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 Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:09 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 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  Next
COSMOS - Episode 3 
Author Message
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: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: COSMOS - Episode 3
Quote:
Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions would probably be a relevant title.


Kuhn's Structure does not go in to contextual (cultural, religious, theological) detail regarding the development of science.



Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:31 pm
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 membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7040
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1071
Thanked: 2064 times in 1656 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: COSMOS - Episode 3
Quote:
Science does not address metaphysical claims (God being one) and atheism is a worldview.


I agree with most of what you said except the above. Atheism is a component of worldviews, rather than a worldview itself. And the set of worldviews that have atheism as a component are highly variable.


_________________
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


Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:57 pm
Profile
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

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6256
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1804
Thanked: 1971 times in 1495 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: COSMOS - Episode 3
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
Science does not address metaphysical claims (God being one) and atheism is a worldview.


I agree with most of what you said except the above. Atheism is a component of worldviews, rather than a worldview itself. And the set of worldviews that have atheism as a component are highly variable.

That probably can't be said often enough.



Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:19 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

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4345
Location: NC
Thanks: 1837
Thanked: 1909 times in 1429 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: COSMOS - Episode 3
Not to be difficult, but a religious worldview varies widely from individual to individual. A Christian's belief might range anywhere from borderline agnostic-atheistic-pantheistic all the way to young-earth-creationist-evolution-denier. So the word "Christian" is about as meaningless as "atheist." But by all means we need to separate these two factions of humanity and prepare for war. :-)

What I want to know is where we going with this idea that religion fostered an intellectual atmosphere favorable for science. (That's at least how I would phrase it.) Even if we granted this past relationship, so what? I really want someone to articulate the next part of the argument. Ant? Are we going with Trasancos' idea of a return to Church authoritarianism? Or are we just going to try to put some of the mysticism back into science? Maybe start alchemical pursuits once again?


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:14 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 membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7040
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1071
Thanked: 2064 times in 1656 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: COSMOS - Episode 3
After reading Trasancos' essay, I don't think the case can be made.

The relationship between religion and science would fall somewhere on the gradient from archnemesis/hostile to perfectly harmonious synergy. They weren't hostile to each other in the sense that religions are hostile between each other. No flags were raised by science in the pursuit of knowledge at first, because no gods are proposed that would compete with the one true god.

But they were harmonious either. While not having discovering any direct contradictions to the bible(at least until evolution), there have been indirect contradictions. Actual conclusions aside(heliocentrism), there is the matter of which one is the primary source of knowledge. In 1277, this conflict was played out between Christianity and Aristotelian physics. The same epistemic hierarchy continued with other investigations into the world. From heliocentrism to disease theory to evolution to an old earth. Even today people believe science is merely the examination of a universe made by god. That is epistemic subversion.

In the grand view of things, the handful of conflicts isn't that large. Science continued forward under religion without any clear-cut restriction. There is the burning of non-Christian knowledge, the damage of which we can't quantify because we don't have the things that were burned for analysis. I'm sure there have been ideas that were stillborn out of fear of being prosecuted by the church. Even Galileo was hesitant to publish his idea until his friend became pope. But the main point here is that it cannot be shown either way how much of an effect religion had on stillborn ideas without a control group. Meaning, an alternate history where science developed without Christianity.


_________________
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


Sun Apr 06, 2014 11:41 am
Profile
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

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6256
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1804
Thanked: 1971 times in 1495 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: COSMOS - Episode 3
My understanding is that both ant and Trascanos claim not that Christianity was a protective environment for the development of science (they both assume that's true before beginning the argument), but that Christian theology stimulated scientific thinking and therefore can be said to be the origin of it. I'm not satisfied that even the first assumption is true, although it could be. I'd like to know if the historians actually claim that without Christianity science would have had a rough time, or if they say, rather, that the two got along, which is a little different. I'm about halfway through Trascanos' essay, so I can't say what I think about the extension she tries to prove. So far I don't see anything decisively in her favor. When we have the fait accompli of science, it seems not a hard thing to work backwards and see origins where we might want to find them.

The idea that X caused Y is bit suspect anyway; isn't that usually the case? If history is complex, as ant rightly says, it's less likely that we can zero in on a cause for a very diffuse thing like science--or religion.



Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:05 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: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: COSMOS - Episode 3
Quote:
. I'd like to know if the historians actually claim that without Christianity science would have had a rough time, or if they say, rather, that the two got along, which is a little different.


What I can say with near certainty is this: historical scholarship may not claim without Christianity scientific development would not have taken place.
What's is however agreed upon is that the Conflict Thesis has not been accepted by historical scholarship in the least. It was an idea disseminated largely to promote the specialization and profession of the sciences.

You are welcome to check the accuracy of my claim.



Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:46 pm
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: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: COSMOS - Episode 3
Atheism is a worldview when it begins to opine on the non existence of a Being who's existence would undoubtedly be metaphysical in nature.

You can not refute the existence of a Being that does not exist within our natural realm. And that is exactly what aggressive and arrogant atheism does when the claim "God does not exist" is made.

From my personal experience the above claim has been made many times over.

I've already submitted in a previous post formal evidential rules.
Disbelief and its justification in held to the standards of evidentialism.
And here is where the atheist resorts to the same old turtle head rhetorical maneuver.
The atheist retreats from his claim (like a turtle sticking his head back in his shell) that the monotheistic God does not exist by emphasizing the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
Here is where I would attempt to the rescue the theist's obligation to provide evidence because I understand belief in the monotheistic God is an article of faith that is continually grappled with over a lifetime. However, I do object to the lame tactic by the atheist who asserts non belief, but moves to question or ridicule other people's faith while asserting God does not exist.
It's a lame move that makes zero sense.


Frankly, no one is WITHOUT an opinion. Therefore, everyone has a worldview, including the atheist who wishes to pretend he simply lacks belief.

Bullshit.

Read what I've written above carefully and do not assume anything beyond that.. It's understood who has the burden of proof. I personally have never made the claim God's existence can be empirically proven.

I am a philosophical agnostic, a scientific skeptic (healthy skeptic) and a theological optimist.



Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:20 pm
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: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: COSMOS - Episode 3
geo wrote:
Not to be difficult, but a religious worldview varies widely from individual to individual. A Christian's belief might range anywhere from borderline agnostic-atheistic-pantheistic all the way to young-earth-creationist-evolution-denier. So the word "Christian" is about as meaningless as "atheist." But by all means we need to separate these two factions of humanity and prepare for war. :-)

What I want to know is where we going with this idea that religion fostered an intellectual atmosphere favorable for science. (That's at least how I would phrase it.) Even if we granted this past relationship, so what? I really want someone to articulate the next part of the argument. Ant? Are we going with Trasancos' idea of a return to Church authoritarianism? Or are we just going to try to put some of the mysticism back into science? Maybe start alchemical pursuits once again?


The Christian mindset was that the Cosmos could be rationally explored because it was not created by the capriciousness of many Gods in dispute with one another.



Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:25 pm
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 membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7040
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1071
Thanked: 2064 times in 1656 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: COSMOS - Episode 3
Quote:
Atheism is a worldview when it begins to opine on the non existence of a Being who's existence would undoubtedly be metaphysical in nature.


That's tautalogical and still untrue. Atheism by definition opines on the nonexistence of god. That still does not mean atheism is a worldview. It is a component of a worldview. A worldview is a much larger thing than whether or not a person believes in god. It is the comprehensive web of belief, within which a person may be atheist or theist.

Quote:
And that is exactly what aggressive and arrogant atheism does when the claim "God does not exist" is made.


The god of the Christian bible does not exist. Is it arrogant of me to say that? Is it arrogant to say there is no such entity as Zeus? Or are you talking about Cthulu?


_________________
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 Apr 07, 2014 3:46 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: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: COSMOS - Episode 3
ive already distinguished between judeo christian monotheism God and a pagan God, that is, one God among many fueding capricious gods.
The rationale being one creator as the primary cause of the cosmos.
The relationship with the judeo christian God is personal not an indifferent one.

I am not promoting the. christian God. You'd need to find a Christian to continue your crusade to save our future by striking down his or her belief.
And yes, you certainly have demonstrated several times you are arrogant enough to do it.
It's not rationality youre promoting, its divisiveness.
As far as the impact on governing the people, Id guess your motives are political and nothing more
I doubt your interest is helping people to die in a better state of mind by promoting anti teapotism and non belief



Mon Apr 07, 2014 5:15 pm
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

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4345
Location: NC
Thanks: 1837
Thanked: 1909 times in 1429 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: COSMOS - Episode 3
ant wrote:
Atheism is a worldview when it begins to opine on the non existence of a Being who's existence would undoubtedly be metaphysical in nature.

You can not refute the existence of a Being that does not exist within our natural realm. And that is exactly what aggressive and arrogant atheism does when the claim "God does not exist" is made.


And, yet, if I made a claim that a supernatural something existed, say in my kitchen, you would probably not be willing to accept this claim without question, right? Does that make you arrogant? Would you think it more likely that I really do have a supernatural thing in my kitchen, or that I only believe it (for various psychological reasons). Which is more likely?

Atheists merely address claims and assumptions about God made by others. If there was a religion devoted to floating teapots, it would create a whole group of nonbelievers called a-teapotists. Because the Teapotists are actually making the positive claims. The a-teapotists are questioning those claims.

So atheists don't really have an agenda to not believe in God or spend much time even thinking about God (because they don't believe God actually exists). I almost never talk about God in the real world because it just doesn't come up. It's only here on BT when I see something like "you cannot refute that a Being that does not exist within our natural realm" kind of statement that makes me say, say what? Are you serious? This statement would not apply to any other claim and, yet, it does for God. Why?

The bolded part is my main point. Should you choose to respond, that's the part you should address.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
ant, Dexter, youkrst
Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:44 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: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: COSMOS - Episode 3
ant wrote:
Quote:
. I'd like to know if the historians actually claim that without Christianity science would have had a rough time, or if they say, rather, that the two got along, which is a little different.


What I can say with near certainty is this: historical scholarship may not claim without Christianity scientific development would not have taken place.
What's is however agreed upon is that the Conflict Thesis has not been accepted by historical scholarship in the least. It was an idea disseminated largely to promote the specialization and profession of the sciences.

You are welcome to check the accuracy of my claim.



Perhaps these are related thoughts:

Aristotle has been severely criticized for his theories of motion for having been filled with obvious error that any rational person would have/should have taken immediate note. Is such criticism justified?
no - it is not the job of the historian to assign credit and blame to be the reason for the study of history in it's proper context. There are always competing theories at the time in question, each staking claim to being the most sensible within itself. It is by and large the various competitors that disseminate criticisms to advance their own models.

Was Christianity at odds with Science? Historians know that the relationship between the two was highly complex. Hence, no true historian would paint a black and white picture of the historical record. Nor would the historian sum up epochs in overly simplistic "this vs that" pictorials.
The only individual that who would accept that would be one with a personal agenda that does not mind promoting propaganda for the purpose of advancing his worldview.



Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:48 pm
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: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: COSMOS - Episode 3
geo wrote:
ant wrote:
Atheism is a worldview when it begins to opine on the non existence of a Being who's existence would undoubtedly be metaphysical in nature.

You can not refute the existence of a Being that does not exist within our natural realm. And that is exactly what aggressive and arrogant atheism does when the claim "God does not exist" is made.


And, yet, if I made a claim that a supernatural something existed, say in my kitchen, you would probably not be willing to accept this claim without question, right? Does that make you arrogant? Would you think it more likely that I really do have a supernatural thing in my kitchen, or that I only believe it (for various psychological reasons). Which is more likely?

Atheists merely address claims and assumptions about God made by others. If there was a religion devoted to floating teapots, it would create a whole group of nonbelievers called a-teapotists. Because the Teapotists are actually making the positive claims. The a-teapotists are questioning those claims.

So atheists don't really have an agenda to not believe in God or spend much time even thinking about God (because they don't believe God actually exists). I almost never talk about God in the real world because it just doesn't come up. It's only here on BT when I see something like "you cannot refute that a Being that does not exist within our natural realm" kind of statement that makes me say, say what? Are you serious? This statement would not apply to any other claim and, yet, it does for God. Why?

The bolded part is my main point. Should you choose to respond, that's the part you should address.


WITHDRAWN



Last edited by ant on Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:53 pm
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: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: COSMOS - Episode 3
I don't expect COSMOS ever to make an honest effort to give the history of science anything more than cursory coverage with subtle shades that vilify the dominant religious institution at the time.

The fact is that science WAS philosophy. The goal of the great natural philosophers was to understand essential natures, not to explore quantitative relationships. The philosophy of mechanicalism was the beginning of the separation of man from nature.
Now our "modern methods" of science which have reduced every living thing into meat automatons with predetermined behavior.

I'm certain the scientists of antiquity believed their science was on the right track. Just the same, we have our modern triumphalists who declare our science as the Oracle of Great Truths.
The great truths of modern science tell us there is nothing beyond the reach of the scientific method. Anyone who does not submit to this truth is against rationality.
That is why we have the zealots of scientism marginalizing those who do not worship the myth of science AS religion.
And they have turned science into a religion. They're just too deaf, dumb, and blind to realize. it.



Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:16 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 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  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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