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
See more
See less

Getting to grips with God

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
    The 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:
    Source: kbertsche


    The birth and growth of modern science in the seventeenth century was a unique
    occurrence. Why was it that scientific flourished so quickly and so well at this time?
    And why were devout British Puritans such a big part of it? It seems that a number of
    factors converged to cause this. These include the background of Greek and Medieval
    philosophy, the open-mindedness generated from the Renaissance and Enlightenment,
    and the biblical worldview of the Puritans. “Without belittling advances that occurred
    elsewhere, one can say that seventeenth-century England was the turning point in the
    history of science, and that the Puritans were its chief agents. Seven out of ten members
    of the Royal Society were Puritans--a ratio far out of proportion to the population as a
    whole; most of the virtuosi were active churchmen, and many of the clergy encouraged or
    themselves took part in scientific pursuits.”36

    Barbour details a number of unique, biblically-motivated attitudes which the
    Puritans had. First is “interest in nature for its own sake,” as coming from the hand of a
    rational God. Second is the conviction that “the details of nature can only be known by
    observing them.”
    Since God was free to create nature in any way He wished, it is
    impossible to know its details by philosophical arguments from first principles (as the
    Greeks tried to do).
    Third was “an affirmative attitude toward nature,” believing that
    there is something good about the world which God so purposefully created. Fourth was
    “the Protestant ethic” which was the Reformation view that “secular” work was no lesser
    in the eyes of God than purely “religious” vocations.37

    36 Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966), 48.
    37 Barbour, 44-50.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Thanks 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?
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      Thanks 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?
      Yes, 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.
      "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
        Yes, 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.
        Ah - so the church is to blame for suppressing in the earlier centuries, something that didn't exist until 1600 +. Tassman's hypothesis to that effect obviously holds water.
        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
          Ah - so the church is to blame for suppressing in the earlier centuries, something that didn't exist until 1600 +. Tassman's hypothesis to that effect obviously holds water.
          ???How did you get this from what I wrote???
          "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            Ah - so the church is to blame for suppressing in the earlier centuries, something that didn't exist until 1600 +. Tassman's hypothesis to that effect obviously holds water.
            Science existed in the Classical period, but not the modern scientific method that developed during the Renaissance and Enlightenment. But, although the Church was responsible for some active suppression of science (Copernicus springs to mind) that wasn’t “my hypothesis”. It was that the Church was indifferent to the great advances of knowledge of the Pagan period and tended to let it lapse.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • It was that the Church was indifferent to the great advances of knowledge of the Pagan period and tended to let it lapse.
              What he and later modern historians of early science found is that the Enlightenment myths of the Middle Ages as a scientific dark age suppressed by the dead hand of an oppressive Church were nonsense. Duhem was a meticulous historical researcher and fluent in Latin, meaning he could read Medieval scientific works that had been ignored for centuries. And as one of the most renowned physicists of his day, he was also in a unique position to assess the sophistication of the works he was rediscovering and of recognising that these Medieval scholars had actually discovered elements in physics and mechanics that had long been attributed to much later scientists like Galileo and Newton. This did not sit well with anti-clerical elements in the intellectual elite of his time and his publishers were pressured not to publish the later volumes of his Systeme de Monde: Histoire des Doctrines cosmologiques de Platon ŕ Copernic - the establishment of the time was not comfortable with the idea of the Middle Ages as a scientific dark age being overturned. Duhem died with his painstaking work largely unpublished in 1916 and it was only the efforts of his daughter Helene's 30 year struggle for her father's opus to see the light of day that saw the whole 10 volume work finally released in 1959.
              https://www.quora.com/Why-did-scienc...r/Tim-ONeill-1


