2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 287:
Line 287: + + +
→Social effects of Creationist ideas
::::::::The US has indeed quite some impressive European heritage. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:04, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::The US has indeed quite some impressive European heritage. [[User:Order|Order]] 09:04, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Aristotle's supporters may have used the Bible to justify their views, but their views didn't come from the Bible, and people like Copernicus and Galileo were not rejecting what the Bible says in proposing their alternative views: they were Bible-believing creationists. I'm not sure exactly what "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens" is supposed to mean, but as far as ''observations'' go, I would agree that there is no need to go to Scripture to see what is. However, as far as ''history'' goes (goo-to-you evolution, for example), that's a different matter. But this is all getting off the point, which is that science arose ''because of'' a Christian worldview, and nothing you've said disproves that. You were trying to refute that point of view by arguing that even though they were Christians, they were acting ''as empiricists'', not as ''Christians''. That's a false distinction, because it was their ''Christianity'' that gave them cause and justification to act as ''empiricists'' in studying God's creation. A Hindu, for example, would never dissect a cow to see how it works inside, nor any other creature for that matter, as it might be an ancestor reincarnated. An animist would be afraid of disrespecting if not actually harming the spirits living in nature if they investigated nature. And so on. It was Christianity that saw that creation was not itself divine, but under man's dominion, and that creation, being the product of a consistent God, was itself consistent and therefore the laws of nature, for example, would not change. It's this ''principle'' that still guides science, so that when we conclude that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level, it will do so ''everywhere in the universe'', because the whole universe is the product of the one consistent God. Atheists reject the basis for this principle, but still accept the principle (now without basis!), but the principle has its basis in Christian thinking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:45, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::: Aristotle's supporters may have used the Bible to justify their views, but their views didn't come from the Bible, and people like Copernicus and Galileo were not rejecting what the Bible says in proposing their alternative views: they were Bible-believing creationists. I'm not sure exactly what "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens" is supposed to mean, but as far as ''observations'' go, I would agree that there is no need to go to Scripture to see what is. However, as far as ''history'' goes (goo-to-you evolution, for example), that's a different matter. But this is all getting off the point, which is that science arose ''because of'' a Christian worldview, and nothing you've said disproves that. You were trying to refute that point of view by arguing that even though they were Christians, they were acting ''as empiricists'', not as ''Christians''. That's a false distinction, because it was their ''Christianity'' that gave them cause and justification to act as ''empiricists'' in studying God's creation. A Hindu, for example, would never dissect a cow to see how it works inside, nor any other creature for that matter, as it might be an ancestor reincarnated. An animist would be afraid of disrespecting if not actually harming the spirits living in nature if they investigated nature. And so on. It was Christianity that saw that creation was not itself divine, but under man's dominion, and that creation, being the product of a consistent God, was itself consistent and therefore the laws of nature, for example, would not change. It's this ''principle'' that still guides science, so that when we conclude that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level, it will do so ''everywhere in the universe'', because the whole universe is the product of the one consistent God. Atheists reject the basis for this principle, but still accept the principle (now without basis!), but the principle has its basis in Christian thinking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:45, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::Christianity is a a very poor predictor as to what a person did back in that time. Galileo was a Christian, and his opponents too. But what is striking that those opposed to scientific finding typically pointed at the bible, while the scientists pointed at their observations. Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bile, while Galileo pointed at his telescope. Anyway, as said, Christianity by itself is a poor predictor.
::::::::::Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention is quite interesting. First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it. A deity could change the laws at will, but without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change, unless there is a higher level law at work. Unless your deity doesn't have what we call free will, but has to behave predictable. But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century. Some people say that this ban marks the early beginning of modern science, because it had as an unintended side effect that scientist had to work around the provisions of this ban. But again, you had Christians on both side of the aisle. By the way this view of yours is rooted in Aristotle's teachings, which made it to Europe through the Arabs. Not exactly Christian roots either.
::::::::::The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:20, 3 February 2008 (EST)