Western science wouldn't be where it is today were it not for Christianity. The Christians figured that since God created the universe, he must have gone about it with rules. Since the Creator used rules, studying his creation would yield the rules by which he constructed the universe. And if you study the philosophy of the men who pursued science, you will find that they believed in a mechanist creator, making their work possible. They knew they could search for the laws of mechanics, as their God created everything rationally and predictably. Rather ironically, the atheism and quantum mechanics seems to be undermining the belief that all the laws in the universe can be distilled to one really sweet equation. DISCUSS
Tell that to the priests that thought the earth was flat and the earth was the centre of the universe......... Science deletes religion.....
I think God is a supporter of atheism, man was not designed to spy on God, only to know of him. Thus atheism prevents the desire to spy. Also atheist do not believe in an after life, so rather than being wasteful in this one (saving it all for the next) they make the most of life here and now, which is how it is meant to be. Take suicide bombers, would they give up their life so easily if they believed it to be their only one and there was no after life? God is oppose to suicide and murder, thus would not encourage this type of extremism and would not be impressed that it is in his name. Thus athiesm supports Gods agenda for man, which is to develop a moral code that comes from within and ensures proper use of this life and respect of the one life of all other living things. Believing in many lives, makes one take this for granted so is counter productive. Thus Roman, the fact that belief in God led to christianity which led to science and the ultimate rejection of God is of no surprise, rather part of the plan. I have started new thread re the above and gods creation of atheism Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I agree Roman. Science is the study of God's laws. And the one equation, I take it, as the universal field theory. The one major law all are derived from. But as far as science spurred from Christianity, as I said in TOR's thread, maybe somewhat encouraged a few scientists but science defined as a study of the objects around us and their dynamics, then that dates all the way back to the prehistoric age.
It might well be. But in the likely even that there is no such thing, then what would be the relevance in calling something 'God'?
Any person who is actually familiar with practicing scientists understands that there are some who are athistic, some who are theistic and some who admit they don't know - science is not intrinsically atheistic or theistic - it is the observation of the movements of matter - However it is interesting how even science relies on a type of faith - namely that there is order in the universe - otherwise there would be no starting point for scientific pursuit
its all about the evolution of ideas. the idea of a creator is a strong one. however, science, it all it beauty, found a niche. at first, paralleling the evolution of mankind, science had to hide in the shadows to avoid being destroyed by religion. now, science is the top of the food chain, and religion has to fight for the scraps of the universe that science has yet to devour.
Rather pre-emptive of you isn't it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. T. S. Eliot
............ I love T.S. Elliot! I also like "if you aren't in over your head, how do you know how tall you are" and "often what we think is the end, is really the beginning, to make an end is to make a beginning, the end is where we start from." (I am not sure of those are exact quotes, as they are off the top of my head)
I'm a verbophile myself; nothing turns me on as much as a well turned phrase. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What lies behind us and lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us. -Ralph Waldo Emerson thats a good one also.
How about this? Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -Bertrand Russell
Roman, I agree, it would likely be centuries more advanced otherwise. Science and the freedom to explore have been significantly stifled throughout the Christian era, with would be scientists suffering widespread persecution for even hinting that there might be answers other than “God did it”. With major examples like Galieo and Bruno who were probably just the tip of the iceberg of creative thinking. It seems certain that countless potential scientists were dissuaded and discouraged and never found their true cause simply because of the fear of torture and execution by the centuries reign of the medieval Church. The loss of creativity and new knowledge is likely to be staggering, and another of the great evils of Christianity. Science has survived and is where it is today not because of Christianity but in spite of it; due mainly to the many free thinkers who had the courage to ignore the stupidity of religious doctrine. But the damage done by religion and Christianity especially is unforgivable.
Then you would expect to see a level playing field in scientific circles that are bereft of any religious underpinning - but that is not the case - there are scrores of examples within the contemporary pursuit of science of researchers being ousted simply because they stumble onto things that exist outside the dominant paradigm - its a fact that knowledge, once it becomes established it becomes institutionalised, and the institutionalisation of knowledge has a tendency to inhibit free knowledge, regardless of whether it works out of an apparently "pure" scientific paradigm or a religious one - it says nothing about the nature of religion, only the nature of fallible human perception
light, Name any field of science that has a religious underpinning? Actually your post is so muddled with confused ideas I can't figure out whether you have a point or not.
You were saying that religion was hampering the true pursuit of knowledge and that there is a pure freedom available to researching scientists now - I was saying that the ghost still exists in the machine, despite the absence of religious authority in contemporary science - in other words science has institutionalized knowledge, much like religious bodies had institutionalised knowledge - with or with out religion, nothing has changed
Light, It did for a long time and still is to some extent. And no I didn’t say that, but the balance has shifted significantly. In principle I think we are in agreement. Perhaps, but its basis is entirely different and that brings us to epistemology; faith vs reason – only one is likely to be valid.
I would saythat it brings us to the point how human fallibility (namely a weakness for name, fame and adoration and installing eternal values on ephemeral objects) hinders the pursuit of objectivity, and that unless one applies the correct epistemology of religion it will be impossible for a person to disconnect themeselves from such inferior tendencies because they have nothing superior to attach themselves to.
