Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why did God make us so that we are unconscious for a third of our lives?

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Oh I don't deny for one second that "that the Church made a significant contribution to the foundations scientific endeavour" as you put it.

    My point is that in the early years of science before it people actually got paid for doing it; progress relied mostly on the genius of a surprisingly small number of individuals. Now many of these did research supported by their Universities, which were founded by the Church. However, a significant amount of science was done but unaffiliated people who undertook private research, funded from their own pockets. These were the famous "gentlemen scientists". The most famous of these are probably: Robert Boyle, Antoine Lavoisier and Henry Cavendish, but of course there are others. The achievements of these great minds are nothing short of monumental.

    I'm certainly not arguing that there weren't "gentlemen scientists", but the names you mention post date the period that I'm talking about - the practical foundations upon which men like Bacon and Boyle built their ideas on was largely put in place by the Church. (Despite your attempt to head me off at the pass, I personally find it it interesting to read how faith and the guillotine played an important role in two of the men's lives you mentioned.)
    iUseVi wrote: »
    Thus I hope you begin to see the issue I have with the statement "The only people doing science were the Church".

    Lets face it, there will always be exceptions to the rule. Certainly if you go far forward enough there are issues with a categorical statement about who promoted and practised science exactly because of the emergence of the gentleman scientist and the emergence of science as distinctive discipline.


  • Options
    #63
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    PDN wrote: »
    I am certainly prepared to concede that there may have been a few individuals who conducted science outside of the Church - although my main point was that the Church constituted the scientific establishment of the day.

    But your examples are rather confusing.

    Antoine Lavoisier was born over a century after the death of Galileo, Cavendish 89 years later. So I'm not quite sure what they demonstrate concerning who was doing science at the time of Galileo's arrest. (One of them invented the time machine, perhaps?)

    Robert Boyle was 5 years old when Galileo was arrested and tried. But I guess he might be relevant to this if he was an unusually gifted child who was doing research in Italy and funding it himself while he was also learning to walk.

    But, as you say, it is worth bringing Boyle into any discussion where someone is claiming that religion has only ever hindered science. ;)

    Gah, I knew you would bring the dates of them in, I stuck with these because I know them best. But this only strengthens my point. The further back towards Galileo's time you go, the less institutions had to do with overall progress and the more you find that specific people are making contributions because of their innate curiosity. As for specific examples we have Tycho Brahe who had his own personal island, William Gilbert who worked as a royal physician but of course made great strides on the subject of electricity and magnetism in basically his free time (I would say electromagnetism but of course the link between them was not understood at this time.)


  • Options
    #64
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Lets face it, there will always be exceptions to the rule. Certainly if you go far forward enough there are issues with a categorical statement about who promoted and practised science exactly because of the emergence of the gentleman scientist and the emergence of science as distinctive discipline.

    I never doubted the general rule, I took issue with the categorical statement and an acknowledgement of this error is all I'm looking for. I'm not trying to push a case that "Christianity is evil" or any such thing.


  • Options
    #65
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Gah, I knew you would bring the dates of them in, I stuck with these because I know them best. But this only strengthens my point. The further back towards Galileo's time you go, the less institutions had to do with overall progress and the more you find that specific people are making contributions because of their innate curiosity. As for specific examples we have Tycho Brahe who had his own personal island, William Gilbert who worked as a royal physician but of course made great strides on the subject of electricity and magnetism in basically his free time (I would say electromagnetism but of course the link between them was not understood at this time.)

    Yes, and look back at the institutions where people like Brahe received their education.


  • Options
    #66
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Yes, and look back at the institutions where people like Brahe received their education.

    Yes but its not like he had a huge choice of institutions to go to and he did the important research on his private island. Maybe I'm splitting hairs a little bit, but Brache became interested in Astronomy from a very young age, before he went to the university; and given the opportunity I think he would always have made the precise observations that he did. And the opportunity was provided by the King of Denmark, not the church.

    There's many examples of people who were sent to university where they would start to study to become clergymen, but their innate interest in science was so strong that they studied other subjects on the side. Personally I think the individual people are more important to consider than the institutions. We are talking about times before people were readily able to make a living from being a scientist. It wasn't a profession so much as a hobby.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Yes but its not like he had a huge choice of institutions to go to and he did the important research on his private island.

    Parents pressurise their children into pursuing careers every day. I fail to see what that has to do with what we are discussing - the fundamentals. He was taught mathematics and the then understanding of the natural world at college, which no doubt stood him good stead during his research.
    iUseVi wrote: »
    There's many examples of people who were sent to university where they would start to study to become clergymen, but their innate interest in science was so strong that they studied other subjects on the side. Personally I think the individual people are more important to consider than the institutions. We are talking about times before people were readily able to make a living from being a scientist. It wasn't a profession so much as a hobby.

    Exactly the point. These people were able to conduct their research whilst being a member of the Church. The answer as to why this was possible I feel is quite important to this debate. Still, in attempts to bridge the gap, I think that we are both largely in agreement. While not wishing to denigrate the vital role played by the Church in paving the way for science as we know know it, I don't believe that it was only the Church that was doing science at the time, and I think PDN has admitted as much.


  • Options
    #68
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Parents pressurise their children into pursuing careers every day. I fail to see what that has to do with what we are discussing - the fundamentals. He was taught mathematics and the then understanding of the natural world at college, which no doubt stood him good stead during his research.

    Exactly the point. These people were able to conduct their research whilst being a member of the Church. The answer as to why this was possible I feel is quite important to this debate. Still, in attempts to bridge the gap, I think that we are both largely in agreement.

    Fair comment but we are into the realm of speculation now really. But why would someone not be able to conduct research and be a member of the Church? I think I don't get this point you are making. My case rests on the fact that Brahe's Church membership was inconsequential, and that he would have done the same science either way, out of curiosity.

    And I'm not sure (and I hope you agree) that just because he was a member of a Church that's it fair to say the Church is "doing" the research. Brahe was renowned for holding on to the data he collected, he wanted all the credit.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    While not wishing to denigrate the vital role played by the Church in paving the way for science as we know know it, I don't believe that it was only the Church that was doing science at the time, and I think PDN has admitted as much.

    PDN did?! I think I missed that. :D But in that case I think I've taken this thread OT for far too long. Awaaay!


  • Options
    #69
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    iUseVi wrote: »
    Fair comment but we are into the realm of speculation now really. But why would someone not be able to conduct research and be a member of the Church? I think I don't get this point you are making. My case rests on the fact that Brahe's Church membership was inconsequential, and that he would have done the same science either way, out of curiosity.

    That would be a fine comment to make if I was actually making the point you think I was making. While I don't think that you can necessarily separate the man from his faith (and I've seen revisionist attempts to do such things; for example, attempts to distance the wonderful work of MLK Jr. from his Christian beliefs), I'm not claiming that their scientific discovery would have been impossible without their faith. Actually, I wasn't discussing the role that personal belief had on the individual. Rather, I was talking about the general network (i.e. the Church) that either directly or indirectly aided their work. In this I'm not denying that their were attempts to hinder, repress and obfuscate what now seems obvious.
    iUseVi wrote: »
    And I'm not sure (and I hope you agree) that just because he was a member of a Church that's it fair to say the Church is "doing" the research. Brahe was renowned for holding on to the data he collected, he wanted all the credit.

    I agree. The man's achievements are his own.
    iUseVi wrote: »
    PDN did?! I think I missed that. :D But in that case I think I've taken this thread OT for far too long. Awaaay!

    "I am certainly prepared to concede that there may have been a few individuals who conducted science outside of the Church - although my main point was that the Church constituted the scientific establishment of the day." (It was his last post, I believe)


  • Options
    #70
    cypharius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭cypharius


    PDN wrote: »
    I am certainly prepared to concede that there may have been a few individuals who conducted science outside of the Church - although my main point was that the Church constituted the scientific establishment of the day.

    Actualy, Aristotle was the founder of the Scientific Method, religion doesn't hinder or help science today(Except in the case of fundies trying to push creationism), but it would be insane to say that the church was a scientific establishment, there was a time when they said that the sun orbits the earth, purely because that's what the bible says.
    PDN wrote: »
    The only people doing science were the Church. They set up the Universities, funded much of the research through their patronage etc.

    Unfortunately they had an exaggerated respect for the ancient Greeks, particularly Aristotle. And that was Galileo's problem - that he contradicted Aristotle. The Church was the Scientific establishment of the day (more by default than anything since no-one else was actually interested in science) and they defended the scientific orthodoxy of the day against Galileo's theories.

    So Galileo does not, except in the more absurd atheist rewritings of history, serve an example of religion hindering science. He demonstrates that the Church, while pursuing science, made plenty of mistakes and did some stupid things in the process.

    Of course if the Church had been guided by the Bible rather than Aristotle then they would have realised there was no problem with Galileo's teachings.


    No, because the bible says otherwise...


    How the hell did Galileo contradict Aristotle? And if the Church followed the bible, then they would have concluded that pi is = to 3. http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/Pi_In_The_Bible.html


  • Options
    #71
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    cypharius wrote: »
    How the hell did Galileo contradict Aristotle? And if the Church followed the bible, then they would have concluded that pi is = to 3. http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/Pi_In_The_Bible.html

    Galileo contradicted Aristotle by suggesting a heliocentric solar system as opposed to aristotle's geocentric system.

    And the Bible never claims to give a value for pi. That is a bit of atheist nonsense that we have debated twice over in the A&A forum where they end up insisting that it is wrong or inaccurate for a historian to round measurements up or down to the nearest unit. Do you really want to make an equal fool of yourself?

    While you're at it, you might brush up on the English language. No-one said the Church was 'a scientific establishment'. I said it served as 'the Scientific establishment' in that it fulfilled the role now fulfilled by other bodies in that it funded scientific research, set up universities etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    cypharius wrote: »
    How the hell did Galileo contradict Aristotle? And if the Church followed the bible, then they would have concluded that pi is = to 3. http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/Pi_In_The_Bible.html

    I have to agree with PDN on this one, I would drop the pi argument if I were you, it's a bit of a shocker.


  • Options
    #73
    cypharius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 504 ✭✭✭cypharius


    PDN wrote: »
    Galileo contradicted Aristotle by suggesting a heliocentric solar system as opposed to aristotle's geocentric system.

    And the Bible never claims to give a value for pi. That is a bit of atheist nonsense that we have debated twice over in the A&A forum where they end up insisting that it is wrong or inaccurate for a historian to round measurements up or down to the nearest unit. Do you really want to make an equal fool of yourself?


    Aristotle only went by the geoncentric system, because he had no evidence to see otherwise, the church believing the Earth orbits the sun had nothing to do with aristotle.

    As for PI these measurements are mentioned twice in Kings 7:23 and in Chronicles 4:2, yes they are obviously rounded, and I have no problem with that, I do however have a problem with that being said in the bible, and then having people come along and say that the Church is a scientific institution. If it was, then they would have edited the bible to have a footnote saying that they were rounding up.


  • Options
    #74
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,381 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Did any of these scientists and inventors ever find out why god made us need sleep? This is going massively off topic and I fear I'll never find out.


  • Options
    #75
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Did any of these scientists and inventors ever find out why god made us need sleep? This is going massively off topic and I fear I'll never find out.

    Evolutionary requirements, I suspect would be the answer.


Advertisement