Science and Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2015, 01:07 AM
Science and Christianity
this is just a brief post. I've occasionally heard from the members that when Christians practice science they must leave all the elements of their Christianity behind, however I just thought that it might be important to point out that, although it is not specific to Christianity, there are several elements which come from Christianity that are essential to the practice of science. The main one is that metaphysical principle that reality is real. Strict Platonism (I cannot think of a modern equivalent) would not allow for a significant delving into science. Similarly a Humian would not be able to practice science since they cannot go from an is to an ought. The Christian principles that reality is real and that it is ordered are fundamental form the practice of science.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 01:13 AM
RE: Science and Christianity
And that is where it ends. and every single theistic religion also does this.
There are not several principles of these religions that are necessary for science... hell even assuming reality is real has no effect on what we actually observe, and what we actually observe is science.

Science is not dependent on reality being real, its dependent on the perception, through which it is perceived, real or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 02:00 AM
RE: Science and Christianity
(18-02-2015 01:07 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  this is just a brief post. I've occasionally heard from the members that when Christians practice science they must leave all the elements of their Christianity behind, however I just thought that it might be important to point out that, although it is not specific to Christianity, there are several elements which come from Christianity that are essential to the practice of science. The main one is that metaphysical principle that reality is real. Strict Platonism (I cannot think of a modern equivalent) would not allow for a significant delving into science. Similarly a Humian would not be able to practice science since they cannot go from an is to an ought. The Christian principles that reality is real and that it is ordered are fundamental form the practice of science.

.... wait, reality being real isn't just a tautology... it's a CHRISTIAN tautology? So every other religion and philosophy out there, save those derived from Christianity, DOESN'T believe that reality is real?

Plato's philosophy CAN be adapted into a scientific, in that what we observe is a limited instance of the underlying principle. The "shadow on the cave wall" is our data set, and the perfect form is the underlying scientific law or principle that we wish to discover. I'm not saying Plato would ALWAYS be applied this way, but it could be.

Show me an "ought" in science that is not part of a conditional -- eg, something that isn't "IF we want our children to be healthy, THEN we should vaccinate them." That is, show me an ought in science that stands alone. Science tells us the implications of our actions, what is and what was and what might be, but it falls to our non-scientifically-determined values and desires to determine how we ought to use that knowledge. Science does not choose for us.

There is a point to be made here somewhere, yes. When the physical phenomena of the universe are seen by primitive peoples as being the manifestation of a wide variety of spirits, with a nymph for every pool and a dryad for every tree and a god for every direction of wind and every other thing as well, and with all those beings in conflict with one another, there wasn't much hope of making sense of the world. Eliminating all of those supernatural entities save one made room for a universe that churned along its way according to predictable rules. But... why should we credit Christianity with this? Thales was introducing this idea in Greece over half a millennium before the purported birth of Christ, and various interpretations of the Christian god (such as the providential one who actively causes the sun to rise and plants to sprout, rather than establishing a system of laws by which they do so) dismiss the idea. Christianity is neither necessary nor sufficient for this.

Besides, the point is made so much better if you go one god further.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
18-02-2015, 02:28 AM
RE: Science and Christianity
(18-02-2015 02:00 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(18-02-2015 01:07 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  this is just a brief post. I've occasionally heard from the members that when Christians practice science they must leave all the elements of their Christianity behind, however I just thought that it might be important to point out that, although it is not specific to Christianity, there are several elements which come from Christianity that are essential to the practice of science. The main one is that metaphysical principle that reality is real. Strict Platonism (I cannot think of a modern equivalent) would not allow for a significant delving into science. Similarly a Humian would not be able to practice science since they cannot go from an is to an ought. The Christian principles that reality is real and that it is ordered are fundamental form the practice of science.

.... wait, reality being real isn't just a tautology... it's a CHRISTIAN tautology? So every other religion and philosophy out there, save those derived from Christianity, DOESN'T believe that reality is real?

Plato's philosophy CAN be adapted into a scientific, in that what we observe is a limited instance of the underlying principle. The "shadow on the cave wall" is our data set, and the perfect form is the underlying scientific law or principle that we wish to discover. I'm not saying Plato would ALWAYS be applied this way, but it could be.

Show me an "ought" in science that is not part of a conditional -- eg, something that isn't "IF we want our children to be healthy, THEN we should vaccinate them." That is, show me an ought in science that stands alone. Science tells us the implications of our actions, what is and what was and what might be, but it falls to our non-scientifically-determined values and desires to determine how we ought to use that knowledge. Science does not choose for us.

There is a point to be made here somewhere, yes. When the physical phenomena of the universe are seen by primitive peoples as being the manifestation of a wide variety of spirits, with a nymph for every pool and a dryad for every tree and a god for every direction of wind and every other thing as well, and with all those beings in conflict with one another, there wasn't much hope of making sense of the world. Eliminating all of those supernatural entities save one made room for a universe that churned along its way according to predictable rules. But... why should we credit Christianity with this? Thales was introducing this idea in Greece over half a millennium before the purported birth of Christ, and various interpretations of the Christian god (such as the providential one who actively causes the sun to rise and plants to sprout, rather than establishing a system of laws by which they do so) dismiss the idea. Christianity is neither necessary nor sufficient for this.

Besides, the point is made so much better if you go one god further.

I feel like you missed the point where i mentioned that this is not specific to christianity. Both positivism and materialism require this basic principle. I was just pointing out that a complete divorce from Christianity is not required for science.

Also the is to ought scenario was not meant to be moralistic but along the lines that if you drop a ball ten thousand times and it falls to the ground then there is no reason to believe that it will fall again.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 02:31 AM
RE: Science and Christianity
You also mentioned thales. I'd like to point out to later philosophers. Heraclitus and Zeno. Neither of these philosophers could have practised science, especially Zeno.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 08:05 AM
RE: Science and Christianity
(18-02-2015 01:07 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  The main one is that metaphysical principle that reality is real. Strict Platonism (I cannot think of a modern equivalent) would not allow for a significant delving into science.

You're probably looking for The Matrix. Possibly Inception.


(18-02-2015 01:07 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  The Christian principles that reality is real and that it is ordered are fundamental form the practice of science.

This isn't strictly a Christian thing, though. Being able to draw conclusions from observation and assume that things can be repeatable is something animals do innately.

This reminds me of conversations I've had where people point to the Ten Commandments and say how some of there are very good. While some of them are useful, it also leaves out that there are older versions of these same rules and that the "good" ones are pretty basic for the functioning of any society. It's not like they came up with anything novel here. They just did what everyone else was doing and put a religious spin on it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
18-02-2015, 08:07 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2015 08:16 AM by Chas.)
RE: Science and Christianity
(18-02-2015 01:07 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  this is just a brief post. I've occasionally heard from the members that when Christians practice science they must leave all the elements of their Christianity behind, however I just thought that it might be important to point out that, although it is not specific to Christianity, there are several elements which come from Christianity that are essential to the practice of science. The main one is that metaphysical principle that reality is real. Strict Platonism (I cannot think of a modern equivalent) would not allow for a significant delving into science. Similarly a Humian would not be able to practice science since they cannot go from an is to an ought. The Christian principles that reality is real and that it is ordered are fundamental form the practice of science.

That Christianity has some precepts that are consistent with science doesn't mean much of anything when it has, at its core, tenets that are completely at odds with science.
Have you read no philosophy other than Plato?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 01:32 PM
RE: Science and Christianity
(18-02-2015 08:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-02-2015 01:07 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  this is just a brief post. I've occasionally heard from the members that when Christians practice science they must leave all the elements of their Christianity behind, however I just thought that it might be important to point out that, although it is not specific to Christianity, there are several elements which come from Christianity that are essential to the practice of science. The main one is that metaphysical principle that reality is real. Strict Platonism (I cannot think of a modern equivalent) would not allow for a significant delving into science. Similarly a Humian would not be able to practice science since they cannot go from an is to an ought. The Christian principles that reality is real and that it is ordered are fundamental form the practice of science.

That Christianity has some precepts that are consistent with science doesn't mean much of anything when it has, at its core, tenets that are completely at odds with science.
Have you read no philosophy other than Plato?

Would you mind expanding on the tenets that you consider at odds with science.

Also i have read plenty of philosophy but my main intrest tends to be ancient and medieval philosophy. I have read the moderns but i didnt care much for them and so I haven't kept them in my memory.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 04:57 PM
RE: Science and Christianity
(18-02-2015 01:32 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(18-02-2015 08:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  That Christianity has some precepts that are consistent with science doesn't mean much of anything when it has, at its core, tenets that are completely at odds with science.
Have you read no philosophy other than Plato?

Would you mind expanding on the tenets that you consider at odds with science.

Also i have read plenty of philosophy but my main intrest tends to be ancient and medieval philosophy. I have read the moderns but i didnt care much for them and so I haven't kept them in my memory.

How about belief without evidence? How about believing knowledge can come from revelation? How about talking serpents, worldwide floods, the sun standing still?

I have noticed that Christians in general, and Catholics in particular, just love the ancient and medieval philosophers.
Probably because those simplistic, pre-scientific ideas are about as complex as they can understand.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 05:07 PM
RE: Science and Christianity
(18-02-2015 02:28 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  I feel like you missed the point where i mentioned that this is not specific to christianity. Both positivism and materialism require this basic principle. I was just pointing out that a complete divorce from Christianity is not required for science.

Also the is to ought scenario was not meant to be moralistic but along the lines that if you drop a ball ten thousand times and it falls to the ground then there is no reason to believe that it will fall again.

As a scientist, I can tell you that you must divorce presupposition, which is a pillar of christianity, in order to do science. In your scenario, if I drop a ball 10,000 times and it falls, then god. If I drop it 10,001 times and it doesn't fall, god's will. The presupposition is the very reason that when christianity ruled Europe, it was known as the Dark Ages and absolutely no scientific progress was made there. If you must divorce the pillar, the house falls.

Edit: also, if science relies on a christian principle, how were the Chinese and Romans able to be more advanced?

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: