1. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    30 Apr '08 12:21
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    If we give credit to religion where it is not due then it gives one more crutch for theists who are deluded by the Pascals Wager syndrome. Almost all theists I have talked to use Pascals Wager as a crutch at some point. Their justification is partly founded on the false belief that religion as a whole is beneficial to society and that there is no loss to them by being religious even if they are wrong.
    It doesn't suit your political agenda. Fair enough.
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    30 Apr '08 13:11
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    I didn't say Newton started out in the Church and moved to science.
    But you implied it.

    He couldn't have, for a start: England was no longer a Catholic country. The unifying Catholic matrix had broken up. And then Newton was a religious dissenter, so he kept his religious views very private.
    What does the Catholic Church have to do with anything? I am sure he was a member of the Church of England. 'The Church' does not mean exclusively 'Roman Catholic'.

    Again, you seem to be arguing weakly that because of religion, Newton, like Mendel, didn't do enough.
    No, I am arguing strongly that without religion both could have done more.

    But you should cast a little further than Wikipedia.
    None of which proves your point and in fact this little quote "nothing can rejoyce me more then to find it usefull for that purpose" implies he did the science first then sought to use it for religion later - not the other way around.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    30 Apr '08 13:11
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    It doesn't suit your political agenda. Fair enough.
    My political agenda does not however make me wrong.
  4. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    30 Apr '08 13:501 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    [b]I didn't say Newton started out in the Church and moved to science.
    But you implied it.

    He couldn't have, for a start: England was no longer a Catholic country. The unifying Catholic matrix had broken up. And then Newton was a religious dissenter, so he kept his religious views very private.
    What does the Catholic Church have to do with the science first then sought to use it for religion later - not the other way around.[/b]
    I implied nothing of the sort! He had a religious upbringing, so his faith necessarily preceded his scientific achievements. Bear in mind that 'science' didn't even exist at the time. His achievements in 'natural philosophy' were incredibly important in establishing scientific method.

    Newton believed that the Church of England was wrong. In fact he believed that the 'Arian heresy' was correct. He hid his dissenting views because they could have got him into trouble.

    At one time 'the Church' was meaningful because there was only one official church; the influence of religion became increasingly diminished after the Reformation and the advent of churches like the Church of England.

    Everything seems to imply exactly what you want it to mean, Humpty Dumpty! If Newton says he'd be happy to be able to use science to justify religion, then it must mean that he started out as a scientist and found religion later, his religious upbringing notwithstanding ... You're grasping at straws.

    Alternatively, Newton might just have been a rather strange man with intensely personal religious views who just happened to be a genius. And so what? We don't have to agree with Newton's views. Or Kepler, or Boyle, or any of the other scientists of religious inspiration. Perhaps their belief in God was just a fortunate accident. All I'm recording is the fact that their beliefs inspired their science. Otherwise you get ignoramuses running around telling you that the Church preached the world was flat until Columbus proved them wrong ...
  5. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    30 Apr '08 13:51
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    My political agenda does not however make me wrong.
    It doesn't do much for your credibility.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    30 Apr '08 14:14
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    I implied nothing of the sort!
    You said:
    I'd say that going from theology to science is a natural progression. Somebody keenly interested in acquiring knowledge of God would seek to unveil Nature; somebody like Newton:
    Maybe I phrased it wrong, but you are clearly implying that Newton started by searching for knowledge of God before he started searching for knowledge of the Universe and further that his search for knowledge of God is what lead him to search for knowledge of the Universe. I dispute that.

    He had a religious upbringing, so his faith necessarily preceded his scientific achievements.
    But that has nothing to do with his search for knowledge in either field.

    At one time 'the Church' was meaningful because there was only one official church; the influence of religion became increasingly diminished after the Reformation and the advent of churches like the Church of England.
    I believe that religion has just as much religion today as it did at any time in the past, thought the variety of religion does seem to make it easier to go against the standard.

