T
tonyrey
Guest
The quote facility is easy to use. Go to Profile -Control Panel - Options - down to Miscellaneous: Editor Interface - Full WYSIWYG Editing
It makes life simpler for everyone.
- Status
It makes life simpler for everyone.
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
But you DO admit that my arguments are correct. This is good.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I haven’t managed to decipher them yet but I am on the way…
T
tonyrey
Guest
Joseph, do you believe “workable scientific theories” are the highest form of knowledge?** Our sole certainty** is the fact that we are thinking, feeling, perceiving and making decisions.
All scientific “proofs” have an element of inductive (uncertain) reasoning and presuppose our primary data on which all reasoning is based: our thoughts.
How did you come to that conclusion? I believe it is in every person’s interest to believe in God but if he or she is sincerely convinced God doesn’t exist it is folly to expect a miraculous conversion (at least in every case!)
YOU WROTE: “The rise of science in Christian and Moslem countries has far outstripped those of pagan societies.”
I was referring to the rise of modern science which** has** far outstripped those of pagan societies but even they believed in spirits in conjunction with causality - unlike modern physicalists who regard the universe as ultimately irrational, i.e. absurd and life as an accident. If our ancestors had shared their scepticism science wouldn’t have developed to anywhere near the same level of achievement because they would have underestimated both the power of reason and the intelligibility of the universe.
Science is not deductive but** inductive with conclusions based on deduction.** Science is based on inference from our perceptions that the physical world exists. Moreover all scientific conclusions are provisional and never attain the level of logical or mathematical certainty. On the other hand you can deny that your rational mind exists but then you destroy not only the very foundation of science but also the entire edifice of human knowledge and every rational philosophical conclusion you have established! As King Lear said - in a different context but it applies here:
“O, that way madness lies, let me shun that!”
No more of that. “That way madness lies…”
F
Faith1960
Guest
I’d like to see the article of where an amputee gets healed.I will help.
Autumn Reading for Jerry and friends
Over at Why Evolution is True, Professor Jerry Coyne has been busy at work. He has not only outlined a scenario that would convince him of God’s existence, but he has written an article entitled On P. Z. Myers on evidence for a god with a point-by-point rebuttal of P. Z. Myers’ assertion (backed up by eight supporting arguments) that there was no amount of evidence that could convince him of the existence of any kind of God. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, so I would like to congratulate Professor Coyne. Let me hasten to add that Professor Coyne is still a convinced atheist. As he writes: “To me, the proper stance is, ‘I haven’t seen a smidgen of evidence for God, so I don’t think he exists. But I suppose it’s a theoretical possibility.’” In the final paragraph of his post, Coyne declares: “I’m writing this post simply to continue a conversation that I don’t think has yet run its course…”
Well, Professor, I’m something of a magpie. I collect good articles. The 200 or so articles I’ve listed below are the “creme-de-la-creme” so to speak, of what’s available on the Web. Taken together, they make a strong cumulative case, on philosophical and empirical grounds, that God does indeed exist, and that the benefits of religion vastly outweigh the multitude of harms inflicted in its name. (There’s even a case where an amputee gets healed! Curious? Thought you might be.)
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
YOU WROTE: “Joseph, do you believe “workable scientific theories” are the highest form of knowledge? Our sole certainty is the fact that we are thinking, feeling, perceiving and making decisions.”
You admit that Church does not teach that the existence of God is a workable scientific theory. Thank you. That is all I require of you. This was my original assertion in the first place. And we are thus back where we started.
YOU WROTE: “All scientific “proofs” have an element of inductive (uncertain) reasoning and presuppose our primary data on which all reasoning is based: our thoughts.”
This also was my original assertion. It is certain that our thoughts exist. It is not certain whether God exists. No scientific argument can prove the existence of God. Again, we are back where we started.
I said “It (show(ing)how evil could come into existence from an all-good God) is (necessary) if you want EVERYBODY to believe in God, theist and non-theist alike. Belief in God SHOULD be rational.”
Amazingly, you replied: “How did you come to that conclusion? I believe it is in every person’s interest to believe in God but if he or she is sincerely convinced God doesn’t exist it is folly to expect a miraculous conversion (at least in every case!)”
But we are not talking about conversion. We are talking about whether explaining how evil could arise from an all-good God would make belief in God more rational. And it WOULD. It would make communication between theists and non-theists that much easier. Showing how evil could emerge from an all-good God would go a long way to SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF EVIL – and thus eliminating one very good reason NOT to believe in God. One less obstacle between theists and atheists.
I cannot believe you feel that explaining how evil could arise from an all-good God is “not necessary,” to use your words. Rational understanding is ALWAYS necessary, especially when trying to express the validity of your faith to people who may or may not share your beliefs. To say otherwise would be irrational.
YOU WROTE: ”…the rise of modern science…has far outstripped those of pagan societies but even they believed in spirits in conjunction with causality - unlike modern physicalists who regard the universe as ultimately irrational, i.e. absurd and life as an accident. “
You originally wrote that “Science wouldn’t exist if no one had believed the universe is a rational creation by God.” And you were simply wrong. I am amazed you even attempt to divert the discussion away from this simple fact, again and again. Why not just admit you were wrong and have done with it?
There is no proof WHATSOEVER that anyone needs belief in a God OF ANY KIND to develop science. And you yourself admit this, saying “modern physicalists…regard the universe as ultimately irrational, i.e. absurd and life as an accident.” Why do you continue arguing this way? It is utterly pointless. No progress is possible here.
YOU WROTE: “Science is not deductive but inductive with conclusions based on deduction. Science is based on inference from our perceptions that the physical world exists.”
Of course it is. And you are absolutely right to say so. Your reasoning has been so bad up till now I deliberately inserted this one tiny mistake to see if you would catch it. Not to be rude, but I honestly wondered if you even understood the BASICS of philosophy, because up till now this was not obvious from your posts. I promise I will not insert any more deliberate inaccuracies in my writing. I just wish you would be as precise on the other points you are arguing as you are on this simple point.
You admit that Church does not teach that the existence of God is a workable scientific theory. Thank you. That is all I require of you. This was my original assertion in the first place. And we are thus back where we started.
YOU WROTE: “All scientific “proofs” have an element of inductive (uncertain) reasoning and presuppose our primary data on which all reasoning is based: our thoughts.”
This also was my original assertion. It is certain that our thoughts exist. It is not certain whether God exists. No scientific argument can prove the existence of God. Again, we are back where we started.
I said “It (show(ing)how evil could come into existence from an all-good God) is (necessary) if you want EVERYBODY to believe in God, theist and non-theist alike. Belief in God SHOULD be rational.”
Amazingly, you replied: “How did you come to that conclusion? I believe it is in every person’s interest to believe in God but if he or she is sincerely convinced God doesn’t exist it is folly to expect a miraculous conversion (at least in every case!)”
But we are not talking about conversion. We are talking about whether explaining how evil could arise from an all-good God would make belief in God more rational. And it WOULD. It would make communication between theists and non-theists that much easier. Showing how evil could emerge from an all-good God would go a long way to SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF EVIL – and thus eliminating one very good reason NOT to believe in God. One less obstacle between theists and atheists.
I cannot believe you feel that explaining how evil could arise from an all-good God is “not necessary,” to use your words. Rational understanding is ALWAYS necessary, especially when trying to express the validity of your faith to people who may or may not share your beliefs. To say otherwise would be irrational.
YOU WROTE: ”…the rise of modern science…has far outstripped those of pagan societies but even they believed in spirits in conjunction with causality - unlike modern physicalists who regard the universe as ultimately irrational, i.e. absurd and life as an accident. “
You originally wrote that “Science wouldn’t exist if no one had believed the universe is a rational creation by God.” And you were simply wrong. I am amazed you even attempt to divert the discussion away from this simple fact, again and again. Why not just admit you were wrong and have done with it?
There is no proof WHATSOEVER that anyone needs belief in a God OF ANY KIND to develop science. And you yourself admit this, saying “modern physicalists…regard the universe as ultimately irrational, i.e. absurd and life as an accident.” Why do you continue arguing this way? It is utterly pointless. No progress is possible here.
YOU WROTE: “Science is not deductive but inductive with conclusions based on deduction. Science is based on inference from our perceptions that the physical world exists.”
Of course it is. And you are absolutely right to say so. Your reasoning has been so bad up till now I deliberately inserted this one tiny mistake to see if you would catch it. Not to be rude, but I honestly wondered if you even understood the BASICS of philosophy, because up till now this was not obvious from your posts. I promise I will not insert any more deliberate inaccuracies in my writing. I just wish you would be as precise on the other points you are arguing as you are on this simple point.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I have never stated that the existence of God is a workable scientific theory.
When did you state that all scientific “proofs” have an element of inductive (uncertain) reasoning and presuppose our primary data on which all reasoning is based?
When did I state that explaining how evil could arise from an all-good God is not necessary?
You are confusing two issues. The beliefs of modern physicalists and the beliefs of primitive people. I suggest you read or obtain information about :
**Science: From the Womb of Religion - Stanley Jaki
**
Your remarks are insulting, irrelevant and a breach of Forum Rule 1:
“Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language.”
If anyone is being dishonest there is little doubt who it is…
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
YOU WROTE: “I have never stated that the existence of God is a workable scientific theory.”
You certainly implied it. I had originally written:
“Belief is God is STILL not a “theory,” in the strict scientific sense. It is belief. And there is nothing wrong with that. It cannot be tested. It cannot be proven. This is not an obstacle to faith.”
You immediately replied: “Then the Church teaches nonsense! It teaches that the existence of God can be known by the light of reason.”
You imply MOST DEFINITELY that the existence of God is some kind of workable scientific theory, which can be known by “the light of reason,” implying that it can be “tested” and “proven,” since that was the EXACT CONTEXT in which we were talking. Which is why I have been arguing as if you believed it was a scientific theory ever since.
If you didn’t mean that it was a “scientific theory,” then why did you attempt to confuse a rational understanding of God’s existence with a SCIENTIFIC THEORY of God’s existence from the very start? They are most certainly not the same thing. This unclear reasoning has confused the issue from the beginning. If you meant exactly the same thing as me, you should have said so immediately. There is nothing to disagree with here at all.
