What is the significance of naturalism?

[abucs]

The idea that the universe obeys rules that can be discovered predated Christianity. Christians seem to have the bad habit of predicting things after they happen.

Look at the very long list of the founders of the different branches of science. They are overwhelmingly Christian working in a Christian civilisation that supported them. Many of these scientific founders are either Christian clerics or taught by Christian clerics.

Please show me the ancient civilisation that cones anywhere near such a list of the Christian founders of scientific branches.

onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Walsh%2C%20James%20J.%20(James%20Joseph)%2C%201865-1942

Atheists have lost the argument regarding the fact that the scientific revolution overwhelmingly happened in the Christian civilisation, by Christians.

 

[Oreoracle]

Yep, plus, look at how people today look back at some of the ‘scientific facts’ the mainstream science world considered to be absolute fact 100 yrs ago…of course we laugh about some of these today…like how they thought Radium was a cure all for just about anything and was harmless (thankfully we know better today)!!. I often wonder what the people living 100 + years from now, will be laughing about some of the ‘scientific facts’ we consider to be true in 2014!! LOL

Absolutely. The point is, however wrong we may be, we can never be tempted to blame science for it. Science may give us the wrong answers sometimes, but it always leads to progress.

Given the importance of Ontology in current debates around the Philosophy of Science; you shouldn’t shrug it off. Given that the major debate is whether or not scientific knowledge can actually attain actual truth or not; metaphysical Naturalism implies that it cannot, this is due to its ontology.

“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” - Richard Feynman

Not only does philosophy of science not affect how we conduct science, as Feynman suggests, it also doesn’t affect how we, the public at large, respond to scientific innovation. It doesn’t matter whether you think doctors have the “actual truth” or not, you’ll still take medicines they prescribe and get vaccinations. It doesn’t matter whether you think computer programmers have the “actual truth” or not, you will still type your post onto this thread. It makes zero practical difference. Using the truth is indistinguishable from using a sufficiently good model of the universe.

Could you imagine someone doubting science to the extent that they wouldn’t trust that their microwave oven will work, only to be persuaded later by an ontological argument? Can you honestly imagine that sort of thing happening?

Look at the very long list of the founders of the different branches of science. They are overwhelmingly Christian working in a Christian civilisation that supported them. Many of these scientific founders are either Christian clerics or taught by Christian clerics.

I didn’t claim that Christians haven’t contributed to science. I only said that they weren’t the first to conceive of a universe that obeys laws in a predictable fashion.

 

[abucs]

I didn’t claim that Christians haven’t contributed to science. I only said that they weren’t the first to conceive of a universe that obeys laws in a predictable fashion.

You’re initial question, put quite contemptuously, was to ask how a certain view has contributed to rational scientific thinking.

I answered you.

Your ‘refutation’ that others thought nature worked in predictable ways doesn’t say much, and it does not refute anything I said.

Instead your non refutation included a generalised slur against Christian understanding.

I ask you again to take up the challenge :

Please match even the following basic list from the Christian civilisation :

Newton, Nicolus Cusa, Kepler, Copernicus, Nicolas Oreme, Albert Magnus, Gallileo, Roger Bacon, Francis Bacon. Nicolas Steno, Geoerges Lemaitre, Lavoisser, Darwin, Nicholas Steno, Alllessandro Volta, Robert Boyle, Gregor Mendel, Pasteur, Boscovich etc.

Where’s the equivalent list from any other civilisation?

I repeat my original answer to your question - the Christian mindset’s affect on scientific understanding has been a positive one. It has worked extremely well.

The idea that there is an underlying reality which underpins a perceptible world that can be understood by universal laws based on rational mathematics has worked extremely well. Thank God.

 

[Oreoracle]

You’re initial question, put quite contemptuously, was to ask how a certain view has contributed to rational scientific thinking.

No. I didn’t ask a question. I was responding to something you actually reiterated later on in your post, seen here:

The idea that there is an underlying reality which underpins a perceptible world that can be understood by universal laws based on rational mathematics has worked extremely well. Thank God.

This position predates Christianity, thus you cannot give Christianity credit for it. In your first post that I responded to you attempted to do just that: You said that Christianity “theorized” that such laws existed. I responded by pointing out that theorizing was quite unnecessary since it was already known by that point (think Greek astronomy for example). Hence my “contemptuous” remark that Christians have the habit of predicting things that have already happened. If you prefer, they have the habit of claiming credit for prior civilizations’ innovations.

This doesn’t mean that Christians haven’t contributed to science. It just means that they didn’t pioneer in the notion of the universe obeying laws.

 

[abucs]

And the last question is very important. If you allow something outside of nature to account for events within nature, then you could just explain everything that happens in terms of the supernatural. We tried that for most of human history, and it didn’t work out well.

You are correct in that I responded to your assertion, rather than a question.

I repeat yet again. The Christian mindset worked out very well with regards to scientific development. The Christian mindset is that there is an ultimate reality underpinning our perceptible reality. A perceptible reality that can be understood rationally.

Whether someone somewhere before Christianity thought that nature works in predictable ways is neither here nor there. In fact whether some group had exactly the mindset of Christians or not also has no relevance in my answer to your assertion.