Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Jan 26, 2020 4:57 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Chapter 1: The most precious thing 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7076
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1080
Thanked: 2079 times in 1667 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Chapter 1: The most precious thing
I didn't mention Aristotle or Darwin, they have no bearing on my point. You yourself reject much of scientific knowledge, and yet you maintain that it's a new thing.

In many areas, religion has been resistant to scientific progress. This doesn't mean past religious scientists weren't inspired by religion to discover the world, or that past religious leaders didn't unintentionally removed roadblocks to scientific progress.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:09 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Chapter 1: The most precious thing
Philosophy can and has affected scientific progress. In the case I referred to, Aristotle was the authority on the nature of the universe. His teaching inhibited progress until the Church intervened. That intervention was NOT based on anything scientific. It was based on the Church's understanding of God. Said intervention opened the way for tremendous progress.

There is a BIG difference between challenging the claims of Science - including demands that alternative explanations be considered, and invoking a fundamental blanket understanding of the universe which derails the concept of exploration.

I suspect the above will create reflexive responses about fundamentalist Christians opposition to evolution. I expect no less but I point out that Sagan says that scientific theories and claims MUST be subjected to the most vigorous challenges and opposition.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:14 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Chapter 1: The most precious thing
Regarding the question of which group benefits society more - Christians or scientists, it is fine that science develops ways to produce more food but that does no good to starving people if they don't get that food.

What percentage of resources does science devote to putting food and medicine in the hands of those who need it?


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


The following user would like to thank stahrwe for this post:
DWill
Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:18 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I Should Be Bronzed

Silver Contributor

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1655
Location: Hampton, Ga
Thanks: 254
Thanked: 325 times in 248 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Chapter 1: The most precious thing
Aristotle persisted so long because of a dearth of scientific inquiry and selected support BY the Church. The search for knowledge grinded down to a halt with the church prosecuting those who went against what the church said was scientific fact - Galileo. The Church was in control. We could say that Aristotle persisted so long because the Church wanted it that way.



Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:34 am
Profile Email YIM
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6406
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1871
Thanked: 2067 times in 1562 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Chapter 1: The most precious thing
President Camacho wrote:
Aristotle persisted so long because of a dearth of scientific inquiry and selected support BY the Church. The search for knowledge grinded down to a halt with the church prosecuting those who went against what the church said was scientific fact - Galileo. The Church was in control. We could say that Aristotle persisted so long because the Church wanted it that way.

Hey Comacho, it's been a while. For what it's worth, I've come to see your view of the Church and scientific progress as way too simplified at the least. Ant and stahrwe steered me in a different direction. David C. Lindberg and Ronald Numbers are historians with views on this matter that are worth listening to.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
stahrwe
Mon Feb 02, 2015 9:27 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I Should Be Bronzed

Silver Contributor

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1655
Location: Hampton, Ga
Thanks: 254
Thanked: 325 times in 248 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Chapter 1: The most precious thing
D, you've never spelled my name correctly. You've always spelled it the same way despite that in every post I make you can clearly see how my name should be written. It's set in stone for you and I'm sure you're not doing it on purpose - it's just how you've always spelled my name. I have a feeling you have a lot of things that are quite set in stone and stah's arguments may be music to your ears. I'm not very eloquent and my memory isn't as good as I'd like it to be but I can't see how regarding a book written by man and past off as something given by a god can ultimately help anyone understand/come closer to truth.

Just because scientific study happened by people who made their lives within the church such as Copernicus, doesn't mean that religion is not a speed bump to progress. It may have facilitated, educated, benefited scientific endeavor but that doesn't mean it isn't or hasn't been a limiting factor. Something to shed.

Aristarchus - probably one of the first to champion heliocentrism. The idea that man and the earth was at the center of the universe was more appealing to people than the idea that the earth revolved around the sun. Was Copernicus' ideas widely accepted and immediately championed by the Church? By one religion yes and by another no? Was his work ever banned? What was his position in the Church? Was he a respected member of some rank? The limiting factor is religion because it limits freedom and asks religious texts if the scientific study is blasphemous or ORRR depends on someone of high rank to convince others that the religious texts can work around or has already proven the scientific discovery. The action of censorship ever threatening. It's all very ridiculous.

If someone takes in a child and feeds it and then sexually abuses it - I don't go - well, that child would have never been alive if not for those people who took it in. I say, those people are child abusers and should be in jail.

I wonder how frustrating it would be to find something that would help humanity understand what's going on only to have their discovery hidden and their voice silenced because it goes against the canons of the church.



The following user would like to thank President Camacho for this post:
youkrst
Mon Feb 02, 2015 10:59 am
Profile Email YIM
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7076
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1080
Thanked: 2079 times in 1667 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Chapter 1: The most precious thing
Stahrwe wrote:
There is a BIG difference between challenging the claims of Science - including demands that alternative explanations be considered, and invoking a fundamental blanket understanding of the universe which derails the concept of exploration.

I suspect the above will create reflexive responses about fundamentalist Christians opposition to evolution. I expect no less but I point out that Sagan says that scientific theories and claims MUST be subjected to the most vigorous challenges and opposition.


There's a BIG difference between challenging scientific theories in order to make progress, and rejecting them because you already believe something else. Being on the other side of the fence from the truth, I don't think you are capable of differentiating between an honest vigorous challenge, and a widely cherry-picked set of pseudo-issues.

If you're going to propose an alternative explanation, it should be a valid one - ie naturalistic.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
geo
Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:26 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4416
Location: NC
Thanks: 1882
Thanked: 1948 times in 1459 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Chapter 1: The most precious thing
I think both views are partially right. The Church borrowed a lot of philosophical ideas from the Greeks and infused them into its official dogma. To some degree the Church nurtured a philosophical garden from which science would later bear fruit. But dogma by its very nature is anti-science. And later the Church would attempt to quelch scientific and philosophical ideas that it saw as conflicting with Scripture.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with Interbane's question which has to do with how religious belief lends itself to oppose scientific knowledge.

By the way, "Camacho" is a character in Don Quixote.

Here is Interbane's question again:

Interbane wrote:
If you don't think religious belief lends itself to the opposition of scientific knowledge, how do you explain you motive against evolution and an old Earth? Do you think this century is the only one with such antagonism towards science due to religious belief? How many Americans believe evolution isn't true, because religion has staked a claim on that conceptual territory? For every Christian scientist following an empirical quest for knowledge, their are ten decrying it. But you'd have us believe this is only a recent trend?


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:33 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I Should Be Bronzed

Silver Contributor

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1655
Location: Hampton, Ga
Thanks: 254
Thanked: 325 times in 248 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Chapter 1: The most precious thing
Tired of those who are religious espousing the virtues of religion when it comes to science when if their religion ever decided to denounce any such scientist - they would obey. What a farce.



Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:38 am
Profile Email YIM
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5483
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 891 times in 765 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Chapter 1: The most precious thing
Quote:
Was Copernicus' ideas widely accepted and immediately championed by the Church? By one religion yes and by another no? Was his work ever banned? What was his position in the Church? Was he a respected member of some rank? The limiting factor is religion because it limits freedom and asks religious texts if the scientific study is blasphemous or ORRR depends on someone of high rank to convince others that the religious texts can work around or has already proven the scientific discovery. The action of censorship ever threatening. It's all very ridiculous
.

I'm surprised at you, P.C. I thought you were some kind of historian.

The issue of a heliocentric vs Geocentric paradigm was also largely a scientific debate (science AS DEFINED IN THEIR TIME, NOT OURS).

I do not deny the fact that ancient texts were still looked on as an authoritative source of knowledge. That's a point I will not contest. The corpus of scientific knowledge was in its infancy. The oldest sources of authority were heavily relied on. You can't blame the people of the time for that. Holding historical figures to modern standards (without even being aware that you are) is a profoundly shallow way to begin a conversation about a topic like this.

The Ptolemaic system was actually the most circulated and accepted model of the universe at the time because it was considered to be more evidence based. Whereas Copernicanism lacked the necessary evidence and was contrary to sensory experience. The Church's primary "scientific" position at the time was that it should be considered a working hypothesis until it could be proven otherwise.
That, and other political complications ( a war that threatened the Church's political and social influence) contributed to the decision to continue to reject the Copernican model. Toppling over an entire worldview is not an easy thing. Gallieo, who could not scientifically refute the ptolemaic system didn't help its promotion either.

THE ENTIRE AFFAIR WASN'T JUST ABOUT THE CHURCH SCREAMING THAT THE BIBLE SAYS IT AINT SO, SO IT AINT SO.
There was scientific (again, for those people living in THAT PERIOD of time) debate, a social debate, a political debate, and a freaking war going on. It's as simple and honest as that.

There were many secular adherents to an inaccurate model of the universe and secular rejection of heliocentorism .
Geocentrism simply did not have enough evidence for it at the time. That was a significant part of the Church's argument against it. It wasn't only about scriptural authority.

Given the body of knowledge we have accumulated to date thanks to the many, many contributions of a variety of historical figures, we can't blame our early natural philosophers for relying on ancient texts as authoritative sources. It's grossly unfair. The Church was a significant patron of natural philosophers. Politics and social control certainly played a role. But to claim that the Church stultified scientific progress is a shallow assertion. Natural philosopher's were not tied up and threatened if they practiced the science of their time.

The expectation was that natural philosophy be channeled through the governing political body at the time - the Church.
Science played handmaiden to the Church.

Now who does Science play handmaiden to?
Do you think science is now free?
You're naive if you do.

EDITED



Last edited by ant on Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:58 am, edited 2 times in total.



Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:46 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5483
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 891 times in 765 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Chapter 1: The most precious thing
President Camacho wrote:
Tired of those who are religious espousing the virtues of religion when it comes to science when if their religion ever decided to denounce any such scientist - they would obey. What a farce.


You need to do a little more research.
That'll help your myopic view of the interaction between the two.

Just a suggestion.

Ps.

When you do a little research, don't forget to read the parts that might not agree with your confirmation biases.



Last edited by ant on Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:50 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5483
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 891 times in 765 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Chapter 1: The most precious thing
Quote:
But dogma by its very nature is anti-science.


Dogma is a lot of things, Geo.

It's all very silly for a group of supposedly sophisticated thinkers to espouse such a diluted, black and white version of history.

Cherry picking isn't a very sophisticated argumentative tactic either.
Anyone with half a brain and a computer can do it all day to keep a personal, comfortable delusion alive, all for the sake of remaining in an intellectually lazy position.



Last edited by ant on Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:56 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I Should Be Bronzed

Silver Contributor

Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1655
Location: Hampton, Ga
Thanks: 254
Thanked: 325 times in 248 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Chapter 1: The most precious thing
Ant,

I'm not a historian but I do enjoy reading about history. I set out at the relative beginning of 'western' civilization and I still haven't come to within 100 years B.C.E. So, there's that.

What ancient history has taught me is that religion is nothing new. The players change but the conservative aspects of it seems to remain the same. Faith healing is nothing new but you'd think people would have given up on it by now. That's kind of where I'm at with it all.

Quote:
The expectation was that natural philosophy be channeled through the governing political body at the time - the Church.
Science played handmaiden to the Church.


"at the time" religion doesn't attempt to do this anymore? We've moved on from that? To what degree? What does that mean? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Would you rather have all scientific discovery channeled through a religious leader who interprets scripture or not?

Science will always play handmaiden to laws and culture - which religion, currently, is very much a part of. I never said it wouldn't. But if tomorrow there were no more religions then the only thing science would play handmaiden to are laws and culture. lol.



Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:14 pm
Profile Email YIM
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4416
Location: NC
Thanks: 1882
Thanked: 1948 times in 1459 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Chapter 1: The most precious thing
ant wrote:
Quote:
But dogma by its very nature is anti-science.


Dogma is a lot of things, Geo.

It's all very silly for a group of supposedly sophisticated thinkers to espouse such a diluted, black and white version of history.

Cherry picking isn't a very sophisticated argumentative tactic either.
Anyone with half a brain and a computer can do it all day to keep a personal, comfortable delusion alive, all for the sake of remaining in an intellectually lazy position.


Please inform us how dogma (of any kind) isn't diametrically opposed to the goals of science. I'm left to wonder what in my brief post you have a problem with. And what am I cherry-picking exactly?


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:26 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5483
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 891 times in 765 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Chapter 1: The most precious thing
Quote:
I'm not a historian but I do enjoy reading about history. I set out at the relative beginning of 'western' civilization and I still haven't come to within 100 years B.C.E. So, there's that.

What ancient history has taught me is that religion is nothing new. The players change but the conservative aspects of it seems to remain the same. Faith healing is nothing new but you'd think people would have given up on it by now. That's kind of where I'm at with it all.


Okay, well, I seem to remember my first couple of encounters with you as you being historically well versed.
I am of the opinion that you put a lot of value into the study of history. That's commendable.

There is nothing wrong with being cautious and conservative if it does not completely stultify risk and the rewards that come with it.

The Church at the time was near completely responsible for the governance of the people. As I said, ancient scripture was simply the most respected and authoritative text at the time. Ridiculing or scoffing their sources is not a sophisticated treatment or analysis of the context of the time period.

The Church had its supporters and dissenters of natural philosophy. The interactions between the two provided the necessary debate that was needed to help get us where we are at today. To say that it would have been better if no "speed bumps" had been present at the time is counter factual and foolishly quixotic. Science never has been, nor ever will be a pure linear progression of ideas. Science is littered with ideas and concepts that never progressed into something more than what they were intended to be.
That's not all the Church's fault. It's ridiculous for anyone to argue that it is.

The Catholic Church (I am not catholic) is promoting more progressive ideas as we speak. It's a slow progression, but it is progress. All institutions progress at their own rate. If they don't eventually they're ostracized and condemned (ie fundamentalism).

If religion played a significant role in the development of homo sapiens then it must have gotten something very right.
We have come this far.
To wish it had been otherwise is delusional.

Now you wish that "we" shed ourselves of religion completely.
Am I right about that?

Are you going to prophesize for us all how a world without religion would be?
Be my guest. Everyone has played the prophet at some time in their lives.



Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:36 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank