ant wrote: Yeah. And many of those people that did the research and are continuing to do the research to bring a smile to your face are theists. They are not just bland "people"

If they're doing science, then I don't care which God, if any, they believe in. If they're doing theology, then they're not really doing anything, they're just making stuff up.

Dexter wrote:

ant wrote: Yeah. And many of those people that did the research and are continuing to do the research to bring a smile to your face are theists. They are not just bland "people"

If they're doing science, then I don't care which God, if any, they believe in. If they're doing theology, then they're not really doing anything, they're just making stuff up.

That is an expression of scientism: The only real source of knowledge is that which comes from "doing science "
And then of course this leads to certain individuals encapsulating their worldview in dogma.

Dont worry. I understand you.

ant wrote:

Dexter wrote:

ant wrote: Yeah. And many of those people that did the research and are continuing to do the research to bring a smile to your face are theists. They are not just bland "people"

If they're doing science, then I don't care which God, if any, they believe in. If they're doing theology, then they're not really doing anything, they're just making stuff up.

That is an expression of scientism: The only real source of knowledge is that which comes from "doing science "
And then of course this leads to certain individuals encapsulating their worldview in dogma.

Dont worry. I understand you.

I know you're trying to be politically correct, but do you consult Islamic theologians (or pick another religion) to help you understand the world? Of course not, because you know they have nothing useful to teach you unless you're trying to live as a Muslim.

"
If they're doing science, then I don't care which God, if any, they believe in. If they're doing theology, then they're not really doing anything, they're just making stuff up.[/quote]



I know you're trying to be politically correct, but do you consult Islamic theologians (or pick another religion) to help you understand the world? Of course not, because you know they have nothing useful to teach you unless you're trying to live as a Muslim.[/quote]

this is an expression of historical ignorance.
History tells us that Islamic theologians contributed largely to the base of our current scientific knowledge. Their theology was not a deterrent, but was actually an inspiration and motivator of scientific creativity.

Of course Dexter is advancing the most common strawman argument against religion by alluding to the aspects of islamic fundamentalism specifically.

I would utterly dismantle this conflict thesis in disguise

ant wrote: this is an expression of historical ignorance.
History tells us that Islamic theologians contributed largely to the base of our current scientific knowledge. Their theology was not a deterrent, but was actually an inspiration and motivator of scientific creativity.

Of course Dexter is advancing the most common strawman argument against religion by alluding to the aspects of islamic fundamentalism specifically.

I would utterly dismantle this conflict thesis in disguise

You're evading the question. Do you consult the THEOLOGY of different religions to help you understand the world? Not scientists who believe in God. You missed the entire point, or pretended to miss it, as usual.

Spinoza: "Nor does God perform miracles, since there are no departures whatsoever from the necessary course of nature. The belief in miracles is due only to ignorance of the true causes of phenomena."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/

This reminds me of Arthur C. Clarke's three laws of prediction, particularly no. 3 . . .

Clarke's Three Laws are three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British writer Arthur C. Clarke. They are:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Do you consult the THEOLOGY of different religions to help you understand the world? Not scientists who believe in God. You missed the entire point, or pretended to miss it, as usual.

This has never been disputed by me and I've addressed this question a couple of times here on BT.

Thanks

Flann wrote:

The theist says God does do things,the naturalist that everything must have a natural explanation. Most things do but does everything?
John Lennox gave a talk on the subject;Is belief in the supernatural irrational? He begins with familiar arguments and around 35 minutes in gets into the whole miracles question.

I've recently read that protestant theologians have always been traditionally more suspicious of miracles than Catholics (which makes sense, given the history of the two).

German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher went as far as redefining 'miracle" as "merely the religious name for 'event' rather than as a happening which violated the laws of nature"
A miracle was in the eye of the believer.

Also, the new atheist may not know this, but it was not Richard Dawkins who introduced a "god of the gaps"

Evangelical theologian Henry Drummond, in a 1893 series of lectures discussed the proper attitude to the theory of evolution and told his audience that a miracle "was not something quick" it was rather the whole slow process of evolution that was miraculous.
Further, in these same lectures, Drummond introduced the idea of "God of the gaps"

He spoke of those reverent minds who ceaselessly scan the fields of Nature and the books of Science to search for gaps - gaps which they will fill up with God. As if God lived in the gaps. God, should be sought in human knowledge, not in human ignorance.

-- Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction - by Thomas Dixon

I echo that I strongly suspect most new atheists think this idea was first introduced by Richard Dawkins when in fact it was hijacked (new atheists love hijacking ideas) from a theist!!

ant wrote:

Do you consult the THEOLOGY of different religions to help you understand the world? Not scientists who believe in God. You missed the entire point, or pretended to miss it, as usual.

This has never been disputed by me and I've addressed this question a couple of times here on BT.

Thanks

Glad we agree on the uselessness of theology.

Also, the new atheist may not know this, but it was not Richard Dawkins who introduced a "god of the gaps"

Try to find a quote of anyone claiming that. You've defeated a phantom in debate once again!

I echo that I strongly suspect most new atheists think this idea was first introduced by Richard Dawkins when in fact it was hijacked (new atheists love hijacking ideas) from a theist!!

Why do you think the misunderstanding is limited to new atheists? Or any group in particular? I do appreciate the history of the concept, but it doesn't matter to me where an idea comes from. It's not as if using the idea it is therefore hijacked. I hijack logic all the time.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Being a lover of sci-fi and fantasy, I use this phrase all the time to justify my writing. Using a good veil of ignorance, you can create appealing magic systems that are naturalistic. The genre is mythic sci-fi.