The Theist's Problem

[Rhythmcs]

The collapse of the scientific ummah is a case study in how everything theism touches dies. They were on top of the world, no competitors. Then, they had a dispute that would be familiar to us westerners today. Whether or not knowledge could be derived from logic and reason, or could only be derived from theistic sources. The latter won the argument. The odd genius popped up and plugged along for the next two hundred years or so, but the writing was already on the wall. The mongols finally put it out of it's misery.

[Minimalist]

You athiests really just hop online and post complete nonsense. It was the Moors (both Christian and Muslim) that brought scientific advancement to Europe binging them out of the dark age and into the Renaissance.

Terribly over-simplified, Huggy, but certain places in the Islamic world were centers of learning from time to time.  Baghdad is the most notable example.  Ideas have always moved along trade routes and the Middle Ages were no exception.  There was no conscious attempt to export their ideas, they were just picked up and moved by merchants and other travelers.  The thing is, the church sat there like a big pile of shit preventing progress in Europe so ideas which might have then been flourishing in Baghdad were suppressed in the West because of, you know, fucking jesus.  Contrary to modern (and thus ignorant) public opinion, the Baghdad caliphate did not massacre xtians and jews.  For a while, knowledge was welcomed and, as Patty mentioned, the translation of Greek literature was undertaken free from the deadening hand of religious intolerance.  The prevalence of Greek writing dated back to Alexander the Great and so was nothing new in the former Persian empire.

But all good things come to an end and in Baghdad the writings of a psychotic islamic cleric named al-Ghazali undercut the progressiveness of the earlier caliphs because he thought that this allah fucker didn't like it.  Ignorance in the form of angry mobs of believers manages to destroy far more than it builds.  So Baghdad was already teetering when in 1258 the Mongols came along and sacked the city and pretty much put an end to Baghdad's glory days.  BTW, in case you didn't know, the Mongols by 1258 were largely Nestorian xtians although the Mongols were also tolerant of all religions...much as the Romans had been before Theodosius and his xtian thugs came along.

You should be careful of over-simplifying history, mon ami.  It's far messier than history books make out.

[SteveII]

The theist experiences something in the real world he deems important but can't explain, so says his god is responsible.  And stops there.  Makes no attempt to ascertain a natural explanation, is content to leave it as god controlled.

Science, encountering exactly the same thing and unable to explain it, says here's a lever of control we didn't know about.  Far from stopping, science gets going on figuring out its natural mechanism.  Ultimately, science does figure it out, and humanity gains a control it never enjoyed before.

Only one of these approaches actually advances humanity's control over its own fate, which is the common aim of all humanity:  controlling its own fate.  The theist hopes to achieve it by pleasing its god and receiving favors; science sidesteps obvious nonsense and gains direct control.

The theist contributes nothing to the effort, but often hobbles it.  The theist is absolutely dependent, not on a god, but on humanity for all the benefits he receives.

And yet it's theism that demands respect.

I found this list of theists who saw the world and claimed "god is responsible...and stop[ped] there," 'contributed nothing' and who were otherwise 'hobblers' of progress:

Isaac Newton (1642-1727) - Often regarded as the greatest scientist ever, Newton was a devout Christian who wrote extensively on biblical chronology and considered his work in physics and mathematics as part of exploring God’s creation.

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) - As a committed Catholic, Galileo saw no contradiction between his faith and his work in astronomy and physics. His conflict with the Church was more about the freedom to use science to interpret scripture rather than a conflict between science and faith.

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) - A canon in the Catholic Church, Copernicus hesitated to publish his heliocentric theory not out of fear of heresy but because he wanted to present it with strong enough evidence. His work was dedicated to Pope Paul III.

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) - Kepler was a devout Lutheran who believed that the geometric harmony of the universe was God’s design. He saw his scientific pursuits as a way to glorify God.

Robert Boyle (1627-1691) - Known as one of the founders of modern chemistry and a pioneer of the scientific method, Boyle was a devout Christian. He wrote about the compatibility of science and religion and funded the Boyle Lectures aimed at defending Christianity against atheism.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867) - Faraday was a member of a small Christian denomination, the Sandemanians. He believed that his scientific discoveries revealed a divine order in the natural world.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) - An Augustinian monk, Mendel is the father of genetics. His experiments in the monastery's garden were driven by his fascination with creation, which he saw as a manifestation of God’s plan.