YOU WROTE: “When did you state that all scientific “proofs” have an element of inductive (uncertain) reasoning and presuppose our primary data on which all reasoning is based?”
I said that all proofs for God’s existence have an element of inductive (uncertain) reasoning. I repeated this THREE TIMES, in three different posts, in this exact statement:
“Any argument for God’s existence must necessarily be inductive, as Kant says. Not deductive. It may POSSIBLY true. But not provably so. Anyone who says otherwise is flatly wrong.”
I have never deviated from this.
As for “scientific “proofs”…presuppos(ing) our primary data on which all reasoning is based: (our thoughts,)” I ABSOLUTELY STATED THIS OUTRIGHT, earlier in this forum, in response to something said by TruthSeeker:
“TruthSeeker60 wrote: “…evidence-based inquiry (of which science is a subset) is the best possible way to evaluate claims, and we know nothing (except maybe “I think, therefore I am”) with radical absoluteness.””
To which I VERY PRECISELY REPLIED: “This is certainly true. It is a good summation of my own position, as well. There are, of course, some additional things that CAN be known with “radical absoluteness:” The Laws of Logic, for example. But the above statement is certainly accurate for the purposes of this post.”
Tonyray, you did not accurately follow the conversation on this thread. I made it very clear that the work of Descartes on non-material consciousness (“I think, therefore I am”) and reasoning (the Laws of Logic) underlay what I was writing. I simply assumed that everyone here understood the implications of that. It would seem not.
YOU WROTE: “When did I state that explaining how evil could arise from an all-good God is not necessary?”
Right here: “It is not necessary to show how evil could come into existence from an all-good God!”
Your exact words. You even used a little exclamation mark at the end. This is very, very confused reasoning. You appear to have forgotten what you yourself had already said.
When I wrote: “There is no proof WHATSOEVER that anyone needs belief in a God OF ANY KIND to develop science,” you replied:
“You are confusing two issues. The beliefs of modern physicalists and the beliefs of primitive people. I suggest you read or obtain information about : Science: From the Womb of Religion - Stanley Jaki.”
I am simply refuting your original statement: “Science wouldn’t exist if no one had believed the universe is a rational creation by God.”
There is absolutely no way to prove this statement. Because there really IS no proof that anyone needs belief in a God of any kind to develop science. Rationally speaking, ANYONE can develop science - with or without religion. Confucius, for example, developed a highly specialized science of mind that equates to a Chinese form of humanism, the majority of which centers not on a “spiritual” mode of inspiration, but on human beings as the model of perfection. In general, any procedure that serves systematically to eliminate reasonable grounds for doubt can be considered scientific. Such procedures do not require belief in a God. To maintain otherwise would be quite wrong.
YOU WROTE: “Your remarks are insulting, irrelevant and a breach of Forum Rule 1.”
I’m very sorry you see it that way. I was trying my hardest NOT to be insulting or rude. I genuinely wanted to see if you understood the issue. That is all. If it came off any other way, that was certainly not my intention.
YOU WROTE: “If anyone is being dishonest there is little doubt who it is…”
Well at least I’m being honest about it…
You certainly implied it. I had originally written:
“Belief is God is STILL not a “theory,” in the strict scientific sense. It is belief. And there is nothing wrong with that. It cannot be tested. It cannot be proven. This is not an obstacle to faith.”
You immediately replied: “Then the Church teaches nonsense! It teaches that the existence of God can be known by the light of reason.”
You imply MOST DEFINITELY that the existence of God is some kind of workable scientific theory, which can be known by “the light of reason,” implying that it can be “tested” and “proven,” since that was the EXACT CONTEXT in which we were talking. Which is why I have been arguing as if you believed it was a scientific theory ever since.
If you didn’t mean that it was a “scientific theory,” then why did you attempt to confuse a rational understanding of God’s existence with a SCIENTIFIC THEORY of God’s existence from the very start? They are most certainly not the same thing. This unclear reasoning has confused the issue from the beginning. If you meant exactly the same thing as me, you should have said so immediately. There is nothing to disagree with here at all.
YOU WROTE: “When did you state that all scientific “proofs” have an element of inductive (uncertain) reasoning and presuppose our primary data on which all reasoning is based?”
I said that all proofs for God’s existence have an element of inductive (uncertain) reasoning. I repeated this THREE TIMES, in three different posts, in this exact statement:
“Any argument for God’s existence must necessarily be inductive, as Kant says. Not deductive. It may POSSIBLY true. But not provably so. Anyone who says otherwise is flatly wrong.”
I have never deviated from this.
As for “scientific “proofs”…presuppos(ing) our primary data on which all reasoning is based: (our thoughts,)” I ABSOLUTELY STATED THIS OUTRIGHT, earlier in this forum, in response to something said by TruthSeeker:
“TruthSeeker60 wrote: “…evidence-based inquiry (of which science is a subset) is the best possible way to evaluate claims, and we know nothing (except maybe “I think, therefore I am”) with radical absoluteness.””
To which I VERY PRECISELY REPLIED: “This is certainly true. It is a good summation of my own position, as well. There are, of course, some additional things that CAN be known with “radical absoluteness:” The Laws of Logic, for example. But the above statement is certainly accurate for the purposes of this post.”
Tonyray, you did not accurately follow the conversation on this thread. I made it very clear that the work of Descartes on non-material consciousness (“I think, therefore I am”) and reasoning (the Laws of Logic) underlay what I was writing. I simply assumed that everyone here understood the implications of that. It would seem not.
YOU WROTE: “When did I state that explaining how evil could arise from an all-good God is not necessary?”
Right here: “It is not necessary to show how evil could come into existence from an all-good God!”
Your exact words. You even used a little exclamation mark at the end. This is very, very confused reasoning. You appear to have forgotten what you yourself had already said.
When I wrote: “There is no proof WHATSOEVER that anyone needs belief in a God OF ANY KIND to develop science,” you replied:
“You are confusing two issues. The beliefs of modern physicalists and the beliefs of primitive people. I suggest you read or obtain information about : Science: From the Womb of Religion - Stanley Jaki.”
I am simply refuting your original statement: “Science wouldn’t exist if no one had believed the universe is a rational creation by God.”
There is absolutely no way to prove this statement. Because there really IS no proof that anyone needs belief in a God of any kind to develop science. Rationally speaking, ANYONE can develop science - with or without religion. Confucius, for example, developed a highly specialized science of mind that equates to a Chinese form of humanism, the majority of which centers not on a “spiritual” mode of inspiration, but on human beings as the model of perfection. In general, any procedure that serves systematically to eliminate reasonable grounds for doubt can be considered scientific. Such procedures do not require belief in a God. To maintain otherwise would be quite wrong.
YOU WROTE: “Your remarks are insulting, irrelevant and a breach of Forum Rule 1.”
I’m very sorry you see it that way. I was trying my hardest NOT to be insulting or rude. I genuinely wanted to see if you understood the issue. That is all. If it came off any other way, that was certainly not my intention.
YOU WROTE: “If anyone is being dishonest there is little doubt who it is…”
Well at least I’m being honest about it…
T
tonyrey
Guest
I am not going to repeat my clarifications but simply refer you to an online summary of Stanley Jaki’s answer to the question:
"How is it that science became a self-sustaining enterprise only in the Christian West?"
In Christ and Science (p. 23), Jaki gives four reasons for modern science’s unique birth in Christian Western Europe:
*]"Once more the Christian belief in the Creator allowed a break-through in thinking about nature. Only a truly transcendental Creator could be thought of as being powerful enough to create a nature with autonomous laws without his power over nature being thereby diminished…
*]"The Christian idea of creation made still another crucially important contribution to the future of science. It consisted in putting all material beings on the same level as being mere creatures. Unlike in the pagan Greek cosmos, there could be no divine bodies in the Christian cosmos. All bodies, heavenly and terrestrial, were now on the same footing, on the same level. this made it eventually possible to assume that the motion of the moon and the fall of a body on earth could be governed by the same law of gravitation…
*]“Finally, man figured in the Christian dogma of creation as a being specially created in the image of God. This image consisted both in man’s rationality as somehow sharing in God’s own rationality and in man’s condition as an ethical being with eternal responsibility for his actions. Man’s reflection on his own rationality had therefore to give him confidence that his created mind could fathom the rationality of the created realm.”
*]“At the same time, the very createdness could caution man to guard agains the ever-present temptation to dictate to nature what it ought to be. The eventual rise of the experimental method owes much to that Christian matrix.”
columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
YOU WROTE: “I am not going to repeat my clarifications…”
No doubt because most of them are MY original assertions, from the very start:
1.) MY STATEMENT - “Belief is God is STILL not a “theory,” in the strict scientific sense.”
At last, you have reached a point where you admit this is true, as I first pointed out (long ago). We have been arguing for nothing.
2.) MY STATEMENT - “Any argument for God’s existence must necessarily be inductive, as Kant says. Not deductive.”
You have finally admitted this is true, as well. Although you previously argued as if Kant’s moral argument was DEDUCTIVE, rather than INDUCTIVE, which is what first prompted the above comment. I had to make this very clear before you finally stopped arguing this way. I assume the subject is at rest for good.
3.) YOU WORTE: “It is not necessary to show how evil could come into existence from an all-good God!”
It would be very useful. You are wrong.
4.) YOU WROTE: ““Science wouldn’t exist if no one had believed the universe is a rational creation by God.”
I have shown numerous times that it could exist. Even the article you reference for Jaki’s quotations above admits this. (Aztecs, Egyptians, Chinese and others developed science.)
YOU WROTE: ““How is it that science became a self-sustaining enterprise only in the Christian West?”
Because nothing has destroyed our civilization yet (thankfully). Nothing has caused its decline. I regard the continuance of our culture and our science as an act of mercy from God. Just because it’s here today doesn’t mean it will be “self-sustaining” tomorrow. It could easily vanish in the blink of an eye.
