I wasnt referring to the study of philosophy. What I said is we cannot function as a sane rational society without philosophy. I know of a few societies who have tried, by banning all knowledge or referral to philosophies other than that of the governing leadership. I would not consider any of them to be rational, nor would I or anyone here want to live in them.
Oh dear. I am quite familiar with Rider College. I gave a talk there once. If that is your example, then I think we can safely ignore your comment.
That statement is so false, that I have no further interest in engaging with you. Please do me the favor of ignoring my posts as well. We have nothing to discuss.
That;s a great question, and I would love to answer it, but cannot do so now. I am trying to do several things at once, which is never a good idea for me. Hopefully in a couple of days, if nobody else (Eddie? Jon?) has answered I can give it a shot. For now, Happy Thanksgiving, and all the best.
I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m saying that the principles of science are based off the metaphysical assumption that the universe can be comprehended and understood. If all of reality is just random chaotic things happening for no reason, then how can one hope to understand any of it? Large portions of scientific thought arose out of Christian theology. What used to be called “God’s Laws of Nature” are now just called “The Laws of Nature” … They mean the same thing, but the word “God” is simply omitted. You say science arose out of old science … What? And where did that science come from? You’re just pushing the ball farther and farther back while I’m asking about the core foundation of science (something you seem to have little interest in) … The fact is science would not be possible without the metaphysical assumption that the universe can be understood. It baffles me that you exercise no existential thought in the fact that you (a compilation of particles and energy) are postulating theories and making predictions about the reality of other particles and energy. You live your life thinking the you’re a “someone” and yet your worldview demands that you’re a “something — a non-entity”. I don’t how one can live with such double-mindedness.
Your last comments about science providinf more leisure and comfort for future generations is true. But is that what all life is about? Comfort and leisure? Sounds like Brave New World to me. I don’t measure the importance of life or quality of life based on whether or not a person had access to purified water … Or if he had to get water from a dirty pond. Whether a person lives in a cardboard box or lives in a mansion.
And lastly … You’re remark about human reasoning and scientific investigation being the only sources of knowledge, is the philosophy of Bertrand Russell and scientism.
Science wasn’t born out of Christian theology. Science was nearly crushed by the Church in science’s infancy. Now that science is all grown up and actually much bigger than theology, theology would like to harmonize with it. Well I don’t think that is possible, science and the technology that comes from it is now the foundations of the modern world and theology is pretty much done for. To survive in modern secular society you had better have a good grasp of the science and the technology that is created and changes the world over and over again at a more and more rapid pace.
In the Middle Ages when the power of the Church was at its zenith, people lived in poverty, with disease and pestilence. It was science and the resulting technology (like mechanized farming, electrification, electromagnetic communications) that changed the world and allow life spans into the 90’s and a life style for everyone that was only reserved for the Kings and Bishops of the Middle Ages. During the past 500 years, theology has been a drag on scientific advancement. Now theology isn’t even an annoyance anymore as the science and technology fields doesn’t even consider theology or philosophy in its work. Science and technology are the economy of the world.
The more accurate statement is probably that the Church from time to time CRUSHED some individual scientists … but with a high enough altitude of viewpoint (say centuries instead of decades), science continued with a hiccup here or there… but always moving forward.
This statement is very misleading, Patrick. You’re implying that the Church is the CAUSE for people living in poverty, disease and pestilence. And it was science that saved us. The problem is that you’re making an artificial distinction … Over here in this corner is Faith … And over here is Science. But for centuries most scientists were highly religious and even believed they were honoring God by doing science.
The other problem is that Church History is at least 2,000 years old (longer if you consider Judaism)… Not just 500 years. Many of the older writings make statements that were the beginnings of scientific thought. You need to clarify what you mean when you say, “The church almost crushed science” … Have you studied the history of the relationship between theology and science?
Again I also ask you. Does science work if the universe we live in is just random chaotic things happening? Explain why science supports itself and is not based off of metaphysical assumptions.
I’m not sure what you mean by “to survive in today’s secular society you need to have a grasp on science and technology.” … According to your worldview, none of us survive.
Eddie - just to add to your excellent summary the idea that metaphysical error can take science backwards as well as delay it, I must add that in refusing to consider the moon as the casue of the tides, on metaphysical grounds, Galileo was overturning the truth that had been discoved by St Bede.
Galileo quite literally put the study of gravity back a thousand years (so hooray for Newton!)
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that the principles of science are based off the metaphysical assumption that the universe can be comprehended and understood.
This is incontrovertible - and materialism completely undermines it, as has been repeatedly shown by those who can think. Take someone like Dennett, beloved of Patrick. He concludes that everything we see is “nothing but” matter.
Most significant, the ideas we we have about ourselves turn out, in the light of materialist evolution, to be mere illusions. “Consciousness” is just the movement of particles. “Free will” is something nature sells us in order to cooperate with our selfish genes. “A person” is an imaginary construct, because we need to “face up bravely” to the truth that we are merely matter in motion.
Religion. of course, is just a ploy of evolution that possibly once helped our survival.
But hold on - if all that’s true, then it’s also necessarily true of “reason”. Quite apart from the futility of a “non-conscious” “non-person” claiming to be able to think, reason itself is just an evolutionary ploy to survive on the savannah, with no truth content whatsoever. Science, then, with its vaunted truth value is, according to the materialism of Dennet and Dawkins, utterly unreliable - and that’s if you can square the circle that the very people who do it are mere illusions!
So science can only be done by parasitising something like the Christian metaphysics of a rational God who gives us true reason in a rational world - thus enabling science.
I like the idea of Conor Cunningham when he writes about the way materialistic naturalism destroys everything, including itself: “There’s a nasty smell in every room naturalism enters. Maybe we should ask if it’s really the rooms that smell.”
Patrick argues that science is growing bigger than theology. I argue that the son may grow up to be stronger while the father gets older and weaker. The son may be more popular while the father fades into memory. But it doesn’t change the fact that the son would not exist without the father.
I watched one video where a speaker made an evolutionary argument against naturalism. Assuming that evolution is completely governed by random unguided processes it makes the likelihood of the appearance of a mind that can reason, and can be trusted, virtually nil. Why should one feel confident in their own ability to reason, assuming you’re very existence (which includes all the pathways that lead to your existence) was an accident built upon other accidents?
There’s no answer to that argument, Tim, except scientistic believism - and, of course, working very hard to avoid seeing such videos, reading such books and so on. Fortunately for them the New Atheists are adept at sticking their fingers in their ears and saying “La-la” (or more often “Yah-yah”) and have written so much you can spend your entire life in their cocoon.
To adapt your analogy of the father and the son, in the parable it was the son who wasted himself spending his father’s capital - and was eventually glad to find that his father was very far from dead!
I wasn’t implying that the Church was causing the world conditions at the time. I am only saying that it was secular advances in science, technology, sanitation, medicine that let to a better world for millions of people. You give that credit to God, I give that credit to the thousands perhaps millions of people who actually did the work to make society what it is today.
Yes, science works in a random chaotic universe. Take next year’s hurricane, as an example, it is modeled by meteorologist, predicted by these models, people warned about the path and severity of the approaching storm, buildings codes chanced to withstand the storm, emergency medical teams ready to treat the injured. Since nobody (including God) knows the outcome of the hurricane, we prepare ahead of time using our current science of prediction and probability. Praying to God provides no help, nor warning, nor aid. But using the latest science and technology, lives are saved, damage is minimized, people are helped.
The statement is not false. It is you who is looking at history with rose colored glasses. Every scientific advance of the past five hundred years has been looked upon by the Church with disdain. Each scientific advance has to be looked at to see how it fits with Church dogma and doctrine. Even today this is true. Take an advance like the Guardisil vaccine. Every religion had to discuss it to see if conformed to its doctrine and dogma.
Saint Eddie,
Are you now the defender of the Catholic Church? No, I am not going to show that every scientific advance has been looked upon by the Church with disdain. I really don’t care about what the Church thought or did in the past five hundred years - that is why is am a none.