James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) - Maxwell, a devout evangelical Christian, who framed his understanding of electromagnetism around his faith. He was known to integrate biblical theology into his scientific lectures.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) - A mathematician and physicist, Pascal experienced a religious conversion, which led him to write in defense of the Christian religion. His thoughts on faith and reason are captured in his famous work, the "Pensées."

Georges Lemaître (1894-1966) - A Catholic priest, Lemaître first proposed what became the Big Bang theory. For him, science and religion were separate but complementary pursuits.

Max Planck (1858-1947) - The father of quantum theory, Planck was a devout Lutheran. He often expressed the view that science and religion do not contradict each other but rather complement each other, as both seek the truth from different perspectives.

Arthur Eddington (1882-1944) - Eddington was a Quaker, known for his work in astrophysics and for popularizing the theory of general relativity. His religious beliefs influenced his philosophy of science, advocating for a deeper understanding of the universe as a spiritual pursuit.


and in case you need more recent and living examples:

Charles Townes (1915-2015) - An inventor of the laser and a Nobel laureate in physics, Townes was a member of the United Church of Christ. He believed that science and religion were "siblings" under philosophy and spoke extensively about their mutual compatibility, stating that both realms seek to understand the universe and our place within it.

Francis Collins (b. 1950) - A geneticist known for his leadership of the Human Genome Project, Collins is an evangelical Christian. He wrote "The Language of God," in which he argues for a harmonious relationship between science and faith. His belief in God provides a strong foundation for his scientific exploration.

John Polkinghorne (1930-2021) - While he passed away recently, Polkinghorne was active in the science and religion discourse until his death. He was a particle physicist who later became an Anglican priest, writing extensively on the compatibility of science and religious belief.

William D. Phillips (b. 1948) - A Nobel Laureate in Physics for development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light, Phillips is a devout Christian. He has spoken about his faith as an integral part of his identity and an enrichment to his scientific insights.

Ghaleb Bader (b. 1951) - An astrophysicist and the former Archbishop of Algiers, Bader has extensively discussed the intersection of science and faith, particularly within the context of Christianity and Islam.

Jennifer Wiseman (b. 1967) - An astrophysicist and the senior project scientist for the Hubble Space Telescope, Wiseman often speaks about her Christian faith. She is also the director of the Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion (DoSER) program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, promoting dialogue between scientific and religious communities.

I think your thread would have been better named: "Problems the Uninformed Atheists Think the Theist Have". But perhaps that was too long and you shortened it?

[epronovost]

I got to admit that the OP is deeply misinformed about the relationship between theists and scientific development. While theism in and on itself is a failed epistemology to produce any form of valuable knowledge, it never prevented theist from developping and participating in scientific and academic endeavor or be generally curious as to how the world works. It's reductive and dehumanizing to reduce theists only to their theism; even the most ardent fundamentalist zealot has more dimension than this.

If you were to change all the usages of the term theist(s) for theism, you would actually have a fair critique of it.

[Mathilda]

You athiests really just hop online and post complete nonsense. It was the Moors (both Christian and Muslim) that brought scientific advancement to Europe binging them out of the dark age and into the Renaissance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

The Age of Enlightenment (also the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment) was the intellectual and philosophical movement that occurred in Europe in the 17th and the 18th centuries.[

[Dānu]

I got to admit that the OP is deeply misinformed about the relationship between theists and scientific development. While theism in and on itself is a failed epistemology to produce any form of valuable knowledge, it never prevented theist from developping and participating in scientific and academic endeavor or be generally curious as to how the world works. It's reductive and dehumanizing to reduce theists only to their theism; even the most ardent fundamentalist zealot has more dimension than this.

If you were to change all the usages of the term theist(s) for theism, you would actually have a fair critique of it.

The principle of charity in argument is to interpret a person's argument in the best possible light. I think both you and Steve have violated that principle. Both by emphasizing the particular over the general when doing the reverse is more favorable to his point.

[SteveII]

I got to admit that the OP is deeply misinformed about the relationship between theists and scientific development. While theism in and on itself is a failed epistemology to produce any form of valuable knowledge, it never prevented theist from developping and participating in scientific and academic endeavor or be generally curious as to how the world works. It's reductive and dehumanizing to reduce theists only to their theism; even the most ardent fundamentalist zealot has more dimension than this.

If you were to change all the usages of the term theist(s) for theism, you would actually have a fair critique of it.

Almost!

Theism is not a failed epistemology. I wrote this in a post long ago:

The Judeo-Christian teaching that God created the universe as a mechanistic object and as such was both knowable and discoverable. This causal understanding of the world would eventually support the inductive reasoning necessary to infer laws from observations and the Scientific Method. Of course the Greeks and the Romans were on the right path but having this concept codified in a worldview stripped of the baggage of the Greek and Roman worldview helps tremendously to make it a part of the western mind. There are many other worldviews that science did not/would not develop from.

So rather than a failure, Christianity has made one of the greatest epistemological contributions in the history of the world. --regardless of whether God exists or not.

[Huggy Bear]

You athiests really just hop online and post complete nonsense. It was the Moors (both Christian and Muslim) that brought scientific advancement to Europe binging them out of the dark age and into the Renaissance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

The Age of Enlightenment (also the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment) was the intellectual and philosophical movement that occurred in Europe in the 17th and the 18th centuries.[

I'm talking much earlier, 8th century. 
https://www.spanish.academy/blog/13-inte...and%20more.

Muslims brought innumerable cultural innovations such as alchemy, algebra, and chemistry. The concept of zero, chess, and the use of numerals came from the Moorish influence in Spain. Aristotelian philosophy had been lost until the Muslims reintroduced it in Spain.

Since the Moors ruled Spain for about 800 years, they had time to bring scientific techniques to Europe such as the astrolabe, a device to measure the position of the planets and stars. There was scientific progress in chemistry, mathematics, philosophy, astronomy, physics, and more.

[epronovost]

The Judeo-Christian teaching that God created the universe as a mechanistic object and as such was both knowable and discoverable. This causal understanding of the world would eventually support the inductive reasoning necessary to infer laws from observations and the Scientific Method. Of course the Greeks and the Romans were on the right path but having this concept codified in a worldview stripped of the baggage of the Greek and Roman worldview helps tremendously to make it a part of the western mind. There are many other worldviews that science did not/would not develop from.

So rather than a failure, Christianity has made one of the greatest epistemological contributions in the history of the world. --regardless of whether God exists or not.

This is blatantly ignorant and frankly fairly baffling. First of all the creation myths of the Judeo-Christian world were far from unique and largely borrowed from other semitic civilizations. The Greek and Egyptians cosmological accounts are similar in style. I would also question the validity of such observation since the development of naturalism in Greek philosophy predates Christianity by about six centuries and is almost contemporary with the writting of the latest of the two creation accounts in Genesis. Saying that Christianity can be credited for the idea that the universe origin is knowable and discoverable is completely unwarranted.

[epronovost]

I got to admit that the OP is deeply misinformed about the relationship between theists and scientific development. While theism in and on itself is a failed epistemology to produce any form of valuable knowledge, it never prevented theist from developping and participating in scientific and academic endeavor or be generally curious as to how the world works. It's reductive and dehumanizing to reduce theists only to their theism; even the most ardent fundamentalist zealot has more dimension than this.

If you were to change all the usages of the term theist(s) for theism, you would actually have a fair critique of it.

The principle of charity in argument is to interpret a person's argument in the best possible light.  I think both you and Steve have violated that principle.  Both by emphasizing the particular over the general when doing the reverse is more favorable to his point.

That's a fair critique indeed.

[SteveII]

The Judeo-Christian teaching that God created the universe as a mechanistic object and as such was both knowable and discoverable. This causal understanding of the world would eventually support the inductive reasoning necessary to infer laws from observations and the Scientific Method. Of course the Greeks and the Romans were on the right path but having this concept codified in a worldview stripped of the baggage of the Greek and Roman worldview helps tremendously to make it a part of the western mind. There are many other worldviews that science did not/would not develop from.

So rather than a failure, Christianity has made one of the greatest epistemological contributions in the history of the world. --regardless of whether God exists or not.

This is blatantly ignorant and frankly fairly baffling. First of all the creation myths of the Judeo-Christian world were far from unique and largely borrowed from other semitic civilizations. The Greek and Egyptians cosmological accounts are similar in style. I would also question the validity of such observation since the development of naturalism in Greek philosophy predates Christianity by about six centuries and is almost contemporary with the writting of the latest of the two creation accounts in Genesis. Saying that Christianity can be credited for the idea that the universe origin is knowable and discoverable is completely unwarranted.

You are going off on a tangent that does not seem connected. The relevant takeaway of the creation account is the universe is a thing and not itself a supernatural entity or controlled by various spirits or a pantheon of fickle gods. It is a fundamental component of both the Jewish and Christian worldview from the beginning.