              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
                What he and later modern historians of early science found is that the Enlightenment myths of the Middle Ages as a scientific dark age suppressed by the dead hand of an oppressive Church were nonsense. Duhem was a meticulous historical researcher and fluent in Latin, meaning he could read Medieval scientific works that had been ignored for centuries. And as one of the most renowned physicists of his day, he was also in a unique position to assess the sophistication of the works he was rediscovering and of recognising that these Medieval scholars had actually discovered elements in physics and mechanics that had long been attributed to much later scientists like Galileo and Newton. This did not sit well with anti-clerical elements in the intellectual elite of his time and his publishers were pressured not to publish the later volumes of his Systeme de Monde: Histoire des Doctrines cosmologiques de Platon ŕ Copernic - the establishment of the time was not comfortable with the idea of the Middle Ages as a scientific dark age being overturned. Duhem died with his painstaking work largely unpublished in 1916 and it was only the efforts of his daughter Helene's 30 year struggle for her father's opus to see the light of day that saw the whole 10 volume work finally released in 1959.
                https://www.quora.com/Why-did-scienc...r/Tim-ONeill-1


                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.
                To 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.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-22-2017, 08:41 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  To 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.
                  All of history with the exception of the last couple of hundred years lacked the benefit of modern science so I guess for you nearly all of history constitutes the Dark Ages.

                  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 Post
                    The Middle Ages lacked the benefit of modern science.
                    The "middle ages" in EUROPE lacked the benefit of "modern" science (or more precisely... the scientific method)...which was available to the rest of the world.....

                    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 Post
                        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.
                        Yes....perhaps.....
                        ---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 Post
                          The 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:
                          Source: kbertsche


                          The birth and growth of modern science in the seventeenth century was a unique
                          occurrence. Why was it that scientific flourished so quickly and so well at this time?
                          And why were devout British Puritans such a big part of it? It seems that a number of
                          factors converged to cause this. These include the background of Greek and Medieval
                          philosophy, the open-mindedness generated from the Renaissance and Enlightenment,
                          and the biblical worldview of the Puritans. “Without belittling advances that occurred
                          elsewhere, one can say that seventeenth-century England was the turning point in the
                          history of science, and that the Puritans were its chief agents. Seven out of ten members
                          of the Royal Society were Puritans--a ratio far out of proportion to the population as a
                          whole; most of the virtuosi were active churchmen, and many of the clergy encouraged or
                          themselves took part in scientific pursuits.”36

                          Barbour details a number of unique, biblically-motivated attitudes which the
                          Puritans had. First is “interest in nature for its own sake,” as coming from the hand of a
                          rational God. Second is the conviction that “the details of nature can only be known by
                          observing them.” Since God was free to create nature in any way He wished, it is
                          impossible to know its details by philosophical arguments from first principles (as the
                          Greeks tried to do). Third was “an affirmative attitude toward nature,” believing that
                          there is something good about the world which God so purposefully created. Fourth was
                          “the Protestant ethic” which was the Reformation view that “secular” work was no lesser
                          in the eyes of God than purely “religious” vocations.37

                          36 Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966), 48.
                          37 Barbour, 44-50.

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          I believe your sources are failing to consider the significant contribution of Islam, and the rise of humanist secular scholarship.

                          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.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            I believe your sources are failing to consider the significant contribution of Islam, and the rise of humanist secular scholarship.
                            Firstly, your comment reveals that you have not read my source (not sources). The Renaissance and the Enlightenment were important contributing factors, as Barbour explained and as I said in my paper.

                            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 Post
                            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.
                            Why do you think Christianity has moved backward in this? On the contrary, I see a fairly steady forward progression. Groups like BioLogos have arisen, and there is much more Christian acceptance of evolution now than there was 50 or 100 years ago.
                            "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                            Comment

                            Related Threads

                            Collapse

                            Topics Statistics Last Post
                            Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                            39 responses
                            176 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post whag
                            by whag
                             
                            Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                            21 responses
                            132 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                            80 responses
                            427 views
                            0 likes
                            Last Post tabibito  
                            Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                            45 responses
                            303 views
                            1 like
                            Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                            Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                            406 responses
                            2,510 views
                            2 likes
                            Last Post tabibito  
                            Working...
                            X