(I address this area in detail, since it seems to be the only point you still seem intent on arguing.)
There is absolutely nothing about Christianity that somehow confers “self-sustaining” longevity on science. Rome, for example, was thoroughly CATHOLIC in its state religion when it fell (slowly) over several centuries. All that advanced learning of the Roman physician Galen, the logic of the Greek philosophers, the advanced science of architecture and invention – all of that vanished when Catholic Rome fell. It was presumed lost forever. Thus the Dark Ages began.
Fortunately, much of the ancient pagan knowledge was preserved in Byzantine Constantinople for centuries. Or there would have been no Renaissance at all. No rebirth of science and learning. And the Byzantine Catholics did virtually NOTHING with all that pagan wealth of information, for centuries. So it is clear that Catholicism by itself does not make science a “self-sustaining enterprise.” It HELPS. But it’s not everything.
Science tends to disappear because of upheavals. The Aztecs, for example, had very advanced science. They even understood electroplating, and had even developed primitive batteries, of which we have numerous specimens. Their science was old and “self-sustaining” indeed. Until Cortez (a CATHOLIC man) and his Conquistadors arrived, bringing the ancient Aztec civilization and its science forcefully to an end.
The only reason we view our own science as “self-sustaining” is because our civilization (luckily) has not been destroyed yet. It is in the midst of its flourishing. And great civilizations decline all the time. Great Britain used to be the most far-established superpower in the world. Now it is much tinier, with comparatively isolated influence.
The fall of Rome proves that “Catholic” science can easily be lost. Judging our science to be “self-sustaining” from within the midst of our civilization’s flourishing is a tremendously parochial and near-sighted attitude. All major civilizations have declined in the past. It could easily happen again.
I certainly HOPE that doesn’t happen. I don’t want to be around if it does. But there are ominous signs already. Our civilization has already proven itself particularly susceptible to worldwide recessions. A worldwide recession of sufficient strength could easily end our prosperous world and our science. I see nothing particularly “self-sustaining” about that.
I would suggest a much more accurate book than Jaki’s to read would be Oswald Spengler’s “The Decline of the West.” Although some of his ideas on religion are not accurate in every case, he at least identifies the broad pattern of the rise and the decline of civilization in general - of the gain and the loss of scientific knowledge. Such a cyclical view is far more representative of real, actual history than anything else. I have seen nothing here to make me think otherwise.
No doubt because most of them are MY original assertions, from the very start:
1.) MY STATEMENT - “Belief is God is STILL not a “theory,” in the strict scientific sense.”
At last, you have reached a point where you admit this is true, as I first pointed out (long ago). We have been arguing for nothing.
2.) MY STATEMENT - “Any argument for God’s existence must necessarily be inductive, as Kant says. Not deductive.”
You have finally admitted this is true, as well. Although you previously argued as if Kant’s moral argument was DEDUCTIVE, rather than INDUCTIVE, which is what first prompted the above comment. I had to make this very clear before you finally stopped arguing this way. I assume the subject is at rest for good.
3.) YOU WORTE: “It is not necessary to show how evil could come into existence from an all-good God!”
It would be very useful. You are wrong.
4.) YOU WROTE: ““Science wouldn’t exist if no one had believed the universe is a rational creation by God.”
I have shown numerous times that it could exist. Even the article you reference for Jaki’s quotations above admits this. (Aztecs, Egyptians, Chinese and others developed science.)
YOU WROTE: ““How is it that science became a self-sustaining enterprise only in the Christian West?”
Because nothing has destroyed our civilization yet (thankfully). Nothing has caused its decline. I regard the continuance of our culture and our science as an act of mercy from God. Just because it’s here today doesn’t mean it will be “self-sustaining” tomorrow. It could easily vanish in the blink of an eye.
(I address this area in detail, since it seems to be the only point you still seem intent on arguing.)
There is absolutely nothing about Christianity that somehow confers “self-sustaining” longevity on science. Rome, for example, was thoroughly CATHOLIC in its state religion when it fell (slowly) over several centuries. All that advanced learning of the Roman physician Galen, the logic of the Greek philosophers, the advanced science of architecture and invention – all of that vanished when Catholic Rome fell. It was presumed lost forever. Thus the Dark Ages began.
Fortunately, much of the ancient pagan knowledge was preserved in Byzantine Constantinople for centuries. Or there would have been no Renaissance at all. No rebirth of science and learning. And the Byzantine Catholics did virtually NOTHING with all that pagan wealth of information, for centuries. So it is clear that Catholicism by itself does not make science a “self-sustaining enterprise.” It HELPS. But it’s not everything.
Science tends to disappear because of upheavals. The Aztecs, for example, had very advanced science. They even understood electroplating, and had even developed primitive batteries, of which we have numerous specimens. Their science was old and “self-sustaining” indeed. Until Cortez (a CATHOLIC man) and his Conquistadors arrived, bringing the ancient Aztec civilization and its science forcefully to an end.
The only reason we view our own science as “self-sustaining” is because our civilization (luckily) has not been destroyed yet. It is in the midst of its flourishing. And great civilizations decline all the time. Great Britain used to be the most far-established superpower in the world. Now it is much tinier, with comparatively isolated influence.
The fall of Rome proves that “Catholic” science can easily be lost. Judging our science to be “self-sustaining” from within the midst of our civilization’s flourishing is a tremendously parochial and near-sighted attitude. All major civilizations have declined in the past. It could easily happen again.
I certainly HOPE that doesn’t happen. I don’t want to be around if it does. But there are ominous signs already. Our civilization has already proven itself particularly susceptible to worldwide recessions. A worldwide recession of sufficient strength could easily end our prosperous world and our science. I see nothing particularly “self-sustaining” about that.
I would suggest a much more accurate book than Jaki’s to read would be Oswald Spengler’s “The Decline of the West.” Although some of his ideas on religion are not accurate in every case, he at least identifies the broad pattern of the rise and the decline of civilization in general - of the gain and the loss of scientific knowledge. Such a cyclical view is far more representative of real, actual history than anything else. I have seen nothing here to make me think otherwise.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are entitled to your opinions. I find Father Jaki’s views far more compatible with Christianity.
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
YOU WROTE: “You are entitled to your opinions. I find Father Jaki’s views far more compatible with Christianity.”
On the contrary, Spengler’s “The Decline of the West” is EXTRAORDINARILY compatible with Christianity. Spengler’s ideas constitute a workable, inductive theory of how civilizations behave over time.
Rise and fall. Rise and fall. Over and over and over again. Science is gained and science is lost. Just as when Catholic Rome fell, and all that wonderful pagan science disappeared.
Or when the Aztecs fell, and their science was lost. Or when the Egyptians fell. Or when Great Britain declined. Or when the Ottoman Empire fell. Or when the Mayans fell. Or when the Anasazi fell. Or when the Byzantine Empire fell (which allowed the Renaissance to begin.) The evidence of fallen and declined civilizations and lost science is virtually endless.
All major ancient civilizations (and even plenty of modern ones) have experienced some strong decline and loss of their knowledge and culture. Which suggests that this process of rise and fall is merely a feature of how civilizations seem to work.
I have given Jaki’s work a careful overview. NOTHING in it fits the form of the rise and the decline of science and civilization. On the contrary, Jaki seems to assume that OUR cozy little world of science and society will totter on forever.
Spengler’s ideas fit the evidence of history more accurately. They are comprehensive. They are predictive. They unify what we know from the past (eg., the fall of Catholic Rome). They point the way toward future observations (for instance, worldwide recessions.) Speaking from the perspective of theory, Spengler’s ideas are far more compatible with the evidence than Jaki’s. Jaki is thus the one merely stating an opinion. Spengler’s work describes a THEORY of the cyclical nature of civilizaton. And a good one, at that.
You, Tonyray, have backed the wrong horse. Jaki argues that “Catholic” science is somehow inherently self-sustaining, and he is wrong. Catholic Rome LOST its science, just as plenty of other civilizations have. Just because someone like Jaki writes something in a “Catholic” book doesn’t make it true. Just because our science SEEMS “self-sustaining” right now, while our civilization flourishes, doesn’t mean it will be that way in the future.
Judging our science to be “self-sustaining” from within the midst of our civilization’s flourishing is a tremendously near-sighted attitude. All major civilizations have declined in the past. It could easily happen again.
You are wrong. Jaki is wrong. Catholic Rome disintegrated and its knowledge disappeared. I don’t even know why we are arguing at all.
On the contrary, Spengler’s “The Decline of the West” is EXTRAORDINARILY compatible with Christianity. Spengler’s ideas constitute a workable, inductive theory of how civilizations behave over time.
Rise and fall. Rise and fall. Over and over and over again. Science is gained and science is lost. Just as when Catholic Rome fell, and all that wonderful pagan science disappeared.
Or when the Aztecs fell, and their science was lost. Or when the Egyptians fell. Or when Great Britain declined. Or when the Ottoman Empire fell. Or when the Mayans fell. Or when the Anasazi fell. Or when the Byzantine Empire fell (which allowed the Renaissance to begin.) The evidence of fallen and declined civilizations and lost science is virtually endless.
All major ancient civilizations (and even plenty of modern ones) have experienced some strong decline and loss of their knowledge and culture. Which suggests that this process of rise and fall is merely a feature of how civilizations seem to work.
I have given Jaki’s work a careful overview. NOTHING in it fits the form of the rise and the decline of science and civilization. On the contrary, Jaki seems to assume that OUR cozy little world of science and society will totter on forever.
Spengler’s ideas fit the evidence of history more accurately. They are comprehensive. They are predictive. They unify what we know from the past (eg., the fall of Catholic Rome). They point the way toward future observations (for instance, worldwide recessions.) Speaking from the perspective of theory, Spengler’s ideas are far more compatible with the evidence than Jaki’s. Jaki is thus the one merely stating an opinion. Spengler’s work describes a THEORY of the cyclical nature of civilizaton. And a good one, at that.
