Originally posted by Kbertsche
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Getting to grips with God
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThanks for that. Very interesting! I would say that although their reasons were wrong in my view their methodology was right (bolded), namely empiricism which is the basis of modern science. But surely Galileo got there first?
Barbour makes a good case that modern science rests on three elements: the empiricism of Bacon, the mathematical rigor of Kepler, and Galileo's ability to "abstract" observations into general principles and laws. Until all three elements were in place, we didn't have modern science.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kbertsche View PostYes, Galileo got there first, in the early 17th century, partly due to similar social-historical factors as Barbour noted for the Puritans.
Barbour makes a good case that modern science rests on three elements: the empiricism of Bacon, the mathematical rigor of Kepler, and Galileo's ability to "abstract" observations into general principles and laws. Until all three elements were in place, we didn't have modern science.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
-
-
It was that the Church was indifferent to the great advances of knowledge of the Pagan period and tended to let it lapse.
In short - the myth of the scientific dark ages was protestant propaganda against the evil Church of Rome. That it was turned around and made to bite the very people who invented the rumour is ironic.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
In short - the myth of the scientific dark ages was protestant propaganda against the evil Church of Rome. That it was turned around and made to bite the very people who invented the rumour is ironic.Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-22-2017, 08:41 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostTo me the Dark Ages are far more recent, like today, for those that consider Genesis factual history. The Middle Ages lacked the benefit of modern science.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe Middle Ages lacked the benefit of modern science.
Ibn Haytham (965-1040 CE) known in the West by the latinized name Alhacen developed the "scientific method", and also known as the father of modern optics, his book on optics (kitab al manazir) was transtlated into latin (De Aspectibus)
Ibn al-Haytham is regarded as the father of the modern scientific method.
As commonly defined, this is the approach to investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge, based on the gathering of data through observation and measurement, followed by the formulation and testing of hypotheses to explain the data.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7810846.stm
Al Biruni and Avicenna (ibn Sina) are among many others that used the scientific method, but paid attention to, and developed, the use of (proper) tools in the scientific method.
Comment
-
The historical contribution of the Arabic world to science is a matter of record, true enough.
965-1040 CE translations to Latin could only have been driven by the church - any other use of Latin (save in perhaps one pocket size country) was long since obsolete.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostThe historical contribution of the Arabic world to science is a matter of record, true enough.
965-1040 CE translations to Latin could only have been driven by the church - any other use of Latin (save in perhaps one pocket size country) was long since obsolete.
---a few Arabic to Latin translations did occur around the 10th/11th century---but most (including de aspectibus) occurred around the 12th/13th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Optics
In Europe, some translations into Latin occurred in Spain and Italy.....which would be the territory of the RCC? ....but I am not sure it was "driven" by the Church---rather by Christian scholars?...the Church may have allowed it because it recognized the benefits?.......(thus, it cracked down when it felt otherwise?)----on the other hand, both Oxford and Sorbonne history affiliates them with Christianity....
Medieval Latin was the form of Latin used in the Middle Ages, primarily: as a medium of scholarly exchange; as the liturgical language of Chalcedonian Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church; and as a language of science, literature, law, and administration. Despite the clerical origin of many of its authors, medieval Latin should not be confused with Ecclesiastical Latin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Latin
In the non-European "world" (Eastern) Christian scholars contributed to the "Golden Age"---translations from Greek to Arabic are known of course---but Christian scholars may have contributed to translations from Chinese as well?....when researching Islamic history in China, I came across mention of Christian missionaries translating Chinese texts.....these missionaries had apparently come into China using the trade routes traveled by Jewish merchants......?.....
See---House of Wisdom (8th to 13th century--destroyed by the Mongols) for the non-European history of the pursuit of knowledge....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Wisdom
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kbertsche View PostThe prevailing view among modern historians of science is that Christianity was a major factor in the development of modern science, but not the only factor.
From a paper which I wrote a number of years ago:
Though if you are even in part correct, Christianity has taken a leap backwards as far as the acceptance of modern science and in particular the science of evolution. Many if not most reject the science of evolution or only conditionally accept it in the traditions of most Church Fathers that believed in a literal Genesis.Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-02-2017, 09:57 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI believe your sources are failing to consider the significant contribution of Islam, and the rise of humanist secular scholarship.
Secondly, I am NOT convinced that Islam was an important factor. My impression is that 1) Islamic science was mainly descriptive, not getting to causes and mechanisms, and they 2) there was little historical connection between Islamic science and modern science.
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThough if you are even in part correct, Christianity has taken a leap backwards as far as the acceptance of modern science and in particular the science of evolution. Many if not most reject the science of evolution or only conditionally accept it in the traditions of most Church Fathers that believed in a literal Genesis.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
100 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
392 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
160 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
126 responses
683 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-30-2024, 09:12 AM | ||
Started by whag, 04-07-2024, 10:17 AM
|
39 responses
252 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
04-12-2024, 02:58 PM
|
Comment