RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (12) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 >   
  Topic: The limits of darwinism., Utunumsint's thread.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,12:08   

Quote
To see science and religion as antagonistic is also simplistic.


Science and religion are not necessarily blood enemies, but revealed religion will always be antagonistic to science because it makes unverifiable claims and even makes a virtue of unverifiability.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,12:11   

Quote (Chayanov @ Feb. 11 2010,11:58)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,10:38)
Quote (Chayanov @ Feb. 11 2010,10:28)
 
Quote
It was the Catholic church that gave us universities, and the laid the foundation for western tought. I think you should bone up on your history.

In the immortal words of Pauli, "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."

Ah, we have a scholar of history here I suppose. Can you provide some kind of evidence for your powerful rebuttal? :)

Cheers,
Ut

You're the one who said Catholics started universities. Why don't you back up your statements with some actual evidence, instead of equivocating and throwing out strawmen?

How about this one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Paris

Cheers,
Ut

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,12:45   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,11:40)
No, I do not believe that science is equated with atheism. Science does not provide arguments, only data, and an understanding of the physical universe, and as such is not atheistic, or religious, or even agnostic. Its just science.

Perhaps. But I might respectfully suggest that you examine your conscience in that regard. When discussing/comparing science and religion it seemed very easy for you to slide into statements and questions where you were discussing/comparing atheism and religion.

Think about it. Is your antipathy toward science based on the unspoken conflation of science and atheism in any way?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,12:53   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 11 2010,12:45)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,11:40)
No, I do not believe that science is equated with atheism. Science does not provide arguments, only data, and an understanding of the physical universe, and as such is not atheistic, or religious, or even agnostic. Its just science.

Perhaps. But I might respectfully suggest that you examine your conscience in that regard. When discussing/comparing science and religion it seemed very easy for you to slide into statements and questions where you were discussing/comparing atheism and religion.

Think about it. Is your antipathy toward science based on the unspoken conflation of science and atheism in any way?

I see a lot of antipathy towards religion on this site. I've been careful not to get involved in such discussions until now, and my purpose has been, for the most part, to try and dispel such antagonism.

I mean, come on. On this very page, we have this gem from Midwifetoad stating this:

Quote
Science and religion are not necessarily blood enemies, but revealed religion will always be antagonistic to science because it makes unverifiable claims and even makes a virtue of unverifiability.


Doesn't this smack of "science" versus "religion"? Or maybe I'm not getting your point.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:06   

Here is a really good link for the establishment of the western form of university.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university

Note the defining characteristic is autonomy. In other words, "Academic Freedom".

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:12   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,12:53)
I mean, come on. On this very page, we have this gem from Midwifetoad stating this:

   
Quote
Science and religion are not necessarily blood enemies, but revealed religion will always be antagonistic to science because it makes unverifiable claims and even makes a virtue of unverifiability.


Doesn't this smack of "science" versus "religion"? Or maybe I'm not getting your point.

Cheers,
Ut

It's a true statement.

Unverifiable claims are unverifiable and cannot be address by science. Yet those claims often intrude into the realm of science and are expected to be taken seriously in the scientific realm by those making the claims. I mean, just look at the "science" produced by AIG and similar groups. Total bullshit from beginning to end.

So it might be "science" versus "religion" but not because of any particular effort on the "science" part. If "science" comes up with a mechanism to explain the diversity of life and "religion" does not like it that's not really "science's" problem is it?

So science and religion are not necessarily blood enemies as science does not care about religion but religion sure cares about science.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:14   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,13:06)
Here is a really good link for the establishment of the western form of "university".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university

Note the defining characteristic is autonomy. In other words, "Academic Freedom".

Cheers,
Ut

Ah, now it's "western form of university" when originally it was just "university". Shift those goalposts.  

 
Quote
In other words, "Academic Freedom".


Religion hates academic freedom. Don't believe me? Look at the argreements you have to make before you can enter many religious univeriseties in the USA. Must believe in the literal bible, must accept the bible over any science that conflicts with the bible etc etc etc. You want links for that? There are plenty of examples.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:17   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,12:53)
I see a lot of antipathy towards religion on this site. I've been careful not to get involved in such discussions until now, and my purpose has been, for the most part, to try and dispel such antagonism.

I mean, come on. On this very page, we have this gem from Midwifetoad stating this:

     
Quote
Science and religion are not necessarily blood enemies, but revealed religion will always be antagonistic to science because it makes unverifiable claims and even makes a virtue of unverifiability.


Doesn't this smack of "science" versus "religion"? Or maybe I'm not getting your point.

No, you're not. I'll try again.

1) Science and religion can have an adversarial relationship, particularly if science tramples on false religious claims about how the natural world works. If religions do not make falsifiable claims about how the natural world works, this relationship would not be adversarial.

2) Atheism and religion do have an adversarial relationship, particularly since atheism definitely tramples on religious claims. They are polar opposites. But this is not a dispute about the workings of the natural world; this is a dispute about the supernatural.

Both of those statements can be true, but they do not mean that science and atheism are the same thing. They are not. Yet your thinking, at least as revealed on this forum, seems to equate them in some not-so-subtle ways.

Think about it some more.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:17   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 11 2010,13:14)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,13:06)
Here is a really good link for the establishment of the western form of "university".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university

Note the defining characteristic is autonomy. In other words, "Academic Freedom".

Cheers,
Ut

Ah, now it's "western form of university" when originally it was just "university". Shift those goalposts.  

 
Quote
In other words, "Academic Freedom".


Religion hates academic freedom. Don't believe me? Look at the argreements you have to make before you can enter many religious univeriseties in the USA. Must believe in the literal bible, must accept the bible over any science that conflicts with the bible etc etc etc. You want links for that? There are plenty of examples.

Those limitations don't belong to my tradition, but to the protestant form.

By the way, did you actually read the link?

Cheers,
Ut

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:22   

Ut-less wrote:

Quote
You shouldn't knock good theology. Its the application of reason to revealled truth.  


I didn't knock good theology nor bad theology.  I mocked ALL theology.  Apparently your Revealed Truthy-o-Meter needs calibrating.

Good theology, Ut?  Srsly? Says who?

Is there a Good Theology Panel o' Elders?  Or ask Dumbledore?  How about a measure?  Good enough, really good, good gravy, good dog or good morning.  Is good morning better or worse than good gravy?  More to the point, is good gravy better or worse than good theology?

You say you study this stuff and you write something that bat-shit stupid?
And I haven't even gotten to "revealed truth."

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:24   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 11 2010,13:17)
Doesn't this smack of "science" versus "religion"? Or maybe I'm not getting your point.[/quote]
No, you're not. I'll try again.

Quote
1) Science and religion can have an adversarial relationship, particularly if science tramples on false religious claims about how the natural world works. If religions do not make falsifiable claims about how the natural world works, this relationship would not be adversarial.


Agreed.

Quote
2) Atheism and religion do have an adversarial relationship, particularly since atheism definitely tramples on religious claims. They are polar opposites. But this is not a dispute about the workings of the natural world; this is a dispute about the supernatural.


Agreed. Perhaps it would be good for some people on this forum to realise this distinction.

Quote
Both of those statements can be true, but they do not mean that science and atheism are the same thing. They are not. Yet your thinking, at least as revealed on this forum, seems to equate them in some not-so-subtle ways.


Can you provide me with an example of my sin? Perhaps I did fall into this inadvertently. If so, then mea culpa, mean maxima culpa.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:26   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 11 2010,13:22)
Ut-less wrote:

Quote
You shouldn't knock good theology. Its the application of reason to revealled truth.  


I didn't knock good theology nor bad theology.  I mocked ALL theology.  Apparently your Revealed Truthy-o-Meter needs calibrating.

Good theology, Ut?  Srsly? Says who?

Is there a Good Theology Panel o' Elders?  Or ask Dumbledore?  How about a measure?  Good enough, really good, good gravy, good dog or good morning.  Is good morning better or worse than good gravy?  More to the point, is good gravy better or worse than good theology?

You say you study this stuff and you write something that bat-shit stupid?
And I haven't even gotten to "revealed truth."

Billy Bob. Don't you think the world would be a better place if everyone were a little bit more rational? That is all I'm saying.

Chill out. Have a cigar.

Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:31   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,13:17)
Those limitations don't belong to my tradition, but to the protestant form.

All religion to me. Same difference.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:32   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,13:24)
Can you provide me with an example of my sin? Perhaps I did fall into this inadvertently. If so, then mea culpa, mean maxima culpa.

From here
Quote
And to think that science, and atheism will solve all of the world's problems, is naive.

Say ten Our Fathers and twenty Hail Marys and your sin will be forgiven.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:33   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 11 2010,13:32)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,13:24)
Can you provide me with an example of my sin? Perhaps I did fall into this inadvertently. If so, then mea culpa, mean maxima culpa.

From here  
Quote
And to think that science, and atheism will solve all of the world's problems, is naive.

Say ten Our Fathers and twenty Hail Marys and your sin will be forgiven.

:)

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:34   

I think I'll leave it at that.

Thanks to all for this discussion. It's been interesting.

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:35   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,13:26)
Don't you think the world would be a better place if everyone were a little bit more rational?

One way to achieve that is to reduce the influence that religion has on still forming minds.



The more rational the world gets the less religion will matter.

I mean, c'mon. There's nothing "rational" whatsoever about your religion or religion in general.

Tell me, if you are presented with two "revealed truths" that conflict with each other how do you determine which one is in fact true?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,13:36   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,13:34)
I think I'll leave it at that.

Thanks to all for this discussion. It's been interesting.

Cheers,
Ut

Bye then. I'll ask you about "universities" next time then.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,14:36   

Funny that this came up here. I just happened to be reading about the University of Coimbra today and came across this article, which discusses the introduction of 'modern' science teaching in the 18th century.

Dodgy translation:

 
Quote
One argument showing that, before Pombal's reforms, an atmosphere of scientific stagnation prevailed in Portugal is the fact that the works of Galileo, Descartes, Newton and others were, until the middle of the 18th century, banned from being taught in [Coimbra]. An edict of the Rector in 1746 decreed this prohibition, a significant setback relative to the scientific development of Europe.

An exception to this was the work of the Jesuit Inácio Monteiro. But Monteiro was imprisoned on Pombal's orders in 1759 and exiled to Ferrara in Italy, in which university he conducted worthwhile teaching and scientific work...


Academic freedom, in the best Catholic tradition!

(and yes, Ut, I know that things are a bit different now. But you don't see too many liberation theology papers coming from the Gregorian University either)

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,14:46   

Quote (Amadan @ Feb. 11 2010,14:36)
Funny that this came up here. I just happened to be reading about the University of Coimbra today and came across this article, which discusses the introduction of 'modern' science teaching in the 18th century.

Dodgy translation:

 
Quote
One argument showing that, before Pombal's reforms, an atmosphere of scientific stagnation prevailed in Portugal is the fact that the works of Galileo, Descartes, Newton and others were, until the middle of the 18th century, banned from being taught in [Coimbra]. An edict of the Rector in 1746 decreed this prohibition, a significant setback relative to the scientific development of Europe.

An exception to this was the work of the Jesuit Inácio Monteiro. But Monteiro was imprisoned on Pombal's orders in 1759 and exiled to Ferrara in Italy, in which university he conducted worthwhile teaching and scientific work...


Academic freedom, in the best Catholic tradition!

(and yes, Ut, I know that things are a bit different now. But you don't see too many liberation theology papers coming from the Gregorian University either)

Galileo and Descartes were both Catholics.

Check out these ones.

Saint Luke (c.72) - Catholic patron saint of physicians and surgeons (himself being a physician, iconographer and evangelist)

Bede, the Venerable (c.672–735) - Catholic monk who wrote a work On the Nature of Things, and several books on the mathematical / astronomical subject of computus, the most influential entitled On the Reckoning of Time. He made original discoveries concerning the nature of the tides and his works on computus became required elements of the training of clergy, and thus greatly influenced early medieval knowledge of the natural world.

Pope Silvester II (c.950–1003) - A scientist and book collector, he influenced the teaching of math and astronomy in church-run schools, and raised the cathedral school at Rheims to the height of prosperity.

Hermannus Contractus (1013–1054) - Wrote on geometry, mathematics, and the astrolabe. He was also a monk who composed Marian antiphons and was essentially beatified.

Robert Grosseteste (c.1175–1253) - Bishop of Lincoln, he was the central character of the English intellectual movement in the first half of the 13th century and is considered the founder of scientific thought in Oxford. He had a great interest in the natural world and wrote texts on the mathematical sciences of optics, astronomy and geometry. He affirmed that experiments should be used in order to verify a theory, testing its consequences.

Pope John XXI (1215–1277) - He wrote the widely used medical text Thesaurus pauperum before becoming Pope.

Albertus Magnus (c.1193–1280) - Patron saint of scientists in Catholicism who may have been the first to isolate arsenic. He wrote that: "Natural science does not consist in ratifying what others have said, but in seeking the causes of phenomena."

Roger Bacon (c.1214–1294) - He was an English philosopher who emphasized empiricism and has been presented as one of the earliest advocates of the modern scientific method. He joined the Franciscan Order around 1240, where he was influenced by Grosseteste. Bacon was responsible for making the concept of "laws of nature" widespread, and contributed in such areas as mechanics, geography and, most of all, optics.

Theodoric of Freiberg (c.1250–c.1310) - Dominican who is believed to have given the first correct explanation for the rainbow in De iride et radialibus impressionibus or On the Rainbow.

Thomas Bradwardine (c.1290–1349) - He was an English archbishop, often called "the Profound Doctor". He developed studies as one of the Oxford Calculators of Merton College, Oxford University. These studies would lead to important developments in mechanics.

Jean Buridan (1300–1358) - Catholic priest and one of the most influential philosophers of the later Middle Ages. He developed the theory of impetus, which was an important step toward the modern concept of inertia.

Nicole Oresme (c.1323–1382) - Theologian and Bishop of Lisieux, he was one of the early founders and popularizers of modern sciences. One of his many scientific contributions is the discovery of the curvature of light through atmospheric refraction, he also showed that the reasons proposed by the physics of Aristotle against the movement of the Earth were not valid. Oresme strongly opposed astrology and speculated about the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464) - Cardinal and theologian who made contributions to the field of mathematics by developing the concepts of the infinitesimal and of relative motion. His philosophical speculations also anticipated Copernicus’ heliocentric world-view.

Ignazio Danti (1536–1586) - Bishop of Alatri who convoked a diocesan synod to deal with abuses. He was also a mathematician who wrote on Euclid, an astronomer, and a designer of mechanical devices.

René Descartes (1596–1650) - Descartes was one of the key thinkers of the Scientific Revolution in the Western World. He is also honoured by having the Cartesian coordinate system used in plane geometry and algebra named after him. He did important work on invariants and geometry.

Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598-1671) - Italian astronomer. He was a Jesuit who entered the order in 1614. He was also the first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body.

Athanasius Kircher (1602-1680) - German Jesuit scholar who published around 40 works, most notably in the fields of oriental studies, geology and medicine. He made an early study of Egyptian hieroglyphs. One of the first people to observe microbes through a microscope, he was thus ahead of his time in proposing that the plague was caused by an infectious microorganism and in suggesting effective measures to prevent the spread of the disease. Kircher has been compared to Leonardo da Vinci for his inventiveness and the breadth and depth of his work

Nicolas Steno (1638-1686) - Contributions to paleontology and geology

Roger Joseph (1711-1787) - Physicist, astronomer, mathematician, philosopher, diplomat, poet, and Jesuit. He is famous for his atomic theory, given as a clear, precisely-formulated system utilizing principles of Newtonian mechanics. This work inspired Michael Faraday to develop field theory for electromagnetic interaction, and was even a basis for Albert Einstein's attempts for a unified field theory, according to Einstein's coworker Lancelot Law Whyte. Boscovich also gave many important contributions to astronomy, including the first geometric procedure for determining the equator of a rotating planet from three observations of a surface feature and for computing the orbit of a planet from three observations of its position.

Maria Gaetana Agnesi (1718–1799) - Linguist, mathematician, and philosopher. Agnesi is credited with writing the first book discussing both differential and integral calculus. She was an honorary member of the faculty at the University of Bologna.

Augustin Louis Cauchy (1789–1857) - French mathematician. He started the project of formulating and proving the theorems of calculus in a rigorous manner and was thus an early pioneer of analysis. He also gave several important theorems in complex analysis and initiated the study of permutation groups. A profound mathematician, Cauchy exercised by his perspicuous and rigorous methods a great influence over his contemporaries and successors. His writings cover the entire range of mathematics and mathematical physics.

Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) - Augustinian priest and scientist often called the "father of modern genetics" for his study of the inheritance of traits in pea plants. Mendel showed that the inheritance of traits follows particular laws, which were later named after him. The significance of Mendel's work was not recognised until the turn of the 20th century. Its rediscovery prompted the foundation of genetics.

Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) - French chemist best known for his remarkable breakthroughs in microbiology. His experiments confirmed the germ theory of disease, and he created the first vaccine for rabies. He is best known to the general public for showing how to stop milk and wine from going sour - this process came to be called pasteurization. He is regarded as one of the three main founders of bacteriology, together with Ferdinand Cohn and Robert Koch. He also made many discoveries in the field of chemistry, most notably the asymmetry of crystals.

Francesco Faà di Bruno (1825—1888) - Italian mathematician most linked to Turin. He is known for Faà di Bruno's formula and being a spiritual writer beatified in 1988.

Armand David (1826–1900) - Catholic missionary to China and member of the Lazarists who considered his religious duties to be his principle concern. He was also a botanist with the author abbreviation David and as a zoologist he described several species new to the West.

Pierre Duhem (1861–1916) - He worked on Thermodynamic potentials and wrote histories advocating that the Roman Catholic Church helped advance science.

E. T. Whittaker (1873-1956) - Converted to Catholicism in 1930 and member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. His 1946 Donnellan Lecture was entitled on Space and Spirit. Theories of the Universe and the Arguments for the Existence of God. He also received the Copley Medal and had written on Mathematical physics before conversion.

Georges Lemaître (1894-1966) - Catholic priest, honorary prelate, professor of physics and astronomer. Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'. He was a pioneer in applying Einstein's theory of general relativity to cosmology: suggesting a pre-cursor of Hubble's law in 1927, and publishing his primeval atom theory the pages of Nature in 1931.

Carlos Chagas Filho (1910-2000) - A neuroscientist from Rio de Janeiro who headed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for 16 years. He studied the Shroud of Turin and his "the Origin of the Universe", "the Origin of Life", and "the Origin of Man" involved an understanding between Catholicism and Science.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,14:50   

And yet none of them managed to use their catholicism to do science, they used secular methods. Amazing!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,14:54   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 11 2010,14:50)
And yet none of them managed to use their catholicism to do science, they used secular methods. Amazing!

No arguments from me.

Cheers,
Ut

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,14:58   

And also these.

Erwin Schrodinger Wave Mechanics Catholic

Andreas Vesalius the New Anatomy Catholic

Enrico Fermi Atomic Physics

Marcello Malpighi Microscopic Anatomy

John von Neumann the Modern Computer

Alexander Fleming Penicillin


Yep. Religion and science. They just don't mix!!! :)

Cheers,
Ut

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,15:08   

It's not religion in general that has conflict with science, it's those religions in which leaders and/or members claim that scientists as a group hold unsubstantiatable claims in common with each other (i.e., claims that the vast majority of them regard as supported by evidence, i.e., by consensus).

The trouble with that (well, one of the troubles) is that scientists as a group don't have a central authority (other than the universe itself) telling them what to think. They come from a variety of religions, countries, languages, ethnic groups, genders, cultures, backgrounds, eye and hair colors, age brackets, economic brackets, etc., so there's no reason to think that as a group they'd ever agree on any scientific conclusions that weren't supported by evidence.

Henry

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,15:39   

What about the Evil Darwinathenazi Conspiracy HQ? Don't tell me that you're a splitter!

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,15:43   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,14:58)
And also these.

Erwin Schrodinger Wave Mechanics Catholic

Andreas Vesalius the New Anatomy Catholic

Enrico Fermi Atomic Physics

Marcello Malpighi Microscopic Anatomy

John von Neumann the Modern Computer

Alexander Fleming Penicillin


Yep. Religion and science. They just don't mix!!! :)

Cheers,
Ut

Again, they didn't use their religion at all during scientific inquiry. So empirically, they don't mix.

ETA: some killer bomb-makers on that list. And Monte-Carlo theorists.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,15:56   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,19:58)
[SNIP list of religious people who did science]

Yep. Religion and science. They just don't mix!!! :)

Cheers,
Ut

The fact that some people who do science also hold to a religious belief does not equate in any way to support of the claim that science and religion (or more properly reason and faith/revelation) are epistemologically compatible, nor does it equate to support for the claim that science is an outgrowth of/owes something to a vague and nebulous definition of religion.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Utunumsint



Posts: 103
Joined: Jan. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,16:11   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2010,15:56)
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,19:58)
[SNIP list of religious people who did science]

Yep. Religion and science. They just don't mix!!! :)

Cheers,
Ut

The fact that some people who do science also hold to a religious belief does not equate in any way to support of the claim that science and religion (or more properly reason and faith/revelation) are epistemologically compatible, nor does it equate to support for the claim that science is an outgrowth of/owes something to a vague and nebulous definition of religion.

Louis

Well it sure doesn't hurt.

So do you believe that faith and reason are incompatible or contradictory?

Cheers,
Ut

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,16:13   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,14:58)
And also these.

Erwin Schrodinger Wave Mechanics Catholic

Andreas Vesalius the New Anatomy Catholic

Enrico Fermi Atomic Physics

Marcello Malpighi Microscopic Anatomy

John von Neumann the Modern Computer

Alexander Fleming Penicillin


Yep. Religion and science. They just don't mix!!! :)

Cheers,
Ut

You just don't get it do you? Do you think you are the first person to go this route?

Those people all had lungs. Correlation does not imply causation.

Edits for clarity.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 11 2010,16:21   

Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,21:11)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 11 2010,15:56)
 
Quote (Utunumsint @ Feb. 11 2010,19:58)
[SNIP list of religious people who did science]

Yep. Religion and science. They just don't mix!!! :)

Cheers,
Ut

The fact that some people who do science also hold to a religious belief does not equate in any way to support of the claim that science and religion (or more properly reason and faith/revelation) are epistemologically compatible, nor does it equate to support for the claim that science is an outgrowth of/owes something to a vague and nebulous definition of religion.

Louis

Well it sure doesn't hurt.

So do you believe that faith and reason are incompatible or contradictory?

Cheers,
Ut

It's nothing to do with whether it hurts or not, that is an irrelevance.

Likewise, any beliefs I may or may not have are irrelevant.

What can be demonstrated is a different matter.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
  333 replies since Jan. 28 2010,12:18 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (12) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]