Of course, since there is “male nor female,” that verse doesn’t matter. Oh, wait! I took that singular verse from Ephesians out of context! Sorry.
Intrigued, I looked up Anaximander in Wikipedia and found the following statement:
" Anaximander put forward the idea that humans had to spend part of this transition inside the mouths of big fish to protect themselves from the Earth’s climate until they could come out in open air and lose their scales.[61] He thought that, considering humans’ extended infancy, we could not have survived in the primeval world in the same manner we do presently."
I have to be frank and say, this isn’t the theory of Evolution! Its superficial resemblance requires that we ignore the framework of Anaximander’s thought.
1 Like
Nonsense. He was the first rationalist thinker. These guys thought up atoms. They were naturalist.
On what basis did they think up atoms, and how is that similar to or different from the process that has gone into our current understanding of atoms?
- “Our current understanding of atoms” is and has been balderdash.
- I assume the existence of an object that I shall call the world . I refer to the same object that is otherwise more profusely called the real world or the physical universe.
- The world is a set. The elements of the world are particles. There was once a special word that served as a name for the particles that are the elements of the world. This word was atom . Due to a series of vagaries, this word has become the generic name of a class of entities that are not the elements of the world. An enormous amount of confusion was necessary as a precondition for this happenstance. An enormous amount of additional confusion has ensued as a result of it. There is no possible cure for this confusion except that the atomists reclaim the word. Therefore, I shall be using the word atom as a name for the elements of the world. I shall insist that the things presently being called atoms by others be called something else. A suitable name for the things that Dalton called atoms, under the mistaken impression that they were indivisible, would be chemon , pronounced /KEHM on/, and meaning ‘chemical entity’. A chemon is a set of atoms and a subset of the world.
- The atoms are engaged in an ongoing process that goes by the name of moving through the void. In order to describe this behavior of the atoms, it is necessary to invent two complicated abstract concepts, called space and time , along with some auxiliary concepts that are necessary for describing the structure of space and time.
- Space is a set. The elements of space are points . The points are some distance each from each. Each such distance may be specified as the product of a nonnegative real number and a unit of distance, such as 3 miles or 4,828.032 meters.
- Time is a set. The elements of time are instants. The instants are some distance each from each. Each such distance may be specified as the product of a nonnegative real number and a unit of distance, such as .03 days or 2,592 seconds.
1 Like
The answer is in the etymology, a-tom. Indivisible, literally uncuttable. There cannot be an infinite regress of division of substance and it still be a particular substance. Brilliant reasoning for the time and for over two thousand years.
1 Like
The problem with the notion of “uncuttable” is that we keep finding ways to cut things up with linear accelerators into sub-atomic particles. Then we have the notion that such particles are simply vibrating strings of energy. I think that some of these ancient Greek philosophers, if miraculously brought back to life, would need something of a bridging course to bring them up to speed.
The ancient Greek philosophers were certainly brilliant to a degree, and those with Greek ancestry have every reason to be proud. However, such a focus on the Greeks is usually part of what historians call the “Galileo Myth”, a science versus religion dichotomy dreamt up at the end of the 19th century.
There are two reasons to be dubious of it. First, many Greek philosophers were actually against what we know as science today. In addition, they were women-haters, which doesn’t quite gel with what we know of the scientific ability of women.
The second reason is that this focus on the ancient Greeks completely ignores the contribution of the empires which came before them. Are we to ignore the great empires of the Assyrians and the Babylonians, which both rose and fell twice, or that of the Persians and Egyptians. These great empires left us with architecture and engineering marvels that indicate advanced knowledge of engineering, mathematics and material science. The Mesopotamian civilizations gave us the wheel and alphabetical language. Do you think these civilizations did not think rationally? Or do you think they had not come to terms with triangles and rectangles?
The ancient Greek philosophers thought that everything beyond the Moon had to move in perfect circles with uniform speed; an error that led Nicholas Copernicus astray, until Johannes Kepler corrected his thinking with the understanding that the same laws of physics which apply in the sub-lunar world also apply beyond it.
If one were to search for the origins of modern science one would be well advised to look to Christian clergy. Fr George Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang theory of the universe, Rev John Michell proposed the existence of Black Holes, explained earthquakes as movement of the Earth’s strata, the use of electricity to create an electromagnet, the gravitational bonding of binary stars, and more. Augustinian monk, Gregor Mendel, began the study of genetics. Edward W Morley, of the famous Mickelson-Morley experiment, was at the same time a professor of chemistry and a church pastor. And of course, Johannes Kepler, who had been trained to be either a church pastor or a Lutheran school teacher, was the first to abolish the ancient Greek nonsense about things beyond the Moon moving in perfect circles and uniform speed. Oh, I almost forgot: James Clerk Maxwell’s revelation about the nature of the electromagnetic spectrum. Not a Christian clergyman, but a licensed lay preacher in the Church of Scotland.
1 Like
What’s your point? Rationalism and philosophy started with Thales and the pre-Socratics. These guys were the best there could have been. What’s that got to do with religion again?
Let me try again. “Rationalism” can be understood in a number of ways.
If you think of it as a school of philosophy, then it is the enemy of empiricism. Empiricism is the methodology of science. Using the principles of empiricism, one gets data from experience from which one induces a theory. Reason is then used to deduce an expectation based on that theory which can be tested against more data. Theories are thus either supported or not.
If you think of rationalism as the use of reason, then human beings have used reason since time immemorial. For example, King Sargon II of Assyria defeats the northern kingdom of Israel in the 8th century B.C. He takes the chariot regiment of Israel and transplants it straight into the Assyrian army. Why? He reasons correctly that military regiments operate as teams and thus should not be taken apart one by one. There you have it. No ancient Greeks required.
This website is all about the compatibility of science and the Christian Faith.
That’s not an example of rationalism. And it’s a very odd non-example to choose. Why did you choose it? Thales and the other pre-Socratic genii, particularly Anaximander - whom you can see in Pliny half a thousand years later, used rationalism as opposed to supernaturalism - godsdidit - by at least an order of magnitude. They thought. They tried to find natural, common sense explanations for all phenomena. That inevitably led to empiricism. I see no rational enemies of Eratosthenes’ or Archimedes’ empiricism.
This website is far from all about the compatibility of science and the Christian Faith. All about would include the fact that there is none, null unless we’re talking about the leap of faith. Which transcends the null compatibility.
Who was Paul? Who gave him authority to write about order between Men and Women?
Paul isn’t writing about Evolution. Paul is writing that Woman submit to your Husband crap.
Go tell this to Women in Shelters and/or Woman who have Restraining order to protect themselves from their Husbands.
1 Like
Coca. Paul was writing. Nearly two thousand years ago. There were no Women in Shelters, no Restraining orders. They are late C20th Western developments. Whoever tries to make what Paul was saying back then applicable to now is… crap.
Some Christian clergy contributed, but they are hardly the originators of modern science. What about Darwin? And Wegener? And so on.
[EDIT: I corrected the spelling of Wegener’s name]
I did not express myself in such absolute terms. I sought only to correct the erroneous view that the Christian Faith was opposed to science; a fact which becomes readily apparent when the work of clergy and other Christians is researched.
The transition from trust in the ancients was gradual and a study of it is detailed. I cannot present it here, but you can find it in the works of historians of science who footnote every step with references. I’d recommend: Peter Harrison. The Bible, Protestantism and the rise of Natural Science. 1998. Cambridge University Press. You can find more of his books here:
Amazon.com: Peter Harrison: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle
A quick look at Peter Harrison’s book titles was very interesting.
- Peter Harrison is a former Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford and is presently Research Professor and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland. He was the 2011 Gifford Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh and holds a Senior Research Fellowship in the Ian Ramsey Centre at Oxford.
-
Thanks.
1 Like
but modern science doesn’t originate with ordained scientists
1 Like
I am starting to feel this debate is a little lop-sided, beaglelady. I am providing all the research and you are just making statements. So I think it is time you defined your terms and provided some material to back up these claims.
I agree. You keep moving the goal posts
Listing books on Amazon that have nice covers.
Statements that you are supposed to read. They are counter arguments to your arguments. I provided the names of two scientists who provided the modern foundations to their relative areas of science. And they were not ordained.
Charles Darwin: His theory of evolution is the foundation of biology
Alfred Wegener: His theory of continental drift/plate tectonics is the foundation of geology
What terms should I define? What material do you need?
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.