U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-30-2018, 07:28 AM
Status: "Just crying wolf" (set 10 days ago)
 
5,285 posts, read 1,324,609 times
Reputation: 804

Advertisements

Yes. Since there is only one God and he is sovereign, yes--this world exists because he determined it to be so.

But on the other hand, there have been a lot of polytheistic civilizations that contributed in world history. And the US bases a LOT of our political ideas off of ancient Rome, which was polytheistic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-30-2018, 07:50 AM
 
34,448 posts, read 8,865,664 times
Reputation: 4784
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
That's a nice guess. But it doesn't hold up.

The people who had religion in this list falls into three categories:

  1. Those whose religion was only incidental (you'll see a few here that they don't bother to mention it, because while they attended regularly, and weren't vocal about how the church was bad or something, it didn't seem to be a big part of things). You don't tend to find many of these prior to about the late 18th or early 19th century. What this tells me is that science was once considered a subset of religion, and possibly the church acted as a sort of "review board". In fact, Albertus Magnus is named the "patron saint of scientists." If science and religion were really mutually exclusive, explain to me how there could be such a thing. There couldn't.
  2. Those who had contributions in both science and religion. For example: Blaise Pascal (who contributed to science, math, and theology), Isaac Newton (made contributions to gravity, also privately was a Rapture nut), Stephen Hales (designed a type of ventilation system, a means to distill sea-water, ways to preserve meat, etc. Also an Anglican curate (curate is a rank of priesthood)), Michael Faraday (church elder, discussed relationship of science to religion, also a number of things to do with electromagnetism), Mendel (father of genetics, also preached an apparently famous sermon about Christ's appearance on Easter as a priest)
  3. Those whose faith bolstered their science and vice versa. For example: Robert Boyle (who argued that the study of science could improve glorification of God, and perhaps you've heard about him in chemistry class) and here's another one Georges Lemaître (creator of the Big Bang theory, whose theory was based on the creation)
There are people here who were the first to split atoms (Ernest Walton), people who made strides in genetics (mentioned some of them already, but there are more), people who invented the laser (Arthur Leonard Schawlow), people who invented scientific or mathematical constants (Boyle's law, Planck's constant, etc.), medicine (had a transplant? Thank Joseph Murray who helped set up transplant surgery, or how about Ben Carson neurosurgeon who separated conjoined twins at the head (the very same who was a presidential candidate)), and all sorts of things that made the world what it is today (Fred Brooks: IBM OS/360, Raymond Vahan Damadian: the MRI machine, Larry Wall: Perl programming language).

But by all means, I'm sure you're right, religion was a handicap they struggled to overcome.

It might also interest you to know that not only are religion and science not mutually exclusive but creation and evolution are not either. Denis Lamoureux wrote papers on evolutionary creationism. Just because there are fringe types that don't believe in science does not mean that anyone who is a science major is somehow tainted by it.

I don't think you are seeing my point.

It is irrelevant whether they were fervent believers or census -belieers, whether they were struggling to reconcile their religious beliefs with science, or saw no conflict or were able to keep them in separate parts of the brain.

The point is that the scientific and technological adances were made using the methods of science or technology and in no way does their religion deserve the credit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2018, 08:04 AM
 
2,827 posts, read 1,753,306 times
Reputation: 988
That's not what you said. You said "in spite of" as though it were some hindrance to scientific thought.

Now you're backpeddling and calling it irrelevant.

C.S. Lewis writes on the origin of scientific method as a result of religious thinking.

Quote:
Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.
He has no idea how true he was. By 2018 we should have had flying cars and stuff. Now we have kids eating Tide.

I want to show you this table. And you can believe or make of it what you will.


(Source: https://biologos.org/blogs/deborah-h...eir-worldviews)

This is why I am both religious and a believer in science. Because there is no actual conflict, only a perceived one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2018, 04:41 PM
 
34,448 posts, read 8,865,664 times
Reputation: 4784
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
That's not what you said. You said "in spite of" as though it were some hindrance to scientific thought.

Now you're backpeddling and calling it irrelevant.

C.S. Lewis writes on the origin of scientific method as a result of religious thinking.

He has no idea how true he was. By 2018 we should have had flying cars and stuff. Now we have kids eating Tide.

I want to show you this table. And you can believe or make of it what you will.


(Source: https://biologos.org/blogs/deborah-h...eir-worldviews)

This is why I am both religious and a believer in science. Because there is no actual conflict, only a perceived one.
If you think about it, there is no contradiction. Science and religion are not compatible. When believers did science, they used the science, not the religion. That is the same as doing science in spite of religion, not because of it.

I'm not terribly impressed by the table. It is just taking science and saying 'Yes - but only because god did it like that'.

Take God away and it is still the same, except you don't need the table on the right.
Axiom: the world works just the same if God isn't there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2018, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
18,885 posts, read 8,867,123 times
Reputation: 18290
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
If you think about it, there is no contradiction. Science and religion are not compatible. When believers did science, they used the science, not the religion. That is the same as doing science in spite of religion, not because of it.

I'm not terribly impressed by the table. It is just taking science and saying 'Yes - but only because god did it like that'.

Take God away and it is still the same, except you don't need the table on the right.
Axiom: the world works just the same if God isn't there.
Exactly.

As a scientifically trained person, one of my biggest beefs are religious people who try to co-opt science. I don't mind if a religious person is religious or if they can balance an acceptance of science and religion (though that gets tricky), but I do mind when they try to actually combine the two.

In the end, for a religious person to say they accept science, they would have to be willing to drop certain core beliefs if science provided evidence that was in opposition to their core beliefs. For example, what if science were able to uncover clear evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead? Unlikely that can be proven, but not totally impossible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2018, 06:04 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,070 posts, read 8,557,571 times
Reputation: 6003
I was taught, as a fundamentalist, that science was "thinking god's thoughts after him". Much was made about how Christianity supposedly destroyed the hegemony of eastern fatalism, making science possible (and conveniently forgetting the impressive science done by both the Chinese and by Muslims). To hear them tell it, Christianity enabled science, and practically invented it.

Of course science is not "thinking god's thoughts after him". Quite the opposite: it is collecting evidence and seeing where it leads.

Ironically, if Christianity were true, it might save science a lot of time and give it a lot of guidance to "think god's thoughts after him" but god's alleged thoughts, alas, have included such notions as that the sun orbits the earth, and before that, the Hebrew concept of the fixed "firmament", a sort of giant dome over the world with stars adhered to it. Not much help there, I'm afraid, for the curious scientific investigator.

Religion in general and Christianity in particular is, as phetaroi points out, good at coopting the work of others as its own. The prime example to my thinking is the notion that they are privy to morality, which god is the sole author and enforcer of, when in fact -- actual morality is an emergent property of societal interactions and its "authority" comes from the benefits or harms that accrue to people in those interactions. Religious morality is nothing more than the host society's morality gussied up with a few extra rules and prohibitions. It inherently can't be that different from the morality of the host society or that would be ... well, immoral.

But the laughable idea that Christianity is cool with science, and in fact made it possible, is another great example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2018, 10:53 PM
 
2,827 posts, read 1,753,306 times
Reputation: 988
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
If you think about it, there is no contradiction. Science and religion are not compatible. When believers did science, they used the science, not the religion. That is the same as doing science in spite of religion, not because of it.

I'm not terribly impressed by the table. It is just taking science and saying 'Yes - but only because god did it like that'.

Take God away and it is still the same, except you don't need the table on the right.
Axiom: the world works just the same if God isn't there.
Okay, let's play ball. What happens when you take God out of the equation? You no longer believe in an ordered universe. You believe in a caused ordered universe apparently caused by an absence of order (they believe this was result of random change) and with no cause. Do you want me to point out why this is stupid or can you connect the dots?

Now, are there atheist scientists? Hell yes. Look on the bottom of the page I proposed (thge Christians in science fields). There is another link that talks about atheists in science. And another for Jews. Here's the thing. Look at the link below the table. It talks about how scientists from different religious backgrounds work together because they are committed to REAL SCIENCE. Real scientists are united by scientific methodd, by proper procedure, by repated testing. And what that table actually demonstrates is not that they built that side to suit them (that's crazy, these quotes are at least 2000 years old), but that what they already believe is already compatible with what the typical secular scientist is driven by. There is no conflict.

Unless you make it one. Just as there are some theist scientists that make the study not about science but dogma, the same applies to atheists.

Oh sure you can demand up and down that there is no uniting two concepts. But how is that different from pouting when someone tries to meet you halfway, because they didn't unconditionally surrender? In the real world people who are not of like mind often work together, because there is something bigger.
Suppose I am at a job, and lately all my coworkers are "too busy" because of something petty they don't like about me. Oh sure, they can leave me alone at the desk for hours, feeding me to the wolves because they hate something. But when you aren't unified, it makes you look like a dick, I wind up trying to do it myself. I won't ask you for help if you have to prove to me that I can't do without you. I can. But making me want to work with you because you DIDN'T throw me to the wolves is how you get a real team. Otherwise I leave, I don't trust other people, and you lost one person completely devoted to a vision of how your business could be, in exchange for ppl just there for a paycheck.

Another thing. You declare by fiat that there is no reconciling the two. But as I just showed the lives (the living proof) of these men and women, they were able to go ahead, and show the world their God (or lack thereof) by what they DID, by how the lived their lives.

Effectively are saying about the same thing as "I feel that there is no reconciling being a librarian and a smoker." That's funny. I have a coworker who is just that. So... where is this proof that they can't reconcile. Because I a long list of Jews, Christians, and atheists for whom personal worldview came second to science and others who only bolstered their science through their strong faith. It didn't MATTER what they were. Thgey did their job, and they worked together with others.

The beliefs on the left are what any real scientist believes. So if you can't even accept those, something is wrong herte.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2018, 01:16 AM
 
34,448 posts, read 8,865,664 times
Reputation: 4784
You mean on the right - the godunnit view. If I can't accept it is i because I have been given no good reason to. Your argument from cosmic origins in fact prejudices the issue because it imposes a lack of order through physical laws on us - which the skeptics don't claim. We say that there is no good reason to insist that a Cosmic Mind has to have been there or it couldn't happen. We don't know that.

The librarian analogy is quite useful because it points up hos smoking may or may not be irreconcilable with working in a library. In the days when smoking was ok, it was not incompatible with library work. When it wasn't it had to be kept at home and out of the library.

But in fact all the library work was done because he was a librarian, not because he was a smoker.
In just the same way scientists who happened to be religious did their work as scientists not as religious believers.

And when religious beliefs did begin to conflict with the findings of science, then scientists really had to leave their religion at home and not bring it into the library. That is the only way they could do their job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2018, 02:25 PM
 
Location: New York Area
13,402 posts, read 5,203,318 times
Reputation: 10753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hulsker 1856 View Post
Finally, the 'cause' in the title is all wrong. Monotheism was a shaping element of modern civilization as we know it, not some sort of catalyst for it.
Maybe the title should have been "a major cause." There is no question that taking human sacrifice off the table was a major benefit of monotheism. Introducing "eye for an eye" was as well since earlier cultures featured draconian punishments for minor offenses. I.e. death by stoning for "corruption on the earth" and "warring with G-d and his emissaries." Or cutting off the hands of people who steal a loaf of bread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2018, 04:00 PM
 
10,474 posts, read 4,130,163 times
Reputation: 1192
one leader? alpha male?

yeah, it works with a lot of us social animals in the animal kingdom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top