What is the role of credulity in religion and is it useful in promoting the message?

[Abu]

nmgauss #40
If we concentrated our belief system on that of the Catholic Church, we would still be sailing by wind power and traveling on land with horses. Science is the One True System and it was originated by Aristotle

The ignorance here continues to be appalling.

“The trouble is that those who refuse to recognize any sound philosophical principles in their thinking about empirical science become the victims of blind religious, or more often anti-religious, opinion that ends up in religious fideism having no foundation in reason or in a subjectivism which subordinates objective reality to their own ego.” [Dr Anthony Rizzi’s *The Science Before Science Baton Rouge, LA: IAP Press, 2004, p. 19).

Just what we’ve seen here.

“It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe. It is instructive that China, Islam, India, ancient Greece, and Rome all had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy. And these transformations took place at a time when folklore has it that a fanatical Christianity was imposing a general ignorance on Europe—the so-called Dark Ages.” Catholicism and Science by Rodney Stark (from Catalyst 9/2004)].

“The earlier technical innovations of Greco-Roman times, of Islam, of imperial China, let alone those of pre-historic times, do not constitute science and are better described as lore, skills, wisdom, techniques, crafts, technologies, engineering, learning, or simply knowledge.” (For the Glory of God, Rodney Stark, Princeton University Press, 2003, p 125)

 

[Abu]

nmgauss #40
Science is the One True System and it was originated by Aristotle

False.
There is nothing “true” about any scientific theories until they stand the test of reality and then are part of God’s design. Imagining science as a god is self-defeating.

Pierre Duhem, A.C. Crombie and Edward Grant have argued that the condemnations of the Bishop of Paris (1277) forced thinkers to break out of the intellectual confinement of Aristotelian presuppositions, from the restrictions of Aristotelian science and to adopt new thinking to the physical world.

Aristotle had denied the possibility of a vacuum, and the condemnations “seem definitely to have promoted a freer and more imaginative way of doing science.” (Dales, The De-Animation of the Heavens in the Middle Ages, p 550).

Another condemned Aristotelian proposition was that “the motions of the motion of the sky result from an intellectual soul,” and prompted new approaches to the central question of the behaviour of the heavenly bodies.

The denigration of the Church’s role in the development of science had been prevalent until the early twentieth century when historian Pierre Duhem underlined the Church’s crucial role and more and more historians have recognised this fact. (How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Thomas E Woods Jr., Regnery Publishing, 2005, p 75).

Another Catholic development – the university – played a pivotal role in the rise of modern science, as did several priests.

 

[TarkanAttila]

How is rising from the dead logical? (Rather than supernatural)

NT Wright went into this in an essay on the Resurrection, and the explanations for the existence of this belief.

See for yourself:

ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm

If Wright is correct, logically, the only way to account for Christianity is the Resurrection. It is supernatural, but supernature does not mean superlogical - or antilogical.\

But who says religion has to be fine. Religion is whatever its leaders want it to be.

Gauss, religion is supposed to be a way for us to live. If we are to choose a way to live, it ought to be in line with right reason, don’t you think? If we live contrary to reason, we are insane, no?

Religion, being a lifestyle - a teaching on the way we relate to God, for that is what religion is - ought to be in conformity with right reason, just as any knowledge we have ought to be.

Only one religion teaches that Christ rose from the dead - an assertion that is in line with right reason - and is therefore the Son of God: Christianity. Therefore, Christianity teaches us about reality. Catholic theology does this especially so because it is in line with reason, and also in line with history - another of the sciences.

A religion that is contrary to any science (insofar as it is being correctly taught) - history, biology, language - is no religion at all, as it contradicts what reason has taught us in nature. A religion that teaches a giant flying spaghetti monster hovers over Seattle is a religion that will not have any followers because it contradicts even the crudest form of right reason.

As for the NRM cults, even the FSMS religion I just made up, they possess a grain of truth - no religion is completely outside of reality and right reason. (Right reason being our faculty to know truth and logic.)

 

[nmgauss]

False.

There is nothing “true” about any scientific theories until they stand the test of reality and then are part of God’s design. Imagining science as a god is self-defeating.

, p 550).

Another condemned Aristotelian proposition was that “the motions of the motion of the sky result from an intellectual soul,” and prompted new approaches to the central question of the behaviour of the heavenly bodies.

The denigration of the Church’s role in the development of science had been prevalent until the early twentieth century when historian Pierre Duhem underlined the Church’s crucial role and more and more historians have recognised this fact. (How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Thomas E Woods Jr., Regnery Publishing, 2005, p 75).

Pierre Duhem probably is referring to the Jesuits. But they did not come along until Ignatious of Loyola, who died about ten years after Martin Luther. What about all those centuries before Ignatius, where the Church did not embrace anything that they considered heresy. Some Church leaders did express interest in new weaknesses in Aristotelian theory, and this stimulated much investigation. However, full embracing of the new science did not occur until Isaac Newton published his theory of gravity in the 17th Century. The Muslims invented algebra and the number system we use today. Through the translation of Aristotle from Greek to Arabic and from Arabic to Latin, Medieval Europe was introduced to the Aristotelian thinking by way of Spain. Then along came the Inquisition which put a damper on this. Even Ignatius was persecuted by the Inquisition. How can this be cited as enhancing European Civilization? If it wasn’t for the Muslims in Spain, we might still be wallowing in Medieval Catholic Dogma.

Another Catholic development – the university – played a pivotal role in the rise of modern science, as did several priests.

Institutions of higher learning existed in ancient societies at least a thousand years before Catholicism came along.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Abu]

nmgauss #44
Institutions of higher learning existed in ancient societies at least a thousand years before Catholicism came along.

They produced little of real value.
It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe. It is instructive that China, Islam, India, ancient Greece, and Rome all had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy.

In Science and Creation Father Stanley Jaki lists seven great cultures in which science suffered a “stillbirth” – Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya – they did not have the Catholic conception of the divine. Fr Jaki emphasises that “nature had to be de-animized” for science to be born. (Creation and Scientific Creativity, Paul Haffner, Christendom Press, 1991, p 41). “During the twelfth century in Latin Europe those aspects of Judeo-Christian thought which emphasized the idea of creation out of nothing and the distance between God and the world, in certain contexts and with certain men, had the effect of eliminating all semi-divine entities from the realm of nature.” (How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Dr Thomas E Woods, Regnery, 2005, p 93).

From Ockham through Copernicus, the development of the heliocentric model of the solar system was the product of the universities—that most Christian invention. From the start, the medieval Christian university was a place created and run by scholars devoted entirely to knowledge. The autonomy of individual faculty members was carefully guarded. Since all instruction was in Latin, scholars were able to move about without regard for linguistic boundaries, and because their degrees were mutually recognized, they were qualified to join any faculty. It was in these universities that European Christians began to establish science. And it was in these same universities, not later in the salons of philosophes or Renaissance men, that the classics were restored to intellectual importance. The translations from Greek into Latin were accomplished by exceedingly pious Christian scholars.

It was the Christian scholastics, not the Greeks, Romans, Muslims, or Chinese, who built up the field of physiology based on human dissections. Once again, hardly anyone knows the truth about dissection and the medieval Church. Human dissection was not permitted in the classical world (“the dignity of the human body” forbade it), which is why Greco-Roman works on anatomy are so faulty. Aristotle’s studies were limited entirely to animal dissections, as were those of Celsius and Galen. Human dissection also was prohibited in Islam.

With the Christian universities came a new outlook on dissection. The starting assumption was that what is unique to humans is a soul, not a physiology. Dissections of the human body, therefore, have no theological implications.

The truth is, there is no inherent conflict between religion and science. Indeed, the fundamental reality is that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science—a fact little appreciated outside the ranks of academic specialists.

Obviously a fundamental fact not known by some here, along with many other realities of Catholicism and history.
Also see: catholicleague.org/catholicism-and-science/

 

[Ion]

Credulity was when Eve decided to eat the forbidden fruit…

 

[nmgauss]

They produced little of real value.
It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe. It is instructive that China, Islam, India, ancient Greece, and Rome all had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy.

In Science and Creation Father Stanley Jaki lists seven great cultures in which science suffered a “stillbirth” – Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya – they did not have the Catholic conception of the divine. Fr Jaki emphasises that “nature had to be de-animized” for science to be born. (Creation and Scientific Creativity, Paul Haffner, Christendom Press, 1991, p 41). “During the twelfth century in Latin Europe those aspects of Judeo-Christian thought which emphasized the idea of creation out of nothing and the distance between God and the world, in certain contexts and with certain men, had the effect of eliminating all semi-divine entities from the realm of nature.” (How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Dr Thomas E Woods, Regnery, 2005, p 93).

From Ockham through Copernicus, the development of the heliocentric model of the solar system was the product of the universities—that most Christian invention. From the start, the medieval Christian university was a place created and run by scholars devoted entirely to knowledge. The autonomy of individual faculty members was carefully guarded. Since all instruction was in Latin, scholars were able to move about without regard for linguistic boundaries, and because their degrees were mutually recognized, they were qualified to join any faculty. It was in these universities that European Christians began to establish science. And it was in these same universities, not later in the salons of philosophes or Renaissance men, that the classics were restored to intellectual importance. The translations from Greek into Latin were accomplished by exceedingly pious Christian scholars.

It was the Christian scholastics, not the Greeks, Romans, Muslims, or Chinese, who built up the field of physiology based on human dissections. Once again, hardly anyone knows the truth about dissection and the medieval Church. Human dissection was not permitted in the classical world (“the dignity of the human body” forbade it), which is why Greco-Roman works on anatomy are so faulty. Aristotle’s studies were limited entirely to animal dissections, as were those of Celsius and Galen. Human dissection also was prohibited in Islam.

With the Christian universities came a new outlook on dissection. The starting assumption was that what is unique to humans is a soul, not a physiology. Dissections of the human body, therefore, have no theological implications.

The truth is, there is no inherent conflict between religion and science. Indeed, the fundamental reality is that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science—a fact little appreciated outside the ranks of academic specialists.

Obviously a fundamental fact not known by some here, along with many other realities of Catholicism and history.
Also see: catholicleague.org/catholicism-and-science/

Although there is a lot good information here, the premise of the book was not to take an unbiased approach, but to tout the superiority of Catholicism in creating scientific knowledge. A title such as “A History of Science” or “How Universities Developed in Western Civilization” would have made skeptics like me more likely to accept it uncritically.

 

[polytropos]

Although there is a lot good information here, the premise of the book was not to take an unbiased approach, but to tout the superiority of Catholicism in creating scientific knowledge. A title such as “A History of Science” or “How Universities Developed in Western Civilization” would have made skeptics like me more likely to accept it uncritically.

You are less likely to criticize the content of a book when its title is not honest about its argument? A skeptic, I would imagine, could read a book that admits to its biases and evaluate the information taking those biases into account, rather than isolate oneself to books that masquerades as impartial. All authors have agendas; some admit them.

 

[TarkanAttila]

You are less likely to criticize the content of a book when its title is not honest about its argument? A skeptic, I would imagine, could read a book that admits to its biases and evaluate the information taking those biases into account, rather than isolate oneself to books that masquerades as impartial. All authors have agendas; some admit them.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...E_dTCstUsFduAA5dk611LIk9e1qc5Q_cG6Mw4TYL8UZ9A

 

[Peter_Plato]

There are two equally compelling challenges that face every human individual:

1. Understanding the way things are and why they are.
2. Making decisions and choices about what actions one ought to take regarding the future. (What do I do from here on?)

Science answers part of the first, premised upon the assumption that the way things have been will continue forward in time. We have a basis, founded in formal science, upon which to expect certain outcomes.

What science cannot do, however, is provide a definitive guide for making decisions concerning the future. That requires a teleological determination of “the good.” It is a qualitative determination, not a quantitative one. Science is restricted to measurable evidence based upon past events. It cannot make qualitative determinations. Those determinations, we, as moral and subjective beings, have to provide based upon other considerations than mere empirical evidence, i.e., moral truths, metaphysical understanding, spiritual discernment, etc.

mmgauss your argument relies upon a double standard.

You are demanding absolute and logical proof for God, but you cannot provide absolute and logical proof for empirical evidence claims. The fact that the “law” of gravity applies consistently in nature does not mean that gravity is logically necessary. There is nothing “necessary” about gravity. We have no real explanation for why matter has an “attraction” for matter and, logically, it could be just the opposite. There is no logical proof for the necessity of gravity because we have no idea why gravity exists. We accept it because it is a brute physical fact, which, if we are honest about our understanding, we would have to admit we have no idea why it is so.

Your “faith” in science to explain things is really only a faith in science to describe and measure the way they are. You are still left with the second of the two challenges I stated at the beginning. You still have to make decisions about where you go from here. Science provides nothing in terms of answering that challenge.

The fact that many choose to regard religious teachings as a means of tackling the second challenge does not run contrary to using science as a means of answering the first. They are not in conflict because, while the first challenge is heavily empirical evidence dependent, the second is virtually independent of science. Science is mute about where we go from here.

Upon what grounds is the second challenge met? It must rely on risk, faith, hope, courage and many of the other human virtues. That is a “fact” of life. Call it credulity if you like - but that is the reality of the human condition. We have to “ad lib” that part. There is no script to be found - and perhaps intentionally so that we prove our “metal,” so to speak.

If you want to criticize religious beliefs, then criticize them based upon their proper sphere of engagement: telelogical ends. Lumping cults together with, for example, Catholicism, means you haven’t taken the time to understand how many of your basic objections have been addressed many times over the past 2000 years. Different religious traditions and belief systems have offered different answers to the second challenge.

If you think science answers the second challenge, then you are demonstrating the same “credulity” vis a vis science that you claim others demonstrate regarding their religious beliefs. You just haven’t properly understood and delineated the parameters of each sphere as carefully as you should have. You are operating under the mistaken belief that science offers solutions to the second challenge, but, in reality, you are making those up on your own and covering them with the mantle of “scientific authority.”

The fact that the physical universe operates as a well-ordered system that we can observe and make predictions about does not argue against the existence of God. There is, likewise, no logical necessity in the universe operating as it does. Science is not based upon any logically necessary laws, so science cannot provide any logically sufficient “proof,” neither for nor against anything, especially not the existence of God. It offers theories and explanations - that is all. It offers no direction concerning where to go from here. That is a risk you have to take all by your lonesome.

 

[nmgauss]

There are two equally compelling challenges that face every human individual:

1. Understanding the way things are and why they are.
2. Making decisions and choices about what actions one ought to take regarding the future. (What do I do from here on?)

Science answers part of the first, premised upon the assumption that the way things have been will continue forward in time. We have a basis, founded in formal science, upon which to expect certain outcomes.

What science cannot do, however, is provide a definitive guide for making decisions concerning the future. That requires a teleological determination of “the good.” It is a qualitative determination, not a quantitative one. Science is restricted to measurable evidence based upon past events. It cannot make qualitative determinations. Those determinations, we, as moral and subjective beings, have to provide based upon other considerations than mere empirical evidence, i.e., moral truths, metaphysical understanding, spiritual discernment, etc.

mmgauss your argument relies upon a double standard.

You are demanding absolute and logical proof for God, but you cannot provide absolute and logical proof for empirical evidence claims. The fact that the “law” of gravity applies consistently in nature does not mean that gravity is logically necessary. There is nothing “necessary” about gravity. We have no real explanation for why matter has an “attraction” for matter and, logically, it could be just the opposite. There is no logical proof for the necessity of gravity because we have no idea why gravity exists. We accept it because it is a brute physical fact, which, if we are honest about our understanding, we would have to admit we have no idea why it is so.

Your “faith” in science to explain things is really only a faith in science to describe and measure the way they are. You are still left with the second of the two challenges I stated at the beginning. You still have to make decisions about where you go from here. Science provides nothing in terms of answering that challenge.

The fact that many choose to regard religious teachings as a means of tackling the second challenge does not run contrary to using science as a means of answering the first. They are not in conflict because, while the first challenge is heavily empirical evidence dependent, the second is virtually independent of science. Science is mute about where we go from here.

Upon what grounds is the second challenge met? It must rely on risk, faith, hope, courage and many of the other human virtues. That is a “fact” of life. Call it credulity if you like - but that is the reality of the human condition. We have to “ad lib” that part. There is no script to be found - and perhaps intentionally so that we prove our “metal,” so to speak.

If you want to criticize religious beliefs, then criticize them based upon their proper sphere of engagement: telelogical ends. Lumping cults together with, for example, Catholicism, means you haven’t taken the time to understand how many of your basic objections have been addressed many times over the past 2000 years. Different religious traditions and belief systems have offered different answers to the second challenge.

If you think science answers the second challenge, then you are demonstrating the same “credulity” vis a vis science that you claim others demonstrate regarding their religious beliefs. You just haven’t properly understood and delineated the parameters of each sphere as carefully as you should have. You are operating under the mistaken belief that science offers solutions to the second challenge, but, in reality, you are making those up on your own and covering them with the mantle of “scientific authority.”

The fact that the physical universe operates as a well-ordered system that we can observe and make predictions about does not argue against the existence of God. There is, likewise, no logical necessity in the universe operating as it does. Science is not based upon any logically necessary laws, so science cannot provide any logically sufficient “proof,” neither for nor against anything, especially not the existence of God. It offers theories and explanations - that is all. It offers no direction concerning where to go from here. That is a risk you have to take all by your lonesome.

Dealing with the world in a probabilistic way renders decisions on the future more or less probable outcomes. For example, one drives a car on the probability that the destination will be reached. There is no certainty that the destination will be reached. But if we assign a high-enough probability to the outcome, we will be more likely to take the risk that we may not reach the destination or we may lose our life in the process. The probability we assign to this task is based on the history of past trips with the car.

The probability that a hurricane will destroy ones house varies between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We cannot predict with certainty that a hurricane will occur in San Francisco. One has never been recorded there so we can safely say that the probability is extremely low. On the other hand, New Orleans has had so many hurricanes that forecasting with high probability that one will occur there in the next ten years is doable.

 

[tonyrey]

One could equally well ask what is the role of credulity in materialism and is it useful in promoting the message - like Richard Dawkins.

 

[BlaineTog]

Science has arrived at workable theories backed up by centuries of research.

All of which is firmly grounded in a foundation of pure belief. It’s logically inconsistent to claim otherwise. You wish to assume the foundational beliefs of science a priori but then claim that beliefs must not be held a priori. That’s fallacious reasoning, and just plain bad Epistemology.

If we concentrated our belief system on that of the Catholic Church, we would still be sailing by wind power and traveling on land with horses.

On the contrary. The two belief systems are compatible with one another. In most things, they don’t interact at all, passing each other like ships in the night.

 

[nmgauss]

One could equally well ask what is the role of credulity in materialism and is it useful in promoting the message - like Richard Dawkins.

What message?

