Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Szostak on Abiogenesis: Just Add Water

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This month’s Scientific American is another example of evolution’s influence on science. Read more

Comments
Well, I waited to give StephenB the chance to have the last word on this thread, but he seems to have left the premises. Anyway, it's been fun, and I look forward to further discussion at another place, another time.Adel DiBagno
September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Can you understand why formulation #2 provides the optimum approach, since the other alternatives rule out intelligent causes and forbid us to follow where the evidence leads.
Formulation #2 being,
matter arose from mind–the universe was created–life was designed, first causes exist and causation is a low of logic.
Nobody is ruling out any possibility. Formulation #2 (with all its disparate clauses) has been considered and so far found untestable and unfruitful, so it's natural to ignore it for the present. An optimal approach must be fruitful and testable or our curiosity will not have a path to follow. But you and your colleagues are invited to prove otherwise. I would especially encourage you to demonstrate the fruitfulness of the non-human-intelligent-causation hypothesis. That would turn some heads your way.Adel DiBagno
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
If, on being told, a child learned that there were both mechanical causes and intelligent causes, would the child say, “tell me more about the natural causes, but forget about the other kind.”
There's a problem. Learning doesn't come just from being told. You seem to be assuming the existence of the intelligent creator in your hypothetical. Do you accept my answer to your original question?Adel DiBagno
August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
---Adel: "I want to see unique metaphysical content. For example, what specific metaphysical content distinguishes Newton’s first law of motion from his second law of motion? Or, what specific metaphysical content distinguishes Galileo’s heliocentrism from Pasteur’s optical chirality." Metaphysical content does not do things like that any more than the foundation that supports a house distinguishes the living room from the kitchen. To get a better idea of what is going on, consider another metaphysical formulation. a. The universe is best understood mechanistically. b. Matter is primary over mind. c. Matter arose from mind. d. Brains give rise to consciousness. e. God is not necessary—law and chance can explain evolution, life, and consciousness. Now we have considered three metaphysical formulations. 1) God friviously shoots thunderbolts 2) matter arose from mind--the universe was created--life was designed, first causes exist and causation is a low of logic. 3) mind arose from matter--the universe created itself, life just happened, first causes don't exist, and causality can come and go. Can you understand how each of these metaphysical orientations affect the way science is done? Can you understand why formulation #2 provides the optimum approach, since the other alternatives rule out intelligent causes and forbid us to follow where the evidence leads.StephenB
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
----Adel: "One does not require an assumption of purpose in the world to have curiosity about its workings. Nor does one need to have an abstract or metaphysical notion of truth to enjoy the same motivation. Have you never seen a child take apart a mechanical toy? Scientists are curious children." If, on being told, a child learned that there were both mechanical causes and intelligent causes, would the child say, "tell me more about the natural causes, but forget about the other kind."StephenB
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
Dave Wisker, Try to be a bit more polite in your discourse.Adel DiBagno
August 30, 2009
August
08
Aug
30
30
2009
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
No Darwinist comes here to discuss science for very long because they have nothing to talk about. Horsefeathers.Dave Wisker
August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
Gentlemen: The the issue I was addressing in my #103 was the notion (as expressed very well by Dan Peterson) that the Judeo-Christian worldview (in particular the concept of a divine lawgiver) is an essential ingredient of science. I then, in my #108, challenged kairosfocus to find theological content in any scientific product. My unstated premise was that the existence of a divine lawgiver is irrelevant to scienctific practice. Neither kairosfocus nor StephenB responded to my challenge, leaving claims that sectarian religious belief has any special relevance to scientific practice unsupported. Instead of providing such support, StephenB accused me of confusing theology with metaphysics. I was diverted by that accusation, but I will grant arguendum that the term "theology" can be replaced by the term "metaphysics" in my challenge. Indeed, since we have this:
The Christian worldview [or metaphysical formulation] that launched modern science is as follows: God created [A] a rational universe, [B] rational minds to comprehend that universe, and [C] a correspondence between the two. Much of modern science has tried to distance itself from that paradigm, even as it continues to depend on it, but that is only because much of modern science is illogical, as I often point out on this thread.
the change in terminology makes no difference. So my challenge translates into a search for metaphysical content in a scientific product. To meet my challenge, do not claim that no science would be possible without an assumption that the universe is comprehensible. I want to see unique metaphysical content. For example, what specific metaphysical content distinguishes Newton's first law of motion from his second law of motion? Or, what specific metaphysical content distinguishes Galileo's heliocentrism from Pasteur's optical chirality? StephenB,
—-“Principles be damned. I was talking about content. And you think I’m confused…” Yes, deeply. If you think that metaphysical principles have no content, then you are definitely confused.
I was talking about the content of scientific findings, not the content of metaphysics. See above.
Also, have you never heard of materialism, naturalism, atheism, and existentialism, all of which assume that the world has no purpose? I have asked Darwinists informed by one or more of these metaphysical promptings why they bother to do research since, for them, there is no truth to find. None have ever answered my question. Can you answer it?
It's easy to answer, and I hope you will remember that I have answered: One does not require an assumption of purpose in the world to have curiosity about its workings. Nor does one need to have an abstract or metaphysical notion of truth to enjoy the same motivation. Have you never seen a child take apart a mechanical toy? Scientists are curious children.
You are fighting with me right now, and it isn’t about science. No Darwinist comes here to discuss science for very long because they have nothing to talk about. They certainly have no evidence to support the idea that naturalistic forces can generate information and new body plans.
I'm not fighting with you, I'm disagreeing. It may not be about science for you, but it is for me. As I have mentioned to you before, defining science is a current interest of mine. I find the efforts of ID believers to redefine science along sectarian religious lines to be misguided. I believe that my comments on this thread have been directed to that issue with fair consistency. When you say "They certainly have no evidence to support the idea that naturalistic forces can generate information and new body plans," you are rejecting much evidence (and it keeps growing) that practicing biologists of many stripes take seriously as supporting the idea. As I said earlier, evolutionary theory is deeply embedded in biology today. It can't be simply replaced by design. All of biology would have to be rethought and rebuilt around a design paradigm (assuming one existed). I don't think that is a realistic prospect.Adel DiBagno
August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT
Adel (and Stephen): I had intended to take a look a this thread, but it is plain that Stephen has the matter well in hand:
ou seen to be confusing theology with metaphysics. The idea that “God left clues” speaks to the metaphysics of a creative, purposeful effort. Theology implies things like the Trinitarian God, a savior, a redeemer, sin, the fall, and so forth. The former has everthing to do with science; the latter has nothing to do with science. Science is not a-metaphysical. Quite the contrary, all science stands securely on metaphysical principles, the first of which is the assumption that the universe is rational and ripe for investigation. The Christian worldview [or metaphysical formulation] that launched modern science is as follows: God created [A] a rational universe, [B] rational minds to comprehend that universe, and [C] a correspondence between the two. Much of modern science has tried to distance itself from that paradigm, even as it continues to depend on it, but that is only because much of modern science is illogical, as I often point out on this thread . . . . Metaphysics is, among other things, a study of first causes. God is a very good candidate for a first cause . . . . theology can overlap with metaphysics, which causes you to approach the problem from an overly simplistic vantage point. In fact, all science stands securely on metaphysical principles, the first of which is the assumption that the universe is rational and ripe for investigation. Other metaphysical assumptions are the correspondence between the human mind and the universe that it hopes to investigate . . . . To hypothesize gravity, for example, is to assume a regularity and rationality about the world that makes it comprehensible. It is the very opposite of assuming that God whimsically whacks the world with thunderbolts in a disorderly and unpredictable way, which by the way was an earlier metaphysical foundation that retarded science. See how that works?
