Over the last couple of centuries, science has had great success in explaining natural phenomena in terms of natural processes. For example, research and development efforts have given us automobile engines that are much more efficient than they were when cars first came on the scene. The science of biology has also exhibited tremendous advancement in probing the inner workings of the cells of life. Shouldn’t science continue this trend in searching for a natural explanation for the origin and development of life on Earth?
Why shouldn’t we assume that inanimate objects (atoms and molecules) in conjunction with natural sources of energy can create life? One reason is that our advancing knowledge of the biochemical activities within the cell has revealed a metropolis of mechanisms that far surpasses the functional complexity of anything else observed in the universe. We could plausibly continue to assume that life arose naturally if it could be demonstrated that natural processes systematically increase the information content of closed systems over time. But to persist in believing that nature can do something that contradicts natural law is not science, but a form of idolatry.
Prescientific peoples used to worship rocks or carved pieces of wood and declare, “My father!” But that practice became unfashionable well before the age of science. So then, it was thought that the Earth gave birth to life (exchanging a small rock for a large one). But scientists began to realize that even this was unlikely, so an appeal was made to the greater universe for the origin of life.1 With the advent of further understanding of the vast information content of biomolecules and the low probability of any sort of chance assemblage of such molecules within our universe, the size of the “rock” was enormously expanded to encompass multiple universes. How much bigger could it get? Does size even matter? Isn’t it all fraught with the same essential absurdity—calling a rock, “My father!”?
Perhaps we unconsciously ascribe fertility to the Earth, since out of its soil grow all of the plants that provide food for animals and for us. And yet the Earth would produce nothing without the seeds of the plants. One of biology’s “universal laws” (accredited to Rudolph Virchow) states, “Every cell comes from a pre-existent cell.”2 So, we look to the seed, and what do we find? A rich storehouse of information coded in the seed’s DNA. We find information as the source of the physical complexity of life; the Earth is just the environment in which the seed’s hidden information can be unfolded and activated.
From where does the information embedded within the seed come? Not from the Earth, nor from the stars, nor from the Big Bang origin of the physical universe.
Canceled Science, p. 212
The level of information found within a seed can only come from a mind so far above our own that to ascribe it to God is not a statement of religion, but of logic. As physicist Gerald Schroeder has said, “information…is the link between the metaphysical Creator and the physical creation. It is the hidden face of God.”3
1. F. H. C. Crick and L. E. Orgel, “Directed Panspermia,” Icarus 19 (1973): 341-346.
2. Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001), p. 99.
3. Gerald L. Schroeder, The Hidden Face of God: Science Reveals the Ultimate Truth (Touchstone, New York, 2001), p. 49.
didn’t read the post but the outer quote is Self evident
Darwinists believe in miracles. How else does life come from no life, or the universe and laws of physics being created? They believe all happened through a natural miracle without a shred of evidence to discount God.
This is probably the most surprising thing I’ve read from Dr. Hedin. i mean, this is seriously, blatantly dumb, and Dr. Hedin seems to be a very intelligent person.
As soon as the word “God” is used, it points to something specific. We usually use this word with a capital to refer to a specific creator.
While science and logic most definitely points to a creator of immense intelligence as the source of the universe and Earth, it does not point to any specific religious interpretation of this creator. For that one has to go to other sources besides science.
Logic can point to other aspects of the creator. For example, intent and purpose seem obviously part of the creation and logic then helps us understand more about the creator but definitely far from everything that is part of the plan.
And while life as we know it seems to be part of this plan and also extremely complex, it does not mean that the creator of the universe and the creator of life are the same entity.
In addition to what Jerry said, there’s also “a mind so far above our own ..”
My most charitable interpretation of this would be if by “mind” Dr. Hedin is actually referring to intelligence, specifically the capacity of intelligence to apparently generate highly complex, coherent, organized, functioning sets of information.
I don’t think we know enough about the role of “intelligence” when it comes to acquiring/generating information. Note: I did not say sentience, but rather whatever “intelligence” is. The existence of autistic savants, acquired savant (sudden genius) syndrome, and people (like Tesla) who just seemed to “receive” already-existent information from some unknown source casts doubt on the idea that what we call relative degrees of “intelligence” has much to do with the ability to produce astounding amounts of quality information.
Our idea of the order of this, that intelligence is the cause of this kind of information, seems to me to be incorrect due to the counterfactuals above. It seems more like intelligence is more like how we grade the quality of the information that is coming through the sentient being. IOW, it’s not a cause, it’s a description, the same way that gravity is not a cause, but rather a description.
It seems that every time I open this blog, there is one more piece of evidence that ID is inexorably evolving into a full- fledged religion…..
The creator of the universe most definitely had life as we know it as part of the plan for the universe. That is obvious.
Whoever created life, that creator also has a massive intelligence and a purpose that is consistent with the creation of the universe. They may or may not be the same entity but obviously acted in sync somehow if they are different.
Aside: another supercilious but specious comment from our resident master of the non-sequitur and ongoing fallacy generator.
Someone should teach him logic.
As to: “The level of information found within a seed can only come from a mind so far above our own that to ascribe it to God is not a statement of religion, but of logic. As physicist Gerald Schroeder has said, “information…is the link between the metaphysical Creator and the physical creation. It is the hidden face of God.””
And while this logical inference to God is certainly a perfectly valid, and solid, inference to make, it is necessary to dive a little more deeply into the exact nature of ‘information’ in order to more ‘scientifically’ link the information content in life more directly to God,
When Darwinists and ID proponents debate about information, the vast majority of times they are debating over the classical sequential information found in life. More specifically, the vast majority of times Darwinists and ID proponents debate over the fact that unguided material processes are found to be grossly inadequate to account for the ‘classical’ sequential information found in DNA and proteins,,
And while the ‘classical’ sequential information content of a typical bacterium is impressive,,
And while the ‘classical’ sequential information content of a typical bacterium is impressive, (and is far beyond the capacity of unguided Darwinian to explain the origin of), that ‘classical’ information content pales in comparison to the amount of ‘positional’ information that is found in a typical bacterium when working from the thermodynamic perspective.
The information content of a ‘simple’ cell, when working from the thermodynamic perspective, is found to be on the order of 10^12 bits,
And 10^12 bits is equivalent to approx. 100 million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Now that massive amount of information for ‘simple’ life certainly invokes a fairly strong inference to God
But to go even further than that in inferring God,,, in regards to thermodynamics and life, Dr. Brian Miller states that, “No system without assistance ever moves both toward lower entropy and higher energy which is required for the formation of a cell.”
And Dr. Miller also stated,, “the generation of a minimally functional cell on the ancient Earth required a local system of molecules to transition into a state of both lower entropy and higher energy.,, The only plausible explanation for the origin of life is intelligent agency.”
i.e., it is only by an intelligence imparting (positional) information into ‘a local system of molecules’ that we are able to move toward lower entropy and higher energy at the same time in order to move towards life.
Importantly, and as far as empirical science is concerned, Dr. Miller’s claim has now been experimentally realized.
In the following 2010 experimental realization of Maxwell’s demon thought experiment, “they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information.”
As Christopher Jarzynski, (who was instrumental in formulating the ‘equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information’), stated, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,”
Moreover, the Maxwell demon thought experiment has now been extended to build ” a tiny machine powered purely by information,”.
In fact, as of 2021, a ‘Information engine’ has now been constructed that achieves “power comparable to molecular machinery in living cells,”
An ‘Information engine’ that achieves “power comparable to molecular machinery in living cells”?
As if an ‘information engine’ that achieves “power comparable to molecular machinery in living cells”
was not more than enough to make a committed Darwinian materialist’s head spin, in quantum information theory it is also held that entropy is not a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system
As the following article states, “James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,
Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
And in the following 2011 paper, researchers ,,, show that when the bits (in a computer) to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,, In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that (in quantum information theory) an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.
To repeat, “In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that (in quantum information theory) an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer.”
That statement is simply completely devastating to the reductive materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, and is a full empirical vindication of the presuppositions of Intelligent Design, where it is held that only an Intelligent Mind has the capacity within itself to create the information that is needed to ‘thermodynamically’ explain life.
Moreover, to show that it is indeed God who is imparting this massive amount of ‘positional’ immaterial information into life, (in order to ‘locally’ circumvent the second law with immaterial information), I can appeal to advances in quantum biology.
Specifically, Quantum Entanglement/Coherence, and/or Quantum Criticality, is now found to be ubiquitous within life. i.e. It is found within every important biomolecule of life.
As the following 2015 article entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules”, stated, “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
Even DNA itself is now found to be dominated by quantum information, not by classical information. In the following video, at the 22:20 minute mark, Dr Rieper shows why the high temperatures of biological systems do not prevent DNA from having quantum entanglement and then at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper goes on to remark that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it.
In is also important to point out that ‘classical’ sequential information, (such as what is encoded on DNA, proteins, etc..), is a subset of quantum information.
What is so devastating to Darwinian presuppositions with the (empirical) finding of pervasive quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement within molecular biology, is that quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement is a non-local, beyond space and time, effect that requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its existence. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, and especially with the falsification of ‘hidden variables’, simply have no beyond space and time cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the non-local quantum coherence and/or entanglement that is now found to be ubiquitous within biology.
Whereas on the other hand, the Christian Theist readily does have a beyond space and time cause that he can appeal to so as to explain quantum entanglement, and/or quantum information that is now found to be ubiquitous within life. And indeed, Christians have been postulating just such a cause for a few thousand years now. As Colossians 1:17 states, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”
It is also important to realize that quantum information, unlike classical information, is physically conserved. As the following article states, In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.
The implication of finding ‘non-local’, (beyond space and time), and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created nor destroyed), quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have fairly strong empirical evidence indicating that we do indeed have a transcendent, metaphysical, component to our being, a “soul”, that is, in principle, capable of living beyond the death of our material/temporal bodies.
As Stuart Hameroff succinctly stated in the following article, “the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
Personally, I consider these recent findings from quantum biology to rival all other scientific discoveries over the past century. Surpassing even the discovery of a beginning of the universe, via Big Bang cosmology, in terms of scientific, theological, and even personal, significance.
As Jesus once asked his disciples and a crowd of followers, “Is anything worth more than your soul?”
Verse:
Of supplemental note, long before DNA, and the information therein, were even known about, and/or discovered, Christianity was on record claiming that life had an ‘author’.
Also of additional note:
CD at 6,
Oh no! A religion. Can’t have that.
Seriously, the odds of life by chance have gone beyond any reasonable, scientific interpretation. And so evolution, as described in Biology textbooks, did not happen. So even though ID, the science, does not describe the “intelligence,” individual people can. It’s God, the Christian God.
CD at 6
I know, right?
It’s like, embrace, deny, embrace, deny.
The truth keeps slipping out.
The truth that there is a creator has become obvious.
It’s no longer slipping out. It’s out.
Someone else who is in denial. Where do they come from?
Now how can we learn more about this creator? That would be the intelligent question
Relatd: It’s God, the Christian God.
Interestingly enough, I recently found out that Isaac Newton was a anti-trinitarian. From Wikipedia:
Now, I don’t know much about such things so I’ll just ask: Was Newton a Christian in the same way you are? Would you consider his ‘god’ the same as yours?
(I realise this has nothing to do with God being the creator but I thought it was an interesting theological point of discussion. I am familiar with the Unitarian church and I always wondered if they should be considered Christians . . .)
Of note: This video, via Discovery Institute, was just uploaded,
By the way, quantum entanglement is no big deal. Humans have built quantum computers.
Unitarians are not Christians per se. You can have any beliefs and join.
Jerry at 13,
Read the Bible.
As to the claim that Newton was heterodox:
Of related note, Newton was also NOT a Deist as some atheists have tried to claim.
Further notes:
Relatd/16
Perhaps Unitarians believe the three parts of the Trinity are quantum-entangled into single entity.
Seversky at 19,
You are a singular… uh… singular… uh… let me get back to you on that.
– OR –
In this case, I can replace, ha, ha, ha, with groan, groan, groan.
“quantum entanglement is no big deal”
Well, the decades of experimentation, and very angry debate between physicists, over quantum entanglement, i.e. over ‘spooky action at a distance’, certainly begs to differ.
As well, you do also realize that man-made quantum computers are no where near the sophistication of the ‘quantum computing, and/or quantum ‘searching”, that we are witnessing in life do you not? i.e. protein folding,, DNA search problems, etc.. etc.. ??
Bornagain77: As to the claim that Newton was heterodox:
It’s pretty clearly supported by reading what he actually wrote:
Newton’s view on 1 John 5:7
Newton’s view on 1 Timothy 3:16
Newton clearly, but privately, was an anti-trinitarian. It’s very clear. He said so himself but did not tell many people because of his fear of prosecution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_Scripture
Ba77 at 21,
They figured it out. It is no longer “spooky” or anything like that. Bigger and better quantum computers are coming.
https://www.ibm.com/quantum
The quantum, meaning sub-atomic, interactions occurring in living things is being figured out as well. Artificial photosynthesis, for example.
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2021/Q2/soaking-up-the-sun-artificial-photosynthesis-promises-a-clean,-sustainable-source-of-energy.html
Scientists brainwashed by years of “evolution,” meaning God did not do it, can’t see certain things because the brainwashing prevents it. Those who are starting to figure things out, while still believing God did not do it, are making some progress.
Take molecular switches that regulate cell processes.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-022-00407-0
WJ Murray @3
You’re right that this was not the most academically rigorous statement, but it achieved the objective of stirring up some commentary.
However, I would hope that negative ad hominem comments would be replaced with comments that address the stated content.
Is there a vast amount of complex specified information resident within a seed?
Can natural processes produce the complex functional biochemistry representative of that information? If so, where is this seen (outside of the focus of the discussion–namely living things)?
If natural causes cannot accomplish something, is it not logical to assume that a super-natural (or metaphysical) cause is responsible?
To ascribe this to “God” is a reasonable conclusion, but the term, “God,” could be taken as shorthand for some being intelligent and capable enough to accomplish the outcome.
Any further thoughts?
Relatd, so quantum entanglement is no longer ‘spooky’ in your book?
Well golly gee whiz, thanks for clearing that up.
Geez.
Pater Kimbridge/12
There is a lot of approach-avoidance happening in the ID world. Maybe even enough for a good social psych dissertation. But it’s never been a big secret, that the Christian God would win the day. The game was rigged from the start. Presently we see what I call God of the Gaps 2.0–updated to exploit the latest mysteries in science while trying to keep the pews from emptying out completely. You can have your science and eat it too………..
JVL, an atheist, blatantly ignores the fact that Newton’s Theistic views, whatever they might specifically be, are diametrically opposed to his atheism, and wants to attack Newton as a heterodox Christian.
This diversionary tactic reveals all we really need to know about JVL and his lack of intellectual honestly with himself and others.
But anyways, and again, (and apart from his biased wikipedia citation), there are good reasons to doubt that Newton was heterodox:
CD at 26,
The game was rigged. Ah hah. Thanks for exposing the conspiracy. Feel free to publish The Wedge Document.
Soon, you, yes you, will be living under a Theocracy… Gasp!
“In February 2022, the Vatican released statistics showing that in 2020 the number of Catholics in the world increased by 16 million to 1.36 billion. That means that 17.7% of the world’s population is Catholic.”
Ba77 at 25,
The military has this technology but 5 to 10 years more advanced than what is available to the public. Just don’t tell Russia or China.
Bornagain77: an atheist, blatantly ignores the fact that Newton’s Theistic views, whatever they might specifically be, are diametrically opposed to his atheism, and wants to attack Newton as a heterodox Christian.
I’m not attacking Newton at all. I am merely pointing out that Newton, as he himself wrote, thought the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was a corruption of the original message. He said so himself and you can actually read his monograph because it’s been digitised:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cIoPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
The first paragraph alone makes his view clear. You can continue to deny that this is the case but you will have ignore something that Newton wrote and sent to a friend. I feel that it is respectful to represent him as he himself saw himself.
I am well aware of Newton’s deeply thought through theological beliefs and the fact that it is in opposition to my own views is not the point or why I brought up his documented anti-trinitarianism. I just thought it was interesting and wondered if, in the view of some of the commenters here, he would be considered a Christian today.
Have you actually read what he wrote? Don’t you think you should before you draw conclusions that may not be correct?
This tactic reveals all we really need to know about JVL and his lack of intellectual honestly with himself and others.
Anyone can follow the above link I provided and read what Newton wrote. Just read the first two, brief, pages and see what you think. Unless you’re afraid of being shown to be incorrect.
But anyways, and again, there are reasons to doubt that Newton was heterodox:
I’ll take the man at his own word(s) which he committed to paper (sixty-six pages worth) and sent to a friend. I would consider the man’s own statements to be a better judge of his beliefs than anyone else’s interpretations especially if those interpretations are based on public statements which, as has been made clear, were subject to scrutiny and possible prosecution if they were judged to be heretical. The title of the work is: An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture which he reiterates at the beginning of section II on page two.
Admitting that Newton was an anti-trinitarian has nothing to do with your own beliefs or reasons for having them. It harms you not at all to acknowledge something that is clearly true. Unless . . . you can’t bear having been wrong. In which case you have to defend your clearly incorrect position beyond the point of sensibility.
Also, remember, that scholarly opinion of Newton’s beliefs is NOT just based on this one document. It’s a kind of smoking gun to be sure. I would suggest that anyone who cherry picks Newton’s beliefs is at risk of drawing an incorrect conclusion and being accused of confirmation bias or trying to bend someone else’s own beliefs to fit their own.
JVL again,
To emphasize, via Stephen Meyer, who has a PhD in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge (which is Newton’s Alma Mater), according to the best present scholarship available, “what seems to be the best view of Newton’s view is that he doubted the Athenation formulation of the trinity, with its reliance on Greek philosophical concepts like ‘substance’, but was trinitarian.”
You are right, Newton’s views on the trinity “has nothing to do with your own beliefs or reasons for having them.” And indeed, I believed that Newton was a heterodox Christian for years without being overly troubled by it, and thus was pleasantly surprised when Dr. Meyer pointed this recent scholarship on Newton’s belief out.
But as for you, and seeing that Newton can rightly be called the father of modern physics, I certainly can see no easy resolution for your ‘scientific atheism’, which is diametrically opposed to the essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions, which Newton held, and which lay behind the founding of modern science.
Thus JVL, rather than being overly concerned with whether I believe Newton was orthodox, or heterodox, I think that your personal time could be much better spent on figuring out exactly why you yourself are not overly concerned that your atheistic worldview cannot provide the necessary presuppositions that are essential for ‘doing science’ in the first place?
That glaring defect in your own atheistic worldview, of not being able to ground science, is not a minor problem, but is definitely an ‘elephant in your living room’ defect which you ignore at your own peril, to the point of rendering anything else you may say about science pointless and absurd..
chuck @6
:))))))))))))))))
you clown … says someone who BELIEVES in the most absurd / stupid/ ridiculous ‘scientific’ theory every developed … developed by a bunch of romantics (biologists and other -logists) who have no idea what they talk about … that is the reason why this theory is so absurd and ridiculous … these people just talking nonsense because they are not qualified to comment on these things … we hear the most absurd things a scientist can claim …. made-up stories …. just-so stories … fairy tales … on top of that, these people are always wrong … we hear every day about new findings challenging decades-long Darwinian dogmas :)))))))) BUT OF COURSE … HOW ELSE … this is how it ends, when you have been telling just-so stories for 150 years …
ID or creationism at least makes sense unlike Darwinism …. Darwinism requires high level of faith :))))))))))
Bornagain77: To emphasize, via Stephen Meyer, who has a PhD in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge (which is Newton’s Alma Mater), according to the best present scholarship available, “what seems to be the best view of Newton’s view is that he doubted the Athenation formulation of the trinity, with its reliance on Greek philosophical concepts like ‘substance’, but was trinitarian.”
Clearly there are differing views on the matter. Again, I’ll take Newton based on what he himself said in private to avoid persecution. Persecution from the Christian authorities who had terrorised Galileo before (was that encouraging science?) and people who Newton knew of for heretical beliefs.
But as for you, and seeing that Newton can rightly be called the father of modern physics, I certainly can see no easy resolution for your ‘scientific atheism’, which is diametrically opposed to the essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions, which Newton held, and which lay behind the founding of modern science.
I have never denied or side-stepped Newton’s deeply held theological views. Again, I take him at his own words. I don’t feel I have to ‘resolve’ anything. Lots and lots of science is done, even by Newton, without reference to a creator or design. Newton clearly thought the design was there, no question. He probably did feel motivated to find the design and the order he thought was put there by a creator. But there have been plenty of curious and outstanding scientists, past and present, who have not shared that view and their work is also important and, in some cases, foundational. It should be unnecessary to point out that Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Pythagorus, Hypatia, Hippocrates, etc were not Christians. I don’t know about Fibonacci or Cardano or Descartes or Fermat or many of the pre-Newtonian scientists and mathematicians but I suspect many who came after him like Lebnitz, Legrange, Gauss, LaPlace, L’Hopital, Abel, Poincare, Cantor, Hilbert, Hardy, Ramanujan, Russle, Tesla, Edison, Maxwell, etc were far less devote. I left off Euler who did profess a deep faith but you’d never know that if you only read his mathematical work.
Thus JVL, rather than being overly concerned with whether I believe Newton was orthodox, or heterodox, I think that your personal time could be much better spent on figuring out exactly why you yourself are not overly concerned that your atheistic worldview cannot provide the necessary presuppositions that are essential for ‘doing science’ in the first place?
Because it’s clear that all you need is a deep seated curiosity about how the world works to do science. The ancient Greeks and Romans and Egyptians showed that along with the Chinese and Muslims. Oddly enough, once the Christians took over science in the west stalled out for about a thousand years after that. That fact alone makes me question the necessity of Christian thought to motivate the development of scientific practices and thinking.
All cultures who have had the stability and money to fund experimentation along with the desire to build things that are bigger and faster and more powerful have pushed the scientific boundaries. When the west became quite wealthy and rich compared to the rest of the planet they pushed the boundaries even more. The fact that they were Christian I think is coincidental. Have you been to Rome or Athens or Egypt and seen the things they built and constructed which are still extant? The Pantheon in Rome is a concrete dome that is nearly 2000 years old! Stonehenge was around 2500 BC!! And there are those pyramids. (I should also point out that the Mayans built incredibly large and difficult structures well before the Christians showed up.) The Christians came up with nothing like that for a millennium. They didn’t immediately pick up from what the ancient cultures had done, they forgot all those skills and abilities for centuries. Just look at the early Christian art, it’s childlike compared to what the Greeks and Romans had been making. Granted, in Rome and some of the surrounding areas some of the ancient building techniques were continued but were they improved upon or furthered? Not until the second millennium.
That glaring defect in your own atheistic worldview, of not being able to ground science, is not a minor problem, but is definitely an ‘elephant in your living room’ defect which you ignore at your own peril, to the point of rendering anything else you may say about science pointless and absurd..
When the Christians finally had the time and inclination to pursue science they started where the ancient Greeks and Romans and Egyptians had been before. If anything, Christianity slowed down the progress of science.