 

[nmgauss]

stephen-greenspan.com/pdf/samplechapter.pdf

"Conventional religious belief is contained in a book by Michael Shermer (2001) titled
HowWe Believe. Although a prominent skeptic, as well as an atheist, Shermer’s
position is that one can be a skeptic toward irrational beliefs, including official
religious doctrines, and still believe in God (in fact, as many as one-third of
the members of Shermer’s Skeptics Society, and an even larger percentage
of scientists, claim to hold religious beliefs). This is because for most people
belief in God is a matter of faith, that is, an emotion-driven stance, and for
Shermer that is acceptable. Where he draws the line, however, is when one
begins to use rational arguments to justify such a stance, by pointing to various
supernatural and miraculous phenomena as evidence. Then, Shermer’s
skeptical juices begin to flow.
For Shermer, the explanation for why people believe in God is that “humans
are pattern-seeking animals. Our brains are hard-wired to seek and find
patterns, whether the pattern is real or not” (p. 61). He cited Bart Kosko’s
(1993) book Fuzzy Thinking, to suggest that belief in God is analogous to
what we do when we look at an optical illusion, such as the Kanizsa-square
illusion, in which the mind fills in a square where all that is really on the
page are four Pac-men turned at right angles. For Kosko, “God glimpses, or
the feeling of God recognition, may be just a ‘filling in’ or deja-vu type anomaly
of our neural nets” (cited in Shermer, 2001, p. 62). Shermer noted that in the
Kanizsa illusion, “there is no square. . . . The square is in our mind. There appears
to be Something There, when in actual fact there is nothing there. As
pattern-seeking animals it is virtually impossible for us not to see the pattern.
The same may be true for God. For most of us, it is very difficult not to see
a pattern of God when looking at the false boundaries and bright interiors of
the universe” (p. 63). An alternative explanation of religion, based on transferring
to “God” the young child’s initial quasi-religious worship of his parents,
was provided in a developmental study of magical thinking by Jean Piaget
(1926/1969) discussed in chapter 1.
Shermer posited a “Belief Engine” to explain why most people (90% of
Americans, the highest of any Western population) profess a belief in God,
but also a belief in magic and various supernatural phenomena, such as an
ability to talk to the dead. The best modern treatment of the connection
between religion and belief in magic is contained in a book titled Believing in
Magic: The Psychology of Superstition, by Stuart A. Vyse (1997).Magic is integral
to religion, because the very concept of a personal God responding to prayer
is magical, because many religious practices (e.g., sprinkling of holy water, the
transubstantiation of the communion wine, the healing miracles attributed to
saints) do not conform to natural laws and processes, and because in some
religions priests are believed to have magical (e.g., shamanistic) powers.

 

[polytropos]

Although a prominent skeptic, as well as an atheist, Shermer’s
position is that one can be a skeptic toward irrational beliefs, including official
religious doctrines, and still believe in God (in fact, as many as one-third of
the members of Shermer’s Skeptics Society, and an even larger percentage
of scientists, claim to hold religious beliefs). This is because for most people
belief in God is a matter of faith, that is, an emotion-driven stance, and for
Shermer that is acceptable. Where he draws the line, however, is when one
begins to use rational arguments to justify such a stance, by pointing to various
supernatural and miraculous phenomena as evidence. Then, Shermer’s
skeptical juices begin to flow.

This is part of the really really unintelligible attitude towards religion in popular culture. “Oh, religious people are fine to believe whatever they want, as long as they don’t actually think that they’re right. What is unacceptable is when they do not concede that they are completely irrational.” I am not allowed to “use rational arguments to justify such a stance”?

For Shermer, the explanation for why people believe in God is that “humans
are pattern-seeking animals. Our brains are hard-wired to seek and find
patterns, whether the pattern is real or not” (p. 61). He cited Bart Kosko’s
(1993) book Fuzzy Thinking, to suggest that belief in God is analogous to
what we do when we look at an optical illusion, such as the Kanizsa-square
illusion, in which the mind fills in a square where all that is really on the
page are four Pac-men turned at right angles. For Kosko, “God glimpses, or
the feeling of God recognition, may be just a ‘filling in’ or deja-vu type anomaly
of our neural nets” (cited in Shermer, 2001, p. 62). Shermer noted that in the
Kanizsa illusion, “there is no square. . . . The square is in our mind. There appears
to be Something There, when in actual fact there is nothing there. As
pattern-seeking animals it is virtually impossible for us not to see the pattern.
The same may be true for God. For most of us, it is very difficult not to see
a pattern of God when looking at the false boundaries and bright interiors of
the universe” (p. 63).

This is a non-sequitur. Human sight is susceptible to optical illusions → human interpretation is all a desperate search for patterns that don’t exist.

Those who have done basic college-level work in psychology and biology are also aware of the fact that 1). there are reasons for the optical illusions we see and 2). they are largely pathological; the senses overwhelmingly provide us with correct information. Particularly in the case of the square. The image is highly suggestive of a square. It makes a lot of sense that perception of shapes is responsive to characteristics such as corners and negative space - and if you were to draw the lines in, you would have a square. What exactly is the argument? That inference is bad?

Magic is integral
to religion, because the very concept of a personal God responding to prayer
is magical, because many religious practices (e.g., sprinkling of holy water, the
transubstantiation of the communion wine, the healing miracles attributed to
saints) do not conform to natural laws and processes, and because in some
religions priests are believed to have magical (e.g., shamanistic) powers.

Surprise! When you define religious practices as magic, you find complete correlation between religious practices and magic.

Catholics don’t allege that transubstantiation and healing miracles conform to natural laws and processes. They are important specifically because they are the events that don’t. Not really a strong basis for rejecting them.

 

[Abu]

Nmgauss #44
If it wasn’t for the Muslims in Spain, we might still be wallowing in Medieval Catholic Dogma.

Another falsehood that everyone needs to know about, while giving Muslim scholars credit where credit is due.

There is no “dogma” which has ever been changed – yet another falsehood to reject. Factually, the Church to which I belong is Christ’s Church. And, BTW, Her dogma and defined doctrine are infallible – it is Aristotle’s erroneous assumptions which have been cast aside.

So, why does the fable of the Catholic Church’s ignorance and opposition to the truth persist? Because the claim of an inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science has, for more than three centuries, been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack on faith.
The truth is, there is no inherent conflict between religion and science. Indeed, the fundamental reality is that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science—a fact little appreciated outside the ranks of academic specialists.

As for the Arabs, while their translations of ancient Greek classics led to their dissemination in the Western world in the twelfth century, a profound development for Western intellectual history, contributions of Muslim scientists “typically occurred in spite of Islam rather than because of it. Orthodox Islamic scholars absolutely rejected any conception of the universe that involved consistent physical laws, because the absolute autonomy of Allah could not be restricted by natural laws. Apparent natural laws were nothing more than mere habits, so to speak, of Allah, and might be discontinued at any time.” [My emphasis]. (How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, Dr Thomas E Woods, Regnery, 2005, p 79)

Alfred North Whitehead, F.R.S., knew that Catholic theology was essential for the rise of science in the West, while stifled elsewhere. He explained: “The greatest contribution of medievalism to the scientific movement [was] the inexpugnable belief that …there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind?..It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality.” [E.L. Jones, 1987; *The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 15].

The twin pillars of Faith and Reason (Fides et Ratio, Bl John Paul II) will always result in the best science – directed to the discovery of God’s laws and based on His natural moral law as to ends and means – with which Christ’s Church alone is fully equipped by Him to guide.

For further information, a highly acclaimed recent work is What’s So Great About Christianity, by Dinesh D’Souza, Regnery, 2007. He cites numerous world-class scientists who reject naturalism and materialism and are theists or Christians.

The reason why there were many faithful Catholic scientists needs some explanation.

As Rodney Stark explains the great figures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries confessed their absolute faith in a creator God whose work incorporated rational rules awaiting discovery.

“The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.

“These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.” The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 22-23].

 

[Ion]

One could equally well ask what is the role of credulity in materialism and is it useful in promoting the message - like Richard Dawkins.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Dealing with the world in a probabilistic way renders decisions on the future more or less probable outcomes. For example, one drives a car on the probability that the destination will be reached. There is no certainty that the destination will be reached. But if we assign a high-enough probability to the outcome, we will be more likely to take the risk that we may not reach the destination or we may lose our life in the process. The probability we assign to this task is based on the history of past trips with the car.

The probability that a hurricane will destroy ones house varies between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We cannot predict with certainty that a hurricane will occur in San Francisco. One has never been recorded there so we can safely say that the probability is extremely low. On the other hand, New Orleans has had so many hurricanes that forecasting with high probability that one will occur there in the next ten years is doable.

You missed my point entirely. On what do you base the decision to go to the destination in the first place? Surely, you don’t decide to go just because there is a high probability of arriving there! You choose to go for other reasons.

 

[Portofino]

This is part of the really really unintelligible attitude towards religion in popular culture. “Oh, religious people are fine to believe whatever they want, as long as they don’t actually think that they’re right. What is unacceptable is when they do not concede that they are completely irrational.” I am not allowed to “use rational arguments to justify such a stance”?

In part, I think this attitude could stem from a genuine spirit of fairness (not sure it does in that case of that particular author, though). By that I mean, one is saying, “if you attempt to use rational arguments to prove your religion, I will not refrain from arguing back. For one thing, by making rational arguments in favor of your religion, you are implying that these arguments ought to be binding on my reason, as well, on the reason of everyone. But if you openly profess that your religion is a matter of faith – or even, that faith is a necessary element, and that reason alone is not a necessary and sufficient grounding for assent to your religion – then I will respect your beliefs, and I will leave them alone.”

Someone like Dawkins does not subscribe to this. He will not cease and desist, just because someone professes that this is their faith. He does not have a notion of respecting the faith of others, because he believes that religious faith – which he portrays as an irrational belief – is dangerous and harmful.

Where I personally would draw the line to respecting others’ faith (defined as having nothing to say about it) is, frankly, when believers are using it to tell me or others – or society at large – that we must live as they do. I know this is another source of irritation that the religious often feel vis-a-vis the secular, this notion that, “adhere to any religion you want, just keep it to yourself!” Or, as it’s sometimes formulated, “just do not impose your beliefs on others.” And I know this is often perceived as being unfair, unreasonable, on the part of non-believers.

I would agree that I don’t think it’s fair to tell religion people that they “ought not” to introduce their religion into the public sphere, just that – once it is introduced into the public sphere, whether in the name of faith or reason – it is fair game for public debate, and the respect that is due to others’ religious beliefs does not preclude openly voiced disagreement. There is that saying, “we are entitled to our private opinions, but not our private facts.”

I think religious believers themselves have a good understanding of aspects of their religion that admit of secular arguments – moral issues, especially, such as abortion or euthanasia – and those aspects of their religion that do not (for example, arguing that everyone should go to Catholic mass on Sunday, or not eat meat on Fridays during Lent). Any religious Catholic who would introduce the latter into public discourse would probably be viewed as quixotic by his co-religionists. Obviously, when it comes to moral arguments, the contention is that their applicability is not religion-specific, but amenable to reason. And there are bitter disagreements, to be sure – for example, Catholics maintain that the disordered, even immoral, quality of homosexual relationships is amenable to reason (via natural law), while many secular thinkers maintain that it is not and that insistence on the inherent immorality of homosexuality is tantamount to insisting you ought not to eat meat on Fridays during Lent, or that you ought to attend Catholic Mass every Sunday.