Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Intelligence and Religiosity

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

  • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
    I mentioned him briefly earlier in this thread. It has been argued (by Barbour and others) that modern science is based on three ideas which set it apart from Greek and Medieval science: 1) the empiricism of Bacon, 2) the mathematical approach of Kepler, and 3) the theoretical abstraction of Galileo. I think Barbour is correct that until all three of these elements were in place, we really didn't have modern science.

    All three of these founders of modern science were Christian; Bacon was Anglican, Kepler was Lutheran, and Galileo was Catholic. And all three were fairly devout in their faith, more so than the general public. (Galileo is often wrongly viewed as anti-religious; for evidence of his religious convictions, see his "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina." Also here.)

    "The Naturalness of Religion and the Unnaturalness of Science"
    https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...of-science.pdf
    "Compared with scientific categories, those in religion lack theoretical depth. Contrary to first impressions, religious accounts of things differ little from everyday accounts. Religious systems import all of our familiar, commonsense psychology about agents' intentions, beliefs, desires, and actions for the explanation of phenomena throughout the natural and social worlds. Whether applied to other drivers on the road or to the rulers of the cosmos, this system performs quite nicely most of the time for understanding and anticipating agents' actions and states of mind. The rationale underlying an explanation of someone's illness as the result of an ancestor's interventions based on that ancestor's displeasure with the victim's conduct is as readily comprehensible to a child as it is to the most experienced religious official.

    In the absence of cultural forms that foster the collective growth of humans' critical and imaginative capacities, human beings rely upon their natural cognitive dispositions, which often appear to be domain specific and comparatively inflexible in their application. CPS agents, stories about them, and rituals for controlling and appeasing them are the inevitable outcomes of a cognitive system that simultaneously seeks explanations, possesses an overactive agent detector, and, perhaps, most importantly, lacks scientific traditions. As Daniel Dennett (1998, p. 122) has remarked, " . . . until science came along, one had to settle for personifying the unpredictable--adopting the intentional stance toward it--and trying various desperate measures of control and
    appeasement." (26-27)"

    Moderated By: Littlejoe

    Jichard, this post is nothing more than a copy paste from another site with a cite to where its from. It has nothing of you in it. This is equivalent to Argument By Weblink. Please do not post in this fashion going forward. Your post should be your words with your points supported by (if necessary) information from another source.

    ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
    Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

    Last edited by Littlejoe; 10-09-2015, 07:35 AM.
    "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
      "The Naturalness of Religion and the Unnaturalness of Science"
      https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...of-science.pdf
      "Compared with scientific categories, those in religion lack theoretical depth. Contrary to first impressions, religious accounts of things differ little from everyday accounts. Religious systems import all of our familiar, commonsense psychology about agents' intentions, beliefs, desires, and actions for the explanation of phenomena throughout the natural and social worlds. Whether applied to other drivers on the road or to the rulers of the cosmos, this system performs quite nicely most of the time for understanding and anticipating agents' actions and states of mind. The rationale underlying an explanation of someone's illness as the result of an ancestor's interventions based on that ancestor's displeasure with the victim's conduct is as readily comprehensible to a child as it is to the most experienced religious official.

      In the absence of cultural forms that foster the collective growth of humans' critical and imaginative capacities, human beings rely upon their natural cognitive dispositions, which often appear to be domain specific and comparatively inflexible in their application. CPS agents, stories about them, and rituals for controlling and appeasing them are the inevitable outcomes of a cognitive system that simultaneously seeks explanations, possesses an overactive agent detector, and, perhaps, most importantly, lacks scientific traditions. As Daniel Dennett (1998, p. 122) has remarked, " . . . until science came along, one had to settle for personifying the unpredictable--adopting the intentional stance toward it--and trying various desperate measures of control and
      appeasement." (26-27)"
      What is the relevance of McCauley's quote to the fact that the modern scientific method was started by devout Christians? Nothing, so far as I can tell!

      (McCauley makes some good points regarding simplistic folk religions. I agree with him that these are natural human constructs. But his discussion does not engage Christian theology, which is much more sophisticated. Christian theology is at least as "unnatural" as science; we would never come up with it apart from divine revelation.)
      "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
        What is the relevance of McCauley's quote to the fact that the modern scientific method was started by devout Christians? Nothing, so far as I can tell!

        (McCauley makes some good points regarding simplistic folk religions. I agree with him that these are natural human constructs. But his discussion does not engage Christian theology, which is much more sophisticated. Christian theology is at least as "unnatural" as science; we would never come up with it apart from divine revelation.)
        It should be obvious. He hates Christians and Christianity and can't have Christians getting credit for the formation of modern science.
        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
          Christian theology is at least as "unnatural" as science; we would never come up with it apart from divine revelation.
          Hinduism, acupuncture and Scientology are as unnatural as Christian theology - are they also the result of divine revelation?
          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

          MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

          seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Roy View Post
            Hinduism, acupuncture and Scientology are as unnatural as Christian theology - are they also the result of divine revelation?
            So far as I know these religions are pretty "natural". Why do you think they are "unnatural", and on what basis do you consider them "as unnatural as Christian theology"?
            "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
              So far as I know these religions are pretty "natural". Why do you think they are "unnatural", and on what basis do you consider them "as unnatural as Christian theology"?
              Because AFAICT they are on a par with Christianity as regards novel ideas with little connection to everyday activities.

              What specific parts of Christian theology do you think could only be the result of divine revelation? I suspect other religions and beliefs have siimlar constructs.

              Roy
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
              MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

              seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Roy View Post
                Because AFAICT they are on a par with Christianity as regards novel ideas with little connection to everyday activities.

                What specific parts of Christian theology do you think could only be the result of divine revelation? I suspect other religions and beliefs have siimlar constructs.

                Roy
                I think you'll find that this shows up in every major tenet of Christian doctrine. Here are a few examples:

                Nature of God:
                Transcendent and yet immanent (shared by Judaism, but not much else)
                Trinity: three persons in one essence (unique to Christianity)

                Nature of Christ:
                Both fully God and fully man (unique; similar in sophistication and "unnaturalness" to the nature of a photon as both a wave and a particle)

                Nature of man:
                Created in God's image
                Fallen, completely unacceptable to God, able to do nothing to please God
                Yet so deeply loved by God that He sacrificed His own Son to save man

                Salvation:
                Undeserved, unable to be earned or merited by man in any fashion
                A completely free gift of God
                "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • [QUOTE=Kbertsche;252791]I think you'll find that this shows up in every major tenet of Christian doctrine. Here are a few examples:

                  Nature of Christ:
                  Both fully God and fully man (unique; similar in sophistication and "unnaturalness" to the nature of a photon as both a wave and a particle). I do not believe the parallel comparison is realistic.

                  Nature of man:
                  Created in God's image
                  Fallen, completely unacceptable to God, able to do nothing to please God
                  Yet so deeply loved by God that He sacrificed His own Son to save man.
                  The concept of the Fall and Original sin is indeed 'unnatural.'
                  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 Kbertsche View Post
                    I think you'll find that this shows up in every major tenet of Christian doctrine. Here are a few examples:

                    Nature of God:
                    Transcendent and yet immanent (shared by Judaism, but not much else)
                    Trinity: three persons in one essence (unique to Christianity)
                    But that's not unique. Hinduism has a similar concept in the Trimurti of Shiva/Brahma/Vishnu, and Wikipedia easily provides other examples:
                    ...a single deity known from literary sources as having three aspects (Greek Hecate, Diana Nemorensis). In the case of the Irish Brigid it can be ambiguous whether she is a single goddess or three sisters, all named Brigid. The Morrígan also appears sometimes as one being, and at other times as three sisters, as do the three Irish goddesses of sovereignty, Ériu, Fódla and Banba.
                    I can't see why humans could not have come up with the idea of the Trinity without divine assistance, if they managed to conceive of the others.

                    Roy
                    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                    MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                    MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

                    seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                      What is the relevance of McCauley's quote to the fact that the modern scientific method was started by devout Christians? Nothing, so far as I can tell!
                      It's shows that the scientific method does not arise from religious reasoning. In fact, scientific reasoning is utterly different from the reasoning involved in religion. So it makes no sense to attribute scientific reasoning to a religious sources.

                      And as I've already explained, the modern scientific method was not made by Christians alone. There were plenty of non-Christians involved with it.

                      (McCauley makes some good points regarding simplistic folk religions. I agree with him that these are natural human constructs. But his discussion does not engage Christian theology, which is much more sophisticated. Christian theology is at least as "unnatural" as science; we would never come up with it apart from divine revelation.)
                      Incorrect. McCauley's analysis extends to Christian religion as well, and his analysis is in line with other work on this subject. For example, it's in line with other research showing that th intuitive thinking involved in religion (incuding folk religions and religions like Christianity) is not the same thing as the analytic reasoning involved in science. Furthermore, religion employs the same concepts/categories as in everyday life, but modifies them slightly in order to make them more memorable. For further background on this, see:
                      "Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function"
                      http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/religi...Boyer_2003.pdf

                      "Exploring the natural foundations of religion"
                      http://religionandcognition.com/cour...df?ckattempt=1

                      So really, its absurd for you to cllaim that people would have never come up with Christian thelogy apart from divine revelation. It seems you simply made that claim up, without any supporting evidence.
                      Last edited by Jichard; 10-10-2015, 03:25 PM.
                      "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                        It should be obvious. He hates Christians and Christianity and can't have Christians getting credit for the formation of modern science.
                        Your usual substance-free silliness.
                        "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jichard View Post

                          So really, its absurd for you to cllaim that people would have never come up with Christian thelogy apart from divine revelation. It seems you simply made that claim up, without any supporting evidence.
                          I've presented evidence. Please try to respond to my evidence directly, in detail, point by point (rather than indirectly through pseudo-scientific social science studies).
                          "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                            I've presented evidence.
                            No, you didn't. This is what you wrote:
                            Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                            What is the relevance of McCauley's quote to the fact that the modern scientific method was started by devout Christians? Nothing, so far as I can tell!

                            (McCauley makes some good points regarding simplistic folk religions. I agree with him that these are natural human constructs. But his discussion does not engage Christian theology, which is much more sophisticated. Christian theology is at least as "unnatural" as science; we would never come up with it apart from divine revelation.)
                            There's no evidence there supporting you claim that people could not have come up with Christian theology without divine revelation

                            Please try to respond to my evidence directly, in detail, point by point (rather than indirectly through pseudo-scientific social science studies).
                            First, you didn't show the papers in question were "pseudo-scientific social science studies". In fact, I doubt you even read the papers before responding. You instead just lashed out at the evidence discussed in those papers, since you find it inconvenient for your preferred position. I get it; that's the anti-science stance taken by many conservatives (and no, I'm not impressed by your claim that you're a scientist; it doesn't change the fact that you dismiss scientific research out-of-hand, when it supports claims you don't like)

                            Second, there's no evidence to respond to from you, since you haven't provided any evidence. If you did think you provided evidence, feel free to show it.
                            "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                              I think you'll find that this shows up in every major tenet of Christian doctrine. Here are a few examples:

                              Nature of God:
                              Transcendent and yet immanent (shared by Judaism, but not much else)
                              Trinity: three persons in one essence (unique to Christianity)

                              Nature of Christ:
                              Both fully God and fully man (unique; similar in sophistication and "unnaturalness" to the nature of a photon as both a wave and a particle)

                              Nature of man:
                              Created in God's image
                              Fallen, completely unacceptable to God, able to do nothing to please God
                              Yet so deeply loved by God that He sacrificed His own Son to save man

                              Salvation:
                              Undeserved, unable to be earned or merited by man in any fashion
                              A completely free gift of God
                              Still waiting on the evidence that humans could not have come up with these ideas, without divine intervention.
                              Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                              (McCauley makes some good points regarding simplistic folk religions. I agree with him that these are natural human constructs. But his discussion does not engage Christian theology, which is much more sophisticated. Christian theology is at least as "unnatural" as science; we would never come up with it apart from divine revelation.)
                              Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                              Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                              So really, its absurd for you to cllaim that people would have never come up with Christian thelogy apart from divine revelation. It seems you simply made that claim up, without any supporting evidence.
                              I've presented evidence. Please try to respond to my evidence directly, in detail, point by point (rather than indirectly through pseudo-scientific social science studies).
                              "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                                No, you didn't.
                                Yes I did. See my post#157 in response to Roy:
                                Originally posted by kbertsche

                                Roy
                                I think you'll find that this shows up in every major tenet of Christian doctrine. Here are a few examples:

                                Nature of God:
                                Transcendent and yet immanent (shared by Judaism, but not much else)
                                Trinity: three persons in one essence (unique to Christianity)

                                Nature of Christ:
                                Both fully God and fully man (unique; similar in sophistication and "unnaturalness" to the nature of a photon as both a wave and a particle)

                                Nature of man:
                                Created in God's image
                                Fallen, completely unacceptable to God, able to do nothing to please God
                                Yet so deeply loved by God that He sacrificed His own Son to save man

                                Salvation:
                                Undeserved, unable to be earned or merited by man in any fashion
                                A completely free gift of God
                                Much more could be added. I claim that these positions are "unnatural" in the sense of your reference. If you disagree, please explain how these positions are all "natural" rather than "unnatural".

                                Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                                First, you didn't show the papers in question were "pseudo-scientific social science studies". In fact, I doubt you even read the papers before responding. You instead just lashed out at the evidence discussed in those papers, since you find it inconvenient for your preferred position. I get it; that's the anti-science stance taken by many conservatives (and no, I'm not impressed by your claim that you're a scientist; it doesn't change the fact that you dismiss scientific research out-of-hand, when it supports claims you don't like)
                                No, I didn't read these papers (though I did read your earlier linked paper on "naturalness" and "unnaturalness".) While your evidence for global warming is based on real science, your anti-Christian claims are based on the "soft sciences", which don't rise to the level of the "hard sciences". Richard Feynman made some cogent remarks on this topic in his 1974 CalTech commencement address.
                                "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X