The Religious Method

[Notedstrangeperson]

That's actually a fascinating statistic when you think about it. The obvious question is "Why?".

Because it's too cold in Sweden to be thinking about going shooting people

Interestingly there are more gun suicides in Sweden rather than gun homicides (113 as of 2010). Sweden also has a higher sucide rate than the USA too (15.3 versus 12.0 per 100,000). For whatever reason Swedes seem more likely to turn the gun on themselves rather than others.

Having been to Sweden several times myself I can't say I blame them ...

 

[Michael]

As for North Korea, as I mentioned to Wiccan_Child many anti-religious states (almost all of them in fact) try to replace religion with another enforced set of beliefs, no doubt so that they can use the power religious rituals have for their own ends. I used the Temple of Reason during the French Revolution as an example. An irrational belief isn't automatically a religious belief.

The basic concept of all such states is to elevate the state and the structure of the state the level of 'godhood'. In other words, nothing can be more important than the state, and the government of the state. This is effectively the Chinese mentality. Anything that would put the state "below" any other authority becomes a threat to the state and it is dealt with very harshly.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And you are expecting an answer. For whatever answer you are expecting, your assumptions are in effect.

Incorrect. I expect an answer, insofar as there are three possibilities - "Yes", "No", and "I don't know" - from which every answerer must choose. I am no expecting an answer, insofar as I haven't presumed either one to be true ahead of time.

I expect an answer, I don't expect any particular answer. If I roll a die, I expect some result, but I don't expect or anticipate or presume or assume or predict or prophecy any particular result.

If I roll a die, I have no assumptions about what result will come up, except that it must lie within those logically possible.

The description for the label ("atom") is not congruent with the phenomena you are attempting to explain.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and you are being deliberately obtuse. Until you actually try to make yourself understood, I'm not going to waste my time unravelling your riddles.

It's not between science and religion. You need to ask why we trust materialism over theism.

Whoever says that we do?

 

[Elendur]

Interestingly there are more gun suicides in Sweden rather than gun homicides (113 as of 2010). Sweden also has a higher sucide rate than the USA too (15.3 versus 12.0 per 100,000). For whatever reason Swedes seem more likely to turn the gun on themselves rather than others.

Having been to Sweden several times myself I can't say I blame them ...

best one in a long time!

 

[Greg1234]

Incorrect. I expect an answer

Exactly. Why would you expect theism to uphold your atoms. I'm not answering whether or not you expect theism to produce atoms, but why you expect your definition of the phenomenon to be upheld in the first place. Your post had the statement that those atoms were "beyond reasonable doubt." There was no specification as to which group upholds it. The implication of that is universality- all groups do. I'm asking you, firstly, why you would expect that.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and you are being deliberately obtuse. Until you actually try to make yourself understood, I'm not going to waste my time unravelling your riddles.

Ditto.

Whoever says that we do?

You asked "do you know why we trust science over religion?" I told you it's between materialism and theism. Therefore, your post should read (or "you need to ask") "do you know why we trust materialism over theism."

 

[chilehed]

The scientific method arose from Christendom in large part because Christianity holds that a rational god created a rational universe which is understandable; science rests on philosophical presuppositions that are not scientifically verifiable. So it's not reasonable to propose that there can be such a thing as knowledge that arises out of scientific (but not religious) methodology, in a way similar to the fact that it's not reasonable to hold that there can be a tree growing in Kansas that is not also growing in North America.

 

[Elendur]

The scientific method arose from Christendom in large part because Christianity holds that a rational god created a rational universe which is understandable; science rests on philosophical presuppositions that are not scientifically verifiable. So it's not reasonable to propose that there can be such a thing as knowledge that arises out of scientific (but not religious) methodology, in a way similar to the fact that it's not reasonable to hold that there can be a tree growing in Kansas that is not also growing in North America.

Everything requires (or at least seems to require) assumptions that cannot be verified. In my eyes science limits those assumptions to their minimum, regarding the natural world.

You're essentially writing that the scientific method arose from christian philosophy and therefore science is a subset of christian philosophy.
That's a non sequitur.

 

[CabVet]

The scientific method arose from Christendom in large part because Christianity holds that a rational god created a rational universe which is understandable;

A universe created in 6 days is rational? Walking on water is rational? Killing your entire creation (even though you are omniscient) in a global flood is rational? Sending your own son to be tortured and killed by your own creation is rational? Creating a special place called hell for eternal punishment of those that don't follow you is rational?

Oh, please, you can call Christianity and the Christian God many things. Rational is not one of them.

science rests on philosophical presuppositions that are not scientifically verifiable.

Let's see if you know what you are talking about, shall we? How about you give us 5 examples of scientific presuppositions that are not verifiable? Just 5.

So it's not reasonable to propose that there can be such a thing as knowledge that arises out of scientific (but not religious) methodology, in a way similar to the fact that it's not reasonable to hold that there can be a tree growing in Kansas that is not also growing in North America.

Completely wrong.

 

[Tomk80]

In the end, what science rests on most, as far as I can tell, as pragmatism. Does it work? Keep it. If it does not work? Discard it.

At its core, science makes the pragmatic assumption that if something works, it is probably close to true. While this may not be verifiable, I fail to see how this assumption is unreasonable. It is also not an assumption that relies on Christianity, even if (and I find this claim unsupported by any of its proponents on this thread at the moment) it may have originated form it.

 

[chilehed]

A universe created in 6 days is rational? Walking on water is rational? Killing your entire creation (even though you are omniscient) in a global flood is rational? Sending your own son to be tortured and killed by your own creation is rational? Creating a special place called hell for eternal punishment of those that don't follow you is rational?

The way you pose those questions indicates that your understanding of either the events, Christian theology, or logic (singly or in combination) is flawed. Given a proper understanding, yes, all of those are rational.

Oh, please, you can call Christianity and the Christian God many things. Rational is not one of them.

It is, and I do.

I don't suppose you noticed that nothing you said actually contradicted my assertion. All you did was complain that you don't understand the rational behind the events, and conclude from that fact that there must not be any rationality. Non-sequitur.

Let's see if you know what you are talking about, shall we? How about you give us 5 examples of scientific presuppositions that are not verifiable? Just 5.

If you are unwilling to admit that there are such presuppositions (it's obvious that you're smart enough to know that there are), and insist on five when even one proves my point, then I see no reason to belabor them.

Completely wrong.

Bare assertion.

 

[chilehed]

Everything requires (or at least seems to require) assumptions that cannot be verified. In my eyes science limits those assumptions to their minimum, regarding the natural world.

You concede my point.

You're essentially writing that the scientific method arose from christian philosophy and therefore science is a subset of christian philosophy.
That's a non sequitur.

You have an odd understanding of what non sequitur means. Natural philosophy (which is the historical term that includes what today is called "science") is indeed a subset of Christian philosophy.

 

[CabVet]

The way you pose those questions indicates that your understanding of either the events, Christian theology, or logic (singly or in combination) is flawed. Given a proper understanding, yes, all of those are rational.

No, it is your understanding of "rational" that is flawed.

It is, and I do.

You can call it whatever you want, it does not make it so.

I don't suppose you noticed that nothing you said actually contradicted my assertion. All you did was complain that you don't understand the rational behind the events, and conclude from that fact that there must not be any rationality. Non-sequitur.

There is nothing rational behind a supreme being creating a paradise garden, putting two fully grown people in it, and putting a tree with the most delicious fruit in the center of that garden to tempt them. If God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from the fruit, the rational thing to do would be not to put it there in the first place (especially because he knew they would eat).

If you are unwilling to admit that there are such presuppositions (it's obvious that you're smart enough to know that there are), and insist on five when even one proves my point, then I see no reason to belabor them.

Bare assertion.

As I suspected, you don't know of a single example.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The scientific method arose from Christendom in large part because Christianity holds that a rational god created a rational universe which is understandable;

It also arose in the Middle-East during the Islamic Golden Age for much the same reasons (but with 'Christian' and 'Christianity' replaced with 'Muslim' and 'Islam'). This is a curio of the scientific method's historical development, as is, say, its geographical origins (in the West rather than the East, and for good reasons).

But saying that this makes science a subset of religious philosophy, and specifically Christian philosophy, is a non sequitur - it does not follow. Science is no more a distinct subordinate to religious philosophy any more than it is subordinate to Western philosophy - it come from thinking done in Christendom, but it makes no Christian presuppositions, it makes no foundational assumption that Jesus was God incarnate and died for our sins (etc).

Indeed, its historical roots happen to run through Ancient Greece as much as Christendom; does this mean that modern science is necessarily and inextricably within the domain of Zeus? Of course not.

science rests on philosophical presuppositions that are not scientifically verifiable.

Certainly: it rests on presuppositions like "1 + 1 = 2" and, more fundamentally, the axiomatic foundation of logic and mathematics.

So it's not reasonable to propose that there can be such a thing as knowledge that arises out of scientific (but not religious) methodology, in a way similar to the fact that it's not reasonable to hold that there can be a tree growing in Kansas that is not also growing in North America.

Sadly, it doesn't follow that nested hierarchy.

To say that it is, is to say that I am Jewish by virtue of being born in the UK - after all, my culture is indelibly linked to its Christian history, which is itself rather heavily based on the Christian religion (in its various incarnations - Catholicism, Protestantism, etc), which is itself a follow-up to Judaism. Therefore, since these monikers are apparently inherited, I am Jewish because the culture of the place of my birth happens to run through Jewish history.

But British culture is also profoundly influenced by Russian history and culture, so that means I must be Russian too!

And just like that, I'm an Anglo-Russian Jew. Oj vey!

(If you think my logic is flawed, then yours is too. PROTIP: Monikers don't operate under the transitive property).

 

[Elendur]

You concede my point.

Of course, I dare you to do anything without a set of axioms and definitions.

You have an odd understanding of what non sequitur means. Natural philosophy (which is the historical term that includes what today is called "science") is indeed a subset of Christian philosophy.

See what Wiccan_Child wrote (I've bolded the text):

...
But saying that this makes science a subset of religious philosophy, and specifically Christian philosophy, is a non sequitur - it does not follow. Science is no more a distinct subordinate to religious philosophy any more than it is subordinate to Western philosophy - it come from thinking done in Christendom, but it makes no Christian presuppositions, it makes no foundational assumption that Jesus was God incarnate and died for our sins (etc).
...

To make a crude comparison (putting christianity in a more flattering position than it deserves in this case) would you say that a car is a subset of a factory?

A better comparison would be that, according to your logic, taxi-cab geometry and spherical geometry are both subsets to euclidean geometry.
In reality they're not.

 

[Tomk80]

Of course, I dare you to do anything without a set of axioms and definitions.


See what Wiccan_Child wrote (I've bolded the text):


To make a crude comparison (putting christianity in a more flattering position than it deserves in this case) would you say that a car is a subset of a factory?

A better comparison would be that, according to your logic, taxi-cab geometry and spherical geometry are both subsets to euclidean geometry.
In reality they're not.

Also, I'd like some support for the claim that science arose due to Christianity, rather than they both being the result of different cultural factors. I realize that these can be hard to disentangle, but given that science-like systems have arisen in Greco-Roman, Islamic and Christian times, and that other civilizations such as China also had similar systems in place, my suspicion is that it was not so much the beliefs of Christianity, but other cultural factors that influenced the rise of science in Europe towards the system it is now.

 

[Johnnz]

Also, I'd like some support for the claim that science arose due to Christianity, rather than they both being the result of different cultural factors. I realize that these can be hard to disentangle, but given that science-like systems have arisen in Greco-Roman, Islamic and Christian times, and that other civilizations such as China also had similar systems in place, my suspicion is that it was not so much the beliefs of Christianity, but other cultural factors that influenced the rise of science in Europe towards the system it is now.

I'm not sure you know too much about the history of ideas and why the Greeks, Japanese, Chinese and Arabs, who were way ahead of Western Europe in the Middle Ages did not develop science and technology.

The Greeks could never have developed science and technology;their cosmology made that impossible. Same with Eastern worldviews.

John
NZ

 

[CabVet]

I'm not sure you know too much about the history of ideas and why the Greeks, Japanese, Chinese and Arabs, who were way ahead of Western Europe in the Middle Ages did not develop science and technology.

The Greeks could never have developed science and technology;their cosmology made that impossible. Same with Eastern worldviews.

John
NZ

What do you mean with "did not develop science and technology"? Those civilizations developed plenty of science and technology. And why exactly do you think western Europe was so behind during the Middle (Dark) Ages? Did the church have anything to do with that perhaps?

 

[AV1611VET]

And why exactly do you think western Europe was so behind during the Middle (Dark) Ages?

It was in the shadow of Aristotle's folly, who stunted the growth of science for almost two thousand years?

 

[Johnnz]

What do you mean with "did not develop science and technology"? Those civilizations developed plenty of science and technology. And why exactly do you think western Europe was so behind during the Middle (Dark) Ages? Did the church have anything to do with that perhaps?

I can see you do have an information gap. Read Rodney Stark and look at some of his references.

But very basically, if you see matter as contrary to the ideal spiritual world and under the control of various gods and their changeable moods you have no basis for science as we know it.

John
NZ

 

[Tomk80]

I'm not sure you know too much about the history of ideas and why the Greeks, Japanese, Chinese and Arabs, who were way ahead of Western Europe in the Middle Ages did not develop science and technology.

The Greeks could never have developed science and technology;their cosmology made that impossible. Same with Eastern worldviews.

John
NZ

Yes, you have claimed that multiple times now. I asked you to actually support that.

What you are stating about the Greeks and Eastern worldviews is incorrect, by the way, and betrays an ignorance of the respective philosophies in those areas at the time.