Just because your deeply held faith is central to your own values and morals and beliefs and practices does not mean that that is true for everyone else or for the many cultures whose accomplishments are still incredible and inspiring especially considering how many of them were built sometimes thousands of years before Christ was born and, in the case of Stonehenge and the Pyramids, before there was even an organised Jewish faith. I celebrate all the creative and hard working ‘scientists’ who have changed the world without trying to tie them to a particular theological view. Especially when they lived and worked before Christianity existed.
JVL your references to Newton’s own words does not contradict the point that Dr Meyer made in the video, but instead reinforces it.
Perhaps you should read ‘Newton’s own words’ more carefully with what Dr. Meyer stated in mind?
The rest of your post is a dodge to the fact that you have no rational philosophical basis for doing science. Sorry, but ‘curiosity’ is certainly not going to get you out of your jam with having the right philosophical presuppositions for doing science.
Etc.. etc.. etc.
Of final note, since I have many other things to do today I will comment no further on this thread. But my absence from the thread should not be taken to mean that I concede any further falsehood that JVL may try to repeat or claim.
JVL at 33,
So at the end of the day, your only apparent goal is not just supporting atheism but that man without God/gods is pure and more creative. Why did the process of mummification disappear in Egypt? Why did the Roman Empire fade away? And what happened to the knowledge gained?
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0385418493
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0812972333
https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Philosophers-Medieval-Foundations-Science/dp/1848311508/ref=sr_1_1?crid=13HCZY1UU0S36&keywords=god%27s+philosophers&qid=1658951535&s=books&sprefix=god%27s+philosophers%2Cstripbooks%2C178&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Built-Western-Civilization/dp/1596983280/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1K3JT4GDQ66QT&keywords=how+the+catholic+church+built+western+civilization&qid=1658951586&s=books&sprefix=how+the+catholic+church+buil%2Cstripbooks%2C109&sr=1-1
Bornagain77: your references to Newton’s own words does not contradict the point that Dr Meyer made in the video, but instead reinforces it.
Have you actually read what Newton wrote in the letter I linked to?
Perhaps you should read ‘Newton’s own words’ more carefully with what Dr. Meyer stated in mind?
Have you actually read what Newton wrote in the letter I linked to?
The rest of your post is a dodge to the fact that you have no rational philosophical basis for doing science. Sorry, but ‘curiosity’ is certainly not going to get you out of your jam with having the right philosophical presuppositions for doing science.
Well, apparently the ancient Egyptians and Greeks and Romans and Chinese and Muslims and Mayans and Aztecs had what it takes. Lest we forget the people who built Stonehenge and Göbekli Tepe. And there was those mound builders in pre-Christian North America. Some of the things those cultures created are still in existence. You can go see them. Strangely not a single one of those cultures was Christian and only one of them could be even considered People of The Book. But I guess we can just ignore all the stuff those people did because they didn’t consider Jesus to be their own personal saviour. Seems a pity but that’s what you’re telling me. Yup, those heathen/pagan Greeks and Romans and Egyptians had no reason for building such lasting structures, for creating vast quantities of art, large amounts of literature . . . unless . . . unless they too had a philosophical outlook that also said there was some kind of order and reason for the world being the way it was. But, if that’s the case then Christianity has no unique claim to provide that impetuous. It’s a real puzzle. Unless you’ve already made up your mind.
But my absence from the thread should not be taken to mean that I concede any further falsehood that JVL may try to repeat or claim.
Did you actually read what Newton wrote?
JVL at 37,
Have you read any books about the Mound Builders? My readings show that since the native people of North America lived nomadic lives, these mounds contained artifacts that imply they were discarded. So they were garbage dumps for indigenous people and no different from the massive hills built by modern people that contain broken artifacts from our current civilization.
Have you read anything about native American beliefs? It’s a bit more complicated than what you imply.
Your philosophical outlook is “Look. Here are civilizations that did great things, so God – any version – is not required. Man, by himself, does not need God.” Look up Aztec mythology. Get a copy of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Gods certainly dominated ancient life.
Christianity exists in the present since it deals with things that actually happened since the foundation of the world.
Relatd: So at the end of the day, your only apparent goal is not just supporting atheism but that man without God/gods is pure and more creative.
Clearly that’s not what I was saying. Clearly what I was saying is that many cultures have been creative and scientific, not just the Christian ones. And, arguably, the foundation of scientific thinking was laid down by the pagan Greek philosophers. And, arguably, once Christianity was on the ascendancy many of the skills and techniques that built Ancient Rome fell into obscurity.
Why did the process of mummification disappear in Egypt?
I’m not an Egyptologist so I can’t answer that question authoritatively but I do know that because of generations of warfare internally and externally Egypt lost a lot of man power and money. You can see that when you compare the pyramids (tombs) and the tombs created for the later pharaohs. Eventually the Greeks came in and basically took over the country and they didn’t embalm their dead as far as I know.
Why did the Roman Empire fade away?
Well, they probably overextended themselves during the early centuries AD and then there ended up being a lot of infighting between the rulers and ruling class. The empire split and started to shrink and was unable to fight off some of the incursions being made especially from the north east. The Christian church barely managed to hold on and they smartly sent out missionaries to covert the pagan hordes. But those missionaries didn’t teach the converts mathematics or construction or building techniques.
And what happened to the knowledge gained?
Some of the knowledge was transmitted via written material but while that works for mathematics or philosophy and history it’s not so good with painting and sculpture and architecture. With no strong central authority to collect taxes and spend money for large scale civic constructions and support for artisans and artists the skills faded and died. And then people were not taught to read and write by the monks and clergy. Alfred the Great is estimated to have learned to read in his 40s. Most medieval leaders spent most of their time on warfare and protected their territory or trying to collect more territory. Few nations or states had enough money or were at peace long enough to support much more that smaller scale efforts: some jewellery, some sculpture, some illustrated manuscripts. But big building projects? Large urban development? Not so much. I’m not saying it never happened but not like when the Greeks or Romans or Egyptians were in charge at their peaks. Not until the second millennium did the Gothic Cathedrals start to arise. Not until there were some rich centralised powers were artists paid large commissions to create (mostly ecclesiastical) works of art. Sure, by the time of Raphael the Catholic Church WAS the major building and artistically powerhouse of Europe. But that was well over 1000 years after it became the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Jerry @ 4: “While science and logic most definitely points to a creator”
I was lazy when I made my comment @ 1. I thought to have changed it to “creator” but, just posted.
JVL at 39,
Did you read the descriptions for the books I posted at 36? It’s clear to me that Christianity, through the Catholic Church, saved ancient documents from being lost. The Church created the University. A place where expert painters, for example, could teach others. The same with other subjects.
Or are you saying that the Church impeded progress in all areas? Cultural and scientific?
Your view of the ancient world focuses on money, large building projects and warfare. I can assure you, the Catholic Church, and monks copying ancient manuscripts, brought everything forward.
Relatd: Have you read any books about the Mound Builders? My readings show that since the native people of North America lived nomadic lives, these mounds contained artifacts that imply they were discarded. So they were garbage dumps for indigenous people and no different from the massive hills built by modern people that contain broken artifacts from our current civilization.
They had pretty convoluted designs if they were just for waste disposal. Have you looked at the patterns they constructed? They aren’t just mounds. I’d use rubbish as well if there was plenty of it about but if I just wanted to get rid of stuff I wouldn’t build complicated designs.
Have you read anything about native American beliefs? It’s a bit more complicated than what you imply.
All I said was that they weren’t Christians.
Your philosophical outlook is “Look. Here are civilizations that did great things, so God – any version – is not required. Man, by himself, does not need God.” Look up Aztec mythology. Get a copy of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Gods certainly dominated ancient life.
Okay, if that’s the case, that some kind of theology is required, then Christianity has no unique claim to be the one necessary source for a philosophical basis for science.