The Greeks and Romans both offered sacrifices to their local gods to bribe them into helping. While their cultures made profound contributions to natural philosophy, their religious practices and polytheistic worldviews included elements that could not develop a method as systematic as the scientific method, which requires a clear separation of natural causes from divine intervention.

Certainly the transition to a fully rational and empirical approach in science was gradual and involved the transformation of ideas from many cultures, including those absorbed from Islamic scholars who themselves were influenced by Greek thought (as someone brought up earlier in the thread). The contribution of the Judeo-Christian worldview was in being one of the only worldviews (on the planet at that time) capable of fostering the necessary cultural and intellectual environment that could lead to the development of the philosophy of science--required rationalism, the differentiation of metaphysics from natural causes and effects, and distinguishing all that from religious claims.

[Minimalist]

The Greeks and Romans both offered sacrifices to their local gods to bribe them into helping.

So did the jews, dumbass.


Oh, and your godboy's crucifixion was supposed to be the ultimate "sacrifice" except due to later changes in theology he ended up sacrificing himself to himself which makes jesusism about the stupidest thing ever invented!

[epronovost]

This is blatantly ignorant and frankly fairly baffling. First of all the creation myths of the Judeo-Christian world were far from unique and largely borrowed from other semitic civilizations. The Greek and Egyptians cosmological accounts are similar in style. I would also question the validity of such observation since the development of naturalism in Greek philosophy predates Christianity by about six centuries and is almost contemporary with the writting of the latest of the two creation accounts in Genesis. Saying that Christianity can be credited for the idea that the universe origin is knowable and discoverable is completely unwarranted.

You are going off on a tangent that does not seem connected. The relevant takeaway of the creation account is the universe is a thing and not itself a supernatural entity or controlled by various spirits or a pantheon of fickle gods. It is a fundamental component of both the Jewish and Christian worldview from the beginning.

The Greeks and Romans both offered sacrifices to their local gods to bribe them into helping. While their cultures made profound contributions to natural philosophy, their religious practices and polytheistic worldviews included elements that could not develop a method as systematic as the scientific method, which requires a clear separation of natural causes from divine intervention.

Certainly the transition to a fully rational and empirical approach in science was gradual and involved the transformation of ideas from many cultures, including those absorbed from Islamic scholars who themselves were influenced by Greek thought (as someone brought up earlier in the thread). The contribution of the Judeo-Christian worldview was in being one of the only worldviews (on the planet at that time) capable of fostering the necessary cultural and intellectual environment that could lead to the development of the philosophy of science--required rationalism, the differentiation of metaphysics from natural causes and effects, and distinguishing all that from religious claims.

And this is completely false and deep misrepresentation if both early Christian and Jewish belief linked to the creation story and the development of science and naturalism. It's anachronistic and frankly even a bit racist since naturalism, rationalism and methodological naturalism developed independently in numerous region of the world before interdependently mingling and developing; it also reduces a culture to its religion (and a specific interpretation of those religions) which is a grave error in anthropology and history.

Christianism did contribute to the rise of the science and rationalism, but not through it's creed, myths or dogmas, but through the structure and politics of the Church and, to a certain point, it's rituals. The fact Christianism and Judaism, for example, cultivated and fostered a heavy literary culture and the place of privilege and authority granted to scriptures would be a great example of this. These religion to spread and exist required the creation of numerous educational institutions. This is but one example, but there are others. The Church preserving Latin and Ancient Greek as a language for communication between scholars was also of tremendous importance for the development of science and rationalism.

[SteveII]

I got to admit that the OP is deeply misinformed about the relationship between theists and scientific development. While theism in and on itself is a failed epistemology to produce any form of valuable knowledge, it never prevented theist from developping and participating in scientific and academic endeavor or be generally curious as to how the world works. It's reductive and dehumanizing to reduce theists only to their theism; even the most ardent fundamentalist zealot has more dimension than this.

If you were to change all the usages of the term theist(s) for theism, you would actually have a fair critique of it.

The principle of charity in argument is to interpret a person's argument in the best possible light.  I think both you and Steve have violated that principle.  Both by emphasizing the particular over the general when doing the reverse is more favorable to his point.

Sometimes the argument is so disconnected with reality or assert conclusions that are obviously false, even the 'general' version does not have a 'best light.' I suppose I could have been less sarcastic in pointing that out...we all have our struggles.

But it brings up an interesting point. How hard should you be on someone who thinks they have a good argument or even opinion? I have seen you hit people hard on occasion. Is that an attempt to suggest that they need to do better or think twice about opining on things they know very little about?