tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post6455851278273928004..comments2024-03-23T07:33:30.972+00:00Comments on Quodlibeta: What has theology ever done for science?Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01594220073836613367noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-62352642157091102442010-02-11T17:25:51.524+00:002010-02-11T17:25:51.524+00:00But all human endeavour in history was performed i...But all human endeavour in history was performed in a religious milieu. By necessityBotogolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17024057489361848870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-31608031703466861582009-10-26T09:49:52.383+00:002009-10-26T09:49:52.383+00:00Hi David
It's a good point you make. Modern S...Hi David<br /><br />It's a good point you make. Modern Science certainly arose out of a bewildering array of beliefs which we would now consider irrational. Astrology and Alchemy certainly provided strong motivations for people to make observations and develop the equipment and techniques which would facilitate scientific enquiry, as did belief in God. Once thinks here particularly of Jerome Cardan, John Dee and Paracelsus. <br /><br />Unlike astrology and alchemy however we still operate in a conceptual framework which retains aspects of monotheism (all science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way). We have ditched the assumptions of astrology and alchemy but we have retained assumptions which are ultimately grounded in certain (medieval and early modern) conceptions of divine activity; the idea for example of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws.Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11936974517695558399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-66003126800882341342009-10-24T19:42:17.888+01:002009-10-24T19:42:17.888+01:00I think what he meant was that theology, in this c...<b><br />I think what he meant was that theology, in this case monotheistic Christianity, provided the philosophical impetus that encouraged the development of modern science.<br /></b><br /><br />The underlying hope of articles such as these seems to be that we will find Christianity more plausible as a result. <br /><br />But when much the same can be said of alchemy laying the groundwork for modern chemistry and astrology doing the same for astronomy it's less than persuasive.David B. Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09468191085576922813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-4882950909545489882009-10-13T19:40:16.667+01:002009-10-13T19:40:16.667+01:00Humphrey,
I have often had the same thought: Dawki...Humphrey,<br />I have often had the same thought: Dawkins is a Calvinist preacher. Sometimes, when the subject of original sin comes up, I will say something about "original sin, or the selfish gene...." He has even explained why it is that everyone inherits the original sin. It's genetic! Of course, unlike Augustine, he has no basis in his own philosophy for saying we can "defy" our genes.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-81889324439648284872009-10-13T17:03:45.470+01:002009-10-13T17:03:45.470+01:00Phil B
I would suggest posting that on the forum ...Phil B<br /><br />I would suggest posting that on the forum as I suspect it's complicated. <br /><br />It's funny, but when I read 'The Selfish Gene' it read so much like a rewriting of Genesis. The modern contemporary science of sociobiology contains a theory of human nature that is remarkably similar to major versions of the Christian doctrines of original sin; so for example selfish DNA replication induces our propensity towards selfishness, self deception, jealousy and violence. However, it is also the author of co-operation and alturism; not only that but as Dawkins says 'we have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination'. Sounds a lot like Augustine when he says that we cannot overcome our more base instincts (which have been inherited through the sin of Adam) except through a gift of grace from God.Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11936974517695558399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-4004996740593383582009-10-13T14:41:29.808+01:002009-10-13T14:41:29.808+01:00Humphrey,
Ok, I'll agree to that.Humphrey,<br /><br />Ok, I'll agree to that.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18319161892002614759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-1725369321429046792009-10-13T12:22:01.959+01:002009-10-13T12:22:01.959+01:00I notice the interesting comments on the relations...I notice the interesting comments on the relationship of Fallen Man and science. Can anyone tell me how Christians who support Evolution fit in the Fall of Man into their narrative? Thanks.Phil. B.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-59030884654981377902009-10-13T10:01:40.601+01:002009-10-13T10:01:40.601+01:00Karl
"Atheism, after all, is a theological b...Karl<br /><br />"Atheism, after all, is a theological belief system"<br /><br />Shouldn't that be 'Lack of belief system' :)<br /><br />"most historians and philosophers of science agree that without theological framework provided by monotheism, especially the Abrahmic traditions like Christianity, modern science as we know it wouldn't exist."<br /><br />That's probably a bolder conclusion that most would contemplate (it's a bit of a one legged interpretation). The full historical picture is complex because science, philosophy and theology are so inextricably entwined. What we can say is that certain types of christian theology were an important factor.Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11936974517695558399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-39481626289429964052009-10-13T09:12:35.408+01:002009-10-13T09:12:35.408+01:00Apologies for the mammoth quotes - I wanted to fin...Apologies for the mammoth quotes - I wanted to find the one about whitehead's thesis and got a bit carried away...Bernardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-34213925764838889612009-10-12T22:36:07.649+01:002009-10-12T22:36:07.649+01:00Bemused,
