Science and Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2015, 07:22 PM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2015 07:31 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Science and Christianity
(18-02-2015 01:07 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  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.

Why do you note that the elements are not unique to Christianity and then proceed to suggest they stem from Christianity and not many many much older metaphysical systems? It's like saying the Golden Rule, while not unique to Christianity, has several implications which come from Christianity essential to society. Neither of those precepts originated in Christianity.

(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.

Again, that precept is older than Christianity. And I don't see why considering it to be speculative at best and baseless at worst would necessarily preclude one from practicing proper science.

We had a subdiscussion in a thread around here where we asked the question "So what exactly are the novel and unique contributions of Christianity?"

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2015, 07:41 PM
RE: Science and Christianity
(18-02-2015 01:07 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Similarly a Humian would not be able to practice science since they cannot go from an is to an ought.

Don't see no reason Hume couldn't practice proper science, the bigger problem would be getting him to stop. "For the love of God, David you've released the damn ball 10,000 times and it always drops. It's gonna drop when you release it the 10,001'st time." "So you say. We can test that hypotheses." Big Grin

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
19-02-2015, 01:42 AM
RE: Science and Christianity
(18-02-2015 07:22 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(18-02-2015 01:07 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  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.

Why do you note that the elements are not unique to Christianity and then proceed to suggest they stem from Christianity and not many many much older metaphysical systems? It's like saying the Golden Rule, while not unique to Christianity, has several implications which come from Christianity essential to society. Neither of those precepts originated in Christianity.

(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.

Again, that precept is older than Christianity. And I don't see why considering it to be speculative at best and baseless at worst would necessarily preclude one from practicing proper science.

We had a subdiscussion in a thread around here where we asked the question "So what exactly are the novel and unique contributions of Christianity?"
Sorry i didn't mean that this idea originated in Christianity. I just meant that to be a Christian basically requires that you are a realist (depending on your Christology). When I said it comes from Christianity i just meant that it comes from Christianity but then affects the individual person.

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
19-02-2015, 05:36 AM
RE: Science and Christianity
I don't know how you consider that a tenant of Christianity. I'm not getting why Christianity requires you to be a realist at all.

There are some Christians I've seen try to support their claims of how this reality isn't real since it is just Gods test, that only heaven and hell are what are real. I don't know of any direct Christian ideas or textual formulations that declare our lives are in essence reality.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
19-02-2015, 04:49 PM
RE: Science and Christianity
(19-02-2015 05:36 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't know how you consider that a tenant of Christianity. I'm not getting why Christianity requires you to be a realist at all.

There are some Christians I've seen try to support their claims of how this reality isn't real since it is just Gods test, that only heaven and hell are what are real. I don't know of any direct Christian ideas or textual formulations that declare our lives are in essence reality.

The dogma of the incarnation basically requires a realist metaphysics otherwise the God becoming flesh has no meaning. Also although I am saying Christian, I am mostly refering to the more technical sects such as Catholicism, Orthodox, and Anglican.

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
19-02-2015, 04:52 PM
RE: Science and Christianity
(19-02-2015 04:49 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(19-02-2015 05:36 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't know how you consider that a tenant of Christianity. I'm not getting why Christianity requires you to be a realist at all.

There are some Christians I've seen try to support their claims of how this reality isn't real since it is just Gods test, that only heaven and hell are what are real. I don't know of any direct Christian ideas or textual formulations that declare our lives are in essence reality.

The dogma of the incarnation basically requires a realist metaphysics otherwise the God becoming flesh has no meaning. Also although I am saying Christian, I am mostly refering to the more technical sects such as Catholicism, Orthodox, and Anglican.

Dualism and spirits are not part of a realist metaphysics. So, there's that.

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
19-02-2015, 04:58 PM
RE: Science and Christianity
(19-02-2015 04:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-02-2015 04:49 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  The dogma of the incarnation basically requires a realist metaphysics otherwise the God becoming flesh has no meaning. Also although I am saying Christian, I am mostly refering to the more technical sects such as Catholicism, Orthodox, and Anglican.

Dualism and spirits are not part of a realist metaphysics. So, there's that.

Dualism is rejected by the Catholic church. It's why Descartes is not looked favourably upon. Can't comment on the other sects unfortunately.

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
19-02-2015, 05:15 PM
RE: Science and Christianity
(18-02-2015 04:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-02-2015 01:32 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  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 wouldn't. Say that knowledge from revelation is contrary to science any more so than gaining knowledge from a friend is contrary to science. You are able to gain knowledge from someone telling you something. Same thing with knowledge without evidence. I presume that you do not require proof of every statement that your friend makes. These are not part of science but they are not contrary to it. When one is practising science, then one uses the the scientific method. But for the most part we do not regularly practice science (by which I mean the job of scientists). As an analogy, one could say that colour coordination is not part of engineering, but that doesn't mean that an engineers house is only painted in the most efficient colours.

Also the things you listed such as talking snakes are not contrary to the practice of science. Science relates to the natural world, the things you listed are meant to be unnatural, and as such science science should agree that those things are impossible since both Christian and non Christian scientists would agree that those things are impossible in the natural order of things.
Science is almost more necessary for Christianity since Christianity claims that miracles occur. In order to verify that the natural order has been violated they must know what the natural order is. I would say that science is the understanding of the natural order.

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
19-02-2015, 05:24 PM
RE: Science and Christianity
(18-02-2015 04:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-02-2015 01:32 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  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 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.

Probably because many enlightenment thinkers follow upon descartes and so have a dualist base, which as I said is rejected by the Catholic church.
Personally I just find the post medieval thinkers to be insane. And by that I mean St Thomas' definition of insanity

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
19-02-2015, 05:24 PM
RE: Science and Christianity
(19-02-2015 04:58 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(19-02-2015 04:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  Dualism and spirits are not part of a realist metaphysics. So, there's that.

Dualism is rejected by the Catholic church. It's why Descartes is not looked favourably upon. Can't comment on the other sects unfortunately.

Citation required.

The Catholic Church believes is souls and an afterlife. That is dualism.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: