Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Medieval treatise on universe astonishes scientists in Nature, “dense with mathematical thinking”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Bit late getting back to the desk. Lovely weather in Ottawa and won’t last. Meanwhile, on the Sunday religion news beat relevant to our usual interests, here’s English prof Terry Scambray at American Thinker on “The truth about science and religion”:

In 1925 the renowned philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead speaking to scholars at Harvard said that science originated in Christian Europe in the 13th century. Whitehead pointed out that science arose from “the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher”, from which it follows that human minds created in that image are capable of understanding nature.

The audience, assuming that science and Christianity are enemies, was astonished.

Equally astonished are scientists writing in the March 12 edition of Nature, the respected science journal. These scientists are studying a treatise written in 1225 by Robert Grosseteste, a bishop and theologian, which is “dense with mathematical thinking” as it describes the birth of the universe “four centuries before Newton proposed gravity and seven centuries before the Big Bang theory.” More.

Breaking: Rationality is underused, not overrated.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology) for today’s trend to crackpot cosmology.

Comments
Jaki is great. Be sure to read more of his books than just that one. :)Mung
August 18, 2014
August
08
Aug
18
18
2014
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
Mung 3, serious historians no longer use the phrase "Dark Ages." They know that this period was marked by both technological and scientific progress, including the founding of universities. The Dark Age label was created by atheist philosophers (not scientists!) of the "Enlightenment"(get the contrast?) as a propaganda tool. Rodney Stark writes about this at some length in his new book, Why the West Won.anthropic
August 18, 2014
August
08
Aug
18
18
2014
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
The American Thinker article mentions Fr. Stanley Jaki. He wrote a book, The Savior of Science, which, IIRC, a lot of what is in the article comes from. I would recommend it to all of you. It is Christianity="the Word (logos='...logy' at the end of most branches of science) becomes Flesh" that informs us that the world is ordered. It is through this Word that the world comes into existence. And, guess what? We understand "words".PaV
August 18, 2014
August
08
Aug
18
18
2014
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
Mung, I would argue we are in the dark ages today ;)humbled
August 18, 2014
August
08
Aug
18
18
2014
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT
No wonder it's known as the Dark Ages.Mung
August 17, 2014
August
08
Aug
17
17
2014
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
This article (From American Thinker) has some really good stuff, but it becomes disorganized and unfocused at the end. If I were the editor I would have send the writer back to decide what his main point is. I am going to go learn more about Grossettets fellow.Collin
August 17, 2014
August
08
Aug
17
17
2014
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
repost from a few days ago:
Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
How anyone could presuppose that science can be grounded in the Atheistic worldview is beyond me. Exactly how is logic and reasoning to be grounded in a worldview that insists everything arose without any rhyme or reason? To presuppose that the universe can be understood through logic and reason is to presuppose that there is logic and reasoning behind the universe to be understood in the first place! The atheistic/materialistic worldview is completely incoherent as to providing a rational foundation for practicing science in that it presupposes no logic or reason behind the universe. All of which explains, number one, why there were no atheists at the founding of modern science,, and which, number two, also explains why the atheistic explanations for how the universe came into being, and for how we ourselves came into being, both wind up in epistemological failure. A few notes along that line:
The Great Debate: Does God Exist? – Justin Holcomb – audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site Excerpt: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,, http://justinholcomb.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist/ Random Chaos vs. Uniformity Of Nature – Presuppositional Apologetics – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6853139 Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion – Michael Egnor – June 2011 Excerpt: The scientific method — the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature — has nothing to so with some religious inspirations — Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications – Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014 Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing. As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed, and as I pointed out in two of my talks at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC), science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview. http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson. Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer – video – (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/32145998 BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ Is Atheism Irrational? By GARY GUTTING – NY Times – February 9, 2014 Excerpt: GG: So your claim is that if materialism is true, evolution doesn’t lead to most of our beliefs being true. Plantinga: Right. In fact, given materialism and evolution, it follows that our belief-producing faculties are not reliable. Here’s why. If a belief is as likely to be false as to be true, we’d have to say the probability that any particular belief is true is about 50 percent. Now suppose we had a total of 100 independent beliefs (of course, we have many more). Remember that the probability that all of a group of beliefs are true is the multiplication of all their individual probabilities. Even if we set a fairly low bar for reliability — say, that at least two-thirds (67 percent) of our beliefs are true — our overall reliability, given materialism and evolution, is exceedingly low: something like .0004. So if you accept both materialism and evolution, you have good reason to believe that your belief-producing faculties are not reliable. But to believe that is to fall into a total skepticism, which leaves you with no reason to accept any of your beliefs (including your beliefs in materialism and evolution!). The only sensible course is to give up the claim leading to this conclusion: that both materialism and evolution are true. Maybe you can hold one or the other, but not both. So if you’re an atheist simply because you accept materialism, maintaining your atheism means you have to give up your belief that evolution is true. Another way to put it: The belief that both materialism and evolution are true is self-refuting. It shoots itself in the foot. Therefore it can’t rationally be held. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 Quote: “In evolutionary games we put truth (true perception) on the stage and it dies. And in genetic algorithms it (true perception) never gets on the stage” Donald Hoffman PhD. – Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception – 7:19 to 9:20 minute mark – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dqDP34a-epI#t=439
Verse and Music:
Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. Thrive – Casting Crowns http://myktis.com/songs/thrive/
bornagain77
August 17, 2014
August
08
Aug
17
17
2014
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply