• In total there are 23 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 23 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

COSMOS - Episode 3

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: COSMOS - Episode 3

Unread post

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.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: COSMOS - Episode 3

Unread post

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
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: COSMOS - Episode 3

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
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.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: COSMOS - Episode 3

Unread post

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
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: COSMOS - Episode 3

Unread post

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
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: COSMOS - Episode 3

Unread post

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.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: COSMOS - Episode 3

Unread post

. 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.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: COSMOS - Episode 3

Unread post

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.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: COSMOS - Episode 3

Unread post

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.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: COSMOS - Episode 3

Unread post

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.
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
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”