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 Aug 25, 2019 8:04 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 2, 3.00 on the average.Evaluations: 2, 3.00 on the average.Evaluations: 2, 3.00 on the average.Evaluations: 2, 3.00 on the average.Evaluations: 2, 3.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Original discussion thread for "SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY" 
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 membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7042
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1072
Thanked: 2065 times in 1657 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY FULL TEXT LIMITED LICENSE
I already mentioned that I read it. The explanation for cycles should have been around page 26, but I couldn't find it there or anywhere else. As I said, there would likely be a thousand variables that would cause some ideology or school to have faltered in the past. I want to see why such importance is placed on an obscure characteristic.


Stahrwe wrote:
You need to be familiar with the arguments as you will encountering them more and more in the future.


I don't see the book as an argument. It's an attempt at storytelling, in a sense. The structures that should be in place to form an argument are missing. At least, I don't see them, which is why I'm asking questions.


_________________
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:
youkrst
Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:57 pm
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 membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Owner
Diamond Contributor 3

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 16137
Location: Florida
Thanks: 3473
Thanked: 1311 times in 1036 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY FULL TEXT LIMITED LICENSE
I'm creating a forum for this discussion and making it one of our official non-fiction books. I should have that done tonight.



The following user would like to thank Chris OConnor for this post:
youkrst
Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:14 pm
Profile Email WWW
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 membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5790
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2246
Thanked: 2185 times in 1652 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY FULL TEXT LIMITED LICENSE
The book Science was born of Christianity is worth discussing for its attempt to reconcile Catholic orthodoxy and modern science. My interest in the philosophy of science began in 1981 when I was took an introductory unit in the topic at Sydney University, and obtained a Masters degree for a philosophy thesis on related topics. Since then I have maintained an intellectual interest in the relation between science and religion, a topic of enormous controversy and diversity of views.

I like religion, and see it as central to values and ethics. However, contrary to the Catholic theory expressed in the book under discussion here, I view traditional religion as delusional, but concealing lost accurate knowledge. My view is that religion can only recover any credibility once it is reformed to align with science. That is the agenda against which I read Stacy Trasancos.

I am interested to take up the call for dialogue, although my experience is that theologians who hold to supernatural commitments are completely unwilling to engage in dialogue, since their agenda is preaching rather than learning. So it is good that Stahrwe has come into the lion’s den, as it were, by seeking this conversation at Booktalk, where long term regulars are basically atheist. It presents an opportunity for atheists to pick apart a theological philosophy, and for theists to attempt to justify the arguments. I propose to gradually work through the book, using quotations as starting points for commentary. Lets start.
Quote:
“The author … seeks to remain faithful to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.”

Magisterium is an old fashioned word, suggesting the magisterial power and glory of the magistrate, but more precisely indicating the dogmatic line of the papacy with its various conservative ideas such as immaculate conception, papal infallibility, the deposit of faith and apostolic succession.

The magisterium has a way of thought generally seen as out of step with modern science, but the agenda of this book is to show that a scientific philosophy can be fully in accord with conventional Catholicism. I see that agenda as illogical and impossible, so it will be interesting to explore the arguments.

Quote:
‘Neither can Creation be fully grasped by physics, since scientists cannot go outside the cosmos to measure it. It is akin to a child trying to prove a final theory of how his house works when he is incapable of toddling outside its doors.”
Here we see a good example of the style of illogical argument favoured by defenders of conventional Christianity. The first statement asserts the legitimacy of the term ‘Creation’ rather than ‘the universe’, implying there may be non-scientific methods that can fully grasp the meaning of creation.

Creation (and creature) imply a creator, whereas universe (and organism) do not. The invalid implication in this true observation that physicists cannot leave the universe would be to imagine that theologians do have this magic power. As is well known, theologians of course can leave the universe in their magic turdis to commune with a god who is outside all nature.

Unlike the childish scientists mocked by Trasancos, theologians apparently have a special space ship that lets them zoom out of space time so they know The Truth, that God Exists. Sadly, that is all imaginary fantasy.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:39 am
Profile Email WWW
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: SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY FULL TEXT LIMITED LICENSE
Here is a quote from the book that interested me:


Quote:
As the Aristotelian texts, unchallenged by Greek or Muslim scholars, were accepted into
Christendom, it could only have followed that theologians and philosophers of that time would
seek to reconcile the contradictions



I'm uncertain of the accuracy of the claim that Muslim scholars did not challenge Aristotelian texts. I'm wondering what David Lindberg's analysis is of that claim. I have his book and will need to mine for more info.
For instance, did the mutakallimun as practitioners of kalam blindly follow Aristotelianism? There's very little that is known about the texts of late Islam.

Prior to the above quote is this:


Quote:
For the Church Fathers as well as the medieval scholastics, this view demonstrates that philosophy was a
“handmaiden” of theology because faith was above reason, but not unreasonable



The scholastic method was ultimately rejected. Given the rigor of the analysis that is scholastics, how might that have impacted the nature and content of religion :?:



Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:33 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 membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Owner
Diamond Contributor 3

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 16137
Location: Florida
Thanks: 3473
Thanked: 1311 times in 1036 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Original discussion thread for "SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY"
Please create some new threads with descriptive titles so we can drag this discussion out of this thread and into the rest of the forum. :thanks2:



Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:41 am
Profile Email WWW
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: 6277
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1814
Thanked: 1983 times in 1506 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY FULL TEXT LIMITED LICENSE
ant wrote:
I repeat - the historical relationship between science and religion is highly complex. It's not as easy as once upon a time religion forbade the practice of science, then the atheists came to the rescue. That's PIG-DUMB slanted history.

Well, I gave Robert some feedback for this same kind of thing, ant. What would your argument have been missing had you resisted the temptation to use the bludgeon? Nothing, I think.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
Chris OConnor
Sun Mar 30, 2014 8:21 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: 6277
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1814
Thanked: 1983 times in 1506 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY FULL TEXT LIMITED LICENSE
Interbane wrote:
I already mentioned that I read it. The explanation for cycles should have been around page 26, but I couldn't find it there or anywhere else. As I said, there would likely be a thousand variables that would cause some ideology or school to have faltered in the past. I want to see why such importance is placed on an obscure characteristic.


Stahrwe wrote:
You need to be familiar with the arguments as you will encountering them more and more in the future.


I don't see the book as an argument. It's an attempt at storytelling, in a sense. The structures that should be in place to form an argument are missing. At least, I don't see them, which is why I'm asking questions.

That's the misgiving I have about this short book, too--that such an analysis should be attempted at all, by any scholar, and at any length. This kind of theorizing about historical causation on a grand scale seems old-fashioned to me. Would any trained historian today believe that it's possible to prove causation by picking out some thematic elements? I happen to like Jaki's distinction between exact science and reasoned discourse. Reasoned discourse is what Trascanos is doing here, but in order to live up to the rigorous standards that should apply, she has to show awareness of the "thousand variables" that her motivated search for the answer might be causing her to skip over.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
Chris OConnor
Sun Mar 30, 2014 8:50 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 2, 3.00 on the average.Evaluations: 2, 3.00 on the average.Evaluations: 2, 3.00 on the average.Evaluations: 2, 3.00 on the average.Evaluations: 2, 3.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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:

Announcements 

• Promote Your Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your Non-Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm



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