Is the existence of Christianity better for this world

[stevevw]

Today I watched the final episode of Family Guy Season 22, which explores whether the presence of religion is beneficial to the world. Actually, I don't think I should be serious about a cartoon, but when I think about it, I do doubt the positive impact of Christianity in today's world, and my textbooks are telling me that Christianity hindered human progress during the Renaissance, and I would like to see more debate on that

Since I am not good at English, I decided to simply write down the two questions I asked to make it easier for you to understand：
1 What role does Christianity play in the world today.2 Does Christianity hinder social progress?

Actually its the other way around. Back then there wasn't as much politics involved or Postmodernist thinking. Most people including scientist still believed in God even if that was Deism. Scientist seen science as a way of discovering Gods creation and there was the natural law of Gods order in the universe. Even during Englightenment this continued.

It then gradually became more secular and atheistic over time as science proved itself and science itself became a powerful basis for belief in naturalism and today materialism.

The truth is Gods laws and order are in line with the natural laws and objective reality. If God is the creator then he is the creator of quantum physics and genetics. We should expect to find God at the micro level as well as the macro level.

But also Gods truths and order is what allows people to live together. Evidence supports realities like children needing their biological mothers and fathers, long term monogomous marriage being a stablising factor and the basis for a family and for the family being the foundation for a strong society.

The Declarations, Bills of Rights and Human Rights are all based on humans being made in Gods image and having natural rights beyond human ideology and opinion. THese are the foundational principles that built our nations and stand not just theologically, but psychologically, biologically, objectively and spiritually.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The OP asked about if Christianity had held back social progress in the Renaissance. As best I can tell, no prior post had addressed the development of science as that period ends and how it relates to the control of religion. (I suspect it was a notable part of what the TV program the OP referenced was speaking of, especially given the particular show.) Unfortunately this post gets the issues related to science wrong in a multitude of ways that I will now address.

Actually its the other way around. Back then there wasn't as much politics involved or Postmodernist thinking.

[Since this is attached to the first of 3 paragraphs about science, I'll assume it is also referring to science somehow.]

Politics aren't anything new. They've been around for a long time. As for politics and science, the relevant notion related to science in this period as it emerges is that the "politics" that are impacting science are less and less about religion and religious control. This is precisely why it is often thought that modern science emerges in this period when religion pulls back from the politics impacting those who systematically study the natural world.

"Post-modernism" is waaaay off target. The grab back of artistic, philosophical, political, and academic movements known collectively as "post-modernism" come *after* modernism (shocking, I know) in the mid-20th century which is well after the period in question.

As for "post-modernism" itself, it is not part of science today if I understand the way people of your political stripe often use "post-modern" as a term of derision.

Most people including scientist still believed in God even if that was Deism. Scientist seen science as a way of discovering Gods creation and there was the natural law of Gods order in the universe. Even during Englightenment this continued.

Science, after it emerges, is a method for understanding how the natural world works. The motivation of individual scientists to put their time into such investigations is not really relevant to what science is, nor has any change in the collection of motivations by the population of scientists relevant. There are also plenty of scientists who want to "understand God's creation" as part of their motivation. That has not changed.

It then gradually became more secular and atheistic over time as science proved itself and science itself became a powerful basis for belief in naturalism and today materialism.

Science (the process/enterprise) is by definition secular as it is not concerned about gods or any other supernatural causes. It is reasonable to state that what we call science emerge only when those "natural philosophers" move to understanding natural things with natural processes and stopped concerning themselves directly with divine or supernatural intervention. That happened at the end of the Renaissance in the sort of way the OP implied. So it is as if Christianity was holding back social progress in our understanding of nature. "Naturalism" of things made of "material" were *always* part of what we call science. There is not science with concerns about how a god interferes with stuff

["Atheistic" has nothing to do with science. "Atheist" is a label for people who don't believe in any god. It has nothing to do with the foundations of science or religious hinderence of social progress.

The truth is Gods laws and order are in line with the natural laws and objective reality. If God is the creator then he is the creator of quantum physics and genetics. We should expect to find God at the micro level as well as the macro level.

This, frankly, is just a claim. What you are labeling as "God's laws" is just a claim that God created everything, so therefore those are his laws. There is no delineation of these laws in anything claimed to be statements of this god (like scripture) that we could cross check through scientific study. All we have are assertions that the natural laws discovered by the philosophical naturalism of science just *are* the laws created by God.

But also Gods truths and order is what allows people to live together. Evidence supports realities like children needing their biological mothers and fathers, long term monogomous marriage being a stablising factor and the basis for a family and for the family being the foundation for a strong society.

The Declarations, Bills of Rights and Human Rights are all based on humans being made in Gods image and having natural rights beyond human ideology and opinion. THese are the foundational principles that built our nations and stand not just theologically, but psychologically, biologically, objectively and spiritually.

As this part has nothing to do with the science issues, (or the timing discussed in the OP), I shall not respond to it.

 

[stevevw]

The OP asked about if Christianity had held back social progress in the Renaissance. As best I can tell, no prior post had addressed the development of science as that period ends and how it relates to the control of religion. (I suspect it was a notable part of what the TV program the OP referenced was speaking of, especially given the particular show.) Unfortunately this post gets the issues related to science wrong in a multitude of ways that I will now address.

Ok I don't think I have seen the TV show. I might have misunderstood what the OP was asking about Christainities role during the Renaissance. I was think more about how the church played a role in setting up schools and universities which formed the basis for later scientific exploration with Enlightenment. Most of the great scientist from this time were Christians.

But I agree this was also a time where the Catholic churches dominance was challenged which led to the reformation and Protestantism. The church tried to censor information that didn't conform with docrine. In that sense you could say the church was stiffling social progress.

[Since this is attached to the first of 3 paragraphs about science, I'll assume it is also referring to science somehow.]

Politics aren't anything new. They've been around for a long time. As for politics and science, the relevant notion related to science in this period as it emerges is that the "politics" that are impacting science are less and less about religion and religious control. This is precisely why it is often thought that modern science emerges in this period when religion pulls back from the politics impacting those who systematically study the natural world.

Yes I agree. As a result we enter the period of Enlightenment. But I think the church or at least God being central to science was central despite the intervention of the political ideology and dogma.

"Post-modernism" is waaaay off target. The grab back of artistic, philosophical, political, and academic movements known collectively as "post-modernism" come *after* modernism (shocking, I know) in the mid-20th century which is well after the period in question.

I was referring to postmodernist thinking not being around during the Renaissance. Thinking was more fundemental. Initially it was the church and a God centred society in worldview. Then this was challenged in fundemental ways and the beginning of debates about epistemic truth.

The postmodernist thinking which really came as a result of the development of epistemics over a few 100 years. But back then all that white noise of opposing views and truths was not in the air. So we have to understand that period as they seen it. Society was still very God conscious and at the forefront of setting social norms and standards.

As for "post-modernism" itself, it is not part of science today if I understand the way people of your political stripe often use "post-modern" as a term of derision.

No I agree its not a parft of science. Its more that postmodernism is relative even when it comes to science.

Science, after it emerges, is a method for understanding how the natural world works. The motivation of individual scientists to put their time into such investigations is not really relevant to what science is, nor has any change in the collection of motivations by the population of scientists relevant. There are also plenty of scientists who want to "understand God's creation" as part of their motivation. That has not changed.

I think there is some truth in the postmodernist idea that information is a form of cultural control. Not jusdt the scientific establishment but in many established groups who may have a different paradigm will see the world and reality from a different epistemic position. Even within science with different disiciplines like anthropologists to psychologists to biologists.

The objection from Postmodern critical theorists is that western science has become a religion itself. It has been pushed as a paradigm at the exclusion of other ways of knowing the world. Which I think is true to an extent. But the ideologues take it to the extreme and reject all science as a result. Where perhaps the reality its a bit of both but science does tell us a truth about a certain aspect of reality.

Science (the process/enterprise) is by definition secular as it is not concerned about gods or any other supernatural causes. It is reasonable to state that what we call science emerge only when those "natural philosophers" move to understanding natural things with natural processes and stopped concerning themselves directly with divine or supernatural intervention. That happened at the end of the Renaissance in the sort of way the OP implied. So it is as if Christianity was holding back social progress in our understanding of nature.

Yes in one way they were holding back the freedom to explore and make discoveries that benefit society in the end. This was an extreme position by the church. But I think its come full circle and science itself now dominates thinking through scientific materialism. As science has become very successful it has garnered almost worship statues which is a natural progression.

But I wonder if the church was not completely wrong in their concern. Obviously the church believed that society and the world was ordered by God. So if science, secularism and materialism go hand in hand then their concern has gradually become real.

"Naturalism" of things made of "material" were *always* part of what we call science. There is not science with concerns about how a god interferes with stuff

Yes this is inherent in methodological naturalism. The paradigm within which science and scientist work. But its more than just a neutral epistemic position to take. Its actually a metaphysical belief to say that the only reality is 'matter' exists out there. Its an assumption and beyond what science can verify.

Anyway thats another debate. But it sort of relates to the age old difference in world view that is battling out of which represents relaity or not that the church and secular society has been waging.

["Atheistic" has nothing to do with science. "Atheist" is a label for people who don't believe in any god. It has nothing to do with the foundations of science or religious hinderence of social progress.

I think it does. Just like the church can control social norms and progress so can a 'no God' society which favours progressive ideology of Christainity. Both are standing on a moral and social basis for how society should be ordered. You cannot take belief and morals out of it and that relates to metaphysics.

We may not be able to automatically assume science, materialism and atheism are not linked but it certainly seems theres a lot in common and its easier to relate to each. Even a logical arguement that one should follow the other.

I look at it overall in how the church domeinated social beliefs and norms snd now secularism whatever ideology that may be call it Woke, Humanism, Secularism, is dominant and dictating social norms and beliefs. Its done full circle.

In fact maybe even beyond this with how theres a resurgence in God centred social norms. Perhaps as a pendelum swing back the other way as a result of the dominance progressive ideology has garnered over the years.

This, frankly, is just a claim. What you are labeling as "God's laws" is just a claim that God created everything, so therefore those are his laws. There is no delineation of these laws in anything claimed to be statements of this god (like scripture) that we could cross check through scientific study. All we have are assertions that the natural laws discovered by the philosophical naturalism of science just *are* the laws created by God.

Yes of course its a claim. But as postmodernist say what isn't a claim in the overall scheme of things. Qunatum physics would be considered crazy talk for the pre QM classical thinkers.

As this part has nothing to do with the science issues, (or the timing discussed in the OP), I shall not respond to it.

I think it sort of does relate to the OP. This is asking the question in relation to the Christian truths that we built free nations on and whether they are still relevant to society. To our social order and wellbeing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok I don't think I have seen the TV show. I might have misunderstood what the OP was asking about Christainities role during the Renaissance. I was think more about how the church played a role in setting up schools and universities which formed the basis for later scientific exploration with Enlightenment. Most of the great scientist from this time were Christians.

But I agree this was also a time where the Catholic churches dominance was challenged which led to the reformation and Protestantism. The church tried to censor information that didn't conform with docrine. In that sense you could say the church was stiffling social progress.

Woah! We agree on something Steve (and it is fundamental to the topic of the thread).

Yes I agree. As a result we enter the period of Enlightenment. But I think the church or at least God being central to science was central despite the intervention of the political ideology and dogma.

... and again... no, gods of any kind are not central to science, or rather to anything we would call science.

I was referring to postmodernist thinking not being around during the Renaissance. Thinking was more fundemental. Initially it was the church and a God centred society in worldview. Then this was challenged in fundemental ways and the beginning of debates about epistemic truth.

The postmodernist thinking which really came as a result of the development of epistemics over a few 100 years. But back then all that white noise of opposing views and truths was not in the air. So we have to understand that period as they seen it. Society was still very God conscious and at the forefront of setting social norms and standards.

Since you agree post-modernism isn't relative to the time period...

No I agree its not a parft of science. Its more that postmodernism is relative even when it comes to science.

... or science, there was no point in mentioning it.