You, Tonyray, have backed the wrong horse. Jaki argues that “Catholic” science is somehow inherently self-sustaining, and he is wrong. Catholic Rome LOST its science, just as plenty of other civilizations have. Just because someone like Jaki writes something in a “Catholic” book doesn’t make it true. Just because our science SEEMS “self-sustaining” right now, while our civilization flourishes, doesn’t mean it will be that way in the future.
Judging our science to be “self-sustaining” from within the midst of our civilization’s flourishing is a tremendously near-sighted attitude. All major civilizations have declined in the past. It could easily happen again.
You are wrong. Jaki is wrong. Catholic Rome disintegrated and its knowledge disappeared. I don’t even know why we are arguing at all.
T
tonyrey
Guest
You are entitled to your opinions. Let’s agree to disagree.
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
That is fine. I choose theory. You choose opinion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I beg to differ. You have shown your own personal subjective opinion, no more.
There is something wrong with that.
J
John_Paul_Jones
Guest
You can not use the word “magical” in reference to Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ is the Second Person of God
God is Truth & God is Omniscient, He can neither deceive nor be deceived
Magic is the art of deception
ergo Jesus Christ can not practice magic.
J
Joseph_Kemp
Guest
SOMEONE WROTE: “I beg to differ. You have shown your own personal subjective opinion, no more. There is something wrong with that.”
I have NOT shown my own “personal subjective opinion.” Catholic Rome fell. That is an objective FACT. Every major civilization throughout history has suffered decline. ANOTHER fact. The frequency of such decline in the past makes a good case for such decline being likely in the future. Just as in any scientific theory, where future results are predicted because of reliable results - FACTS - in the past.
I am not stating opinion at all. I am stating theory. That’s something quite different.
I have NOT shown my own “personal subjective opinion.” Catholic Rome fell. That is an objective FACT. Every major civilization throughout history has suffered decline. ANOTHER fact. The frequency of such decline in the past makes a good case for such decline being likely in the future. Just as in any scientific theory, where future results are predicted because of reliable results - FACTS - in the past.
I am not stating opinion at all. I am stating theory. That’s something quite different.
P
Pieman333272
Guest
Why is this at all relevant to the discussion? How does this “theory” (which is a HYPOTHESIS anyway) do any damage to the historical reliability of the Gospels?
C
Curious_Hobbit
Guest
This is weird, I came to look at the discussion on the Gospels but this has taken it’s place??
Joseph
Check out this series by Dr. Tom E Woods on how the Catholic Church has helped to build western civilization and created the foundation for western science.
youtube.com/watch?v=nVUkbUVMxXI
During the middle ages, Christians believed that God ordered the universe to be intelligible through human reason. They emphasized Wisdom 11:21 “God has ordered all things according to weight, measure, and number”.
Compare with this of pantheistic metaphysics that say all is one, we are all part of God, matter is an illusion, we are all part of each other, and pantheism DENIES the law of noncontradiction. They believe contradictory things can be true.
Compare with Islam. Muslims believe it is an insult to Allah to think you have figured out a scientific law of the universe. Allah can just change his will and these physical laws are arbitrary. Allah’s will can not be contained by physical laws, he can change the physical laws whenever he wants. Today Islamic science is pretty stagnant although there has been contributions to the applied sciences like optics medicine.
Why did the Christians progress in the sciences SO MUCH while all other nations stayed the same? Starting with the Cathedral school at Chartres, the Christians insist with Wisdom 11:21 that God made the universe intelligible to human reason and we are fulfilling our God given gift of reason by understanding the world. This remains a heavy focus all throughout the middle ages, meanwhile other civilizations are remaining almost scientifically stagnant.
Here are some quotes from some scholars at Chartres and historian Thomas Goldstein,
It is through reason that we are human. For if we turn our backs on the amazing rational beauty of the World we live in, we should indeed deserve to be driven therefrom, like a guest unappreciative of the house into which he has been received.
— Adelard of Bath, Quaestiones naturales (from Chartres)
I take nothing away from God. He is author of all things, evil excepted. But the nature with which He endowed his creatures accomplishes a whole scheme of operations, and these too turn to his glory since it is he who created this very nature-
Scholar at Chartres
In a period of fifteen to twenty years, around the middle of the twelfth century, a handful of men were consciously striving to launch the evolution of western science, and undertook every major step that was needed to achieve that end-
Thomas Goldstein
The Jesuit Priests brought Western Science to places like China, India and many other places. This means many countries around the globe enjoy a scientific community thanks to the charity of the Jesuit priests.
Christianity also gave us the western university as we know it today.
Here are just a few of the Christian scientists who made huge progress in science.
Father Athanasius Kircher- Father of Egyptology, he studied Egypt before the Rosetta stone was found. Known by many as the “Master of 100 Arts”. He did a lot of work in Chemistry that helped to refute Alchemy
Father Roger Boscovic- Known to many as the father of atomic theory. Werner Heisenberg (from Heisenberg’s uncertainty theroy) wrote a paper praising Boscovic’s work. Boscovic is called “the greatest genius Yugoslavia ever produced”.
Father Francesco Grimaldi- first discovered and named the phenomena of the diffraction of light
Father John Battista Riccoli- first person to calculate how fast a freely falling body hits the ground. He worked with Grimaldi to create the celenograph (a map of the physical features of the moon).
St. Albert the Great- This was St. Thomas Aquinas’s professor in college. this quote is from the Dictionary of Scientific Bibliography- “Proficient in all branches of science, was one of the most famous precursors of modern science in the middle ages”
Those are just a few of the many important Christian scientists from the middle ages.
Here’s a quote from an agnostic Historian, Will Durant
" The basic cause of cultural retrogression was not Christianity but barbarism; not religion but war. The human inundations ruined or impoverished cities, monasteries, libraries, schools, and made impossible the life of the scholar or scientist. Perhaps the destruction would have been worse had not the church maintained some measure of order in a crumbling civilization"
Historian Lowrie Daly, Historian
“The church was the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge”
Flick ( an anti catholic historian)
“The monks not only established the schools, and were schoolmasters in them, but aslo laid the foundations for universities. They were the thinkers and philosophers of the day and shaped the political and religious thought. To them, both collectively and individually, was due the continuity of thought and civilization of the ancient world with the later middle ages and with the modern period.”
Joseph
Check out this series by Dr. Tom E Woods on how the Catholic Church has helped to build western civilization and created the foundation for western science.
youtube.com/watch?v=nVUkbUVMxXI
During the middle ages, Christians believed that God ordered the universe to be intelligible through human reason. They emphasized Wisdom 11:21 “God has ordered all things according to weight, measure, and number”.
Compare with this of pantheistic metaphysics that say all is one, we are all part of God, matter is an illusion, we are all part of each other, and pantheism DENIES the law of noncontradiction. They believe contradictory things can be true.
Compare with Islam. Muslims believe it is an insult to Allah to think you have figured out a scientific law of the universe. Allah can just change his will and these physical laws are arbitrary. Allah’s will can not be contained by physical laws, he can change the physical laws whenever he wants. Today Islamic science is pretty stagnant although there has been contributions to the applied sciences like optics medicine.
Why did the Christians progress in the sciences SO MUCH while all other nations stayed the same? Starting with the Cathedral school at Chartres, the Christians insist with Wisdom 11:21 that God made the universe intelligible to human reason and we are fulfilling our God given gift of reason by understanding the world. This remains a heavy focus all throughout the middle ages, meanwhile other civilizations are remaining almost scientifically stagnant.
Here are some quotes from some scholars at Chartres and historian Thomas Goldstein,
It is through reason that we are human. For if we turn our backs on the amazing rational beauty of the World we live in, we should indeed deserve to be driven therefrom, like a guest unappreciative of the house into which he has been received.
— Adelard of Bath, Quaestiones naturales (from Chartres)
I take nothing away from God. He is author of all things, evil excepted. But the nature with which He endowed his creatures accomplishes a whole scheme of operations, and these too turn to his glory since it is he who created this very nature-
Scholar at Chartres
In a period of fifteen to twenty years, around the middle of the twelfth century, a handful of men were consciously striving to launch the evolution of western science, and undertook every major step that was needed to achieve that end-
Thomas Goldstein
The Jesuit Priests brought Western Science to places like China, India and many other places. This means many countries around the globe enjoy a scientific community thanks to the charity of the Jesuit priests.
Christianity also gave us the western university as we know it today.
Here are just a few of the Christian scientists who made huge progress in science.
Father Athanasius Kircher- Father of Egyptology, he studied Egypt before the Rosetta stone was found. Known by many as the “Master of 100 Arts”. He did a lot of work in Chemistry that helped to refute Alchemy
Father Roger Boscovic- Known to many as the father of atomic theory. Werner Heisenberg (from Heisenberg’s uncertainty theroy) wrote a paper praising Boscovic’s work. Boscovic is called “the greatest genius Yugoslavia ever produced”.
Father Francesco Grimaldi- first discovered and named the phenomena of the diffraction of light
Father John Battista Riccoli- first person to calculate how fast a freely falling body hits the ground. He worked with Grimaldi to create the celenograph (a map of the physical features of the moon).
St. Albert the Great- This was St. Thomas Aquinas’s professor in college. this quote is from the Dictionary of Scientific Bibliography- “Proficient in all branches of science, was one of the most famous precursors of modern science in the middle ages”
Those are just a few of the many important Christian scientists from the middle ages.
Here’s a quote from an agnostic Historian, Will Durant
" The basic cause of cultural retrogression was not Christianity but barbarism; not religion but war. The human inundations ruined or impoverished cities, monasteries, libraries, schools, and made impossible the life of the scholar or scientist. Perhaps the destruction would have been worse had not the church maintained some measure of order in a crumbling civilization"
Historian Lowrie Daly, Historian
“The church was the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge”
Flick ( an anti catholic historian)
“The monks not only established the schools, and were schoolmasters in them, but aslo laid the foundations for universities. They were the thinkers and philosophers of the day and shaped the political and religious thought. To them, both collectively and individually, was due the continuity of thought and civilization of the ancient world with the later middle ages and with the modern period.”
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
You can address me, I am a someone. My name here is StrawberryJam.
Treat me as human, and we can talk.
- Status