No Shit Sherlock

[♦ ficino ♦]

Very clear and thorough, BAA!

[bornagainathiest]

Very clear and thorough, BAA!

 

Thanks Ficino.  

.

.

.

Btw, do you see what I see... reading between the lines of Ironhorse's replies?

 

By trying to legitimize the historical role of Christianity in science, he's trying to legitimize Christianity's role in science today.  

Specifically, he's trying to legitimize Intelligent Design.   By trying to show there was a direct connection between Christianity and science then, he's trying to show that there's a direct connection now.  That ID is simply a modern-day equivalent of the 'faith-driven' science of Copernicus.

 

Therefore, ID is legitimate science.

 

Sneaky, huh?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Could be, I hadn't thought of that.  I was thinking more of how the Francis Schaefer types used to say this sort of thing, i.e. science requires a rational universe, only the assumption that a rational God created a rational universe provides a foundation for science.  This was an offshoot of TAG, I think - Transcendental Argument for God (the laws of logic have to be the product of an absolute mind in order for us to use them to know anything).

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Could be, I hadn't thought of that.  I was thinking more of how the Francis Schaefer types used to say this sort of thing, i.e. science requires a rational universe, only the assumption that a rational God created a rational universe provides a foundation for science.  This was an offshoot of TAG, I think - Transcendental Argument for God (the laws of logic have to be the product of an absolute mind in order for us to use them to know anything).

 

Hmmm...this?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposition_(philosophy)

n epistemology, a presupposition relates to a belief system, or Weltanschauung, that is required for the argument to make sense. A variety of Christian apologetics, called presuppositional apologetics, argues that the existence or non-existence of God is the basic presupposition of all human thought, and that all people arrive at a worldview which is ultimately determined by the theology they presuppose. Evidence and arguments are only developed after the fact in an attempt to justify the theological assumptions already made. According to this view, it is impossible to demonstrate the existence of God unless one presupposes that God exists. Modern science relies on methodological naturalism and thus is incapable of discovering the supernatural. It thereby fashions a Procrustean bed which rejects any observation which would disprove the naturalistic assumption. Apologists argue that the resulting worldview is inconsistent with itself and therefore irrational (for example, via theArgument from morality or via the Transcendental argument for the existence of God).

[♦ ficino ♦]

Yes, that stuff.  Francis Schaefer and other apologists, usually Calvinists, try to argue that the scientific enterprise is self-refuting unless you posit that God guarantees truth, logic, etc.  They hold for this reason that it took the Protestant Reformation for science really to get started, since Rome was still mired in faulty notions that "nature" can be understood by the intellect of fallen man.

 

No one but Calvinist apologists, as far as I know, goes on and on about "world views."

 

The hilarious part is that when you get down to asking where God tells us all this stuff, it's in a bundle of texts full of contradictions of the law of non-contradiction in logic.  But there are guys who are paid to spin those.

[midniterider]

 

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.

-----------------------

 

How would Christian 'thought' pioneer or be the driving force behind science, anyway? Christian thought involves obsessing about Jesus 24/7, not experiments, observations and theories.

 

"Let's pray for answers to how the universe works?"

"Dr. Smith, particle physicist is going to read the bible until he gets a 'word' about wave function collapse."

"Dr. Smith sends his results to the Vatican for peer review and approval."

 

The only answer 'Christian thought' would ever find would be Jesus because Christian thought is mental programming to a particular biased end.

Scientific thought, on the other hand, stepped out of the hamster wheel of Christianity to do their own thinking and eventually overcame church influence.

 

An early scientist who lives in a society governed by Christianity and who is expected to spew Christian BS from his mouth in order to live a peaceful life is going to spew his obligatory Christian BS. He may also have to sprinkle in the word Jesus to his scientific findings to get his colleagues and higher-ups to approve of some radical new research ...

 

Christian thought does not promote science. It promotes being afraid to come up with your own fresh ideas. There are scientists who are also Christians, no doubt, but Christian thought is not going to have any useful application in a scientist's work.

 

 

 

[RipVanWinkle]

"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."

ironhorse

 

 

 

They executed those who disagreed with them alright.But they were Catholics. And protestants. Oh

wait! There weren't any protestants in the Dark Ages. Nor were there any other established Xtian

churches. So, if there were any Xtians at all they had to be Catholics,, Orthodox Church in

Constantinople. Answer this, is it right to lie for Jesus?

ironhorse: Will you respond to me for once? Tell me where you get this bullshit? The Catholics and the Orthodox ?Church were virtually all the Xtians until the Protestant Reformation. And the "State" as you

call it, were the Catholics operating on orders of the Pope or with his blessing during all this time.

It was for Catholicism that the Crusades were carried out: To take control of the Holy Land for

Catholicism. It's lime saying Joan of Arc was not executed by the Church, even though she was tried and found guilty by the Church, but executed by the state working hand and glove with the Church.

 

I think whatever "research you do, if any, amounts to finding one sentence that says what you want

and ignoring all other related history to make sure your conclusion favors your distorted view. It's

called lying. bill

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

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.

Define "Christian thought." It cannot be said that "Christianity" aided scientific advancement. I agree that some early pioneers in science were motivated by their curiosity about the natural world which may have correlated to their sense of religious wonder, but there is no causal relationship there. Many Muslims advanced science and technology as well. Does that add validity to their spiritual beliefs? No. Many non-believers and atheists have also advanced science and technology. Many of the best minds in early colonial American history such as Benjamin Franklin were Deists (closest thing to atheism back then). Franklin outright rejected religion except as a means to moral betterment (which is very questionable). He put no stock in Christianity's supernatural claims. Curiosity and investigation are a ubiquitous part of being human, not exclusively Christian. Even if all Christian scientists were motivated by their spiritual beliefs, their discoveries do not add validity to those beliefs. Their supernatural beliefs must stand on their own two feet to be validated, and they don't. You can argue this all day and even be correct that early scientists were motivated primarily by religious belief, but it is irrelevant because it does not add validity to the supernatural claims either way.

[sdelsolray]

"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."

ironhorse

 

 

 

They executed those who disagreed with them alright.But they were Catholics. And protestants. Oh

wait! There weren't any protestants in the Dark Ages. Nor were there any other established Xtian

churches. So, if there were any Xtians at all they had to be Catholics,, Orthodox Church in

Constantinople. Answer this, is it right to lie for Jesus?

ironhorse: Will you respond to me for once? Tell me where you get this bullshit? The Catholics and the Orthodox ?Church were virtually all the Xtians until the Protestant Reformation. And the "State" as you

call it, were the Catholics operating on orders of the Pope or with his blessing during all this time.

It was for Catholicism that the Crusades were carried out: To take control of the Holy Land for

Catholicism. It's lime saying Joan of Arc was not executed by the Church, even though she was tried and found guilty by the Church, but executed by the state working hand and glove with the Church.

 

I think whatever "research you do, if any, amounts to finding one sentence that says what you want

and ignoring all other related history to make sure your conclusion favors your distorted view. It's

called lying. bill

Ironhorse has been using the No True Scotsman fallacy for quite some time now.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

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.

Define "Christian thought." It cannot be said that "Christianity" aided scientific advancement. I agree that some early pioneers in science were motivated by their curiosity about the natural world which may have correlated to their sense of religious wonder, but there is no causal relationship there. Many Muslims advanced science and technology as well. Does that add validity to their spiritual beliefs? No. Many non-believers and atheists have also advanced science and technology. Many of the best minds in early colonial American history such as Benjamin Franklin were Deists (closest thing to atheism back then). Franklin outright rejected religion except as a means to moral betterment (which is very questionable). He put no stock in Christianity's supernatural claims. Curiosity and investigation are a ubiquitous part of being human, not exclusively Christian. Even if all Christian scientists were motivated by their spiritual beliefs, their discoveries do not add validity to those beliefs. Their supernatural beliefs must stand on their own two feet to be validated, and they don't. You can argue this all day and even be correct that early scientists were motivated primarily by religious belief, but it is irrelevant because it does not add validity to the supernatural claims either way.

 

Ironhorse has already been called out for his failure to distinguish coincidence, correlation and causation, and for conflating them when it suits his agenda.  If he already knows of the differences, he is being disingenuous and likely to remain so.  If he doesn't, he's willfully ignorant and likely to remain so.

[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.

 

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.

Define "Christian thought." It cannot be said that "Christianity" aided scientific advancement. I agree that some early pioneers in science were motivated by their curiosity about the natural world which may have correlated to their sense of religious wonder, but there is no causal relationship there. Many Muslims advanced science and technology as well. Does that add validity to their spiritual beliefs? No. Many non-believers and atheists have also advanced science and technology. Many of the best minds in early colonial American history such as Benjamin Franklin were Deists (closest thing to atheism back then). Franklin outright rejected religion except as a means to moral betterment (which is very questionable). He put no stock in Christianity's supernatural claims. Curiosity and investigation are a ubiquitous part of being human, not exclusively Christian. Even if all Christian scientists were motivated by their spiritual beliefs, their discoveries do not add validity to those beliefs. Their supernatural beliefs must stand on their own two feet to be validated, and they don't. You can argue this all day and even be correct that early scientists were motivated primarily by religious belief, but it is irrelevant because it does not add validity to the supernatural claims either way.

 

Ironhorse has already been called out for his failure to distinguish coincidence, correlation and causation, and for conflating them when it suits his agenda.  If he already knows of the differences, he is being disingenuous and likely to remain so.  If he doesn't, he's willfully ignorant and likely to remain so.

 

 

In either of those scenarios, our moral duty is to expose Ironhorse's dis-ingenuity/ignorance whenever we can.

 

We should persist in doing this for as long as it takes - for the sake of the truth, for the sake of those lurking who wish to know the truth and for the sake of each other.

[sdelsolray]

 

Ironhorse has already been called out for his failure to distinguish coincidence, correlation and causation, and for conflating them when it suits his agenda.  If he already knows of the differences, he is being disingenuous and likely to remain so.  If he doesn't, he's willfully ignorant and likely to remain so.

 

 

In either of those scenarios, our moral duty is to expose Ironhorse's dis-ingenuity/ignorance whenever we can.

 

We should persist in doing this for as long as it takes - for the sake of the truth, for the sake of those lurking who wish to know the truth and for the sake of each other.

 

Well, Ironhorse has certainly provided examples of both, although I'm beginning to think he is more of a willfully ignorant theist than a disingenuous one.

[Neverlandrut]

Ironhorse, whether you intend it or not, what you are implying is that Christianity caused (or helped to cause) science. This is false. The entire point of science is to objectively discover and evaluate the truth of how our universe works, INDEPENDENT of personal, subjective intuition/conviction. Christianity and the founding of science cannot be connected. You keep pointing to Copernicus and draw attention to the fact that he/they were Christians. Well, they were probably chronic masterbaters too. That must mean that masterbation helped establish science! You are trying to creat a connection where there isn't one. The entire point of science is to make objective, verifiable discoveries WITHOUT the bias of personal, subjective opinion. A method of trying to discover truth when you are only willing to consider answers that fit a particular frame work (like Christianity), is not science. It is confirmation bias, which is exactly the error that science is designed to avoid.

[bornagainathiest]

Yes, that stuff.  Francis Schaefer and other apologists, usually Calvinists, try to argue that the scientific enterprise is self-refuting unless you posit that God guarantees truth, logic, etc.  They hold for this reason that it took the Protestant Reformation for science really to get started, since Rome was still mired in faulty notions that "nature" can be understood by the intellect of fallen man.

 

No one but Calvinist apologists, as far as I know, goes on and on about "world views."

 

The hilarious part is that when you get down to asking where God tells us all this stuff, it's in a bundle of texts full of contradictions of the law of non-contradiction in logic.  But there are guys who are paid to spin those.

 

Well I'm not very impressed, Ficino.

 

By setting the start of science at the Protestant Reformation (1517 A.D.) and by declaring that nature couldn't be understood by the intellect of fallen humans, this argument sows the seeds of it's destruction.  Any clear demonstration of mankind using his fallen intellect to observe, analyze and understand the universe before this date refutes the whole argument!

 

Heck!  I didn't even know that I'd refuted it over a month ago, with post # 443 and the example of Erastothenes.

But if you an even earlier example of how neolithic man used to fallen intellect to understand and predict the behavior of the natural world, you couldn't do much better than this.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge  (3,100 B.C., not 1517 A.D.!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoastronomy_and_Stonehenge  Please see the section, Gerald Hawkin's work.  