I think there is some truth in the postmodernist idea that information is a form of cultural control. Not jusdt the scientific establishment but in many established groups who may have a different paradigm will see the world and reality from a different epistemic position. Even within science with different disiciplines like anthropologists to psychologists to biologists.

The objection from Postmodern critical theorists is that western science has become a religion itself. It has been pushed as a paradigm at the exclusion of other ways of knowing the world. Which I think is true to an extent. But the ideologues take it to the extreme and reject all science as a result. Where perhaps the reality its a bit of both but science does tell us a truth about a certain aspect of reality.

Postmodern critical theorists aren't scientists or doing science. They are irrelevant then and now.

Yes in one way they were holding back the freedom to explore and make discoveries that benefit society in the end. This was an extreme position by the church. But I think its come full circle and science itself now dominates thinking through scientific materialism. As science has become very successful it has garnered almost worship statues which is a natural progression.

The thread wasn't about how modernity impacts Christianity.

But I wonder if the church was not completely wrong in their concern. Obviously the church believed that society and the world was ordered by God. So if science, secularism and materialism go hand in hand then their concern has gradually become real.

Yes they were completely wrong. Keeping science from emerging so that it could discover how life works and diseases are caused was a negative impact.

Yes this is inherent in methodological naturalism. The paradigm within which science and scientist work. But its more than just a neutral epistemic position to take.

It very much is. Methodological naturalism (part of the methodology of science) is not...

Its actually a metaphysical belief to say that the only reality is 'matter' exists out there. Its an assumption and beyond what science can verify.

... philosophical naturalism.

Anyway thats another debate. But it sort of relates to the age old difference in world view that is battling out of which represents relaity or not that the church and secular society has been waging.

"Secular society" isn't in battle with "the church". Secular society is just the component of society that isn't part of religion, like auto-repair shops and government.

I think it does. Just like the church can control social norms and progress so can a 'no God' society which favours progressive ideology of Christainity.

Why do you tilt against the windmill regarding the definition of "atheist"? (And no, a "no god" society favors *no* religion or sub-ideology of any religion. This statement was frankly illogical.

Both are standing on a moral and social basis for how society should be ordered. You cannot take belief and morals out of it and that relates to metaphysics.

Neither "atheism" nor science is trying to order society. Science is 'agnostic' (pardon the term) to whether any member of society or researcher believes or not in some religion. It isn't about morals either.

We may not be able to automatically assume science, materialism and atheism are not linked but it certainly seems theres a lot in common and its easier to relate to each. Even a logical arguement that one should follow the other.

Yet you keep trying to link it all together and in the process you keep making outrageously false statements and conflating things that aren't related.

I look at it overall in how the church domeinated social beliefs and norms snd now secularism whatever ideology that may be call it Woke, Humanism, Secularism, is dominant and dictating social norms and beliefs. Its done full circle.

Sigh. None of these things are related to science or the period in question, and of limited relation to each other. Only one comes close to an "ideology" and it dictates to no one.

"Woke" is a nonsense term from the RW culture "warriors" to denigrate social change they don't like.
"Humanism" is a moral philosophy focused on the well being of humans and humanity. There are religious and non-religious versions of it.
"Secular" isn't an 'ism' either (just like "atheism" isn't an 'ism'). Secular describes aspect of society not based or organized by religion. These things may or may not have religious counterparts. (Some that exist in both forms include music, philosophy, and morality.)

In fact maybe even beyond this with how theres a resurgence in God centred social norms. Perhaps as a pendelum swing back the other way as a result of the dominance progressive ideology has garnered over the years.

Yes of course its a claim. But as postmodernist say what isn't a claim in the overall scheme of things. Qunatum physics would be considered crazy talk for the pre QM classical thinkers.

QM has nothing to do with PM. If the postmodernists are confused by QM, that's on them, not science.

I think it sort of does relate to the OP. This is asking the question in relation to the Christian truths that we built free nations on and whether they are still relevant to society. To our social order and wellbeing.

Christian Humanism is a thing.

 

[stevevw]

Woah! We agree on something Steve (and it is fundamental to the topic of the thread).

Lol yippy.

... and again... no, gods of any kind are not central to science, or rather to anything we would call science.

You misunderstand what I mean. Science wasn't trying to prove Gods supernaturalism. Back then there was a belief even within mainstream science that science was a tool that reveals Gods order. The natural laws. So science as a methodology was not so material back then. They still allowed for God as a seperate phenomena and science was the tool that unlocked how God used nature.

As opposed to today where science is about showing how creation can happen without God and then it becoming dogmatic that there is no God and everything can be explained in naturalistic terms, hense Methodological Naturalism.

Since you agree post-modernism isn't relative to the time period...

Only to help us understand that we did not think like we do today. People have a tendency to project todays paradigm on history.

... or science, there was no point in mentioning it.

I think there is because we are talking socially and not factually. We are talking of norms and cultural beliefs about the world and reality which is seperate to the cold hard facts of science. So a postmodernist worldview is completely different to the God conscious worldview we had during the Renaissance.

At this point secular society was not yet established and dictating peoples thinking. Yes it was the begginings of questioning but it took some time for the social normss and culture to change from the God consciouness to a secular material science worldview or beyond this with the relative and even new age era of anti science such as the postmodernist critical ideologues have been pushing for the last 60 years which gradually rejected God completely from the social public square.

Postmodern critical theorists aren't scientists or doing science. They are irrelevant then and now.

If we are talking about the social aspects then its relevant. Science is only one aspect of society in how we know and measure the world and reality. As noted naturalism grew in popularity and has become the dominant worldview over the Christian one. Thus it became more a metaphysical belief claim beyond what science can claim.

The thread wasn't about how modernity impacts Christianity.

Actually it is, at least in part when it asks
1 What role does Christianity play in the world today. 2 Does Christianity hinder social progress?

As far as I understand the "world today" is modern society.

Yes they were completely wrong. Keeping science from emerging so that it could discover how life works and diseases are caused was a negative impact.

Yes in that sense they are wrong. But keeping scientific materialism before the dominant narrative and belief imposed on society as the official epistemic and ontological truth was a justified concern. It acts just as religion did by imposing an ideology as truth.

You cannot seperate a claimed reality through science and the metaphysical implications. Every single person on this forum argues with the science method to claim an ontological truth that there is no supernatural but only naturalism. That is beyond science and a belief rather than science.

It very much is. Methodological naturalism (part of the methodology of science) is not...

Actually you cannot seperate the method from the metaphysical belief. For example you have on several occassions claimed Dunns work and others is woo and psuedoscience using science as the determination of this truth. I would assme is fomeone proposed and alternative idea such as Sacred geometry and natural laws inherent in Gods design you would also claim its Woo.

But in reality if science is neutral about alternative ways of knowing reality then you cannot make this claim. You cannot use methodological naturalismto make such an epistemic and ontological truth claim. Your stepping beyond what science can do. You should be saying science only reveals a certain aspect of reality and cannot know if there are other possibilities. So its limited in its ontology.

... philosophical naturalism.

Yes the method is intrinsically entangled in metaphysics when the subject, the scientist uses science to make such claims.

"Secular society" isn't in battle with "the church". Secular society is just the component of society that isn't part of religion, like auto-repair shops and government.

Actually not really. Its unreal that we can govern independent of the social and moral aspects of the politics we impose. If its not God as the basis for social order its secular ideologies ie Wokeness and PC imposed though institutions and State actors. This is an observed phenomena in any society. In one way of another the void of belief will be filled with God, other gods, or secular ideologies acting to replace the role of God.

Why do you tilt against the windmill regarding the definition of "atheist"? (And no, a "no god" society favors *no* religion or sub-ideology of any religion. This statement was frankly illogical.

So the belief there is no God or gods is not a belief with a certain worldview. One example of the difference between the moral and metaphysical worldviews would be that under God society was ordered according to Christian teachings.

So Divorce, SSM, abortion and even sex before marriage were frowned upon as social norms. Thats because the public square was God conscious. There were regulations and laws that reflected this politically.

Whereas todays secular State where God is now rejected from the public square all the above are not only allowed by supported by law. The complete opposite. Being the complete opposite is about a belief in how the world should be ordered which is according to humankind rather than God.

How is this not linked to belief and morality. When the State chooses relative morality they are also not choosing Gos truth. Its not neutral but anti God and we see this today in how the State and generally throughout the world where Christainity has been increasing attacked. Its not neutral. It pretended to be but in the end its not neutral.

Neither "atheism" nor science is trying to order society. Science is 'agnostic' (pardon the term) to whether any member of society or researcher believes or not in some religion. It isn't about morals either.

Hum I am not sure. Maybe its that science has become so successful that its now hard to seperate the difference between the tool and what is being revealed.

Like I said you and everyone else will use scioence to claim ontological truths by calling any alternative woo. People cannot help but be entangled in what they are trying to discover about reality. This was evidenced through Quantum Physics.

Yet you keep trying to link it all together and in the process you keep making outrageously false statements and conflating things that aren't related.

Actually I think to the contrary. Nothing I am saying is not already common knowledged and argued by philosophers and ethicists. So its wrong to say its "outrageously false". Even the simple 'No God, no morals' is a well known contenious philosophical debate thats ongoing. So "outrageously false" is a bit over the top.

Sigh. None of these things are related to science or the period in question, and of limited relation to each other. Only one comes close to an "ideology" and it dictates to no one.
"Woke" is a nonsense term from the RW culture "warriors" to denigrate social change they don't like.
"Humanism" is a moral philosophy focused on the well being of humans and humanity. There are religious and non-religious versions of it.
"Secular" isn't an 'ism' either (just like "atheism" isn't an 'ism'). Secular describes aspect of society not based or organized by religion. These things may or may not have religious counterparts. (Some that exist in both forms include music, philosophy, and morality.)

As I said we cannot seperate belief and morality from how we govern. Have you not just witnessed what was more or less a religious and moral campign between the parties in the election. Everything from what is biological reality to whether its moral to have open borders or not.

The Left are constantly on about morality or Wokism as it now called and how evil the Right is. As the critical theorist proclaimed the political is now the personal. We crossed that line decades ago. We know the Right has a history or moralizing the political. You need to play catchup. Its now identity politics and by definition this includes everything, including subjective belief and feelings. Each side has their own metaphysical and moral basis.

QM has nothing to do with PM. If the postmodernists are confused by QM, that's on them, not science.

No I wasn't using postmodernism as the basis for why QM is now more PM. I was using the science. Well at least the interpretations that make the subjective conscious observer having an influence over reality.

Thats based on legitimate interpretations that come naturally out of the observations of QM. Just as legitimate as any interpretation. So this brings in the subjective conscious experiences as a factor and therefore its about knowledge. What questions we choose to ask about reality over others that will create reality.

The postmodernist take this valid interpreation and exploit it by then claiming this also makes objective reality subjective, hense sex is a spectrum and not biological. But the idea that metaphysically we are entangeled with reality is a science observation from experiments.

Christian Humanism is a thing.

No they were Christian, biblical truths that we are free nations were based on. I guess you could say there were humanistic aspects in common. But it was a specific worldview belief about the order of the world and society. As opposed to secular humanism.

Secular humanism is a philosophy, belief system, or life stance that embraces human reason, logic, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.[1][2][3][4]

Secular humanism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Fervent]

Not that anyone agrees with what “ spiritual”
is even supposed to mean, or that you can cite
anything but your personal opinion that Christianity
as put into practice has been anything
resembling an overall positive impact on
human rights, happiness, or social progress.

Yes, yes I suppose the world was a better place when female infants were left to die of exposure, orphans and there were few if any hospitals. No posiitive impact whatsoever. But I am curious, where do "human rights" come from? or what does "social progress" mean in a world where morals are relative? What is society supposed to be progressing toward, exactly?

An observation, though, is that when anyone claims
100% certain predictive guarantees, talks absolutes
based on their - blatantly biased, and lacking any
evidence outside personal feelings-
only a fool would take their word seriously, far less act on it

Unless, of course, that person rose from the dead.

 

[Fervent]

No I wasn't using postmodernism as the basis for why QM is now more PM. I was using the science. Well at least the interpretations that make the subjective conscious observer having an influence over reality.

As best I can tell, you're refering to the Copenhagen interpretation but your statement about it is mistaken. There isn't an interpretation that describes a conscious observer necessarily, just a measurement being taken. It doesn't specify consciousness. And all of the interpretations deal with observer-dependent phenomenon, how they deal wiith them is what distinguishes the various theories primarily. CI designates a privileged observer, Von Neuman takes the observer out of the system entirely, Many Worlds stipulates that everytime a measurement is taken a new world is created. Doesn't matter how you slice it, QM is troubling for the notion of an objective physical reality.

 

[stevevw]

As best I can tell, you're refering to the Copenhagen interpretation but your statement about it is mistaken. There isn't an interpretation that describes a conscious observer necessarily, just a measurement being taken.

Why do you say 'necessarily' as though your unsure or ther possibility is that it does include a conscious observer. I think thats the point of the Copenhagen interpretation and their variations make the observer central and not the measure. Its the observers choice such as interpretations like QBism.

Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, John von Neumann, and Eugene Wigner insisted that a measurement depends on the mind of a conscious observer.

Henry Stapp argued that it didn't make sense to make a measuring device what caused the wave to collapse as it should be treated fundementally as part of the quantum world being measured. There is no difference.

It made more sense that the only difference being injected into the scenario was the observers mind which was not part of the quantum world as it was itself non material and could not be measured in terms of particles. So the observers mind is what creates the reality of the measuring device and the particle seen through the measuring device.

It doesn't specify consciousness. And all of the interpretations deal with observer-dependent phenomenon, how they deal wiith them is what distinguishes the various theories primarily. CI designates a privileged observer, Von Neuman takes the observer out of the system entirely, Many Worlds stipulates that everytime a measurement is taken a new world is created. Doesn't matter how you slice it, QM is troubling for the notion of an objective physical reality.

I disagree. I think it actually naturally posits an observer. Tests such as the Delayed choice and Wigners Friend have supported the observer effect. Stapp and others suggest that the Mind is fundemental to reality. Wheeler talks about "it for bit" where information and knowledge is fundemental to creating reality and we can even change the past.

Wigners experiments point to there being no exclusive objective reality but rather two different objective realities can can for two subjective observers.

But we don't even need QM to support the idea that observers create reality. We know that humans are just one creature which experiences the world differently based on senses. Our senses such as sight are just reflecting a surface image of light spectrums and not the ultimate reality. Nor is human perspective exclusively revealing a true reality compared to say a bat, cat or dolphin.

We also know that new information or knowledge can change reality. We thought history was one way and when the truth comes out and of what happened or we discover new evidence it completely recreates reality and this affects the past, present and future by changed trajectories. Or how a paradigm shift creates a completely different and often contradictory reality.

It seems it is the Mind and the knowledge about reality that reveals reality or at least reveals a continual deeper reality. The world our grandparents grew up in was a completely different reality to what we have now. It will change again. So which is the true reality the one now or the one in 100 years from now.

Its the observer who is creating this through the kind of questions we ask and the knowledge we gain. To that extent we know nothing about what reality is. Except there is mind.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Lol yippy.

You misunderstand what I mean. Science wasn't trying to prove Gods supernaturalism. Back then there was a belief even within mainstream science that science was a tool that reveals Gods order. The natural laws. So science as a methodology was not so material back then. They still allowed for God as a seperate phenomena and science was the tool that unlocked how God used nature.

As opposed to today where science is about showing how creation can happen without God and then it becoming dogmatic that there is no God and everything can be explained in naturalistic terms, hense Methodological Naturalism.

No, no, no. Science was *always* about using natural causes for natural consquences, as I said before. Whatever interpretation people apply is separate from the method. Then as now you could apply the results of science (or even to motivation for doing it) to 1. Demonstrate the mind/glory/works of God, 2. Demonstrate the non-existence of God, or 3. learning cool stuff about how things work. You seem to be a "group 1" guy and I am in group 3.

Only to help us understand that we did not think like we do today. People have a tendency to project todays paradigm on history.

Have you met the kettle, Mr. Pot?

I think there is because we are talking socially and not factually. We are talking of norms and cultural beliefs about the world and reality which is seperate to the cold hard facts of science. So a postmodernist worldview is completely different to the God conscious worldview we had during the Renaissance.

At this point secular society was not yet established and dictating peoples thinking. Yes it was the begginings of questioning but it took some time for the social normss and culture to change from the God consciouness to a secular material science worldview or beyond this with the relative and even new age era of anti science such as the postmodernist critical ideologues have been pushing for the last 60 years which gradually rejected God completely from the social public square.

I wouldn't have any problem with your position (though I have a different one), but again you are conflating science and an anti-religious viewpoint. Use science as you like, but please don't try to portray it as challenging your god.

If we are talking about the social aspects then its relevant. Science is only one aspect of society in how we know and measure the world and reality. As noted naturalism grew in popularity and has become the dominant worldview over the Christian one. Thus it became more a metaphysical belief claim beyond what science can claim.

If you want to talk about post-modernism v. Christianity go at it, but keep science out of it. We are neutral. (And definitely don't equate science and post-modernism.)

Actually it is, at least in part when it asks
1 What role does Christianity play in the world today. 2 Does Christianity hinder social progress?

As far as I understand the "world today" is modern society.

Perhaps I didnt' read the OP as clearly as I could have. It is a bit messy, but...

If we examine those two questions in the modern world, then none of the items you raised about science have anything to do with the OP. If you look at the preamble about the olden times when science first emerges in its modern form (the version of science with the methodological naturalism, testing by evidence, etc.) then the "hindering of progress by Christianity" is related to science. I implied that that was your motivation when I started my reply.

Yes in that sense they are wrong. But keeping scientific materialism before the dominant narrative and belief imposed on society as the official epistemic and ontological truth was a justified concern. It acts just as religion did by imposing an ideology as truth.

You cannot seperate a claimed reality through science and the metaphysical implications. Every single person on this forum argues with the science method to claim an ontological truth that there is no supernatural but only naturalism. That is beyond science and a belief rather than science.

Since this is going to take a while longer to reply to, I'm going to stop shortly as I have other, more important (shockingly) things to do and get back to all of this "philosophy and morality" bit that follows later. First a little clean up...

Actually you cannot seperate the method from the metaphysical belief. For example you have on several occassions claimed Dunns work and others is woo and psuedoscience using science as the determination of this truth. I would assme is fomeone proposed and alternative idea such as Sacred geometry and natural laws inherent in Gods design you would also claim its Woo.

A note for the readers of this thread: Steve is referring to a Mr. Dunn who is a retired aeronautical engineer and machinist and believes that some high quality stone work at the time of the building of the Pyramids (about 4600 years ago) is evidence that the Egyptians of that time (or earlier) had access to some sort of "high technology", which is the subject of 2 inactive and 1 active thread on other sub-fora. Mr. Dunn also has a completely woo "theory" that the Great Pyramid of Giza was an electrical power plant. It is based on standard abuses of physics and reason and not that special brand of "quantum woo."

But in reality if science is neutral about alternative ways of knowing reality then you cannot make this claim. You cannot use methodological naturalismto make such an epistemic and ontological truth claim. Your stepping beyond what science can do. You should be saying science only reveals a certain aspect of reality and cannot know if there are other possibilities. So its limited in its ontology.

Yes the method is intrinsically entangled in metaphysics when the subject, the scientist uses science to make such claims.

Actually not really. Its unreal that we can govern independent of the social and moral aspects of the politics we impose. If its not God as the basis for social order its secular ideologies ie Wokeness and PC imposed though institutions and State actors. This is an observed phenomena in any society. In one way of another the void of belief will be filled with God, other gods, or secular ideologies acting to replace the role of God.

So the belief there is no God or gods is not a belief with a certain worldview. One example of the difference between the moral and metaphysical worldviews would be that under God society was ordered according to Christian teachings.

So Divorce, SSM, abortion and even sex before marriage were frowned upon as social norms. Thats because the public square was God conscious. There were regulations and laws that reflected this politically.

Whereas todays secular State where God is now rejected from the public square all the above are not only allowed by supported by law. The complete opposite. Being the complete opposite is about a belief in how the world should be ordered which is according to humankind rather than God.

How is this not linked to belief and morality. When the State chooses relative morality they are also not choosing Gos truth. Its not neutral but anti God and we see this today in how the State and generally throughout the world where Christainity has been increasing attacked. Its not neutral. It pretended to be but in the end its not neutral.

Hum I am not sure. Maybe its that science has become so successful that its now hard to seperate the difference between the tool and what is being revealed.

Like I said you and everyone else will use scioence to claim ontological truths by calling any alternative woo. People cannot help but be entangled in what they are trying to discover about reality. This was evidenced through Quantum Physics.

Actually I think to the contrary. Nothing I am saying is not already common knowledged and argued by philosophers and ethicists. So its wrong to say its "outrageously false". Even the simple 'No God, no morals' is a well known contenious philosophical debate thats ongoing. So "outrageously false" is a bit over the top.

As I said we cannot seperate belief and morality from how we govern. Have you not just witnessed what was more or less a religious and moral campign between the parties in the election. Everything from what is biological reality to whether its moral to have open borders or not.

The Left are constantly on about morality or Wokism as it now called and how evil the Right is. As the critical theorist proclaimed the political is now the personal. We crossed that line decades ago. We know the Right has a history or moralizing the political. You need to play catchup. Its now identity politics and by definition this includes everything, including subjective belief and feelings. Each side has their own metaphysical and moral basis.

No I wasn't using postmodernism as the basis for why QM is now more PM. I was using the science. Well at least the interpretations that make the subjective conscious observer having an influence over reality.

Thats based on legitimate interpretations that come naturally out of the observations of QM. Just as legitimate as any interpretation. So this brings in the subjective conscious experiences as a factor and therefore its about knowledge. What questions we choose to ask about reality over others that will create reality.

The postmodernist take this valid interpreation and exploit it by then claiming this also makes objective reality subjective, hense sex is a spectrum and not biological. But the idea that metaphysically we are entangeled with reality is a science observation from experiments.

No they were Christian, biblical truths that we are free nations were based on. I guess you could say there were humanistic aspects in common. But it was a specific worldview belief about the order of the world and society. As opposed to secular humanism.

Save for later.

One final note:

Secular humanism is a philosophy, belief system, or life stance that embraces human reason, logic, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.[1][2][3][4]

Secular humanism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the term "secular humanism" the word "secular" is an adjective that modifies the noun "humanism" to tell us what kind of the humanistic philosophy being discussed. In this case, as is usual with the adjective "secular" it is referring to "non-religion based humanism", just like "secular music" is non-religion based music and "secular government" is non-religion based government. That is all.

For the Christian version see:

Christian humanism - Wikipedia

 

[Grafted In]

?????

 

[Desk trauma]

Without the moral framework that Christianity provides—such as loving one's neighbor, caring for the poor, and forgiving enemies—the world could become dominated by power struggles, exploitation, and constant conflict.

Yeah, all of that is so rare.

 

[Fervent]

... philosophical naturalism.

Even here a distinction needs to be made, because there are philosophical naturalists in an epistemic sense and philosophical naturalists in a metaphysical sense. Philosophical naturalism most properly applies to the epistemic sense, because its about commitments to avoiding dogma and holding to moderate skepticism regarding metaphysical ideas. There are Christian philosophical naturalists, though we are few and far between and the extent we take our philosophical naturalism to is a wide spread among us. And there are metaphysical naturalists who are not philosophical naturalists in the epistemic sense because they have adopted a positiivist attitude and abandoned moderate skepticism in favor of holding their metaphysics dogmatically. Though most of them would likely deny that they are dogmatic physicalists.

 

[stevevw]

No, no, no. Science was *always* about using natural causes for natural consquences, as I said before. Whatever interpretation people apply is separate from the method. Then as now you could apply the results of science (or even to motivation for doing it) to 1. Demonstrate the mind/glory/works of God, 2. Demonstrate the non-existence of God, or 3. learning cool stuff about how things work. You seem to be a "group 1" guy and I am in group 3.

Actually I think you would fall into group 2. If you use science to show any alternative view is Woo then you would usae science to prove God is woo. Thats how it usually goes. If ssomeone makes the claim that God created the earth they ask for scientific evidence to refute it.

Have you met the kettle, Mr. Pot?

Of course, I would not be human if I didn't lol.

I wouldn't have any problem with your position (though I have a different one), but again you are conflating science and an anti-religious viewpoint. Use science as you like, but please don't try to portray it as challenging your god.

Hum I don't think the line between what science is doing and how science is actually applied is as clear as you want to claim. You can't just dismiss the philosophical implications as though its settled. That in itself is part of the problem that you claim epistemic truth. That you assume a clear line between what is natural and what is supernatural.

If you want to talk about post-modernism v. Christianity go at it, but keep science out of it. We are neutral. (And definitely don't equate science and post-modernism.)

How can science be neutral about phenomena when it does not have a clear definition of what is natural. Thats part of why postmodernist thinking (though overstepping the mark) are using as the basis for challenging science. ie science itself as a tool has been used to deny other ways of knowing by becoming the dominant social paradigm about how society should know reality.

Its not so easily defined or seperated from the social and metaphysical beliefs about reality itself because we are as observers and subjects entangled with the measuring of reality.

Though postmodernist take it to the extreme and use this truth as a weapon against science by also denying the actual lived reality of objective realities like biological sex. Or just dismissing and assuming science as westernised dogma to dismiss alternative knowledge and that there is not truth to science at all when it copmes to understanding aspects of reality.

Perhaps I didnt' read the OP as clearly as I could have. It is a bit messy, but...

If we examine those two questions in the modern world, then none of the items you raised about science have anything to do with the OP. If you look at the preamble about the olden times when science first emerges in its modern form (the version of science with the methodological naturalism, testing by evidence, etc.) then the "hindering of progress by Christianity" is related to science. I implied that that was your motivation when I started my reply.

Yes and when you pointed out how the church also hindered scientific progression and as an extension social progression I agreed. I guess I was trying to point out a more balanced context. That the church both hindered and promoted science progression.

But you may have missed the point relating to this. I explained how this schism has come full circle to day. The church was in control of societies worldview which was reflected in the public square through norms. But became dogmatic leading to the Reformation and Enlightenment.

To the point that now secularism in the form of various ideological beliefs such as scientific materialism, humanism and now Wokism has become the dogmatic worldview that dictates the public square and norms. This is a natural progression for God to anti God. Its not neutral. Every action including social has an equal and opposite reaction.

Since this is going to take a while longer to reply to, I'm going to stop shortly as I have other, more important (shockingly) things to do and get back to all of this "philosophy and morality" bit that follows later. First a little clean up...

A note for the readers of this thread: Steve is referring to a Mr. Dunn who is a retired aeronautical engineer and machinist and believes that some high quality stone work at the time of the building of the Pyramids (about 4600 years ago) is evidence that the Egyptians of that time (or earlier) had access to some sort of "high technology", which is the subject of 2 inactive and 1 active thread on other sub-fora. Mr. Dunn also has a completely woo "theory" that the Great Pyramid of Giza was an electrical power plant. It is based on standard abuses of physics and reason and not that special brand of "quantum woo."

Save for later.

Actually not just Dunn. I was actually referring to the many times on this forum where science is used to defeat claims about God, the afterlife such as NDE, Consciousness beyond brain, no objective morality, no spirituality in a real sense and basically any supernatural or should I say any explaination that cannot be verified by empiricle sciences is woo.

But the assumption that any idea that deviates from the scientific material explainations relates to Dunn's proposals of some advanced knowledge perhaps based on some force beyond what science can determine comes from a similar assumption. So it doesn't have to be God but any supernaturalism.

It can primarily be divided into two sides the scientific material reductionism and anything that doesn't fall into this paradigm.

One final note:

In the term "secular humanism" the word "secular" is an adjective that modifies the noun "humanism" to tell us what kind of the humanistic philosophy being discussed. In this case, as is usual with the adjective "secular" it is referring to "non-religion based humanism", just like "secular music" is non-religion based music and "secular government" is non-religion based government. That is all.

For the Christian version see:

Christian humanism - Wikipedia

But as we know that there is not really a clear line between secular music and is non-religion based music. Secular music can have all the hallmarks of religious based music in the deguise of non religion.

Yet be every bit as religious in its metaphysics and morals in proposing or even enculturing society with an alternative belief ideology about how society and the world should be ordered.

The same with political ideologies. Just because they are non of the church or a traditional religion doesn't mean secular ideologies don't act like a religion while in the guise of some rights based politics that its in the name of Rights and protections. Its still a belief and ideology and I think this is at least part of the OP point about how the Christian worldview and truths fit or conflict with secular ideologies in the past and today.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Even here a distinction needs to be made, because there are philosophical naturalists in an epistemic sense and philosophical naturalists in a metaphysical sense. Philosophical naturalism most properly applies to the epistemic sense, because its about commitments to avoiding dogma and holding to moderate skepticism regarding metaphysical ideas. There are Christian philosophical naturalists, though we are few and far between and the extent we take our philosophical naturalism to is a wide spread among us. And there are metaphysical naturalists who are not philosophical naturalists in the epistemic sense because they have adopted a positiivist attitude and abandoned moderate skepticism in favor of holding their metaphysics dogmatically. Though most of them would likely deny that they are dogmatic physicalists.

I'm mostly against metaphysics. My physics doesn't need any meta.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Actually I think you would fall into group 2. If you use science to show any alternative view is Woo then you would usae science to prove God is woo. Thats how it usually goes. If ssomeone makes the claim that God created the earth they ask for scientific evidence to refute it.

Seriously, Steve, could you knock this off. If you wanted to state that my guess about your "group" (1 - using science to prove God) was wrong that would be fine. I am not you so I don't claim to do anything but evaluate based on the external evidence available to me from your posts.

I literally told you I am in the "learn cool stuff about how thing work" category. That's why I do science. That is why I spend time learning about other people's science. No god ever entered into my motivations around anything in science. Period.

A bit of advice: When ever someone tells you about their subjective feelings, motivations, etc. Don't tell them they are wrong to their face. It's a bad move.

I've never come anywhere near calling any god "woo". Retraction requested.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Actually not just Dunn. I was actually referring to the many times on this forum where science is used to defeat claims about God, the afterlife such as NDE, Consciousness beyond brain, no objective morality, no spirituality in a real sense and basically any supernatural or should I say any explaination that cannot be verified by empiricle sciences is woo.

But the assumption that any idea that deviates from the scientific material explainations relates to Dunn's proposals of some advanced knowledge perhaps based on some force beyond what science can determine comes from a similar assumption. So it doesn't have to be God but any supernaturalism.

I was just trying to give context to anyone reading this thread but not the other (which would likely be most every one but you or I).

It can primarily be divided into two sides the scientific material reductionism and anything that doesn't fall into this paradigm.
But as we know that there is not really a clear line between secular music and is non-religion based music. Secular music can have all the hallmarks of religious based music in the deguise of non religion.

Yet be every bit as religious in its metaphysics and morals in proposing or even enculturing society with an alternative belief ideology about how society and the world should be ordered.

The same with political ideologies. Just because they are non of the church or a traditional religion doesn't mean secular ideologies don't act like a religion while in the guise of some rights based politics that its in the name of Rights and protections. Its still a belief and ideology and I think this is at least part of the OP point about how the Christian worldview and truths fit or conflict with secular ideologies in the past and today.

Seriously, do you just like disagreeing with things? None of this was necessary, and yes secular music can share characteristics with religious music, i.e., some secular music is bad.

 

[stevevw]

Seriously, Steve, could you knock this off. If you wanted to state that my guess about your "group" (1 - using science to prove God) was wrong that would be fine. I am not you so I don't claim to do anything but evaluate based on the external evidence available to me from your posts.

I literally told you I am in the "learn cool stuff about how thing work" category. That's why I do science. That is why I spend time learning about other people's science. No god ever entered into my motivations around anything in science. Period.

A bit of advice: When ever someone tells you about their subjective feelings, motivations, etc. Don't tell them they are wrong to their face. It's a bad move.

I've never come anywhere near calling any god "woo". Retraction requested.

You totally missed my point. Have you ever heard of Thomas Khun.

The point isn't about yours or mine personal subjective beliefs and positions when it comes to paradigms. Its a group thing, a bit like group think. Its an overarching set of rules, tools, language, assumptions and beliefs (not science itself) about how the world is and how we should go about measuring it.

Its when these paradigms meet that we have problems when it comes to establishing the truth and reality. Even different disciplines of science have conflicting paradigms. Let alone those coming from materialism, naturalism, spiritualism or supernaturalism.

So I said what I said not about you personally but about how the paradigm works in reality. When people from different paradigms are disagreeing about what is reality. It is easy for the scientist to use the empiriclism as the basis for what is the acceptable facts about reality to disprove any supernatural or immatierial claims. Don't you agree or not.

Otherwise if science is truely neutral then this makes it mute. No person can ever claim a fact about reality or that the science disproves alternative claims about reality as woo. Simply because to be neutral they would have to each and every time qualify their claim with

"this is just a fact about a certain aspect of reality and there may be other ways of knowing reality that science cannot know or measure. So your alternative way of knowing may be true and I cannot comment on its reality"

In fact there really is no facts to naturalism because if science can only measure a certain aspect of reality then its admitting that there are other influences it has not taken into consideration that may have influenced the data and therefore make all scientific findings suspect.

Thats if science was truely neutral. But in reality it can never be truely neutral. It does not even know the line between what is natural and what is supernatural to be neutral.

Naturalism and Science​

Naturalism and Science – Metanexus

 

[stevevw]

I was just trying to give context to anyone reading this thread but not the other (which would likely be most every one but you or I).

Seriously, do you just like disagreeing with things? None of this was necessary, and yes secular music can share characteristics with religious music, i.e., some secular music is bad.

So if I disagree that disagreeing is unnecessary especially in the search for truth then I should just agree or say nothing. I am not sure. I cannot help thinking and believing what I do. I don't mean to disagree and I don't think proposing alternative possibilities is disagreeing. Its just exploring things and should not be seen as bad.

I think it was necessary as I think at least from my POV that this thread is generally about the Christain and biblical worldview within the secular worldview whatever that is. Even if that is opposed to the Christain and biblical worldview.

Whether the Christain and biblical worldview is oppressing social progress and wellbeing. Not just within the renaissance but including today.

The renaissance was referred to I imagine as the example of the church stiffling social progress. But what about the rest of history and today. Is it the church or secular society stiffling social progress. So discussion about the metaphysical. epistemic and morality of secular society verses the church is relevant.

From memory the OP mentioned support for the Apostles Creed, the biblical basis for Marriage and how this relates to secular society in the past and today. I know the OP is a bit ambigious but that is what I got from it.

 

[stevevw]

I think the whole idea of naturalism verse supernaturalism is a red herring. Its not an either and or choice. A person who is open to supernaturalism or transcedent realities does not dismiss naturalism as far as the natural laws and empiricle evidence. We know the reality of gravity when we fall down. We know the reality of science through medicine.

So I think its a matter of degrees and just like the church can become dogmatic that their worldview is the only truth so can scientism under the guise of materialism as a metaphyical assumption. Its easy for a modern tech society to make science itself a god. The idea that science has all the answers and can account for reality without God is the natural extention.

I don't think we can seperate the observer, the one doing the measuring from that being measured. The ironic thing is that even science itself alludes to this with QM intepretations. Now you can dismiss these interpretations but they naturally flow and are intuitive of QM and many pioneers and other physicists have postulated such.

So its worth a consideration and to not be dismissed. To just dismiss it is proving the point that we cannot seperate ourselves from the metaphyical assumptions in how we measure reality.

 

[Fervent]

I'm mostly against metaphysics. My physics doesn't need any meta.

Uh huh. So you don't believe that existence is fundamentally physical, then? You take science phenomenally and don't specify an ontology?