Thanks Steve! GEm of TKIkairosfocus
August 29, 2009
August
08
Aug
29
29
2009
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
----Adel: “Once you mention “God” you’ve left metaphysics and entered theology.” Metaphysics is, among other things, a study of first causes. God is a very good candidate for a first cause. From Wikipedia: "Whether there is a God (monotheism), many gods (polytheism) or no gods (atheism), or whether it is unknown or unknowable whether any gods exist (agnosticism), and whether the Divine intervenes directly in the world (theism), or its sole function is to be the first cause of the universe (deism); these and whether a God or gods and the World are different (as in panentheism and dualism), or are identical (as in pantheism), are some of the primary metaphysical questions concerning philosophy of religion." Unfortunately, you don’t seem to understand that theology can overlap with metaphysics, which causes you to approach the problem from an overly simplistic vantage point. In fact, all science stands securely on metaphysical principles, the first of which is the assumption that the universe is rational and ripe for investigation. Other metaphysical assumptions are the correspondence between the human mind and the universe that it hopes to investigate. ----“Principles be damned. I was talking about content. And you think I’m confused…” Yes, deeply. If you think that metaphysical principles have no content, then you are definitely confused. ----“Since when is an assumption that the universe is intelligible a “metaphysical principle”? ----“To me, it’s a working hypothesis.” No, it is an assumption on which hypotheses depend. To hypothesize gravity, for example, is to assume a regularity and rationality about the world that makes it comprehensible. It is the very opposite of assuming that God whimsically whacks the world with thunderbolts in a disorderly and unpredictable way, which by the way was an earlier metaphysical foundation that retarded science. See how that works? ----“By your reasoning, the assumption that the universe is unintelligible is also a metaphysical principle.” That is correct. Consult the above example. Also, have you never heard of materialism, naturalism, atheism, and existentialism, all of which assume that the world has no purpose? I have asked Darwinists informed by one or more of these metaphysical promptings why they bother to do research since, for them, there is no truth to find. None have ever answered my question. Can you answer it? ----“I say, let the metaphysicians duke it out. It happens daily. Materialists Darwinists come here to peddle their atheism in the name of science, and they dominate almost all of higher education, persecuting anyone who dares question their ideology. It has nothing at all to do with science, because science doesn’t act like that. You are fighting with me right now, and it isn’t about science. No Darwinist comes here to discuss science for very long because they have nothing to talk about. They certainly have no evidence to support the idea that naturalistic forces can generate information and new body plans.StephenB
August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
And, I should also ask: Since when is an assumption that the universe is intelligible a "metaphysical principle"? To me, it's a working hypothesis. By your reasoning, the assumption that the universe is unintelligible is also a metaphysical principle. I say, let the metaphysicians duke it out.Adel DiBagno
August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Point 1:
You seen to be confusing theology with metaphysics. The idea that “God left clues” speaks to the metaphysics of a creative, purposeful effort.
Once you mention "God" you've left metaphysics and entered theology. Point 2:
Quite the contrary, all science stands securely on metaphysical principles, the first of which is the assumption that the universe is rational and ripe for investigation.
Principles be damned. I was talking about content. And you think I'm confused...Adel DiBagno
August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
----Adel at 108: "I said earlier that science is a-theistic. I say now, as a clarification, that science is a-theological in its content." You seen to be confusing theology with metaphysics. The idea that "God left clues" speaks to the metaphysics of a creative, purposeful effort. Theology implies things like the Trinitarian God, a savior, a redeemer, sin, the fall, and so forth. The former has everthing to do with science; the latter has nothing to do with science. Science is not a-metaphysical. Quite the contrary, all science stands securely on metaphysical principles, the first of which is the assumption that the universe is rational and ripe for investigation. The Christian worldview [or metaphysical formulation] that launched modern science is as follows: God created [A] a rational universe, [B] rational minds to comprehend that universe, and [C] a correspondence between the two. Much of modern science has tried to distance itself from that paradigm, even as it continues to depend on it, but that is only because much of modern science is illogical, as I often point out on this thread.StephenB
August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
Why did you cherry-pick your quote and substitute theology for worldview?
No "cherry picking." The statement I quoted, ""...the Judeo-Christian worldview is the only belief system that actually produced [science]," was typical of several in Peterson's document, as can be seen in the extensive copy you just posted. If you disagree, make your case. No substitution. I said
IF by "worldview," Peterson is referring to theology, I doubt that theology had much to do with the rise of science in the late Renaissance.
Note the conditional. However, I think that my conditional is correct, because I count 14 instances of the word "Christian" in your excerpt. IF you want to argue against theology being the bedrock of the "Christian worldview," please proceed. (You will be arguing against Peterson, and against this whole line of fundamentalist apologetic argument.) One glaring omission from Peterson's list of Christian scientists is Louis Pasteur. See Catholic Encyclopedia for their (circa 1911) view of Pasteur's religious convictions. I challenge you to find an iota of theological content in any of Pasteur's scientific publications. Likewise, I challenge you to find a scintilla of theological content in the scientific output of any of the eminent Christian scientists cited by Peterson. I said earlier that science is a-theistic. I say now, as a clarification, that science is a-theological in its content.Adel DiBagno
August 28, 2009
August
08
Aug
28
28
2009
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, thanks for your contribution at 106. I have read much from Stark and Woods and I know from experience that these authors are careful and meticulous researchers. Further, they, and other informed commentators, speak with the same authoritative voice, and none of the facts that they share are disputed by those who know the facts.StephenB
August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
Adel: Why did you cherry-pick your quote and substitute theology for worldview? Cf, from Peterson: ________________ >>"What are all living things really for?" Dawkins replies to his own question: "The answer is DNA. It is a profound and precise answer and the argument for it is watertight...." "Flowers and elephants are 'for' the same thing as everything else in the living kingdoms, for spreading Duplicate Me programs written in the DNA language." Dawkins argues that all cellular forms of life, including human beings, are specialized robots, of a kind that can duplicate themselves without external machinery for doing the duplicating. Under this view, our senses and minds are not designed to perceive objective truth, but are simply evolutionary products that have turned out to be useful for survival. As Dawkins puts it, "We are jumped-up apes, and our brains were only designed to understand the mundane details of how to survive in the stone-age African savannah." Another confirmed Darwinist and outspoken opponent of intelligent design, historian of biology William Provine, frankly states the conclusions to be drawn from Darwinian materialism: "There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will." Judeo-Christian theism, on the other hand, not only admits but affirms that God is the creator of the universe and life. In its physical workings, the universe obeys laws ordained by God, although that is not seen as inconsistent with God's active participation in it. G.K. Chesterton compared the two views a century ago: The materialist philosophy (whether true or not) is certainly much more limiting than any religion....The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle. According to the theistic worldview, we can have genuine knowledge of scientific truth and other kinds of truth because God has endowed us with senses and reason that are designed by Him to understand the created order in which He has placed us. Since God created the universe and life, it would also not be surprising for science and reason to uncover evidence of His design in nature. Contrary to the materialist conclusions enunciated by Provine, the traditional Judeo-Christian worldview maintains that there is indeed an ultimate foundation for ethics. God's creation has an inherent moral order; there is objective right and wrong; and these can be known by us through revelation and reason. Far from life being a blind unfolding of material processes, life has purpose and meaning in God's plan. We are not chemical machines or robots. Human beings have free will, and are accountable moral agents. The materialistic and theistic worldviews are thus opposed on virtually every important issue . . . . IN HIS RECENT BOOK For the Glory of God, Rodney Stark argues "not only that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, but that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science." (His italics.) While researching this thesis, Stark found to his surprise that "some of my central arguments have already become the conventional wisdom among historians of science." He is nevertheless "painfully aware" that most of the arguments about the close connection between Christian belief and the rise of science are "unknown outside narrow scholarly circles," and that many people believe that it could not possibly be true. Sometimes the most obvious facts are the easiest to overlook. Here is one that ought to be stunningly obvious: science as an organized, sustained enterprise arose only once in the history of Earth. Where was that? Although other civilizations have contributed technical achievements or isolated innovations, the invention of science as a cumulative, rigorous, systematic, and ongoing investigation into the laws of nature occurred only in Europe; that is, in the civilization then known as Christendom. Science [of course in the modern sense -- KF] arose and flourished in a civilization that, at the time, was profoundly and nearly exclusively Christian in its mental outlook. There are deep reasons for that, and they are inherent in the Judeo-Christian view of the world which, principally in its Christian manifestation, formed the European mind. As Stark observes, the Christian view depicted God as "a rational, responsive, dependable, and omnipotent being and the universe as his personal creation, thus having a rational, lawful, stable structure, awaiting human comprehension." That was not true of belief systems elsewhere. A view