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.
There are elements of religion that could be beneficial to science. For example a religion that highly values charity and honesty. The utility of charity can be seen in scientists of a faith like Abdus Salam. Salam was not any kind of Christian, but instead an Ahmadi Muslim. (Or just an Ahmadi if any of our Muslim posters consider Ahmadiyya to not be an Islamic religion.) The International Centre for Theoretical Physics, now called the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, was created by him. I think the Quakers built universities that emphasized "practical knowledge", including science. Several scientists had a Jesuit education. (Nobel Laureates in Medicine Christian De Duve and Joseph Murray, plus several who became Jesuit scientists)
Charity and honesty are of value, but the day should have long gone when they are supposed to be the preserve of theism. It is a tacit suggestion that without religious faith there is substantially less charity and honesty. As as atheist I would contest any such assumption.
That's one apect. My line is that I am chary of of scientists who believe in gods. That can be overdone. I have got to admit that, as an atheist I am probably over-suspicious of theist scientists. There's no doubt that such may do excellent work.
Surprised me that the inventor of the Big bang theory was a catholic churchman. (I tried to look him up and see just what his contribution was but all that came up was sites about some blasted sitcom). Why should I have any problem if the faith doesn't cut across the science?
I suppose that, if there no faith, there's no possibility of that happening.
But I still can't find that Bishop of the Big Bang. That was Hubble's law. Are we quite sure that Fr. Espancio wasn't trying to say that Godunnit? Ah Found it Lemaitre.
Impressive. He was primary in not only the expanding universe and making Einstein back down over a static universe, but traced it back to the primeval atom.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-01-2010 at 08:18 AM..
It is a matter for concern that a supposed first rank philosopher like Alvin Plantinga bases a whole proposition on a series of logical fallalies and assumptions not only unwarranted but demonstrably wrong.
To make such a claim with your clearly inadequate philsophical understanding even of your own fallacious and self-defeating premises evinces an arrogance born of ignorance that is inexcusable. Your superficial misunderstanding of philosophical issues is debilitating and should be embarrassing.
Quote:
Faith is illogical and unscientific and it can and sometimes does compromise science and logic.
This is certainly true of your faith in "Nature" as some incontrovertible default that is itself logically proven to be irrational using the very attributes of the scientific methods and fruits of those methods that you laud.
This is certainly true of your faith in "Nature" as some incontrovertible default that is itself logically proven to be irrational using the very attributes of the scientific methods and fruits of those methods that you laud.
You know in science that when they say nature, that means "reality".
I think your Thomas R to Gplex translation guide is faulty. Your statement was little more than a slogan and not a very meaningful one at that. The post was also short so didn't really need a long response. So I think my dismissal of it was sufficient.
Although if you want I'm sure I can cite cases where the Scriptures themselves advanced knowledge. I'm not even sure doing that is even that significant as I can likely cite cases where the Kojiki, The Iliad, the Ramayana, and so forth advanced knowledge. The study of any culturally significant book can tell us something about the past at least.
I don't see why it matters if they are catholic. Darwin was one of the most brilliant minds of all time although his agnosticism didn't play a role in how he made his discoveries just like Marie Curie's atheism didn't influence the founding of the x ray nor did Newton's christianity help find the existence of gravity. An objective scientist's belief or disbelief in supernatural nonsense doesn't influence scientific inquiry.
You know in science that when they say nature, that means "reality".
You are so used to taking the premises and assumptions that underlie the use of "Nature" as the explanatory label for the "inscrutable unknown" that you think it is real. It explains nothing and is no different than the God label . . . because we don't know what the hell it is, period. (Unless of course you are lucky like me and know through personal experience.)
I think your Thomas R to Gplex translation guide is faulty. Your statement was little more than a slogan and not a very meaningful one at that. The post was also short so didn't really need a long response. So I think my dismissal of it was sufficient.
Although if you want I'm sure I can cite cases where the Scriptures themselves advanced knowledge. I'm not even sure doing that is even that significant as I can likely cite cases where the Kojiki, The Iliad, the Ramayana, and so forth advanced knowledge. The study of any culturally significant book can tell us something about the past at least.
No, you were avoiding, but now you are not.
Sigh, read what I type, don't make assumptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gplex
Dogmatic scripture of the abrahamic kind will never be helpful to discovering knowledge.
You are so used to taking the premises and assumptions that underlie the use of "Nature" as the explanatory label for the "inscrutable unknown" that you think it is real. It explains nothing and is no different than the God label . . . because we don't know what the hell it is, period. (Unless of course you are lucky like me and know through personal experience.)
No, mystic, I have told you many times, everything we have empirically verified to exist falls under the label "nature". Thus we can say nature is demonstrable. God, known by the current definition in the dictionary has never been empirically verified.
I don't see why it matters if they are catholic. Darwin was one of the most brilliant minds of all time although his agnosticism didn't play a role in how he made his discoveries just like Marie Curie's atheism didn't influence the founding of the x ray nor did Newton's christianity help find the existence of gravity. An objective scientist's belief or disbelief in supernatural nonsense doesn't influence scientific inquiry.
Well it can influence their conclusions.. sometimes.
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.
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.
To make such a claim with your clearly inadequate philsophical understanding even of your own fallacious and self-defeating premises evinces an arrogance born of ignorance that is inexcusable. Your superficial misunderstanding of philosophical issues is debilitating and should be embarrassing.
