aren't evolving. Same arguments over and over.

Maybe not for those reading, but for some of us these discussions/debates are worthwhile, even when they seemingly don't "evolve".

Nice one!

If I could 'like' this, I would!