Evolution
Options
Replies
-
I'm extremely confused. "Christianity dominated the culture in which modern science appeared." HUH?? Modern science appeared out of cultures like ancient Greece and Rome. If you're talking technology, well then you're talking about Japan (also not Christian.) There are a lot of different branches of science from physics to chemistry to medicine to biology to astronomy. Most of them had no origin at all in a Christian culture. In fact, in the cases where they did start in a Christian culture, the person who started them was often considered a heretic by the Church (Galileo for example.)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.
As if that wasn't a strange enough statement you then go on to say that math works because we assume there is a God keeping things orderly? Am I getting that right? If so I don't even know how to respond. That makes even less sense than saying that science has a Christian base. I had to do a lot of proofs back in school. Not once was the answer "Because God makes things stable." Math has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Math is logical and provable. Religion isn't.0 -
(b) the historical origins of science within the Judeo-Christian world-view that provided an understanding of reality in which science could be born.
Judeo-Christians didn't pave the way for science.0 -
"Galileo's head was on the block
His crime was looking up the truth..."0 -
I'm extremely confused. "Christianity dominated the culture in which modern science appeared." HUH?? Modern science appeared out of cultures like ancient Greece and Rome. If you're talking technology, well then you're talking about Japan (also not Christian.) There are a lot of different branches of science from physics to chemistry to medicine to biology to astronomy. Most of them had no origin at all in a Christian culture. In fact, in the cases where they did start in a Christian culture, the person who started them was often considered a heretic by the Church (Galileo for example.)
As if that wasn't a strange enough statement you then go on to say that math works because we assume there is a God keeping things orderly? Am I getting that right? If so I don't even know how to respond. That makes even less sense than saying that science has a Christian base. I had to do a lot of proofs back in school. Not once was the answer "Because God makes things stable." Math has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Math is logical and provable. Religion isn't.
No, modern science began in the 15th-16th century with people like Bacon and others who developed the modern scientific method. It was the "discovery" of this method that has allowed for so much rapid scientific progress in the last four hundred years. Before that, the scientific method of Aristotle dominated but this approach did not take sufficient account of testable and repeatable observation through induction. What I'm talking about is standard history of science, not some goofy claim.
Concerning math, here's where going back to the Greeks would be helpful. The ancient Pythagoreans and Plato (not to mention the Stoics and many others) were deeply intrigued by mathematics. The Pythagoreans were a religiously motivated group that focused on the mathematical harmony of the universe; math then gives a "window" of insight, they claimed, into the spiritual source of the universe's harmony. Plato is filled with mathematical observations, especially from geometry. In fact, he did not admit anyone into his school of philosophy if they had not studied geometry. What amazed Plato was the fact that sensory objects change and, because known inductively, can only give probable knowledge. Geometry (and other forms of math) yield deductive certainty. It is, for example, always true that on a flat surface the interior angles of a triangle will equal half the degrees of a circle (or 180 degrees). This is a conclusion that may be proven with certainty and always holds true or, in other words, is timeless (not condition by physical conditions or changing conditions). That conclusion will hold long after we have died and it held thousands of years ago.
You say this is just "logic" but have you taken the time to think about what logic is and why it works?
Yes, you studied math but that doesn't mean you reflectively studied what that activity of the mind implies about yourself and reality. You may think my observations are "silly" but any introductory text in the history of mathematics, philosophy or science will show these are the primary issues that have driven discovery in the western philosophical and scientific traditions.0 -
Judeo-Christians didn't pave the way for science.
It is a historical fact that modern science arose within the Judeo-Christian world. You may argue this is a historical accident but I find it much more compelling that there were some distinctive features of that world that allowed for the modern birth of science. There are plenty of historians of science who argue persuasively that this is the case. I recommend Stanley Jaki's Gifford Lectures published under the title, "The Road of Science and the Ways to God." The book (to my mind) argues convincingly that science flourished only when there were "transcendent" principles sufficient to ground and allow for science. When science loses a sufficient basis for science beyond its own principles, it begins to question itself and eventually defeats itself. As a side note, I might add that C. S. Lewis makes a similar case in his book, "The Abolition of Man." He argues that human "greatness" has been expressed in our gradual conquest of nature. Once we begin to treat ourselves as nothing but "nature," too, we begin to destroy ourselves. If nature is there to serve and be manipulated by us, what is left to guide us when we make ourselves mere objects of nature? What will keep us from destroying ourselves like we are destroying nature? We need transcendent moral principles to keep from such destruction. In the meantime, we continue to borrow from moral principles supplied by religious systems since science is incapable of providing a basis of moral value. Yet another way that science is inadequate and incomplete.0 -
Are you quoting someone? These past few posts don't read like your previous posts or posts on other topics.
Oh, and modern scientific method was established almost entirely by Galileo who the Church called a heretic.0 -
Judeo-Christians didn't pave the way for science.
It is a historical fact that modern science arose within the Judeo-Christian world. You may argue this is a historical accident but I find it much more compelling that there were some distinctive features of that world that allowed for the modern birth of science. There are plenty of historians of science who argue persuasively that this is the case. I recommend Stanley Jaki's Gifford Lectures published under the title, "The Road of Science and the Ways to God." The book (to my mind) argues convincingly that science flourished only when there were "transcendent" principles sufficient to ground and allow for science. When science loses a sufficient basis for science beyond its own principles, it begins to question itself and eventually defeats itself. As a side note, I might add that C. S. Lewis makes a similar case in his book, "The Abolition of Man." He argues that human "greatness" has been expressed in our gradual conquest of nature. Once we begin to treat ourselves as nothing but "nature," too, we begin to destroy ourselves. If nature is there to serve and be manipulated by us, what is left to guide us when we make ourselves mere objects of nature? What will keep us from destroying ourselves like we are destroying nature? We need transcendent moral principles to keep from such destruction. In the meantime, we continue to borrow from moral principles supplied by religious systems since science is incapable of providing a basis of moral value. Yet another way that science is inadequate and incomplete.
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.
0 -
"Galileo's head was on the block
His crime was looking up the truth..."
then again it feels like some sort of inspiration to let the next life off the hook
0 -
Are you quoting someone? These past few posts don't read like your previous posts or posts on other topics.
Oh, and modern scientific method was established almost entirely by Galileo who the Church called a heretic.
Not quoting anyone. I try to change the style of writing or wording to suit the audience. It appears that I am now discussing with those who may be able to follow my line of reasoning.0 -
I believe in Evolution because just like was thought, when the look at DNA using today's technology, we are most closely related to Bonobos, Chimps, Apes, Orangatauns and Baboons, which means we had a common ancestor, just like predicted. The father back you go, the more you find we were all related just like predicted. We share the most characteristics with the Great Apes, then mammals, and so on and so forth.
I'm not saying Evolution has all the answers yet, and I think there are still valid questions out there, but the point is, really smart people who went to good schools and have spent countless hours of brutal research and testing built upon other peoples research and testing, all trying to disprove eachother or correlating eachother are trying to solve this, and I'll put my trust in them a lot sooner than I would put it in the Creation Myths of a bunch of Mesopotamian goat herders.0 -
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)0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
we can't disprove Leprechauns
Ahem. I EXIST.
That is all. :laugh:0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0