Christianity exists in the present since it deals with things that actually happened since the foundation of the world.
Most faiths make statements based on some kind of conjecture about the foundation of the world. Have you looked into Zoroastrianism? It sounds very much like Christianity in many aspects. And they all think or claim that they are dealing with things that actually happened. There are thousands of origin stories that have been proposed and believed.
So, again, what special claim does Christianity have?
Zoroastrians believe that there is one universal, transcendent, all-good, and uncreated supreme creator deity, Ahura Mazda, or the “Wise Lord”
Zoroastrian theology includes foremost the importance of following the Threefold Path of Asha revolving around Good Thoughts, Good Words, and Good Deeds. There is also a heavy emphasis on spreading happiness, mostly through charity, and respecting the spiritual equality and duty of both men and women
The religion states that active and ethical participation in life through good deeds formed from good thoughts and good words is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. This active participation is a central element in Zoroaster’s concept of free will and Zoroastrianism as such rejects extreme forms of asceticism and monasticism but historically has allowed for moderate expressions of these concepts.
In Zoroastrian tradition, life is a temporary state in which a mortal is expected actively to participate in the continuing battle between Asha and Druj. Prior to its incarnation at the birth of the child, the urvan (soul) of an individual is still united with its fravashi (personal/higher spirit), which has existed since Ahura Mazda created the universe. Prior to the splitting off of the urvan the fravashi participates in the maintenance of creation led by Ahura Mazda. During the life of a given individual, the fravashi acts as a source of inspiration to perform good actions and as a spiritual protector.
Relatd: Did you read the descriptions for the books I posted at 36? It’s clear to me that Christianity, through the Catholic Church, saved ancient documents from being lost. The Church created the University. A place where expert painters, for example, could teach others. The same with other subjects.
The Muslims copied and preserved many, many Greek and Roman texts actually. Look it up. The Muslims had many places of learning as did the Greeks and Romans. Hypatia, as just one example, taught at such a place in Alexandria in the 400s . .. maybe. Certainly Pythagorus had his own school of education.
Or are you saying that the Church impeded progress in all areas? Cultural and scientific?
No but I’m saying that we call the first 1000 years of the Christian Era the dark ages because a lot of learning and skills and techniques were largely forgotten or lost and the church didn’t get things going again on its own. It took something else.
Your view of the ancient world focuses on money, large building projects and warfare. I can assure you, the Catholic Church, and monks copying ancient manuscripts, brought everything forward.
Who read those ancient manuscripts? Not the common folk. Not even the ruling class. Only the monks themselves. Meanwhile, in the Muslim world they had international centres of learning like Baghdad where astronomy and mathematics in particular were being developed. Algebra is a Arabic term as are the names of many stars and astronomical features and events. Our numerals are Arabic. What were the Christians doing at the same time? Not very much. Yes, they did make lots of very pretty copies of mostly Christian texts but were they sponsoring centres of learning, were they helping to develop mathematics and astronomy? Were they building large scale irrigation systems?
In 762 CE, Baghdad was chosen as the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate, and became its most notable major development project. Within a short time, the city evolved into a significant cultural, commercial, and intellectual center of the Muslim world. This, in addition to housing several key academic institutions, including the House of Wisdom, as well as a multiethnic and multi-religious environment, garnered it a worldwide reputation as the “Center of Learning”.
From Wikipedia:
The Islamic Empire established across Persia, the Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa, Iberia, and in parts of India in the 8th century made significant contributions towards mathematics. Although most Islamic texts on mathematics were written in Arabic, most of them were not written by Arabs, since much like the status of Greek in the Hellenistic world, Arabic was used as the written language of non-Arab scholars throughout the Islamic world at the time. Persians contributed to the world of Mathematics alongside Arabs.
In the 9th century, the Persian mathematician Mu?ammad ibn M?s? al-Khw?rizm? wrote an important book on the Hindu–Arabic numerals and one on methods for solving equations. His book On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals, written about 825, along with the work of Al-Kindi, were instrumental in spreading Indian mathematics and Indian numerals to the West. The word algorithm is derived from the Latinization of his name, Algoritmi, and the word algebra from the title of one of his works, Al-Kit?b al-mukhta?ar f? h?s?b al-?abr wa’l-muq?bala (The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing). He gave an exhaustive explanation for the algebraic solution of quadratic equations with positive roots, and he was the first to teach algebra in an elementary form and for its own sake. He also discussed the fundamental method of “reduction” and “balancing”, referring to the transposition of subtracted terms to the other side of an equation, that is, the cancellation of like terms on opposite sides of the equation. This is the operation which al-Khw?rizm? originally described as al-jabr. His algebra was also no longer concerned “with a series of problems to be resolved, but an exposition which starts with primitive terms in which the combinations must give all possible prototypes for equations, which henceforward explicitly constitute the true object of study.” He also studied an equation for its own sake and “in a generic manner, insofar as it does not simply emerge in the course of solving a problem, but is specifically called on to define an infinite class of problems.”
In Egypt, Abu Kamil extended algebra to the set of irrational numbers, accepting square roots and fourth roots as solutions and coefficients to quadratic equations. He also developed techniques used to solve three non-linear simultaneous equations with three unknown variables. One unique feature of his works was trying to find all the possible solutions to some of his problems, including one where he found 2676 solutions. His works formed an important foundation for the development of algebra and influenced later mathematicians, such as al-Karaji and Fibonacci.
Further developments in algebra were made by Al-Karaji in his treatise al-Fakhri, where he extends the methodology to incorporate integer powers and integer roots of unknown quantities. Something close to a proof by mathematical induction appears in a book written by Al-Karaji around 1000 AD, who used it to prove the binomial theorem, Pascal’s triangle, and the sum of integral cubes. The historian of mathematics, F. Woepcke, praised Al-Karaji for being “the first who introduced the theory of algebraic calculus.” Also in the 10th century, Abul Wafa translated the works of Diophantus into Arabic. Ibn al-Haytham was the first mathematician to derive the formula for the sum of the fourth powers, using a method that is readily generalizable for determining the general formula for the sum of any integral powers. He performed an integration in order to find the volume of a paraboloid, and was able to generalize his result for the integrals of polynomials up to the fourth degree. He thus came close to finding a general formula for the integrals of polynomials, but he was not concerned with any polynomials higher than the fourth degree.
Absolutely nothing comparable was being done in Christian Europe at that time. Read that last paragraph again; not only were the Muslims translating Greek texts but one of them came up with the rudiments of calculus hundreds of years before Newton was born.
JVL at 42,
I have a friend who declared to me that he was a Zoroastrian years ago. I don’t know if he still is. I know all about it.
But here is the key statement: “… then Christianity has no unique claim to be the one necessary source for a philosophical basis for science.”
The Catholic Church has two types of knowledge: secular and spiritual, and, unlike science, can combine the two to present a clear picture to mankind about reality. It is the vanguard and source of truth.
You say: Look at all these other cultures who did great things in terms of art and science. I’ve read quite a bit about ancient technology. The water wheel to grind grain, the sun dial and what could be determined about large and elaborate buildings. There is still no solid information about how the pyramids were built, how the stones were set in place so precisely.
You bring this up to say God – any version – is not necessary to create a civilization but that is not true. I think it is very important for you to exalt man and ignore the Christian God completely. In that sense, God is not just unnecessary but an irritant. A source of distress. That man, left to his own devices, can do everything he wants and God and religion are impediments.
JVL at 43,
“No but I’m saying that we call the first 1000 years of the Christian Era the dark ages because a lot of learning and skills and techniques were largely forgotten or lost and the church didn’t get things going again on its own. It took something else.”
What was this “something else”?