I don't think Alexander was talking ...Bemused,<br /><br />I don't think Alexander was talking about 'allowing theology back in;' pretty hard to do that anyway considering it never really left. Atheism, after all, is a theological belief system and some scientists, like Dawkins and Meyers, are very quick to apply it to science. Besides most historians and philosophers of science agree that without theological framework provided by monotheism, especially the Abrahmic traditions like Christianity, modern science as we know it wouldn't exist. Anyway, I think Humphrey's right about the focus being on postmodernism.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18319161892002614759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-68793407517746403672009-10-12T20:09:01.522+01:002009-10-12T20:09:01.522+01:00Indeed, Christianity is as un-postmodern as you ca...Indeed, Christianity is as un-postmodern as you can get - it unequivocally states that there is a God, whether one thinks there is or not; likewise, the resurrection is an historical fact, not something that is "true for you".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-90988472184433752282009-10-12T19:24:55.497+01:002009-10-12T19:24:55.497+01:00Bemused, I think he is referring to the contempora...Bemused, I think he is referring to the contemporary attack on science by post-modernism’, which has challenged the idea of universal rationality. <br /><br />Post-modernism denies that we all share the same ability to reason, and can together arrive at a truth that holds universally. Instead it stresses the differences between traditions and epochs.<br /><br />What is regarded as obviously true at one time and place may be very different from the assumptions brought to bear at another time. There is then no common core of reasoning which all people share and no objective truth.<br /><br />It should be the job of theology to get behind science and attempt to bolster our confidence that reason is equipped to uncover the mysterious of the physical world, not set itself in opposition to science, throw itself in with post-modernism and hide in the gaps.Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11936974517695558399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-90509798605123491662009-10-12T18:46:20.850+01:002009-10-12T18:46:20.850+01:00Sorry, the second quote came from Galileo.Sorry, the second quote came from Galileo.Bernardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-60481476794511331932009-10-12T18:44:08.639+01:002009-10-12T18:44:08.639+01:00I'm not sure if it's a matter of "all...I'm not sure if it's a matter of "allowing theology back in". I think what he meant was that theology, in this case monotheistic Christianity, provided the philosophical impetus that encouraged the development of modern science. <br /><br />Melvin Calvin<br />Nobel Prize-winning biochemist<br /><br />"As I try to discern the origin of that conviction, I seem to find it in a basic notion discovered 2000 to 3000 years ago, and enunciated first in the Western world by the ancient Hebrews: namely, that the universe is governed by a single God, and is not the product of the whims of many gods, each governing his own province according to his own laws. The monotheistic view seems to be the historical foundation for modern science."<br />Chemical Evolution (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969)p.258<br /><br />The Soul of Science<br /><br />Nancy R Pearcey<br />Charles B. Thaxton<br /><br />page 25<br /><br />"As to the truth, of which mathematical demonstrations give us the knowledge, it is the same which the Divine Wisdom knoweth; but ... the manner whereby God knoweth the infinite propositions, whereof we understand some few, is highly more excellent than ours. . ."<br />Quoted by Edwin Arthur Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science: A Historical and Critical Survey (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1950), p.72. <br /><br />"Without this belief, the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope. It is . . . the motive power of research - that there is a secret, a secret which can be revealed. When we compare this tone of thought in Europe with the attitude of other civilizations when left to themselves, there seems but one source for its origin. It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of the faith in rationality."<br />Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1948), p. 18.Bernardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-21958074443712228062009-10-12T17:07:10.947+01:002009-10-12T17:07:10.947+01:00Can anyone comment on Alexander's astonishing ...Can anyone comment on Alexander's astonishing statement on the reliability of knowledge. There are any number of scientific fields where we have more reliable knowledge than we did have even five years ago- I am thinking in particular of origins of life research, some of the genetic foundations of cancer, but there are countless areas where progress is being made in understanding. Of course there are moments where progress in understanding opens new areas of research where there are new big questions but this has always been the way with science and there is nothing new here. It would be ahistorical to say we have reached some kind of watershed which somehow allows theology back in if that is what is implied here.Bemused.noreply@blogger.com