BookTalk.org
https://www.booktalk.org/

Original discussion thread for "SCIENCE WAS BORN OF CHRISTIANITY"
https://www.booktalk.org/science-was-born-of-christianity-full-text-limited-license-t17066-30.html
Page 3 of 3

Author:  Interbane [ Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:57 pm ]
Post subject:  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.

Author:  Chris OConnor [ Thu Mar 27, 2014 10:14 pm ]
Post subject:  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.

Author:  Robert Tulip [ Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:39 am ]
Post subject:  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.

Author:  ant [ Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:33 am ]
Post subject:  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 :?:

Author:  Chris OConnor [ Fri Mar 28, 2014 11:41 am ]
Post subject:  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:

Author:  DWill [ Sun Mar 30, 2014 8:21 am ]
Post subject:  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.

Author:  DWill [ Sun Mar 30, 2014 8:50 am ]
Post subject:  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.

Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/