 

Or just do a Google image search for, 'stonehenge astronomical alignments'.

.

.

.

Oy vey!  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[♦ ficino ♦]

It's been since the 70s that I was into Francis Schaefer. From what I remember, they'd say that by common grace, God allows fallen and depraved humans to piece out a few things that are true. They'd also say that a rational God created a rational universe, so its lawlikeness can be observed. But they do, as far as I recall, deny that modern science was able to begin before Protestantism. They say that earlier attempts at explaining the world could never achieve complex, theoretical understanding because they were vitiated by faulty presuppositions.

 

It's all a word game with these guys (I say "guys" because I've never come across an exponent of TAG who is a woman.)

[bornagainathiest]

It's been since the 70s that I was into Francis Schaefer. From what I remember, they'd say that by common grace, God allows fallen and depraved humans to piece out a few things that are true. They'd also say that a rational God created a rational universe, so its lawlikeness can be observed. But they do, as far as I recall, deny that modern science was able to begin before Protestantism. They say that earlier attempts at explaining the world could never achieve complex, theoretical understanding because they were vitiated by faulty presuppositions.

 

It's all a word game with these guys (I say "guys" because I've never come across an exponent of TAG who is a woman.)

 

Well what the **** is their definition of science, then?

 

If it isn't the methodology of observing, testing, analyzying, comprehending and then predicting the behavior of the natural world, then what is it?  

And the many thousands of meticulously calculated and calibrated celestial alignments, found in hundreds of ancient sites, built by dozens of non-Christian cultures don't constitute clear and unequivocal evidence of the above methodology?  Not to mention the exquisitely precise tables of total and partial solar and lunar eclipses, extending over millennia, drawn up by the Mayans?  

 

And what was needed to create this in the 1st century B.C.? 

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

A complex theoretical understanding of reality, perhaps?

.

.

.

 

Those brilliant, clear-sighted ancients who made these wonderful artifacts weren't the ones burdened with faulty presuppositions!

 

 

.

.

.

Excuse me while I go puke... 

[bornagainathiest]

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

This begins (correctly) in ancient times, not when the Protestant Reformation began.

 

A few examples of the sophisticated and complex theoretical understanding of the world gained by pre-Reformation peoples.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundial 

In roughly 700 BC, the Old Testament describes a sundial — the "dial of Ahaz" mentioned in Isaiah 38 : 8.  Oops! 

.

.

.

 

But I've saved the best till last!  

 

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

 

IRONY!

13th-century Christian monks overwrote this document and nearly destroyed it forever.  And now?  Christians are still trying to efface examples of pre-Reformation science from history.  

 

Please draw your own conclusions!

[bornagainathiest]

Yes, that stuff.  Francis Schaefer and other apologists, usually Calvinists, try to argue that the scientific enterprise is self-refuting unless you posit that God guarantees truth, logic, etc.  They hold for this reason that it took the Protestant Reformation for science really to get started, since Rome was still mired in faulty notions that "nature" can be understood by the intellect of fallen man.

 

No one but Calvinist apologists, as far as I know, goes on and on about "world views."

 

The hilarious part is that when you get down to asking where God tells us all this stuff, it's in a bundle of texts full of contradictions of the law of non-contradiction in logic.  But there are guys who are paid to spin those.

 

 

So if forensic science confirmed the exhumation of Jesus' bones, God would guarantee the truth and logic of that science... ?

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

I may be conflating two claims:

1. that theism is necessary for science, because you have to posit a rational universe kept in rational order by God or else you're left with randomness, which can't be predicted;

and

2. TAG as described above.

 

I think more Christians might endorse 1 than 2.  They might say that the ancient Greeks, Mayans, et al. believed in gods that ordered the cosmos so that's why they could do some rudimentary science.

 

Beyond this, I can't speak for them except by my faulty memory.  

 

There was a TAGer on here when I first joined around 2004 or 2005, a Paul Manata, who I think is an actual apologist, or at least, blogger.  He dropped off after a while - actually, I recall it was after I caught him in a rudimentary logical fallacy, sc. saying that "P only if Q" translates to "if Q then P." Bwa ha ha!