JVL at 44,
Don’t assume I don’t know things. I know we use Arabic numerals and the contributions made by Arab scholars, but they too are children of Abraham. Your attempts to cut Christianity off of human civilization like it was a diseased arm will fail. The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
https://www.pas.va/en/about/history.html
https://www.catholic.com/video/the-myth-of-the-dark-ages
Again from Wikipedia:
The House of Wisdom existed as a part of the major Translation Movement taking place during the Abbasid Era, translating works from Greek and Syriac to Arabic, but it is unlikely that the House of Wisdom existed as the sole center of such work, as major translation efforts arose in Cairo and Damascus even earlier than the proposed establishment of the House of Wisdom. This translation movement lent momentum to a great deal of original research occurring in the Islamicate world, which had access to texts from Greek, Persian and Indian sources. The early existence of Muslims throughout time has always had a connection with the institution of libraries that came to not only be a mechanism of pursuit, but relatively a storehouse of intelligence and mental heritage for all humanity. The rise of advanced searches in mathematics, organized studies, astronomy, philosophy, and medicine began the pursuit for Arab science. This scientific leap established a demand for more and updated translations.
The House of Wisdom was made possible by the consistent flow of Arab, Persian, and other scholars of the Islamicate world to Baghdad, owing to the city’s position as capital of the Abbasid Caliphate. This is evidenced by the large number of scholars known to have studied in Baghdad between the 8th and 13th centuries, such as Al-Jahiz, Al-Kindi, and Al-Ghazali among others, all of whom would have contributed to a vibrant academic community in Baghdad, producing a great number of notable works, regardless of the existence of a formal academy. The fields to which scholars associated with the House of Wisdom contributed include, but are not limited to, philosophy, mathematics, medicine, astronomy, and optics. The early name of the library, Khizanat al-Hikma (literally, “Storehouse of Wisdom”), derives from its function as a place for the preservation of rare books and poetry, a primary function of the House of Wisdom until its destruction. Inside the House of Wisdom, there was a culmination of writers, translators, authors, scientists, scribes, and others would meet every day for translation, writing, conversation, reading, and dialogue. Numerous books and documents in several scientific concepts and philosophical subjects and proposals in different languages were translated in this house.
Again, there was no equivalent Christian institution even though Christianity was centuries older than Islam.
And more:
The Translation Movement lasted for two centuries and was a large contributing factor to the growth of scientific knowledge during the golden age of Arabic science. Ideas and wisdom from other cultures around the world, Greece, India, and Persia, were translated into Arabic contributing to further advances in the Islamic Empire. An important goal during this time was to create a comprehensive library that contained all of the knowledge gained throughout this movement. Advances were made in areas like mathematics, physics, astronomy, medicine, chemistry, philosophy, and engineering. The influential achievement of translation revealed to scholars in the empire to the limitless body of early knowledge in the prehistoric Greek tradition, developing the birth of primary scholarship beyond philosophy and scholarship. The engagement across arts and sciences assorts and stretches intelligence realms and brings growth to new methods of understanding. This was accomplished through academic knowledge and creative rehearsal.
The House of Wisdom was known for being a space for scholarly growth and contribution which during the time greatly contributed to the Translation Movement.
The Translation Movement started in this House of Wisdom and lasted for over two centuries. Over a century and a half, primarily Middle Eastern Oriental Syriac Christian scholars translated all scientific and philosophic Greek texts into Arabic language in the House of Wisdom. The translation movement at the House of Wisdom was inaugurated with the translation of Aristotle’s Topics. By the time of Al-Ma’mun, translators had moved beyond Greek astrological texts, and Greek works were already in their third translations. Authors translated include: Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Euclid, Plotinus, Galen, Sushruta, Charaka, Aryabhata and Brahmagupta. Many important texts were translated during this movement including a book about the composition of medicinal drugs, a book on this mixing and the properties of simple drugs, and a book on medical matters by Pedanius Dioscorides. These, and many more translations, helped with the advancements in medicine, agriculture, finance, and engineering.
Furthermore, new discoveries motivated revised translations and commentary correcting or adding to the work of ancient authors. In most cases names and terminology were changed; a prime example of this is the title of Ptolemy’s Almagest, which is an Arabic modification of the original name of the work: Megale Syntaxis.
Again, Christianity has no unique claim to foster and promote scientific thinking and pursuits. It’s just not the case.
JVL at 48,
Your thinking is biased toward proving man does not need God, and that Christianity has no unique place since you think man is all. All that man needs is man, “man invents himself.” Jean-Paul Sartre.
Bringing up Muslim accomplishments is just an attempt to obscure the fact that Arabs are also the children of Abraham.
JVL at 49,
You can repeat that over and over but it does not mean you’re right.
“Again, Christianity has no unique claim to foster and promote scientific thinking and pursuits. It’s just not the case.”
Since you have not studied Christian sources, you look everywhere else. As if you are running away from something. The “terrible” truth is Christianity is the truth. It supports Intelligent Design. It created the University and commissioned great art and music. You insisting otherwise ignores all of the contributions the Church has made across every aspect of human life.
Your examples are an attempt to find reasons to not believe that. The Church has survived 2,000 years not by luck.
Relatd: The Catholic Church has two types of knowledge: secular and spiritual, and, unlike science, can combine the two to present a clear picture to mankind about reality. It is the vanguard and source of truth.
No, that’s your opinion. Look over some of the things I’ve posted about the House of Wisdom in Baghdad.
There is still no solid information about how the pyramids were built, how the stones were set in place so precisely.
But clearly they figured out how to do those things, which took centuries in some cases, without the encouragement of Christianity.
I think it is very important for you to exalt man and ignore the Christian God completely. In that sense, God is not just unnecessary but an irritant. A source of distress. That man, left to his own devices, can do everything he wants and God and religion are impediments.
I don’t think Christianity has a unique claim to be the one and only way you get scientific thinking and progress. So many other non-Christian cultures have exhibited great abilities which required scientific-type thinking that it’s clear it’s not been the case that only in Western Europe in the last 2000 years has there been that kind of work done.
What was this “something else”?
A strong central and fairly rich and stable government. If you’re always fighting to stay afloat or just barely scrabbling by you don’t have the time or money to pay for pure learning and experimentation.
Don’t assume I don’t know things. I know we use Arabic numerals and the contributions made by Arab scholars, but they too are children of Abraham. Your attempts to cut Christianity off of human civilization like it was a diseased arm will fail. The Church has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
After the Church decided to stop pestering people like Galileo it has made some real and significant contributions to science and certainly to culture (the Renaissance was largely funded by the church at least in Italy). But, again, the Christian church has no unique claim to be the sole or even the most important source of inspiration for scientific thinking. It’s just not the case.
I’m not cutting anyone off but it’s wrong to say without Christianity we wouldn’t have science.
Relatd: Your thinking is biased toward proving man does not need God, and that Christianity has no unique place since you think man is all. All that man needs is man, “man invents himself.” Jean-Paul Sartre.
Sigh. I’m trying to show that the ability and desire to think and progress scientifically is not limited to Christian cultures. All the cultures I have cited have not been atheistic.
Bringing up Muslim accomplishments is just an attempt to obscure the fact that Arabs are also the children of Abraham.
I’m not trying to obscure that. But they’re not Christians and folks like Bornagain77 keep telling me that without Christianity you don’t get modern science. And I don’t think that’s true. If Christianity had died out in the 800s I think we’d still have gotten modern science at some point.
Since you have not studied Christian sources, you look everywhere else. As if you are running away from something. The “terrible” truth is Christianity is the truth. It supports Intelligent Design. It created the University and commissioned great art and music. You insisting otherwise ignores all of the contributions the Church has made across every aspect of human life.
Yes, I know about Christian faith and such. It didn’t create the ‘university’; there were examples of such things many times over before places like the Western European organisations were formed. Lots and lots of cultures commissioned great art and music as did the Christian church especially during the Renaissance. But the Christian church has no claim to be superior or primary in such matters.
The claim has been made that without Christianity you don’t get modern science and I think that is just not true.
Your examples are an attempt to find reasons to not believe that. The Church has survived 2,000 years not by luck.
Zoroastrianism is older. Judaism is older. Jainism is older. Hinduism is older. Confucius lived before Christ. Buddhism is older. Shintoism may be older. All those belief systems still exist and are practiced today. Why have they all survived? Because they feel true to some people somewhere. Some people derive spiritual sustenance and support from those beliefs. You feel in your heart of hearts that Christianity is the one true religion and it sustains you. Great, you’re lucky you’ve found such a community. All those other systems also have their adherents who feel the same way you do.
Relatd/28
Looks like we might need another Reformation to deal with all these Papists!
JVL at 52,
“… but it’s wrong to say without Christianity we wouldn’t have science.” Where the heck did I say that? It’s apparent you are believing things that just aren’t true to serve and promote atheism. Galileo was a problem, yes. The Church handled the situation. Galileo wanted to make a big proclamation before all the data was in. But it appears you have no knowledge of what actually happened.
You’re just saying that the world does not need Christianity – at all. That’s a good claim to make for an atheist, but it’s not true.
JVL at 53,
You mix things together with one goal in mind. Pagan culture differs from religious, non-pagan culture. The truth has spread throughout the world till now. You say, look at the past. They needed no Christianity to do great things so we don’t need Christianity today. In the meantime, the Catholic Church proclaims truths and people follow her teachings.
And back to the older, older, older. In the old days, BEFORE Christianity, things were great. We don’t need it now since no one needed it during the older, older. Again, good for promoting atheism. However, the Church has remained, she recognizes other religious beliefs, and preaches the Gospel. But it’s not all about spiritual teaching. The Church has written about evolution in great detail, for example. It’s not just about ‘you found something you believe in, good for you,’ it’s about making contributions across all fields of human endeavor. That bothers you. That’s all this is.
JVL,
>And, arguably, once Christianity was on the ascendancy many of the skills and techniques that built Ancient Rome fell into obscurity.
Like the ability to build smooth stone roads which were slippery when wet against wagon wheels. So people who actually wanted to get someplace would use the off-road path instead of the expensive Roman roads. But the roads survived a long time that way. Funny, huh?
>Again, Christianity has no unique claim to foster and promote scientific thinking and pursuits. It’s just not the case.
I think you’ve been reading very selectively again. Some things stall and some progress. Progress was made after Rome fell because a large civilization enforces some degree of tradition and uniformity which can easily retard progress. See “The Victory of Reason” by Rodney Stark, for many examples of how post-Roman times resulted in some major innovations.
CD & PK As I have stated here many times before my position is to default to the most reasonable explanation , so I find an intelligent creator the most reasonable position to hold.
Now if you guys have a more reasonable explanation I am all ears , or is it that you just dont want to accept a creator God no matter what.
Relatd: Where the heck did I say that
Bornagain77 says it all the time and it’s his position I was arguing against. I accept that you didn’t say that and that I didn’t acknowledge that that wasn’t your position.
Galileo wanted to make a big proclamation before all the data was in.
What’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with proclaiming preliminary results? Why should the church be able to vet scientific work especially if, as many believe, that science is a way to discover the beauty and wonder of God’s design? I’m sorry, they threatened Galileo for no good reason.
You’re just saying that the world does not need Christianity – at all.
I’m saying Christianity has no unique claim to be the sole source of scientific validation whether in motivation or approval.
it’s about making contributions across all fields of human endeavor. That bothers you. That’s all this is.
The church has changed its stance a lot in the last 500 years, all to the good. I have no problem with faith of any kind as long as it doesn’t try to push its views on those who don’t subscribe to its tenets. And, as I have already said, during the Renaissance the church was one of the major funders of some of the finest art and architecture ever produced; albeit all matching their theology.
EDTA: Some things stall and some progress. Progress was made after Rome fell because a large civilization enforces some degree of tradition and uniformity which can easily retard progress. See “The Victory of Reason” by Rodney Stark, for many examples of how post-Roman times resulted in some major innovations.
Sure, some things did progress in Western Europe in the medieval times. In other regions there were huge leaps forward in scientific enquiry and results.
Again, my point was an argument against Bornagain77‘s claim that without Christianity you don’t get modern science and I don’t think that is true. I do not think that any faith has a claim to be the only source for the ability to do science. That just doesn’t make sense and it’s easy to find numerous counter examples.
JVL instead of defending against my primary criticism against him that his atheistic worldview is a non-starter as far as modern science is concerned,,,
JVL, instead of defending against my primary criticism against his atheistic worldview, i.e. that his atheistic worldview can’t possibly ground modern science in the first place, instead goes on the offense against Christianity in particular and says that “my point was an argument against Bornagain77‘s claim that without Christianity you don’t get modern science and I don’t think that is true.”
Well first off, although JVL may falsely claim that other worldviews may have eventually brought forth the scientific method, the fact remains that modern science suffered numerous ‘stillbirths’ in other ancient cultures, and modern science was only successfully brought into existence in medieval Christian Europe and in that culture alone.
And again, although JVL will doubtlessly continue to falsely argue that some other worldview, other than Christianity, may have eventually brought forth the scientific method, the fact remains that none of those speculations about what other worldviews may have eventually done does anything to alleviate my primary criticism against him that his own atheistic worldview cannot possibly ground modern science.
In fact, my criticism against his atheistic worldview goes further than that. I hold that the presuppositions held within his atheistic worldview are, in fact, antagonistic and antithetical to the practice of modern science.
In the following interview about his latest book, “Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe”, Dr. Stephen Meyer lists the three necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay behind the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe as such.
In my honest opinion, out of those three necessary presuppositions, (none of which atheistic materialism can possibly ground), the key and crucial presupposition that led to the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe was the third one, i.e. “Human Fallibility”.
In short, the doctrine of ‘original sin’ was crucial to the development of science.
This is how Meyer sums it up in his book,
And as Emily Morales, via Peter Harrison, noted, “It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology,,, Bacon’s inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement”,,,
Bacon’s inductive methodology, which he introduced as a check and balance against humanity’s fallen sinful nature, was a radically different form of ‘bottom up’ reasoning that was, practically speaking, a completely different form of reasoning than the ‘top down’ deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks which had preceded it. A form of ‘top-down’ reasoning in which people “pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
This new form of ‘bottom up’ inductive reasoning, which lays at the basis of the scientific method itself, was championed by Francis Bacon over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks in 1620 in his book that was entitled ‘Novum Organum’. Which is translated as ‘New Method’.
In the title of that book, Bacon is specifically referencing Aristotle’s work ‘Organon’, which was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on logic and syllogism. In other words, ‘Organum’ was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on deductive reasoning.
And thus in his book “Novum Organum”, Bacon was specifically and directly championing a entirely new method of ‘bottom-up’ inductive reasoning, (where repeated experimentation played a central role in one’s reasoning to a general truth), over and above Aristotle’s ‘top-down’ deductive form of reasoning, (where one’s apriori assumption of a general truth, (i.e. your major premises), played a central role in one’s reasoning), which had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been around for 2000 years at that time.
And indeed, repeated experimentation, ever since it was first set forth by Francis Bacon in his inductive methodology, has been the cornerstone of the scientific method. And has indeed been very, very, fruitful for man in gaining accurate knowledge of the universe in that repeated experiments lead to more “exacting, and illuminating”, conclusions than is possible with the quote-unquote, “educated guesses” that follow from the ‘top-down’ deductive form of reasoning that had been the dominant form of reasoning up to that time.
And, (in what should not be surprising for anyone who has debated Darwinists for any length of time), it turns out that Darwinian evolution itself is not based on Bacon’s Inductive form of reasoning, (which is too say that Darwin’s theory itself is not based on the scientific method), but Darwin’s theory is instead based, in large measure, on the Deductive form of reasoning that Bacon had specifically shunned because of the fallibleness of man’s fallen sinful nature.
