Christian Scientists of the past

[Ophiolite]

srs said he'd never heard anyone make the claim. I was informing him that I have.

I imagine that was made to suggest that the claim is uncommon, rather than that it is never made.

 

[quatona]

This is posted for informative purposes:

I´ve never understood why the private religious affiliations of scientists would be relevant for anything any more than, say, Einstein´s individual dating preferences would.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I´ve never understood why the private religious affiliations of scientists would be relevant for anything any more than, say, Einstein´s individual dating preferences would.

Einstein dumped his first wife to marry his cousin. He was into relativity.

 

[quatona]

Einstein dumped his first wife to marry his cousin.

I´m going to keep that in mind as an argument for my next split-up.

 

[And-U-Say]

This is posted for informative purposes:

These people did not excel because they were christian, but inspire of being christian. Nothing they discovered was assisted by their beliefs, and it can be better argued that christianity held them back from greater discoveries.

And as others have noticed, you needed to go back pretty far to get your examples. Doesn't seem to work as well today, does it.

 

[Radrook]

These people did not excel because they were christian, but inspire of being christian. Nothing they discovered was assisted by their beliefs, and it can be better argued that christianity held them back from greater discoveries.

And as others have noticed, you needed to go back pretty far to get your examples. Doesn't seem to work as well today, does it.

Dr. Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), a Professor of anthropology, a science history writer and evolutionist, concluded that the birth of modern science was mainly due to the creationist convictions of its founders. "It is the CHRISTIAN world which finally gave birth in a clear articulated fashion to the experimental method of science itself ... It began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor inference with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond man's wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something to the Christian conception of the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption." [Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Centenary: Evolution and the Men who Discovered it, Doubleday: New York, 1961 p:62]

Gee! I wonder how they are going to attack that.

 

[Speedwell]

How does that inform the present discussion?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Gee! I wonder how they are going to attack that.

The specifically Christian or 'creationist' underpinnings of science are questionable, but yes, "the experimental method succeeded beyond man's wildest dreams". That's how we know evolution is real and young earth creationism is wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

The specifically Christian or 'creationist' underpinnings of science are questionable, but yes, "the experimental method succeeded beyond man's wildest dreams". That's how we know evolution is real and young earth creationism is wrong.

I think Radrook is correct, that Christianity played a role in shaping the culture which produced modern science. But times have changed, and the "Christianity" of today's creationism bears little resemblance to that earlier faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think Radrook is correct, that Christianity played a role in shaping the culture which produced modern science. But times have changed, and the "Christianity" of today's creationism bears little resemblance to that earlier faith.

He is partially right. Many early scientists were Christian. But creationism does not appear to be a driving force at all in their philosophies. Early geologists did believe in the flood of Noah and went looking for evidence of it. Instead they ended up refuting the idea. And though many scientists were Christian, they didn't appeal to God until they hit the limit of their ability to reason.

 

[KCfromNC]

How does that inform the present discussion?

You're supposed to confuse believing in a creator with the modern right-wing creationist political movement.

 

[And-U-Say]

Dr. Loren Eiseley (1907-1977), a Professor of anthropology, a science history writer and evolutionist, concluded that the birth of modern science was mainly due to the creationist convictions of its founders. "It is the CHRISTIAN world which finally gave birth in a clear articulated fashion to the experimental method of science itself ... It began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor inference with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond man's wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something to the Christian conception of the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption." [Loren Eiseley, Darwin's Centenary: Evolution and the Men who Discovered it, Doubleday: New York, 1961 p:62]

Gee! I wonder how they are going to attack that.

NO. Not even close. This is fractally wrong.

 

[Radrook]

NO. Not even close. This is fractally wrong.

Wrong in what specific way?

 

[KCfromNC]

Wrong in what specific way?

Post 31. You're confusing scientific creationism with Christian beliefs in a creator. The former wasn't even invented during the time your quote is discussing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Wrong in what specific way?

We could start with this part:

"It began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor inference with the forces He had set in operation."

Any reading of the Bible will show that this is false. God's Chosen People were about to die of starvation in the desert, so what does God do? God interferes by making it rain magical manna. The Bible is full of instances where God interferes. The last thing one should expect if God really does exist is a rational universe.

 

[Radrook]

We could start with this part:

"It began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor inference with the forces He had set in operation."

Any reading of the Bible will show that this is false. God's Chosen People were about to die of starvation in the desert, so what does God do? God interferes by making it rain magical manna. The Bible is full of instances where God interferes. The last thing one should expect if God really does exist is a rational universe.

I see nothing irrational in the ID providing food for a people he has chosen. The faith being spoken of in the quotation is the form belief that there is an order in the universe established by a creator. That there are laws that we can count on. Buttressed by that firm belief in universal, divinely-established laws Christian scientists based their experiments and confidently formulated theories. Had they doubted in a lawgiving creator there would have been uncertainty on whether their conclusions could be extrapolated universally since events within a universe based on whimsical chance can be unpredictable. That is the meaning of what was quoted and not the blind faith you are misrepresenting it with.

 

[Loudmouth]

I see nothing irrational in the ID providing food for a people he has chosen.

A rational universe does not have food magically appearing out of thin air. That you fail to see this is a failure of your own reasoning.

The faith being spoken of in the quotation is the form belief that there is an order in the universe established by a creator. That there are laws that we can count on.

The Bible clearly shows that those laws can be violated at any moment. The Bible demonstrates that if God were real that we couldn't count on those laws.

Had they doubted in a lawgiving creator there would have been uncertainty on whether their conclusions could be extrapolated universally since events within a universe based on whimsical chance can be unpredictable. That is the meaning of what was quoted and not the blind faith you are misrepresenting it with.

What process brought life into being? Was it a natural process that followed natural laws, or wasn't it?

 

[Radrook]

A rational universe does not have food magically appearing out of thin air. That you fail to see this is a failure of your own reasoning.



The Bible clearly shows that those laws can be violated at any moment. The Bible demonstrates that if God were real that we couldn't count on those laws.



What process brought life into being? Was it a natural process that followed natural laws, or wasn't it?

The Bible doesn't attribute it to magic-you do. The Bible describes it as an act from the ID who provided the manna. The thin-air part is also your idea. You see, the ID isn't obligated to produce anything out of thin air. There are other ways that manna could have been produced. So automatically and invariably attributing everything that the ID does to magic constitutes a crass misrepresentation of the described events.

No, it doesn't justify assuming an unreliability of universal laws. It merely demonstrates that the ID can supersede the laws he himself established or temporarily cancel or modify them at will. It does NOT indicate that we cannot and should not count on those laws otherwise. The special exceptions to the rules do not justify that generalization. Neither did Christian or theist scientists understand them in the way that you do.

 

[KCfromNC]

I see nothing irrational in the ID providing food for a people he has chosen.

That's the great thing about believing in magic like ID. It makes anything possible. Of course that kind of lack of testability prevents it from being science but it can make for a comfortable faith-based opinion.

 

[KCfromNC]

No, it doesn't justify assuming an unreliability of universal laws. It merely demonstrates that the ID can supersede the laws he himself established or temporarily cancel or modify them at will.

So the laws are perfectly reliable - except when a mysterious invisible magical being changes them on a whim.

If you consider that reliable I'd hate to see what you'd think an unreliable set of natural laws would be.