[bornagainathiest]

I may be conflating two claims:

1. that theism is necessary for science, because you have to posit a rational universe kept in rational order by God or else you're left with randomness, which can't be predicted;

 

Any world view incorporating cause-and-effect will give you what you need to observe, analyze and understand it.

 

With Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, there ARE things you can't predict.

That hasn't stopped quantum physics from being spectacularly successful.   That's a false dichotomy, btw.  Forcing a choice between theism and total chaos.  Knowing the probability of something. but not being able to know it with ABSOLUTE certainty is how humans operate.  Absolute scientific knowledge is forever beyond us.

 

and

2. TAG as described above.

 

I think more Christians might endorse 1 than 2.  They might say that the ancient Greeks, Mayans, et al. believed in gods that ordered the cosmos so that's why they could do some rudimentary science.

 

No gods needed.  Just cause and effect.

 

Beyond this, I can't speak for them except by my faulty memory.  

 

There was a TAGer on here when I first joined around 2004 or 2005, a Paul Manata, who I think is an actual apologist, or at least, blogger.  He dropped off after a while - actually, I recall it was after I caught him in a rudimentary logical fallacy, sc. saying that "P only if Q" translates to "if Q then P." Bwa ha ha!

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

For what it's worth, I recall the Francis Schaefer types being adamant that Greek science really wasn't up to snuff. I think it might have been that many Greeks thought that the universe was eternal, so the Schaefer types thought this made matter an autonomous, and by definition, irrational principle. So you can't construct scientific theories, Francis S said, if you have a wild card like eternal matter in there - esp. on the Epicurean model where there are random swerves of the atoms.

 

I don't know how these guys deal with Heisenberg et al but I'm sure they have worked out refutations.

 

I think one thing they try to get away with is to equivocate on "know/knowledge." They say only the Christian world view grounds knowledge. But then they have to allow for the unsaved to know certain things, so they fiddle faddle around with words.

 

If I were a business owner post Hobby Lobby maybe I could get away with saying that my atheistic belief system doesn't lay a foundation for knowledge, so I can't know how much the Christian employees' contracts say they should be paid, so for all I know, the Christians' contracts amount to, say, $20 a week. So that's what I pay them.

[ironhorse]

It's been since the 70s that I was into Francis Schaefer. From what I remember, they'd say that by common grace, God allows fallen and depraved humans to piece out a few things that are true. They'd also say that a rational God created a rational universe, so its lawlikeness can be observed. But they do, as far as I recall, deny that modern science was able to begin before Protestantism. They say that earlier attempts at explaining the world could never achieve complex, theoretical understanding because they were vitiated by faulty presuppositions.

 

It's all a word game with these guys (I say "guys" because I've never come across an exponent of TAG who is a woman.)

 

"But they do, as far as I recall, deny that modern science was able to begin before Protestantism" ~ficino

 

I agree with that. The Papacy trashed any questioning or deviation from official views of the church in Rome.

The rebellion ( by the Protestants) opened the door to questioning and learning.

[bornagainathiest]

 

It's been since the 70s that I was into Francis Schaefer. From what I remember, they'd say that by common grace, God allows fallen and depraved humans to piece out a few things that are true. They'd also say that a rational God created a rational universe, so its lawlikeness can be observed. But they do, as far as I recall, deny that modern science was able to begin before Protestantism. They say that earlier attempts at explaining the world could never achieve complex, theoretical understanding because they were vitiated by faulty presuppositions.

 

It's all a word game with these guys (I say "guys" because I've never come across an exponent of TAG who is a woman.)

 

"But they do, as far as I recall, deny that modern science was able to begin before Protestantism" ~ficino

 

I agree with that. The Papacy trashed any questioning or deviation from official views of the church in Rome.

The rebellion ( by the Protestants) opened the door to questioning and learning.

 

 

So how was Erastothenes able to calculate the circumference of the Earth to within 1% of it's true value?

 

Questioning and learning, perhaps?  

Observing, analyzing and understanding nature, perhaps?

Obtaining true knowledge about the universe by the scientific method, perhaps?

.

.

.

 

Do you also deny that the Islamic Golden Age of Science pre-dated the Protestant Reformation?