    Everything seems to imply exactly what you want it to mean, Humpty Dumpty! If Newton says he'd be happy to be able to use science to justify religion, then it must mean that he started out as a scientist and found religion later, his religious upbringing notwithstanding ... You're grasping at straws.
    I never claimed he started out one way - that was you making claims based on straws. I only claimed that your assumption was unfounded.

    Alternatively, Newton might just have been a rather strange man with intensely personal religious views who just happened to be a genius. And so what? We don't have to agree with Newton's views. Or Kepler, or Boyle, or any of the other scientists of religious inspiration. Perhaps their belief in God was just a fortunate accident.
    Or unfortunate.

    All I'm recording is the fact that their beliefs inspired their science.
    But you have not shown that to be the case. All you have shown is that their beliefs influenced their science - not that they 'inspired' it.
    You are giving his beliefs undue credit. There is absolutely no reason to believe he would have achieved less if he was born into an atheistic society.
  7. cube# 6484
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    9626
    30 Apr '08 14:24
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    You said:
    [b]I'd say that going from theology to science is a natural progression. Somebody keenly interested in acquiring knowledge of God would seek to unveil Nature; somebody like Newton:

    Maybe I phrased it wrong, but you are clearly implying that Newton started by searching for knowledge of God before he started searching for knowledge o ...[text shortened]... eason to believe he would have achieved less if he was born into an atheistic society.[/b]
    but if you are an atheist where is your inspiration? You believe your existence is pointless, you are just here "because". There is no creator, so there is no after-life, thus there is no point to life. There is no creator so everything is as it is, because it is, to do with what you want for whatever reason. Do you see the pointlessness of this existence? Thus, why would one need to seek a better understanding of a universe that just IS for no reasons.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    30 Apr '08 14:39
    Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
    but if you are an atheist where is your inspiration? You believe your existence is pointless, you are just here "because". There is no creator, so there is no after-life, thus there is no point to life. There is no creator so everything is as it is, because it is, to do with what you want for whatever reason. Do you see the pointlessness of this ...[text shortened]... , why would one need to seek a better understanding of a universe that just IS for no reasons.
    We can all play the 'pointless' game.
    In your delusion there is a creator who dictates everything. He decides what happens and he himself just 'is'. Your life is pointless. What is worse, you live in a delusion and don't even realize how pointless your delusion is and how much more meaningful your life would be if you accepted the fact of reality.

    My life is meaningful to me and I don't need to imagine some 'creator' to give my life meaning, nor do I need to dream of an 'after-life' to make my life meaningful, nor do I see how either of those would make anyones life more meaningful. Who made your creator? Does that make his life pointless? What comes after your afterlife? Does its absence make your afterlife meaningless?

    Next time think before you post.
  9. cube# 6484
    Joined
    01 Sep '04
    Moves
    9626
    30 Apr '08 14:47
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    We can all play the 'pointless' game.
    In your delusion there is a creator who dictates everything. He decides what happens and he himself just 'is'. Your life is pointless. What is worse, you live in a delusion and don't even realize how pointless your delusion is and how much more meaningful your life would be if you accepted the fact of reality.

    My ...[text shortened]... Does its absence make your afterlife meaningless?

    Next time think before you post.
    a creator doesn't dicate anything. Everyone has a free will to do whatever they want, example you. There is a reason you are in the VAST minority.

    Please explain to me where the universe came from Mr. there is not creator. Please explain to me your delusion.
  10. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8096
    30 Apr '08 14:55
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    As a generalisation, that isn't bad. Indubitably, Western science would be inconceivable without the Catholic Church -- a paradox that may stick in the craw of the fundamental scientoid, but there it is. But you'd have to view the Church as (part of) a cultural matrix in which stuff happens; all kinds of stuff that tends to run all over the place, in w ...[text shortened]... h gave rise to the 'anti-science' libel that the Church has been stuck with ever since.
    I concur with everything, up to the very last part about the Redormation not happening under a humorless philistine Pope. I was always taught that such a Pope (or Popes?) was precisely what Luther faced down. Maybe not a specific Pope, but certainly a horrid, corrupt system. So, with or without a specific Pope sittin' in the big chair, Martin still had plenty of ammo to start and win the Protestant Reformation, and thus make the world safe from Catholics everywhere. 🙂
  11. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    48441
    30 Apr '08 15:38
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13782-religion-a-figment-of-human-imagination.html
    Now this anthropologist represents an interesting view on myths on the one hand and the Gospel on the other: René Girard .....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard

    http://www.cottet.org/girard/index.en.htm

    http://www.stanford.edu/dept/fren-ital/faculty/girard.html
  12. Joined
    08 Jan '06
    Moves
    20722
    30 Apr '08 20:10
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I don't deny it. I also disagree with leedsagain that it "show(s) the weakness of the human mind" but rather agree with Bosse de Nage that it is "an example of the power of imagination". Imagination is a strength not a weakness. Intelligence and logical thinking however should enable us to determine when our imagination has run away with us. However it se ...[text shortened]... etc. If the apparent payoff is big enough we tend to loose our ability to think logically.
    Whilst we all seem to agree that imagination is powerful, I would contend that when it is mixed up with emotion you can get weakness too (Nigerian email scam). Imagination needs to be used to expand our knowledge via experiment and proof, not to invent stuff that purports to be a truth. Imaginative invention for amusement is ok but not as a basis on which to live your life.
  13. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    01 May '08 10:13
    Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
    but if you are an atheist where is your inspiration? You believe your existence is pointless, you are just here "because". There is no creator, so there is no after-life, thus there is no point to life. There is no creator so everything is as it is, because it is, to do with what you want for whatever reason. Do you see the pointlessness of this ...[text shortened]... , why would one need to seek a better understanding of a universe that just IS for no reasons.
    You just THINK and prognosticate the idea that atheists should feel life to be pointless. Whatever gave you that idea? The fact that without god, you don't have all your dogma to fall back on, your set of morals? Nobody including atheists say ALL aspects of religion is ALL bad. Just most of it. Don't try to put words into atheists mouths, it makes you look like a fool.
  14. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    02 May '08 10:493 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    You said:
    [b]I'd say that going from theology to science is a natural progression. Somebody keenly interested in acquiring knowledge of God would seek to unveil Nature; somebody like Newton:

    Maybe I phrased it wrong, but you are clearly implying that Newton started by searching for knowledge of God before he started searching for knowledge o ...[text shortened]... for knowledge of God is what lead him to search for knowledge of the Universe. I dispute that.[/b]
    For somebody who takes the existence of God for granted, searching for the secrets of Creation is tantamount to inquiring into the mind of its Creator. In Newton's words, “there is no way (wthout revelation) to come to ye knowledge of a Deity but by the frame of nature”; more explicitly still: “God is known from his works”.

    Research shows that Newton formed his distinctive religious views before the Principia appeared. Please read this -- not for the sake of this trivial thread, but for the light it throws on the fascinating person that was Newton: http://www.isaac-newton.org/science.doc

    As to whether Newton would have been as good a scientist had he been an atheist (and therefore a completely different person) -- is it conceivable that you could ever provide empirical evidence for your claim? And if you can't, isn't your claim, strictly speaking, nonsensical?

    Are you capable in principle of accepting that a scientist could ever be religiously motivated to carry out scientific works?
  15. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    02 May '08 10:54
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    I concur with everything, up to the very last part about the Redormation not happening under a humorless philistine Pope. I was always taught that such a Pope (or Popes?) was precisely what Luther faced down. Maybe not a specific Pope, but certainly a horrid, corrupt system.
    Pity Luther supported the slaughter of the masses by his aristocratic German allies in the Peasants Revolt. Pity his church stood by and watched the Nazis do their thing. Was Luther absolutely useless?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree