April 29, 2019 at 8:30 am #299516
“Your personal opinion has ben expressed as a claim. Be fascinated to see you prove your claim.”
My writing isn’t the best, so I guess I didn’t state my idea well enough. I tried to say that I have an opinion, then say what that opinion is. If it somehow came across as a statement of fact, sorry for the confusion. It wasn’t an argument from ignorance, it was a question and opinion from ignorance.
I also admit that theistic scientists exist, but I’m just curious to know how they mentally separate the natural and supernatural in their world-view.
Science only looks for answers in nature, while a god exists and is able to act outside of nature, and is therefore undefinable and unexplainable by science. It’s the sheer polarity of the two ideas that I can’t understand existing in the same brain, especially when the brain is studying science as a career.
I know there are as many ways of being a theist as there are theists, and lots try to reconcile what they have learned about science with what they believe about their god. It’s their ability to do it that puzzles me… it’s just so bizarre.April 29, 2019 at 2:32 pm #299529
“The claim about mind games is a logical fallacy; argument from ignorance”
What I mean is that that if someone holds supernatural beliefs, yet studies natural laws, processes, or phenomenon, they have to somehow believe something is true that, if true, is the antitheses of something else they hold to be true.
Isn’t that illogical?
Even if I am completely wrong in my thinking on this topic, I enjoy having to explain myself and answer questions that show my how crappy my explanations are. There’s no better way of understanding my own thoughts and ideas than having to explain them to someone else. Thanks Patrick D.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 5 months ago by 3point14rat.
June 15, 2019 at 4:05 pm #302445
- This reply was modified 1 year, 5 months ago by 3point14rat.
You’re not the first to make that claim Sherlock, but I wonder if you can back it up. I’m sure we agree on some things, but I’m not so sure there are “masses” of evidence. If there are, you shouldn’t have any trouble giving a couple examples. The scientists you listed were born into a different culture and were part of what created the scientific culture we now know, so they aren’t good examples. Galileo was under house arrest from the church at the end of his life. Copernicus’ theory of a heliocentric solar system was published the year he died. Newton followed on the heels of the Peace of Westphalia that weakened the Church. I verified those with basic searches.
No other culture than one permeated with religion would have given rise to science, because there were no other cultures. Religion has only recently separated from national identity, and it wasn’t because they asked us to. You can look at technology and methods of inquiry in the late Roman centuries and see how they died out just as Christianity was on the rise. I don’t think the causation is there, but on the other hand, I don’t think the Christian rulers cared much about literature or the study of nature except as it related to their god.June 16, 2019 at 3:08 am #302460@playerParticipant
Sherlock- I call your post BS. Please tell us all what is the reasoned and rational understanding of the universe that religion providesJune 16, 2019 at 10:49 am #302484
Sherlock; Player is not the best for conversation, but since I’ve been following him for as long as he has been here, I’ll say he has more behind what he says than you have, as yet, revealed. If you think you can throw out tired old tropes about who was a Christian and a scientist and expect a full blown discussion, you’re wrong. Most of us have experienced the short timer poster who claims to have a thesis, but it never develops. What I would need from you is not some list of Christians, but actual documents that show how something from within the religion promoted a scientific idea, not just funded some guy who happened to be a priest and had a degree in physics, but actually contributed something to science that could be traced to a holy book or dogma.
I agree China is a conundrum, but their history is also a bit murky, so I’m not going to do any more research than I already have or go looking for links for you. I find the story of Greek philosophy more telling and more traceable. It developed along side Zoroastrianism and other eastern influenced religions, then was squashed as the early attempts at democracy failed. It traveled to Baghdad and found men who were interested in it, and even a few who funded actual research, but again failed as fundamentalists like Al Ghazali captured the minds and Caliphs talked of conquering the world for Allah. It traveled back to Europe where people like Aquinas attempted to integrate it into the Roman Catholic empire, but that was condemned.
What the eventual triumph of science proves, is not that religion is some kind of source of it or even that the two are compatible, it proves that rational thinking is our more natural form of thinking. When you are hunting witches, you come up with logical reasons, like, I saw a cat wailing in the backyard and I nicked its leg with a bottle, then I saw the old lady next door walking with a limp. She’s a witch who can turn into a cat!June 16, 2019 at 5:35 pm #302520@playerParticipant
Sherlock – I did. Direct challenge to your ideology. Could you please explain what is the reasoned and rational understanding of the universe that religion provides.June 16, 2019 at 11:22 pm #302532
Sherlock, you say you’ve presented your evidence. You said very little. You don’t seem too serious about your thesis.June 17, 2019 at 12:59 am #302536@timbParticipant
I don’t mind discussing Sherlock’s hypothesis. Sherlock, when would you say that “recent period of time” (of relij vs sci began? What general decade of our last millennia?June 17, 2019 at 8:44 am #302546
You refer to “the triumph” of science, tell me when did that event occur?
It was not an “event”. It was when we stopped praying for people to get better and developed medicine. Science literally makes the blind see and the lame walk, unlike Jesus who did that mythologically. When we stopped believing in a man above the clouds and went to the moon. When we stopped asking God to send us a savior and developed democracy to govern ourselves. When we stopped using the Bible as a textbook and made coherent arguments against slavery and the oppression of women. When we realized having wars over whose creation myth is correct is a dumb thing and instead created a multinational effort to discover the origin of the universe at CERN.June 17, 2019 at 9:48 am #302551@advocatusParticipant
Personally I tend to agree with Mr. Holmes. People are very good at compartmentalizing their beliefs. Sir Isaac Newton could work out the principles of optics and develop the theory of universal gravitation with one hand, while messing around with alchemy and calculating the exact date of the Apocalypse with the other. For the same reason, I can be an avid science fiction fan and at the same time a skeptic about alien visitors.June 17, 2019 at 11:02 am #302557
Intelligent design? That’s it? Your kidding.June 17, 2019 at 12:15 pm #302561
I already answered the question. There is no date for the “triumph of science”. It happened in many ways, as I stated. There is no definitive definition for the word “science” or the word “religion” either. This is a discussion forum, where we flesh out ideas not challenge each other to come up with witty responses to things that have been talked about for decades. If you can’t figure out that what you said a couple posts back was intelligent design, then sorry, we don’t have a lot of basis for a discussion.
You are all over the map so far. The fact that some people still practice witchcraft and believe in fairies doesn’t change the fact that we’ve solved many of the world’s problems in the last 500 years that were only in the dreams of most of our ancestors. And by “solved”, I don’t mean we’ve created a utopia across the planet. If you want to demand absolutes from me while you speak in vague generalities, we won’t get very far. Mostly what you’ve shown evidence for is that within the mind of a single person, thoughts of god and science can exist. No argument there. Maybe you should start over with a new topic.June 17, 2019 at 2:56 pm #302564
the vast majority of atheists that I encounter often crack when the hard logic they so often claim to respect is used to against to undermine their vacuous position.
Oh dang, I’ve been exposed. Sorry my fellow atheist, I’ve shown our weak underbelly to this detective with incredible skills. Atheism is a flawed philosophy and we must all renounce it.
Never refer to any of this as evidence for a conflict of religions and science, ever again:
The Condemnations of 1277
Lists of excommunicable offences from the Council of Trent
Burning of Witches – pick your religion or era, up to the present
Kitzmiller vs Dover
Galileo. Not sure what you argued here. That he held religious beliefs is not really the issue. The conflict was with him and his science vs the RCC and their dogmatic version of planets. Unless you want to say that Galileo’s version of Catholicism was correct and the then leaders of the Church were all wrong or something, which, still, what are you saying?
“Augustine does not condemn all observation of the natural, but he does condemn seeking knowledge of the created world for its own sake and for the achievement of having understood it, rather than for what it can reveal about its creator.”
I’m sure we could have a much more interesting conversation if you’d work a little harder at being reasonable.June 17, 2019 at 3:05 pm #302565
Sherlock Holmes: “Yes but you said “It was when we stopped praying for people to get better” and I pointed out that perhaps billions of people do this, then yo said “When we stopped believing in a man above the clouds” and I pointed out that perhaps billions of people believe this then you said “When we stopped using the Bible as a textbook” and again I pointed out that perhaps billions of people do this.
So you talk about a change that took place but then deny it had any sort of date even approx, then you state that people stopped doing this and that and I pointed out that no they haven’t and you think I wrong to respond as I have?
I’d say that it’s impossible to answer for a few reasons.
- For one, it’s a process, so there’s no definitive point where things change. It’s like asking “when does a person get old?” There’s no instant where the change takes place, so no one can answer it.
- Another reason is that it started at different times at different places. Depending on where you are on earth, your society will be ahead or behind other societies. So how can someone answer if there are many answers?
- Yet another reason is it’s tough to answer, is that, as you said, there are still lots of people who benefit from scientific advances while denying the value of science. Where do they fall? They benefit from science while denying it’s principles, so can you consider them to have adopted science or not?
Religion has been losing ground to science since… forever. In no instance has this loss been negative, while in every instance it’s been a positive. (Please don’t point to some psychotic dictator who’s reign led to lots of death and suffering, or the abuse/negative impact of some scientific discovery- neither of those are not in any way related to this topic, as has been pointed out repeatedly in many other places.)
- If religion says something about:
- the age of the earth,
- our origins,
- the reality of miracles,
- the value of certain genders or ‘historically and genetically related groups of people’ [some folks might use the word ‘race’],
- or any other topic that is investigated by science, there can be conflict.
If a particular religion agrees with science on every point, then that one religion has no conflict with science. Otherwise, by definition, there is a conflict.June 17, 2019 at 4:44 pm #302572@timbParticipant
So some religious people can be decent scientists. They have perhaps compartmentalized or rationalized opposing belief systems.
Believing in the supernatural by simply choosing to believe in it, is at odds with believing on the basis of objectively known facts and data. This must, I think, require some adeptness in resolving cognitive dissonance by those who hold both modes of beliefs.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.