 

And what about the existence of the content in posts # 489, 491 and 492?  Not real either?

 

And what about me?  

 

Seeing as you haven't addressed anything I've posted in the last 72 hours, Ironhorse... maybe I don't exist either?

.

.

.

Since you seem to be limited to answering questions ONE AT A TIME, please pick just one example that I've posted and we can go from there!

[ironhorse]

 

 

It's been since the 70s that I was into Francis Schaefer. From what I remember, they'd say that by common grace, God allows fallen and depraved humans to piece out a few things that are true. They'd also say that a rational God created a rational universe, so its lawlikeness can be observed. But they do, as far as I recall, deny that modern science was able to begin before Protestantism. They say that earlier attempts at explaining the world could never achieve complex, theoretical understanding because they were vitiated by faulty presuppositions.

 

It's all a word game with these guys (I say "guys" because I've never come across an exponent of TAG who is a woman.)

 

"But they do, as far as I recall, deny that modern science was able to begin before Protestantism" ~ficino

 

I agree with that. The Papacy trashed any questioning or deviation from official views of the church in Rome.

The rebellion ( by the Protestants) opened the door to questioning and learning.

 

 

So how was Erastothenes able to calculate the circumference of the Earth to within 1% of it's true value?

 

Questioning and learning, perhaps?  

Observing, analyzing and understanding nature, perhaps?

Obtaining true knowledge about the universe by the scientific method, perhaps?

.

.

.

 

Do you also deny that the Islamic Golden Age of Science pre-dated the Protestant Reformation?

 

And what about the existence of the content in posts # 489, 491 and 492?  Not real either?

 

And what about me?  

 

Seeing as you haven't addressed anything I've posted in the last 72 hours, Ironhorse... maybe I don't exist either?

.

.

.

Since you seem to be limited to answering questions ONE AT A TIME, please pick just one example that I've posted and we can go from there!

 

 

"Do you also deny that the Islamic Golden Age of Science pre-dated the Protestant Reformation?"

 

No,I do not deny their contributions.

Nor can you dismiss this:

 

"Christians (particularly Nestorian Christians) contributed to the Arab Islamic Civilization during the Ummayad and the Abbasid periods by translating works of Greek philosophers to Syriac and afterwards to Arabic." ~Wikipedia

[Guest Marty]

 

 

 

It's been since the 70s that I was into Francis Schaefer. From what I remember, they'd say that by common grace, God allows fallen and depraved humans to piece out a few things that are true. They'd also say that a rational God created a rational universe, so its lawlikeness can be observed. But they do, as far as I recall, deny that modern science was able to begin before Protestantism. They say that earlier attempts at explaining the world could never achieve complex, theoretical understanding because they were vitiated by faulty presuppositions.

 

It's all a word game with these guys (I say "guys" because I've never come across an exponent of TAG who is a woman.)

 

"But they do, as far as I recall, deny that modern science was able to begin before Protestantism" ~ficino

 

I agree with that. The Papacy trashed any questioning or deviation from official views of the church in Rome.

The rebellion ( by the Protestants) opened the door to questioning and learning.

 

 

So how was Erastothenes able to calculate the circumference of the Earth to within 1% of it's true value?

 

Questioning and learning, perhaps?  

Observing, analyzing and understanding nature, perhaps?

Obtaining true knowledge about the universe by the scientific method, perhaps?

.

.

.

 

Do you also deny that the Islamic Golden Age of Science pre-dated the Protestant Reformation?

 

And what about the existence of the content in posts # 489, 491 and 492?  Not real either?

 

And what about me?  

 

Seeing as you haven't addressed anything I've posted in the last 72 hours, Ironhorse... maybe I don't exist either?

.

.

.

Since you seem to be limited to answering questions ONE AT A TIME, please pick just one example that I've posted and we can go from there!

 

 

"Do you also deny that the Islamic Golden Age of Science pre-dated the Protestant Reformation?"

 

No,I do not deny their contributions.

Nor can you dismiss this:

 

"Christians (particularly Nestorian Christians) contributed to the Arab Islamic Civilization during the Ummayad and the Abbasid periods by translating works of Greek philosophers to Syriac and afterwards to Arabic." ~Wikipedia

 

 

Shut up, you're an imbecile.