As Dr. Richard Nelson noted in his book ‘Darwin, Then and Now’, Charles Darwin, in his book ‘Origin of Species’, “selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning.”
In fact, Richard Owen, in a review of Charles Darwin’s book shortly after it was published, had found that Charles Darwin, as far as inductive methodology itself was concerned, had failed to produce any “inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’.
In other words, Darwin had failed to produce any original experimental research that might support his theory for the “Origin of Species”.
And on top of Richard Owen’s rather mild rebuke of Darwin for failing to use inductive methodology, Adam Sedgwick was nothing less than scathing of Darwin for deserting, “after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon.”
Moreover, Adam Sedgwick also called Darwin out for being deceptive in exactly what form of reasoning he was using in his book. Specifically Sedgwick scolded Darwin that “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?”
And it was not as if Darwin was ignorant of the fact that he had failed to follow Bacon’s inductive methodology when he wrote his book.
Charles Darwin himself, two years prior to the publication of his book, honestly confessed to a friend that “What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.”
In fact, just two weeks before Darwin’s book was to be published, Darwin’s brother, Erasmus, told Darwin, “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”
And now, over a century and a half later, the situation of ‘the facts won’t fit’ still has not changed for Darwinists. To this day, Darwinists still have no experimental research that would establish Darwin’s theory as being scientifically true,
As Dr Richard Nelson further noted in his book’ Darwin, Then and Now’, “After 150 years of research,,, the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.”
In fact, in further proving that Darwinism is not based on Bacon’s inductive form of reasoning, there are now many lines of experimental evidence that directly falsify core presuppositions of Darwin’s theory,,,, empirical falsifications that Darwinists simply ignore.
Moreover, Darwinian evolution, (besides being falsified by many lines of empirical evidence ), is simply not needed in as a guiding principle, and/or as a heuristic, in biology. (i.e. Darwinian evolution is not even needed as a primary presupposition within the ‘top-down’ Deductive form of reasoning of the ancient Greeks).
Scientifically speaking, Darwinian evolution has simply been a bust. Even Jerry Coyne admits as much
In fact, in so far as Darwinian evolution has been used as a guiding principle and/or heuristic in science, it had grossly misled scientists into blind alleys, such as with its false prediction of junk DNA, vestigial organs, with eugenics, i.e. ‘selective’ abortion, etc.. etc…
In fact, it is also very interesting to note that Francis Bacon, (who was, again, the father of the scientific method), in his book “Novum Organum”, also stated that the best way to tell if a philosophy is true or not is by the ‘fruits produced’.
Specifically Bacon stated that, “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.”
And in regards to society at large, and 150 years after Darwinian evolution burst onto the scene, (masquerading as a empirical science), and in regards to the ‘fruits produced’ by Darwinian ideology, we can now accurately surmise that, Darwinian ideology has been a complete and utter disaster for man that has had unimaginably horrid consequences for man.
In short, and to repeat, Darwinian evolution, instead of ever producing any ‘good fruit’ for man, (as true empirical sciences normally do), has instead produced nothing but unimaginably horrid consequences for man..
Verse:
Thus in conclusion, JVL may falsely claim, and speculate, that some other worldview, other than Christianity, may have eventually brought modern science into existence, but that baseless speculation does nothing to alleviate the fact that his own atheistic worldview of Darwinian evolution cannot provide the necessary presuppositions for ‘doing science’ in the first place, and, in fact, his worldview of Darwinian atheism is found to not even be based on the scientific method, i.e. the inductive methodology, of Francis Bacon in the first place.
And again, if JVL were intellectually honest, this catastrophic failure of his own atheistic worldview to ground, or be grounded within, the scientific method itself should concern him much more greatly than any of the superfluous criticisms against Christianity that he has thus far listed.
Of supplemental note, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly, and falsely, believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
Contrary to what atheists such as JVL desperately want to believe, it would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
Martin_r/32
You might want to clean your keyboard. It looks like your parenthesis key is sticking….
Maybe this has been posted but a video from a couple years ago on Darwin’s Doubt has recently been re-published.
The interesting thing in the video is not the problem of the Cambrian Explosion but the attitude towards Darwin’s ideas. At 7:30 into this short video the announcer says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cT7Z0D7_h4&t=460s
The more interesting question has always been why do humans fiercely defend the indefensible.
Here is the YouTube channel that published this video.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd-MyawrutjiUKl-DfbQ0vQ
Not a lot published in last two years but just yesterday there was a video on OOL and past few videos were on OOL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Axlu-oGkeQ
The comments reveal the “begging the question” fallacy in full display as true non believers desperately want a non intelligent explanation and just assume it’s there somewhere.
It appears to me, just based on comments here, that the Atheist prefers chaos. Quantum mechanics, especially quantum entanglement, is the latest plaything. It is a mystery and a magnet for an atheist interpretation. More chaos. Another incomprehensible phenomenon. Chaos, again.
Referring to quantum computers, which exist, and experiments with atom smashers, things smaller than atoms are being studied. Events that occur at very short time scales are being studied. Even in living things. Protein folding has no scaffold but it works. Protein folds are intricate and have been modeled in three dimensions. How is this shape maintained? What controls it? As more experiments are done to study living things, two things are observed: greater and greater complexity and incredible order. The interplay of parts is also incredibly complex. Such machinery does not appear by chance.
Einstein dealt with what was known in his time. I think his ideas will be overthrown. He could not complete his Unified Field Theory, where general relativity and electro-magnetism could be connected. Additional discoveries in fundamental physics are being made and will continue to be made. I propose that a final connection has already been made but such a discovery would remain a closely guarded secret for whoever possessed it.
Relatd/66
I think you are confusing general relativity, etc., with ID. ID has already come up with a Unified Field Theory: The God of the Bible. And like your “predictions” for Einstein, ID’s ideas will “will be overthrown.” More accurately, ID’s “ideas” likely will never catch on except in religious circles…..
CD at 6,
The wild rantings of a fearful man. Darwin forbid that ID is connected to Christianity by a lot of people. Or worse, gets taught to kids in schools! I was reading some non-reviews about a book on Intelligent Design. The big concern? “If this gets into the schools.”
I mean, this could topple Atheist-Marxist influence in schools. Some people might start believing in God.
JVL et al, while it would be beyond scope of UD for me to engage in more detail, some pointers are advisable. First, there is generic, readily accessible evidence that points to a finitely remote, necessary being root of reality causally adequate for a world containing rational, responsible, morally governed creatures, us. That sets a bill of requisites: powerful, intelligent, knowledgeable, inherently good, utterly wise. On the Science side, cosmological fine tuning that sets up a cosmos adapted in many ways to hosting C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life points to design by extracosmic power. Next, cells have coded, algorithmic D/RNA, pointing to language and goal directed purpose. Beyond, the obvious engineering of life forms (and the subtler integration of ecosystems) point to design even for someone contemplating 4 – 7 kya or beyond. So, it is unsurprising that generic ethical theism or thoughts pointing to it will be found under many heads and in many cultures. However, the Hebraic-Christian frame [and its Islamic offshoot and key aspects of some forms of Hinduism] are distinct. In the Hebraic-Christian frame, the key theme is, God is there and is not silent . . . the modern notion that God is so distant and mysterious has more to do with the corner we have painted ourselves into than anything else. In particular, God speaks to the future and fulfills it, with messiah as key hope. The Christian faith holds that messiah has come, and as Isa 52 – 53 predicted, has suffered, becoming our wounded, once dead, now living healer, saviour, rescuer. And, Lord. With 500 eyewitnesses that could not be silenced. That is the challenge that drove the Christian synthesis of the legacy of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, building on the heritage of the Fertile Crescent and its river valley civilisations. That is the challenge that confronts us today. KF