No Shit Sherlock

[Guest end3]

End3, now you are reducing morality and decision making to mere chemical (natural processes), and they probably are just that. But will you please elaborate on how that helps your case for god? If everything about our morality is nothing more that the sum of neurochemical processes, why not also our beliefs/lack of beliefs in god(s)? Is your belief in god, given that it is a non-physical mental construct just like morality, also nothing more than the sum of neurochemical processes? See, this is another example of how you are using two different standards to evaluate the two things your are trying to connect, science and god. You are arguing well and logically on the points of science but refusing to apply that same type of thinking to god because you simply presuppose his existence and good nature. You are failing to see that your belief in and about god are unfounded. Presupposing something is true and cannot possibly be wrong (god's existence and goodness), causes you and others to grasp at straws in science for anything that seems support your presupposed view. This is, by definition, confirmation bias which is no path to truth because it will always look at what seems to support it's view and ignore everything else that does not support it's view. As I said before, just because you can make two ideas fit together doesn't mean they belong together.

 

I've noticed you have not addressed any of my points. Maybe you are just too busy with these other guys who are doing very well at demonstrating valid objections to your claim. I'll team up with Prof here and say when you argue science, you are on his turf. When you argue philosophy, you are on mine.

I don't know that it changes anything. Had a thought a minute ago that the Holy Spirit might invoke a "new" pathway that our body is not used to. Just abstract thoughts. Don't see any definitive proof in the near future

 

I am one N that will consider several different things and either believe or not. In this case we are talking the Exodus verse, a fallen world scenario, Noah's selection criteria, and a relatively new science discovery. That adds up in my mind to "yeah, makes sense". To some it surely doesn't.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Just out of curiosity, End3, have you done any research on the Vmat2 gene as I suggested?

 

Here's what wiki has to say about it:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

Yes sir, I looked. And the implications other than separating the sheep and goats? (humor)

 

While the research is still in its earliest stages, the implication could very well be that your belief in god is, as Neverlandrut has suggested, nothing more than a neurochemical process.  It could very well be that humans are genetically predisposed to belief/spirituality.  This would not constitute proof of any particular god's existence, nor of any philosophical/spiritual claim's truth.  It would merely mean that we evolved a means of dealing with the knowledge of our own mortality, to wit, we can willfully suspend disbelief.

[Neverlandrut]

End3, you challenged me to ask you a question and said you would respond in as much an unbiased way as possible. I asked a question shortly after that. Why do you believe in god? And I'm still waiting. It's so simple it seems silly and may not seem like it's worth your time, but my goal is to demonstrate to you that you are using one standard to evaluate god and quite another to evaluate science. As long as you do that, you CANNOT make a connection between the two. As the Prof, BAA and others have demonstrated, you are trying to use science to prove philosophical concepts. Impossible!

[Guest end3]

End3, you challenged me to ask you a question and said you would respond in as much an unbiased way as possible. I asked a question shortly after that. Why do you believe in god? And I'm still waiting. It's so simple it seems silly and may not seem like it's worth your time, but my goal is to demonstrate to you that you are using one standard to evaluate god and quite another to evaluate science. As long as you do that, you CANNOT make a connection between the two. As the Prof, BAA and others have demonstrated, you are trying to use science to prove philosophical concepts. Impossible!

Yes, I still owe you that response. Will see if I can get er done this evening. Sorry for the delay

[Neverlandrut]

 

End3, now you are reducing morality and decision making to mere chemical (natural processes), and they probably are just that. But will you please elaborate on how that helps your case for god? If everything about our morality is nothing more that the sum of neurochemical processes, why not also our beliefs/lack of beliefs in god(s)? Is your belief in god, given that it is a non-physical mental construct just like morality, also nothing more than the sum of neurochemical processes? See, this is another example of how you are using two different standards to evaluate the two things your are trying to connect, science and god. You are arguing well and logically on the points of science but refusing to apply that same type of thinking to god because you simply presuppose his existence and good nature. You are failing to see that your belief in and about god are unfounded. Presupposing something is true and cannot possibly be wrong (god's existence and goodness), causes you and others to grasp at straws in science for anything that seems support your presupposed view. This is, by definition, confirmation bias which is no path to truth because it will always look at what seems to support it's view and ignore everything else that does not support it's view. As I said before, just because you can make two ideas fit together doesn't mean they belong together.

 

I've noticed you have not addressed any of my points. Maybe you are just too busy with these other guys who are doing very well at demonstrating valid objections to your claim. I'll team up with Prof here and say when you argue science, you are on his turf. When you argue philosophy, you are on mine.

I don't know that it changes anything. Had a thought a minute ago that the Holy Spirit might invoke a "new" pathway that our body is not used to. Just abstract thoughts. Don't see any definitive proof in the near future

 

I am one N that will consider several different things and either believe or not. In this case we are talking the Exodus verse, a fallen world scenario, Noah's selection criteria, and a relatively new science discovery. That adds up in my mind to "yeah, makes sense". To some it surely doesn't.

I can use scientific discoveries to give support to the Norse pantheon and the things those gods are said to have done. The science is still no proof of, or even evidence of those stories being true. Two fundamentally different things. As I re read your above response, are you saying that you simply see a "potential" connection to epigenetics and god's genocide? Or are you claiming that epigenetics proves that god is just and right to kill genetically deficient people?

[RipVanWinkle]

RNP: "While the research is still in its earliest stages, the implication could very well be that your

belief in god is, as Neverlandrut has suggested, nothing more than a neurochemical process."

 

 

I recently read a book by John Loftus entitled "The Christian Delusion" in which he discussed human

certainty. Neurologist Robert Burton was quoted as saying: "Despite how certainty feels, it is neither a conscious choice nor even a thought process. Certainty and similar states of knowing what we know

arise out of involuntary brain mechanisms that, like love or anger. function independently of reason."

 

"Involuntary" is what caught my attention. That appears to indicate that parents raising their child in a hard sell fundamentalist church does or could result in involuntary certainty of the child about

the faith. Scary. And just how does that fit with the "free will" promoters? So, god condones brain washing? bill

[bornagainathiest]

 

End3, you challenged me to ask you a question and said you would respond in as much an unbiased way as possible. I asked a question shortly after that. Why do you believe in god? And I'm still waiting. It's so simple it seems silly and may not seem like it's worth your time, but my goal is to demonstrate to you that you are using one standard to evaluate god and quite another to evaluate science. As long as you do that, you CANNOT make a connection between the two. As the Prof, BAA and others have demonstrated, you are trying to use science to prove philosophical concepts. Impossible!

Yes, I still owe you that response. Will see if I can get er done this evening. Sorry for the delay

 

 

Please remember End.

 

If you try and reply to Neverlandrut using a flawed understanding of what is natural (and able to be addressed by science) and what is supernatural (unable to be addressed by science), then your reply will also be flawed.  The same is true if you try and mix these two things together.  Science and religion are two entirely separate disciplines, operating under separate sets of rules.

 

Before you can frame a reasonable and reasoned working reply, you must accept and understand this difference.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[midniterider]

Your belief in God could be nothing more than a neurochemical process. No?

 

 

Oh no ya dont! God is real!! He just is! Every OTHER perception and thought though is just neuro-chemicals. lol. jk.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

Your belief in God could be nothing more than a neurochemical process. No?

 

Oh no ya dont! God is real!! He just is! Every OTHER perception and thought though is just neuro-chemicals. lol. jk.

Yep! Double standard.

[ironhorse]

 

 

 

 

Tell me, does "zero" equal "not as much as" in your reasoning?

 

"This is why there's millions of different religions, and not a single one has ever contributed to the betterment of society as much as science."

 

I agree that science has made our lives much better. My disagreement is ignoring the fact that

going back centuries, it was Christians who helped pioneer advances in science that led us

to the modern age.

 

 

By doing things like torturing people that questioned the geocentric model.  Just one example of how christianity was so open to advancing science.

 

 

 

Have you never read about Copernicus?

 

 

Yes.  I have, IronHorse.

 

Copernicus may have been a Christian, but his faith wasn't the driving force behind his scientific exploration of the universe.  No.  He was following the principles set down by Miletus of Thales... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales ...which were being circulated in Europe during the time Copernicus lived, that is, the early Renaissance.  

 

Please take note of the text I've highlighted.

"Thales attempted to explain natural phenomena without reference to mythology and was tremendously influential in this respect. Almost all of the other Pre-Socratic philosophers follow him in attempting to provide an explanation of ultimate substance, change, and the existence of the world without reference to mythology."

 

See that, IronHorse?

Copernicus used Thales' methodology to understand the universe.  He rejected any mythological or religious 'truth' and tried to use his new Heliocentric model of the cosmos to explain only what could be observed, not what was written in scripture.  

 

But Copernicus wasn't the first to follow the ideas of Thales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erastosthenes This man also rejected religious, superstition and divinely-inspired 'truth', opting to understand the physical world around him only by observation and analysis.  Using only his eyes and his brain, he calculated the circumference of the planet Earth to within 1% of accuracy, almost two centuries before a certain Jesus was born.

 

Neither Erastothenes, nor Thales were Christians, btw.

Yet their writings and that of other ancient non-Christian philosophers and scientists of were rediscovered in the Renaissance and then used to form the foundation of the Enlightenment.  Ok, certain European scientists may have been Christians, but their Christian faith was not the main driver of the scientific discoveries of the last four centuries.

 

Are we clear on that?

 

BAA

 

 

I'm clear. I never said Copernicus was a Christian who based his science on the Bible.

Do you have quote from Copernicus that he rejected religious truth?

 

Info on science in medieval Europe:

 

Donald H. Kobe is professor of physics at the University of North Texas

 

"The influence of Christianity in providing an appropriate intellectual ethos for a rational understanding of the universe is at least one reason for the development of modern science in Europe about 500 years ago. According to Alfred North Whitehead, the greatest contribution of the medieval period to the scientific movement was the "belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedent in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles” [1]. The origin of the belief was the medieval insistence on the rationality of God. In this view, every detail of the universe was supervised and ordered by God. The search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality because nature had been created by a rational being. Albert Einstein once said that, to him, the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. For the believer in a rational creator, the comprehensibility of nature is a logical consequence."

 

[1] Alfred N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: Macmillan, 1925). Reprinted (New York: Mentor Books, 1948), p. 13.

[mymistake]

 

I'm clear. I never said Copernicus was a Christian who based his science on the Bible.

Do you have quote from Copernicus that he rejected religious truth?

 

Info on science in medieval Europe:

 

Donald H. Kobe is professor of physics at the University of North Texas

 

"The influence of Christianity in providing an appropriate intellectual ethos for a rational understanding of the universe is at least one reason for the development of modern science in Europe about 500 years ago."

 

[1] Alfred N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: Macmillan, 1925). Reprinted (New York: Mentor Books, 1948), p. 13.

 

 

 

You do realize that the Greeks were more advanced in science and literacy 2500 years ago than Europe was 600 years ago.  So yes Christians exterminated the competition so there was nobody else left alive for Europe's awakening.  But Christianity is also responsible for plunging Europe into the Dark Ages.  Oh but what a small price that was to keep the Catholic Church in power.

[ironhorse]

 

 

I'm clear. I never said Copernicus was a Christian who based his science on the Bible.

Do you have quote from Copernicus that he rejected religious truth?

 

Info on science in medieval Europe:

 

Donald H. Kobe is professor of physics at the University of North Texas

 

"The influence of Christianity in providing an appropriate intellectual ethos for a rational understanding of the universe is at least one reason for the development of modern science in Europe about 500 years ago."

 

[1] Alfred N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: Macmillan, 1925). Reprinted (New York: Mentor Books, 1948), p. 13.

 

 

 

You do realize that the Greeks were more advanced in science and literacy 2500 years ago than Europe was 600 years ago.  So yes Christians exterminated the competition so there was nobody else left alive for Europe's awakening.  But Christianity is also responsible for plunging Europe into the Dark Ages.  Of but what a small price that was to keep the Catholic Church in power.

 

 

There were several reasons for the Western world going into the Dark Ages. It started with

the fall of the Roman Empire, the invasion of the barbarians and other events.

 

I agree that the Papacy suppressed learning but I disagree with you labeling

this Christian. The Papacy tortured and executed Christians (and others) who disagreed with them.

 

It's a interesting topic to search online. Progress and learning was slowed down but it

was not stopped.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

I'm clear. I never said Copernicus was a Christian who based his science on the Bible.

Do you have quote from Copernicus that he rejected religious truth?

 

Info on science in medieval Europe:

 

Donald H. Kobe is professor of physics at the University of North Texas

 

"The influence of Christianity in providing an appropriate intellectual ethos for a rational understanding of the universe is at least one reason for the development of modern science in Europe about 500 years ago."

 

[1] Alfred N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: Macmillan, 1925). Reprinted (New York: Mentor Books, 1948), p. 13.

 

 

 

You do realize that the Greeks were more advanced in science and literacy 2500 years ago than Europe was 600 years ago.  So yes Christians exterminated the competition so there was nobody else left alive for Europe's awakening.  But Christianity is also responsible for plunging Europe into the Dark Ages.  Of but what a small price that was to keep the Catholic Church in power.

 

 

There were several reasons for the Western world going into the Dark Ages. It started with

the fall of the Roman Empire, the invasion of the barbarians and other events.

 

I agree that the Papacy suppressed learning but I disagree with you labeling

this Christian. The Papacy tortured and executed Christians (and others) who disagreed with them.

 

It's a interesting topic to search online. Progress and learning was slowed down but it

was not stopped.

 

 

 

So your all powerful, all knowing God just stood there and watched it all happen in God's name.  Kind of like how God watched and did nothing while all those Catholic priests were molesting alter boys.  Maybe God likes to watch? Maybe God is imaginary.

[Roz]

What IH can't understand -because he's a christian and has that infamous god glasses as his mental block- is this:

 

Both the torturer and the one being tortured in the dark ages believe they were following the same god, the same god that IH now follows.

 

They had the same level of fanatical faith (believing in things you can't see and prove) when killing/dying for the same god.

 

It's impossible for the religious to think critically of their religion.

 

This is why:

1.  those canaanites somehow all deserved to die, but their virgin daughters were somehow immune/not guilty.  Because their god is good.

2.  those catholics weren't really christians, no "true" christian would torture like they did. 

3.  the cults like JW, Mormons, SDAs, etc. weren't "true" christians either.  Include catholics in that as well.

 

Seriously we have IH spouting one set of nonsense, End3 ranting about another (he believes in dispensations btw), Thumby trying to sneak in SDA teachings, and who knows what the others believe.

 

They all go on and on about what they believe and they really do believe it to be true.  But believing something to be true does not make it true.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

Tell me, does "zero" equal "not as much as" in your reasoning?

 

"This is why there's millions of different religions, and not a single one has ever contributed to the betterment of society as much as science."

 

I agree that science has made our lives much better. My disagreement is ignoring the fact that

going back centuries, it was Christians who helped pioneer advances in science that led us

to the modern age.

 

 

By doing things like torturing people that questioned the geocentric model.  Just one example of how christianity was so open to advancing science.

 

 

 

Have you never read about Copernicus?

 

 

Yes.  I have, IronHorse.

 

Copernicus may have been a Christian, but his faith wasn't the driving force behind his scientific exploration of the universe.  No.  He was following the principles set down by Miletus of Thales... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales ...which were being circulated in Europe during the time Copernicus lived, that is, the early Renaissance.  

 

Please take note of the text I've highlighted.

"Thales attempted to explain natural phenomena without reference to mythology and was tremendously influential in this respect. Almost all of the other Pre-Socratic philosophers follow him in attempting to provide an explanation of ultimate substance, change, and the existence of the world without reference to mythology."

 

See that, IronHorse?

Copernicus used Thales' methodology to understand the universe.  He rejected any mythological or religious 'truth' and tried to use his new Heliocentric model of the cosmos to explain only what could be observed, not what was written in scripture.  

 

But Copernicus wasn't the first to follow the ideas of Thales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erastosthenes This man also rejected religious, superstition and divinely-inspired 'truth', opting to understand the physical world around him only by observation and analysis.  Using only his eyes and his brain, he calculated the circumference of the planet Earth to within 1% of accuracy, almost two centuries before a certain Jesus was born.

 

Neither Erastothenes, nor Thales were Christians, btw.

Yet their writings and that of other ancient non-Christian philosophers and scientists of were rediscovered in the Renaissance and then used to form the foundation of the Enlightenment.  Ok, certain European scientists may have been Christians, but their Christian faith was not the main driver of the scientific discoveries of the last four centuries.

 

Are we clear on that?

 

BAA

 

 

I'm clear. I never said Copernicus was a Christian who based his science on the Bible.

Do you have quote from Copernicus that he rejected religious truth?

 

Info on science in medieval Europe:

 

Donald H. Kobe is professor of physics at the University of North Texas

 

"The influence of Christianity in providing an appropriate intellectual ethos for a rational understanding of the universe is at least one reason for the development of modern science in Europe about 500 years ago. According to Alfred North Whitehead, the greatest contribution of the medieval period to the scientific movement was the "belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedent in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles” [1]. The origin of the belief was the medieval insistence on the rationality of God. In this view, every detail of the universe was supervised and ordered by God. The search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality because nature had been created by a rational being. Albert Einstein once said that, to him, the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. For the believer in a rational creator, the comprehensibility of nature is a logical consequence."

 

[1] Alfred N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: Macmillan, 1925). Reprinted (New York: Mentor Books, 1948), p. 13.

 

 

You are wrong Ironhorse.

 

You are wrong and you've misrepresented me. 

I did not say that Copernicus rejected ALL religious truth. 

I said that he rejected the GEOCENTRIC 'truth' of the Papacy, in favor of the observation-based HELIOCENTRIC model of the universe. 

The first was informed by Christian, scripture-based dogma and the second was founded only on observation. 

 

That is quite different from my saying that Copernicus rejected ALL religious truth. 

His religious faith was not relevant to his usage of Thales' observation-based methodology for understanding the natural universe.  No religious faith is.  That is why there's no overlap between science and religion and nor should there ever be.  Had they met, Copernicus would have agreed with Galileo Galilei that... "The intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes."  http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Galileo_Galilei (Interestingly enough, Galilieo was quoting Cardinal Baronius!)  Galileo and Copernicus set aside their faith and didn't use it to inform their study of the natural universe.  This is what all scientists must do, whatever their religious beliefs.

 

For centuries Christians of all denominations and sects looked to scripture for 'truth' about the natural universe.

That is in direct contradiction of the observation-only method advocated by Thales and performed by Copernicus, Galileo and others.  No belief in a creator or a divinely-ordered cosmos is needed to understand the universe by observation, analysis and logic.  If that were so, then science would have to rely on such supernatural beliefs to call itself science... and it doesn't. 

 

There is a solid wall between science and religion.

Between the study of the natural and the study of the supernatural.  Neither should intrude on the remit of the other.  Galileo fell foul of the Catholic church because he advocated the primacy of observation over their religious dogma, when it came to explaining the universe.  They used their powers of arrest and imprisonment and threats of torture, execution and excommunication to suppress his views.  Thus, in his case, the Christian church cannot be said to have permitted or promoted the free and rational inquiry of nature.  In fact it did the opposite.  

 

Ok Ironhorse, you can claim that the Catholic church was not Christian and therefore did not represent 'true' Christianity.

But if we apply your logic, then neither Copernicus nor Galileo were 'true' Christians.  They were Catholics.  So, this ceases to be Christianity vs. Science issue and becomes a Catholicism vs. Science issue.  Which leaves you relying solely on Kobe to make the case that 'true' Christianity assisted the rise of science.

 

Catch is... Kobe's wrong.

Kobe is wrong about the influence of Christianity being necessary or even useful, when it comes a rational understanding of the universe.

If he were correct, then how is this explained?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science  This flowering of Islamic science  predated the European Renaissance by centuries.  The Christian god and Christian dogma (Catholic or otherwise) about the created universe played no part in this Islamic science.  Therefore, Kobe is wrong about the necessity of a belief in the Christian creator God to foster rational inquiry.

 

The common denominator between Thales, Copernicus, Galileo and Islamic science is not Jesus Christ.

No.  Observation, analysis and logic is the answer, not Christian dogma.  All that the Muslim scientists needed to do, to understand the natural universe properly, was to observe it, analyze it and use their powers of logic.  Just as Thales advocated.  Just as Copernicus, Galileo and other Renaissance scientists practiced.  Just as scientists do today.  

 

There's even an Arabic word for this methodology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsafa 

"Early Islamic philosophy began in the 2nd century AH of the Islamic calendar (early 9th century CE) and lasted until the 6th century AH (late 12th century CE). The period is known as the Islamic Golden Age, and the achievements of this period had a crucial influence on the development of modern philosophy and science; for Renaissance Europe, the influence represented “one of the largest technology transfers in world history.”

 

So Kobe and Whithead are quite wrong.

The rise of science in the Late Medieval and Renaissance periods doesn't owe anything to 'true' Christianity.  Ancient Greek and Islamic modes of thought were the key to understanding the natural universe - via observation, analysis and logic.  Ironically enough, Christian apologists like William Lane Craig employ the ground-rules of Islamic philosophy (like the Kalam Cosmological Argument) to support their 'true' Christian beliefs.  If 'true' Christianity was the real basis for rational inquiry, as Kobe alleges, then why is Craig relying on an Islamic system of thought to support Christianity?

 

Lastly Ironhorse, here is a modern-day worked example that proves my case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction 

Abdus Salaam was a devout Muslim.  Glashow was raised in an orthodox Russian Jewish home but is now a Humanist.  Weinberg is an atheist.  These scientists put aside their personal beliefs and didn't let them inform their work at all.  Instead they employed the scientific method (observation, analysis and the logical testing of hypotheses) to achieve a brilliant understanding of the natural universe.

.

.

.

To recap.

 

1.

You are wrong about Copernicus' Christian beliefs being the driving force for his work, as I have demonstrated. 

Please indicate your agreement.

 

2.

I did not say that Copernicus rejected ALL religious truth. 

He rejected the Catholic religious 'truth' (i.e.,dogma) about the natural universe.

Please indicate your agreement.

 

3.

No belief in the Christian god is necessary for rational inquiry of the natural universe. 

Please indicate your agreement.

 

4.

Observation, analysis and the logical testing of hypotheses are all that's necessary for rational inquiry of the natural universe.

Please indicate your agreement.

 

5.

Science is the study of the natural universe and supernaturalism (such as the belief in a Creator) is not within it's remit.

Please indicate your agreement.

 

6.

Kobe's argument has been shown to be false and cannot be used to claim that 'true' Christianity assisted the rise of science.

Please indicate your agreement.

 

 

So that's six (6) separate responses of agreement from you, Ironhorse.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[♦ ficino ♦]

"In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it. Then we – now don't laugh, that's really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what, if this is right, if this law that we guessed is right, to see what it would imply. And then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it."

-Richard Feynman

 

 

Feynman is of the devil.  He should say:  "If it disagrees with God's Word, it's wrong.  That's all there is to it."

[♦ ficino ♦]

Info on science in medieval Europe:

 

Donald H. Kobe is professor of physics at the University of North Texas

 

"The influence of Christianity in providing an appropriate intellectual ethos for a rational understanding of the universe is at least one reason for the development of modern science in Europe about 500 years ago. According to Alfred North Whitehead, the greatest contribution of the medieval period to the scientific movement was the "belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedent in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles” [1]. The origin of the belief was the medieval insistence on the rationality of God. In this view, every detail of the universe was supervised and ordered by God. The search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality because nature had been created by a rational being. Albert Einstein once said that, to him, the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. For the believer in a rational creator, the comprehensibility of nature is a logical consequence."

 

[1] Alfred N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: Macmillan, 1925). Reprinted (New York: Mentor Books, 1948), p. 13.

What Kobe writes is not "info" on science in medieval Europe. It is Kobe's opinion. The opinion of Whitehead, which Kobe quotes, does not support Kobe's claim about the influence of Christianity. Whitehead only says that occurrences in nature can be studied on general principles. That was a conviction of Greek scientists going back to the pre-Socratics, as BAA has pointed out.

 

Einstein thought that even the idea that God guides human destiny through evolution is too anthropomorphic. I know that because Einstein said so in a letter he wrote to my father, which I have read.

 

So Kobe's two authorities do not establish what he needs for a historically or philosophically interesting claim about the influence of Christianity on medieval science. What Kobe needs to do is prove that Christianity provided a better set of assumptions for the scientific method than the Greeks and Romans did. If Christianity had not triumphed, it is fair to ask whether science would have advanced better and farther than it did. It is not fair to assert that Christianity was responsible for science unless you can set up a methodology that isolates Christianity as a variable.

 

Kobe also needs to show that Muslim influence on the science (and math) of medieval Christian Europe was not a factor.

[bornagainathiest]

I'm still waiting for those six (6) separate responses of agreement from you, Ironhorse.

 

Btw, my record stands at eighteen months.

That's how long I went after a Christian in this forum for a response he owed me.  But, I'm more than happy if you want to help me set a new record!  

 

The longer this goes, the more the lurkers take note and the more you push them away from Jesus.

Perhaps it'll help if you to visualize them thrashing and screaming in hell - when you could have been their route to salvation?

Or maybe, if you just don't care about them - what will you say to Jesus when you're judged by him about this?

.

.

.

Oh wait, I remember now!

 

You're saved by grace, so nothing that you do or don't do in this life really matters, does it?

You don't have to take responsibility for anything.

You can just ignore it all and let it go.

 

Riiiiiiiiight.

[sdelsolray]

Ironhorse, aka TinPony, aka Pewter Jackass, is way beyond his capabilities here.  He simply cannot address the dozens of questions and issues raised by other posters in numerous threads over the past few months.  He does not have the intellectual ability or emotional maturity needed to do so.  His skill set seems to be limited to cutting and pasting others' writings, ask childish rhetorical questions and misrepresenting others.

 

Although we have been hard on him (for good reason), and I have particularly been hard on him (again, for good reason), I suspect he is in the early stages of doubting/conversion/change.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

 

 

I'm clear. I never said Copernicus was a Christian who based his science on the Bible.

Do you have quote from Copernicus that he rejected religious truth?

 

Info on science in medieval Europe:

 

Donald H. Kobe is professor of physics at the University of North Texas

 

"The influence of Christianity in providing an appropriate intellectual ethos for a rational understanding of the universe is at least one reason for the development of modern science in Europe about 500 years ago."

 

[1] Alfred N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: Macmillan, 1925). Reprinted (New York: Mentor Books, 1948), p. 13.

 

 

 

You do realize that the Greeks were more advanced in science and literacy 2500 years ago than Europe was 600 years ago.  So yes Christians exterminated the competition so there was nobody else left alive for Europe's awakening.  But Christianity is also responsible for plunging Europe into the Dark Ages.  Of but what a small price that was to keep the Catholic Church in power.

 

 

There were several reasons for the Western world going into the Dark Ages. It started with

the fall of the Roman Empire, the invasion of the barbarians and other events.

 

I agree that the Papacy suppressed learning but I disagree with you labeling

this Christian. The Papacy tortured and executed Christians (and others) who disagreed with them.

 

It's a interesting topic to search online. Progress and learning was slowed down but it

was not stopped.

 

 

 

So your all powerful, all knowing God just stood there and watched it all happen in God's name.  Kind of like how God watched and did nothing while all those Catholic priests were molesting alter boys.  Maybe God likes to watch? Maybe God is imaginary.

 

 

Or maybe he and Satan were making bets again about what might happen if they were to fuck with the lives of little, puny humans like us. I swear, it's like a game of Chess or something.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello again Ironhorse.  

 

This is a polite reminder that since I've demonstrated you were wrong on six (6) different points in post # 465, you should do the decent and honest thing and respond to me in this thread by posting your six (6) agreements, as copied, here...

 

1.

You are wrong about Copernicus' Christian beliefs being the driving force for his work, as I have demonstrated. 

Please indicate your agreement.

 

2.

I did not say that Copernicus rejected ALL religious truth. 

He rejected the Catholic religious 'truth' (i.e.,dogma) about the natural universe.

Please indicate your agreement.

 

3.

No belief in the Christian god is necessary for rational inquiry of the natural universe. 

Please indicate your agreement.

 

4.

Observation, analysis and the logical testing of hypotheses are all that's necessary for rational inquiry of the natural universe.

Please indicate your agreement.

 

5.

Science is the study of the natural universe and supernaturalism (such as the belief in a Creator) is not within it's remit.

Please indicate your agreement.

 

6.

Kobe's argument has been shown to be false and cannot be used to claim that 'true' Christianity assisted the rise of science.

Please indicate your agreement.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[ironhorse]

Hello again Ironhorse.  

 

This is a polite reminder that since I've demonstrated you were wrong on six (6) different points in post # 465, you should do the decent and honest thing and respond to me in this thread by posting your six (6) agreements, as copied, here...

 

1.

You are wrong about Copernicus' Christian beliefs being the driving force for his work, as I have demonstrated. 

Please indicate your agreement.

 

2.

I did not say that Copernicus rejected ALL religious truth. 

He rejected the Catholic religious 'truth' (i.e.,dogma) about the natural universe.

Please indicate your agreement.

 

3.

No belief in the Christian god is necessary for rational inquiry of the natural universe. 

Please indicate your agreement.

 

4.

Observation, analysis and the logical testing of hypotheses are all that's necessary for rational inquiry of the natural universe.

Please indicate your agreement.

 

5.

Science is the study of the natural universe and supernaturalism (such as the belief in a Creator) is not within it's remit.

Please indicate your agreement.

 

6.

Kobe's argument has been shown to be false and cannot be used to claim that 'true' Christianity assisted the rise of science.

Please indicate your agreement.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

1. I did not say it was a driving force, but that Copernicus was a Christian.

 

2. If I remember your original post, you inferred that he rejected religious truth. I apologize if I'm wrong.

 

3. I will agree with that statement. I also think this was a driving force in science when many

    of them realized that God was rational and many things in creation could be understood

    through science.

 

4. Up to a point I agree, but the method cannot explain the origin of life.

 

5. If you mean by remit that science cannot prove the existence of God I agree. (???)

 

6. I disagree. All here can Google and search. Christian thought did help in rise of science

   in the Western world.

[Roz]

LD's christians are doing their level best to combat against the rise of science, as we've seen time and again.

[mymistake]

. . .  he rejected religious truth. . . 

 

 

Religious truth is an oxymoron.  The truth doesn't need religion.  It's true just because it is true.  Religion needs the appearance of truth to convince people to believe what is false.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Hello again Ironhorse.  

 

This is a polite reminder that since I've demonstrated you were wrong on six (6) different points in post # 465, you should do the decent and honest thing and respond to me in this thread by posting your six (6) agreements, as copied, here...

 

1.

You are wrong about Copernicus' Christian beliefs being the driving force for his work, as I have demonstrated. 

Please indicate your agreement.

 

2.

I did not say that Copernicus rejected ALL religious truth. 

He rejected the Catholic religious 'truth' (i.e.,dogma) about the natural universe.

Please indicate your agreement.

 

3.

No belief in the Christian god is necessary for rational inquiry of the natural universe. 

Please indicate your agreement.

 

4.

Observation, analysis and the logical testing of hypotheses are all that's necessary for rational inquiry of the natural universe.

Please indicate your agreement.

 

5.

Science is the study of the natural universe and supernaturalism (such as the belief in a Creator) is not within it's remit.

Please indicate your agreement.

 

6.

Kobe's argument has been shown to be false and cannot be used to claim that 'true' Christianity assisted the rise of science.

Please indicate your agreement.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

1. I did not say it was a driving force, but that Copernicus was a Christian.

 

You wrote this Ironhorse...  "I'm not talking papacy. I'm talking Christians who pioneered the rise of science."  

You made a direct connection between Copernicus' Christian faith and his pioneering scientific work.  So, even if you didn't openly say that his Christian faith was a driving force in his science, you implied it.  I've demonstrated that there was no need for anyone, Christian or Muslim,  to involve any aspect of any religious beliefs in a scientific investigation of the natural universe.  All that's needed is observation, analysis and logic.  So Copernicus' faith was incidental to his science.

 

Please indicate your agreement.

 

 

2. If I remember your original post, you inferred that he rejected religious truth. I apologize if I'm wrong.

 

Thank you!

 

3. I will agree with that statement. I also think this was a driving force in science when many

    of them realized that God was rational and many things in creation could be understood

    through science.

 

If you agree with the statement then what you 'also think' is wrong.  You cannot hold to to two mutually-exclusive positions.

As I've already demonstrated, no belief in a God is necessary to scientifically investigate the universe.  Science doesn't require any input from religion to work properly.

 

Please indicate your agreement.

 

4. Up to a point I agree, but the method cannot explain the origin of life.

 

I've checked and nowhere in this thread is the origin of life mentioned or even hinted at.

Therefore, your agreement shouldn't be 'up to a point', your agreement should be total and unequivocal.

 

Please indicate such agreement.

 

5. If you mean by remit that science cannot prove the existence of God I agree. (???)

 

Since you agree, there was no need for you to imply any doubt on point # 5 by adding those question marks.

 

Please indicate your full and unequivocal agreement.

 

6. I disagree. All here can Google and search. Christian thought did help in rise of science

   in the Western world.

 

You cannot disagree with 6, if you also agree with 3.  That would mean you are holding to two mutually-exclusive positions.

 

That Christianity thought didn't help the rise of science in the Western world.

That Christianity thought did help the rise of science in the Western world.

 

Science does not require any input from any religious belief system to function properly.

Therefore, Christian thought is not necessary to help, assist, pioneer or be the driving force behind science.

The fact that many Western scientists were also Christians was incidental to their scientific work.

If Christian thought was necessary in any way for science to work, then the Golden Age of Islamic science (which pre-dated the Renaissance) would have required the input of Christian thought to flourish.

Clearly it didn't.

 

So please indicate your agreement with point # 6, Ironhorse!