that the universe is uncreated, has been around forever, and is just "what happens to be" does not suggest that it has fundamental principles that are rational and discoverable. Other belief systems have considered the natural world to be an insoluble mystery, conceived of it as a realm in which multiple, arbitrary gods are at work, or thought of it in animistic terms. None of these views will, or did, give rise to a deep faith that there is a lawful order imparted by a divine creator that can and should be discovered. Recent scholarship in the history of science reveals that this commitment to rational, empirical investigation of God's creation is not simply a product of the "scientific revolution" of the 16th and 17th centuries, but has profound roots going back at least to the High Middle Ages. The development of the university system in medieval times was, of course, almost entirely a product of the Church. Serious students of the period know that this was neither a time of stagnation, nor of repression of inquiry in favor of dogma. Rather, it was a time of great intellectual ferment and discovery, and the universities fostered rational, empirical, systematic inquiry. A newly published work by Thomas Woods (How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization) is replete with far more examples of the contributions of medieval scholars than can be mentioned here. But as Woods recounts, one need only look at some of the leading figures in the universities in the 1200s to see that they were already well along in the development of principles of empirical scientific inquiry. Roger Bacon, a Franciscan who taught at Oxford, wrote in Opus Maius: Without experiment, nothing can be adequately known. An argument proves theoretically, but does not give the certitude necessary to remove all doubt; nor will the mind repose in the clear view of truth, unless it finds it by way of experiment. Albertus Magnus -- prodigious scholar, naturalist, teacher of Thomas Aquinas, and member of the Dominican order -- affirmed in his De Mineralibus that the purpose of science is "not simply to accept the statements of others, that is, what is narrated by people, but to investigate the causes that are at work in nature for themselves." Another 13th-century figure, Robert Grosseteste, who was chancellor of Oxford and Bishop of Lincoln, has been identified as "the first man ever to write down a complete set of steps for performing a scientific experiment," according to Woods. WHEN THE DISCOVERIES of science exploded in number and importance in the 1500s and 1600s, the connection with Christian belief was again profound. Many of the trailblazing scientists of that period when science came into full bloom were devout Christian believers, and declared that their work was inspired by a desire to explore God's creation and discover its glories. Perhaps the greatest scientist in history, Sir Isaac Newton, was a fervent Christian who wrote over a million words on theological subjects. Other giants of science and mathematics were similarly devout: Boyle, Descartes, Kepler, Leibniz, Pascal. To avoid relying on what might be isolated examples, Stark analyzed the religious views of the 52 leading scientists from the time of Copernicus until the end of the 17th century. Using a methodology that probably downplayed religious belief, he found that 32 were "devout"; 18 were at least "conventional" in their religious belief; and only two were "skeptics." More than a quarter were themselves ecclesiastics: "priests, ministers, monks, canons, and the like." Down through the 19th century, many of the leading figures in science were thoroughgoing Christians. A partial list includes Babbage, Dalton, Faraday, Herschel, Joule, Lyell, Maxwell, Mendel, and Thompson (Lord Kelvin). A survey of the most eminent British scientists near the end of the 19th century found that nearly all were members of the established church or affiliated with some other church. In short, scientists who were committed Christians include men often considered to be fathers of the fields of astronomy, atomic theory, calculus, chemistry, computers, electricity, genetics, geology, mathematics, and physics. In the late 1990s, a survey found that about 40 percent of American scientists believe in a personal God and an afterlife -- a percentage that is basically unchanged since the early 20th century. A listing of eminent 20th-century scientists who were religious believers would be far too voluminous to include here -- so let's not bring coals to Newcastle, but simply note that the list would be large indeed, including Nobel Prize winners . . . >> ____________________ The picture reads a lot different from your comments above, when taken in context. Now, can we have a discussion on a fair view of relevant facts and issues? GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Try to read for comprehension. "Since the Renaissance" and "has grown" include right now. Today. Keep trying to put that genie back in the bottle.Adel DiBagno
August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
"Since the Renaissance, science has grown to become a world-wide secular and a-theistic enterprise. That genie is out of the bottle and it’s too late to put it back in." I am sorry that doesn't compute. It is not necessarily secular or a-theistic. They certainly participated but so did the religious institutions. Many natural scientist in England were churchmen and many Catholic scientists were priests. Galileo worked closely with the Church on some of his work and even his controversial work was to have been published by the Vatican till there was a plague which sealed off Florence so he had it published locally. The bias of some people here gets tiresome after awhile. Try and get it straight especially if you do not really know anything about the topic and there will be less commenting to get it right.jerry
August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
The claim, in Dan Peterson's words, is that "...the Judeo-Christian worldview is the only belief system that actually produced [science]." If by "worldview," Peterson is referring to theology, I doubt that theology had much to do with the rise of science in the late Renaissance. There were other forces, including economic development, global exploration, and the rise of secular humanism. After all, Christian theology had been the reigning paradigm for a more than a millenium. If one wants to explain a singular historical event, it might be more pertinent to consider proximate related historical changes. Since the Renaissance, science has grown to become a world-wide secular and a-theistic enterprise. That genie is out of the bottle and it's too late to put it back in.Adel DiBagno
August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
Folks: I think a bit of a pause to do a tutorial on the Scientific Revolution c 1543 - 1700 will be helpful. Why not start with Wiki? NB: the very name, revolution, comes from the title of Polish Canon -- Wiki, surprise, surprise [NOT} finds it difficult to simply name that title -- Copernicus' book, on the revolution of the heavenly bodies, published of course in 1543. And of course, to the men who were central to the scientific revolution, science was a reverse engineering of God's order of creation in service of humanity as a stewardship of Creation -- "thinking God's thoughts after him" [Boyle, I think] -- was a natural platform for thinking. Also, this they definitely inherited from Christendom. [Cf John 1, Rom 1, Col 1 etc on this.] From 1543 - 1700 or so, the trend of developments across the Middle Ages achieved critical mass and a wide-ranging epistemological crisis, and the hitherto magisterial power of the classical [and BTW, mostly pagan: e.g. Aristotle, Galen, Ptolemy] authorities crumbled as a new age of Christian scholarship used the concept and vision of God's orderly and intelligible creation [Cf Jn 1:1 - 3, Rom 1:19 - 20] to unlock the principles through empirical investigations and reasoned (increasingly, mathematical) argument. Dan Peterson's review on the significance of design theory here, gives a good balance to the Wiki article, and connects the issue to our current controversies. (Let's just say there is a REASON why the same people who are ever so willing to reel off long litanies of the real; and imaginary sins of Christendom, are utterly unwilling to acknowledge its signal achievements; ESPECIALLY the Scientific revolution.) When people resort to deep-sixing plain and central -- or at the very least highly material -- facts of history, that should warn us on the danger our civlisation is in. Surely, we can do better than this, a lot better. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT
"The thesis was that independence or freedom was what fueled innovation and this would arise again only in the West after the beginning of the Renaissance." I have to modify this, since it essentially happened earlier in the 11th and 12th centuries but accelerated during the Renaissance.jerry
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
I was on two week program a couple years ago with a group discussing ancient Greece. The Greeks were very inventive in a lot of things and one of the things we discussed was technology. I cannot remember the details but the essence of the discussion was that the Greeks were very inventive in technology, warfare and agriculture. However, a lot of these breakthroughs in technology got lost and only rediscovered several hundred years later. I kept on asking why since the Romans who conquered the Greeks were essentially Hellenized. The answer was that Greek society was transformed by the Romans and the freedom that sparked their advances were stifled. Essentially Byzantium became a typical thuggish Eastern tyrannical government that stifled independence that had existed under the Greek city states. The thesis was that independence or freedom was what fueled innovation and this would arise again only in the West after the beginning of the Renaissance.jerry
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT
For a Jew's perspective on the history of science get the Teaching Company course "Great Scientific Ideas That Changed the World " http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=1120 The instructor is Stephen Goldman who is definitely a Jew though I did not detect any bias based on religion. In reality little developed outside the Western World or Western Civilization. Certain things were invented in China or the Muslim world but they never did much with them. For example, the printing process was developed in China but it was Europe that made it happen. Within a few years of Gutenberg's introduction of printing people were composing books strictly to be printed. The book publishing industry started as a result. The printing press was one of the main driver of all things Western Western Civilization has a peculiar quality of seeing the potential for something and pushing it. The Muslims developed algebra but did nothing with it and all they had were word problems. When it was introduced to Italy, they introduced variables and letters and our familiar x, y, z etc let this discipline take off. The concept had stagnated in the Muslim world but in Italy they were solving complicated equations and using it for practical applications. Here is the author's bio "Steven L. Goldman Lehigh University Ph.D., Boston University Steven Goldman is the Andrew W. Mellon Distinguished Professor in the Humanities at Lehigh University, where he has taught for 30 years. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in Physics at the Polytechnic University of New York and earned his M.A. and Ph.D. in Philosophy from Boston University. Before taking his position at Lehigh, Professor Goldman taught at Pennsylvania State University, where he was a cofounder of one of the first U.S. academic programs in science, technology, and society studies. A prolific author, Dr. Goldman has written or edited eight books, including Science, Technology, and Human Progress, and has an impressive list of scholarly articles and reviews to his credit. He has been a national lecturer for the scientific research society Sigma Xi and a national program consultant for the National Endowment for the Humanities. Professor Goldman has received the Lindback Distinguished Teaching Award from Lehigh University." Get this from your local library or buy it from the Teaching Company. It is not currently on sale but wait till they put it on sale and you will enjoy it immensely and have some hard facts for the science debates.jerry
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
---"Scott: "If it’s air-tight, why wouldn’t they?" [Why would a Jew or a Muslim write a tome explaining the Christian roots of modern science?] Well, I wouldn't want two little words separating us. How about I change it to, "overwhelming and well-documented evidence." ---[Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists] "They tend to write more about building the Eastern Civilization." Which would answer your earlier challenge about why there are few authors on my list of those persuasions. ---"I can’t see crediting Christianity with western civilization. If that were the case, there would be a lot less bad news in the papers. And maybe less porn." So, are you arguing that we should deny Christianity's role in building Western Civilization because Western Civilization was once good and then went bad? I thought you were the one who didn't want religious convictions getting in the way of facts. [insert smiley face]StephenB
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
StephenB: Why would a Jew or a Muslim write a tome explaining the Christian roots of modern science? If it's air-tight, why wouldn't they? For that matter, do you know of any Muslims, Jews, or Buddhists arguing that their religion provided the intellectual resources to build Western Civilization They tend to write more about building the Eastern Civilization. :) I can't see crediting Christianity with western civilization. If that were the case, there would be a lot less bad news in the papers. And maybe less porn.ScottAndrews
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
---Scott: "It’s ordinary – it’s not some huge failing." Yes, and even the desire to appear neutral and disinterested can prompt a Christian to understate his own case when there is a case to be made. ---"But I will note that the three authors mentioned in #89 who associate the origins of modern science with Christianity are all professed Christians. I don’t see a Jew or Muslim who has reached the same conclusion. Why would a Jew or a Muslim write a tome explaining the Christian roots of modern science? On the other hand, do you know of any Jews or Muslims who have written 500 or more seriously researched pages with hundreds of references drawing from non-religious sources advancing the cause that Judaism or Islam launched modern science. For that matter, do you know of any Muslims, Jews, or Buddhists arguing that their religion provided the intellectual resources to build Western Civilization, describing the natural moral law and introducing such concepts as the inherent dignity of the human person, the equality of individuals, the principle of consent by the governed, due process, and the compatibility of faith and reason?StephenB
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
Clive & StephenB, I have a self-imposed rule against discussing religious doctrine and the like in internet forums. That means I've tied my own hands from explaining my objections in more detail. It's my fault for jumping in anyway. But I will note that the three authors mentioned in #89 who associate the origins of modern science with Christianity are all professed Christians. I don't see a Jew or Muslim who has reached the same conclusion. I don't mean this to be disparaging to anyone. It's just human nature that a culture often emphasizes its own accomplishments with a blind spot for what other peoples have done. It's ordinary - it's not some huge failing.ScottAndrews
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
Riddick: You may find it instructive to read the Wki article on the Menzies thesis. Cheng Ho et al had major accomplishments to their record, but mostly in the indopacific zone. (I actually think that had the bureaucrats not stopped progress China would have been probably globally dominant . . . but then maybe that is one of my pet peeves against petty, short-sighted officiousness speaking.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
re LH, 83:
you have to explicitly exclude all the science done before Christianity became a globally dominant religion in order to make Stephen’s point coherent
Basic problem: Christianity was NOT a globally dominant religion in the time of the scientific revolution, c15 - 17. It was the main worldview of Europe at that time, and it materially contributed to the worldviews of the founders of science as we know it as a major cultural institution. Indeed, it was in large part the CONSEQUENCE of that theistically inspired scientific spirit -- for all the sins and follies that were also implicated -- that Europe rose to global prominence across the 1500's - 1800's, and moreso at the back end of that period. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
StephenB,
May I suggest that you read Duhem, Stark, Woods, Bumbulis, and several others that I could put you on to.
Don't forget Professor Whitehead!Clive Hayden
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply