Science Versus Religion! The Contest that isn't really there.

Zombrex · 06-03-2009 10:44AM

Morbert wrote: »

The problem is 'the philosophy of science' is not the same as naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that we can only hope to understand what we can investigate under the assumptions of natural law (i.e. uniformitarianism etc.) and that science is therefore our greatest tool when it comes to understanding reality. The philosophy of science, on the other hand, is a term for the set of ideas and considerations used to define what constitutes science and non-science, and how to interpret scientific results.

But it goes deeper than that. Why does science declare knowledge defined a certain way as constituting science, ie being scientific, and others not? What does it matter that something constitutes science, that something is scientific?

If that has no bearing on how we learn, if it isn't making a judgement on how we learn, why is there this requirement in the first place?

Ask I asked above, why are scientists not allowed introduce knowledge that they have gained from a methodology other than science? Why must knowledge that is introduced adhere to a certain set of standards.

What is the scientific method saying when it says this, what is the rational behind it? That is not an arbitrary rules, they exists for a reason.

Morbert wrote: »

More importantly, philosophy of science tells us that we must adopt the assumptions of naturalism when we are practising science, but it does not tell us that we must adopt assumptions of naturalism when we aren't.

But why

Why does science tell use we must adopt a certain set of standards when doing science. If science isn't saying anything about these standards mattering when it comes to human learning and the limits of human learning why do they exist at all?

Zombrex · 06-03-2009 11:22AM

Morbert wrote: »

But the fact remains that, regardless of our opinion of such inconsistent behaviour, neither the method of science, nor the body of knowledge gained from employing that method, is affected. A Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Solipsist, Nihilist etc. can pick up a book on cosmology, or geology, or any field of scientific investigation and accept the findings of science.

I'm not arguing otherwise.

Apologies if I am missing important points of yours, but I do seem to be spending a lot of my time debating counter arguments from you that are based on things I've never actually claimed

Morbert wrote: »

This would go soooooooo much smoother if you would phrase your objection to theism by saying it is inconsitent to adopt naturalism for some things (such as scientific investigation), and to reject naturalism for other things.

If naturalism is the idea that all phenomena can be explained using natural laws then I can't say that because that is not the same as saying "we don't know God exists", it is basically saying "no God doesn't exist".

Which isn't my point. I'm not arguing that God doesn't exist, nor that science should say God doesn't exist nor that the only conclusion someone can take from science is that God doesn't exist. I'm not arguing any of these things.

In fact it would be itself anti-scientific to claim that all natural phenomena can be explained using natural law. That is an assumption that is beyond our knowledge.

The most we can say is that we can only explain natural phenomena by using natural laws, but there is no requirement that all natural phenomena therefore must adhere to laws. God if he exists is a natural phenomena and doesn't adhere to laws. There could be plenty of phenomena that we simply cannot explain.

If that is what you mean by naturalism, not that all phenomena can be explained using natural laws but simply that all phenomena we can explain must follow natural laws otherwise we can't explain them, then yes I fully agree with that. But that is what science says anyway, so there is no difference between saying naturalism says that and science says that.

Morbert wrote: »

When science is practised, the assumptions of naturalism are adopted because these assumptions produce a reputable, useful, and reliable body of scientific knowledge.

Yes, and is there not a requirement in the scientific method that you do not introduce knowledge from other methodologies that do not follow these standards precisely because it is considered, from a scientific point of view at least, to be unreliable and rather useless?

What is that saying about the the standards of the scientific method, what the scientific method and the rational behind it, is saying about other types of knowlege?

Science adopts the position that if we cannot explain phenomena that we cannot model and test. Therefore knowledge about such phenomena that is gathered without using those standards should not be introduced to scientific models because it is unreliable and of no use. According to science you cannot know something is a certain way unless you can model it to the standards required by science.

This is a comment on human learning, and the inherent untrust-ability of knowledge gained in a manner external to science.

People are free to totally disagree with that if they like, but in doing so they are being anti-scientific.

Morbert · 06-03-2009 11:47AM

The standards of science are adopted because they produce accurate, useful, and reliable descriptions of all observable phenomena to date. These descriptions can be produced or appreciated even if you take a purely pragmatic approach to science. The key aspect of science is the adoption of naturalism as a methodology, not a belief; if I want to believe in God because I had a revelation, or because I'm convinced by historical accounts, or because I'm afraid of death, or because I'm bored, then I can go right ahead without compromising the practise of science or the body of facts and theories it establishes. I might be committing epistemic suicide, but I can do this provided (and this is where the philosophy of science comes in) I do not try to pass off such beliefs as scientific statements.

[edit]-adding the two relevant bits from your previous message

If naturalism is the idea that all phenomena can be explained using natural laws then I can't say that because that is not the same as saying "we don't know God exists", it is basically saying "no God doesn't exist".

I'm referring to more epistemic versions of naturalism which claim that any unscientific belief about reality is useless and not worth adopting.

Yes, and is there not a requirement in the scientific method that you do not introduce knowledge from other methodologies that do not follow these standards precisely because it is considered, from a scientific point of view at least, to be unreliable and rather useless?

A belief in the existence of god cannot be used to support or establish a scientific theory in the same way that the scientific method cannot be used to establish the existence of God. Such an approach would be inconsistent.

Apologies if I am missing important points of yours, but I do seem to be spending a lot of my time debating counter arguments from you that are based on things I've never actually claimed

It is your insistence on using the phrase "Anti-scientific" that is causing the problem.

Zombrex · 06-03-2009 11:58AM

Morbert wrote: »

The standards of science are adopted because they produce accurate, useful, and reliable descriptions of all observable phenomena to date.

Ok now flip that statement around, ask why are certain things not adopted by science, or out right rejected by science?

Why are certain areas of claimed knowledge not adopted by science?

Why are facts gained through non-scientific methods not allowed into scientific models?

What is science saying about these other ways when it says you can't do that here? Why does it not allow them into science?

Morbert wrote: »

The key aspect of science is the adoption of naturalism as a methodology, not a belief

But why does science adopt naturalism as a methodology. It is not simply a random decision, there is a rational behind that. What is the reasoning behind that adoption?

Morbert · 06-03-2009 12:03PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok now flip that statement around, ask why are certain things not adopted by science, or out right rejected by science?

Why are certain areas of claimed knowledge not adopted by science?

Why are facts gained through non-scientific methods not allowed into scientific models?

What is science saying about these other ways when it says you can't do that here? Why does it not allow them into science?

Science is saying "I cannot use these beliefs to establish descriptions of phenomena".

But why does science adopt naturalism as a methodology. It is not simply a random decision, there is a rational behind that. What is the reasoning behind that adoption?

Because the methodology is reliable.

Zombrex · 06-03-2009 12:16PM

Morbert wrote: »

Science is saying "I cannot use these beliefs to establish descriptions of phenomena".

Why not?

What does science consider wrong with these beliefs that they can't be used for that?

Morbert wrote: »

Because the methodology is reliable.

And what is it saying about other methodology that it doesn't allow to be incorporated?

Morbert · 06-03-2009 12:31PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Why not?

What does science consider wrong with these beliefs that they can't be used for that?

Science does not consider anything wrong with those beliefs. Remeber that science does not say anything regarding the validity such beliefs beyond "they cannot be validated with the scientific method".

And what is it saying about other methodolog[ies] that it doesn't allow to be incorporated?

That they are not scientific.

Zombrex · 06-03-2009 12:38PM

Morbert wrote: »

Science does not consider anything wrong with those beliefs. Remeber that science does not say anything regarding the validity such beliefs beyond "they cannot be validated with the scientific method".

That they are not scientific.

Yes but what is the consequence of that they cannot be validated with the scientific method.

Why does science not allow things that cannot be validated with the scientific method into scientific models? What is the rational behind that?

What is science saying about this knowledge?

Morbert · 06-03-2009 12:49PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but what is the consequence of that they cannot be validated with the scientific method.

That's a debate for another thread (and not with me).

Why does science not allow things that cannot be validated with the scientific method into scientific models? What is the rational behind that?

What is science saying about this knowledge?

That it has no predictive, uniform framework, and therefore cannot be incorporated into the body of scientific knowledge, which deals with natural (i.e. predictable and uniform) phenomena.

sink · 06-03-2009 01:03PM

That is very circular logic you are using Morbert. It's not science because Science says it's not science and science is science because Science is science. Can you not see the problem with that logic?

JimiTime · 06-03-2009 01:09PM

How do you get:

sink wrote: »

That is very circular logic you are using Morbert. It's not science because Science says it's not science and science is science because Science is science. Can you not see the problem with that logic?

From:

Morbert wrote: »

That it has no predictive, uniform framework, and therefore cannot be incorporated into the body of scientific knowledge, which deals with natural (i.e. predictable and uniform) phenomena.

Thats not circular at all. It quite precise

Morbert · 06-03-2009 01:09PM

sink wrote: »

That is very circular logic you are using Morbert. It's not science because Science says it's not science and science is science because Science is science. Can you not see the problem with that logic?

That is not what I said.

sink · 06-03-2009 01:47PM

Science originated from philosophy and science would not exist if it's benefits over philosophy were not recognised. If philosophy was as useful as science for gaining knowledge of the world the two wouldn't have separated out and scientific method wouldn't have developed to discount the entire body of natural philosophy and theology. At best it would have been a category of philosophy and not separate entirely from it, but it wouldn't be science as we know it. The only reason science is a separate discipline from philosophy is because philosophy was recognised as being deeply flawed.

What i'm basically saying science did not sprout into existence from a vacuum. The scientific method did not just happen into existence. It was the philosophy that 'natural philosophy' and 'theology' are flawed methods that lead to science. If they were not flawed why would there be a need for science?

Húrin · 06-03-2009 11:50PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

I agree wholeheartedly, that was my entire point. A scientist who has strong beliefs is not going to follow the scientific method properly as his/her beliefs are always going to cause them to overlook some facts either consciously or subconsciously.

Does this mean that Dawkins is a bad scientist? Are John Houghton or Francis Collins bad scientists? If they are, how did they fool the others into thinking they were good?

Húrin · 06-03-2009 11:58PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

It's possible science can deal with things in the metaphysical realm, just not yet. It is unfair to confine science to the natural world, just because that is as far as we've gotten to date.

If science can investigate metaphysical phenomena, then that phenomena is not metaphysical at all. The idea that science will, some day, hopefully, answer everything is as faith-based as any other belief without much demonstrable evidence.

sink wrote: »

Science originated from philosophy and science would not exist if it's benefits over philosophy were not recognised. If philosophy was as useful as science for gaining knowledge of the world the two wouldn't have separated out and scientific method wouldn't have developed to discount the entire body of natural philosophy and theology. At best it would have been a category of philosophy and not separate entirely from it, but it wouldn't be science as we know it. The only reason science is a separate discipline from philosophy is because philosophy was recognised as being deeply flawed.

What i'm basically saying science did not sprout into existence from a vacuum. The scientific method did not just happen into existence. It was the philosophy that 'natural philosophy' and 'theology' are flawed methods that lead to science. If they were not flawed why would there be a need for science?

What complete tosh! What is your basis for the belief that science has replaced, or destroyed philosophy? It has eliminated competing methods in natural philosophy, but not philosophy as a whole. Do you think that nobody writes philosophy any more?

sink · 07-03-2009 01:48AM

Húrin wrote: »

What complete tosh! What is your basis for the belief that science has replaced, or destroyed philosophy? It has eliminated competing methods in natural philosophy, but not philosophy as a whole. Do you think that nobody writes philosophy any more?

When talking about science replacing philosophy I was talking entirely about natural philosophy and theology which asserted gods presence as an actor in the natural world. Other forms of philosophy still have their uses for purely instrumental pursuits. I myself follow the humanist philosophy, the humanist philosophy does not claim anything about nature outside of what science can deduce but it offers a way for individuals and whole societies to conduct themselves in a fashion which is beneficial to all. It is an instrument for living not a claim on what exists. Philosophy has lost it's grip on the the natural world, theology is proving more stubborn.

Húrin · 07-03-2009 02:33AM

sink wrote: »

When talking about science replacing philosophy I was talking entirely about natural philosophy and theology which asserted gods presence as an actor in the natural world. Other forms of philosophy still have their uses for purely instrumental pursuits.

Much major philosophy of the past two centuries has not been especially theistic, nor by any means entirely instrumental.

I agree that science has eliminated competing methods in natural philosophy, but I don't see how theology is especially resistant. I'm assuming you're thinking of creationism. No scientist gives credibility to young-earth creationism, for instance. It is not contended by anyone credible, to have a place in science.

philologos · 07-03-2009 10:37AM

sink wrote: »

When talking about science replacing philosophy I was talking entirely about natural philosophy and theology which asserted gods presence as an actor in the natural world. Other forms of philosophy still have their uses for purely instrumental pursuits. I myself follow the humanist philosophy, the humanist philosophy does not claim anything about nature outside of what science can deduce but it offers a way for individuals and whole societies to conduct themselves in a fashion which is beneficial to all. It is an instrument for living not a claim on what exists. Philosophy has lost it's grip on the the natural world, theology is proving more stubborn.

It doesn't replace theology either, it's very much an active subject in universities across the world to this day. Science hasn't refuted God's role as an actor in the natural world or the universe surely, and if so please describe exactly how?

sink · 07-03-2009 12:17PM

Jakkass wrote: »

It doesn't replace theology either, it's very much an active subject in universities across the world to this day. Science hasn't refuted God's role as an actor in the natural world or the universe surely, and if so please describe exactly how?

My point is it hasn't, hence why I said it was being stubborn. People still attribute hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis and even the diversity of life itself to direct acts of god even though science has built up a huge amount of evidence that these are all natural processes, without a shred of evidence of god being involved.

This is going around in circles, you believe god created everything and is omnipotent and omnipresent but yet invisible excepting through spiritual revelation somewhat resembling a hallucination. I can't disprove that just like I can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster. Believe if you want to believe, but don't think you can pay proper credence to science at the same stage.

Húrin · 08-03-2009 06:26PM

sink wrote: »

Believe if you want to believe, but don't think you can pay proper credence to science at the same stage.

So basically, your opinion seems to be that because he doesn't think like you about religion, then he must not respect science. You appear to have little more than your feelings to back this up.

This begs the question: since science was developed in a religious framework (mostly Islamic and Christian), how can it be as flawless as you think it is? How can science come from such anti-scientific paradigms that you believe these religions to be?

sink · 08-03-2009 09:16PM

Húrin wrote: »

So basically, your opinion seems to be that because he doesn't think like you about religion, then he must not respect science. You appear to have little more than your feelings to back this up.

It's not about how a religious person thinks about their religion, it's how they think about their external environment. If religion makes one perceive god everywhere even when there is a well explained natural cause then it is being anti scientific.

Húrin wrote: »

This begs the question: since science was developed in a religious framework (mostly Islamic and Christian), how can it be as flawless as you think it is? How can science come from such anti-scientific paradigms that you believe these religions to be?

Science has only been a professional institutional pursuit since the 19th century and at that stage it separated from the church and religion. Before that it was more of a gentleman's hobby. The period after it became professional is regarded as modern science and scientific methodology had developed to completely eliminate supernatural causes.

Even the greatest scientists before the modern period did not conduct themselves according to modern scientific principles. Newton for one proclaimed it was god who set the planets in motion, he just discovered upon what rules they operated. In the modern era theories on the formation of galaxies, stars, solar systems and planets is far more advanced and no respected modern scientist would proclaim gods influence over any of it.

It does not matter that early science originated from people of religious faith, modern science has developed slowly and incrementally beyond religion. And the method is not perfect but it is the best method we possess.

postcynical · 08-03-2009 11:53PM

sink wrote: »

People still attribute hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis and even the diversity of life itself to direct acts of god even though science has built up a huge amount of evidence that these are all natural processes, without a shred of evidence of god being involved.

God created the natural world so it's logical that there are natural (scientific) explanations for its workings. I see God's involvement in most natural phenomena and especially in those which are of relevance to my life. Wonder at the natural world has led many people to God.

This is going around in circles, you believe god created everything and is omnipotent and omnipresent but yet invisible excepting through spiritual revelation somewhat resembling a hallucination. I can't disprove that just like I can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster. Believe if you want to believe, but don't think you can pay proper credence to science at the same stage.

There should be a Godwin fail type argument for the FSM at this stage. You can't falsify the existence of the FSM because it's a meta-scientific argument. It would be a silly pursuit to dedicate your life to disproving the existence of the FSM (or God). However it's a very worthwhile pursuit to open your mind, your senses and your heart to God's presence in your life. If you spot his influence in your microscope then good for you. But you'll spot it anywhere you look in the physical world. And it won't suddenly make you a poorer scientist.

Húrin · 09-03-2009 12:09AM

sink wrote: »

It's not about how a religious person thinks about their religion, it's how they think about their external environment. If religion makes one perceive god everywhere even when there is a well explained natural cause then it is being anti scientific.

Since we're not talking about a creationist, but Jakkass, this argument is irrelevant.

God and natural causes are not mutually exclusive, because most religious people think that natural causes did not come to exist by chance, but by God. To believe in God is not to deny natural causes. I can't believe you don't see this.

Science has only been a professional institutional pursuit since the 19th century and at that stage it separated from the church and religion. Before that it was more of a gentleman's hobby. The period after it became professional is regarded as modern science and scientific methodology had developed to completely eliminate supernatural causes.

No, science has been professional since at least the 17th century. The Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge was founded in 1660, and its motto has always been "on the words of no-one" (nullius in verba) - a sentiment that still guides science.

Neither its principles nor those of 19th century scientists came from nowhere, but rather were the results of the natural philosophy conducted by Islamic and Christian philosophers, and Aristotle and the Indians before them.

Science was indeed more professionalised at the beginning of the 19th century than in the 17th, as industry and enclosure made the economy more urban and division of labour greatly increased.

Even the greatest scientists before the modern period did not conduct themselves according to modern scientific principles. Newton for one proclaimed it was god who set the planets in motion, he just discovered upon what rules they operated. In the modern era theories on the formation of galaxies, stars, solar systems and planets is far more advanced and no respected modern scientist would proclaim gods influence over any of it.

It does not matter that early science originated from people of religious faith, modern science has developed slowly and incrementally beyond religion. And the method is not perfect but it is the best method we possess.

The methods of theology and philosophy are always changing. Science was not quite the 'clean break' you seem to think it was.

gaynorvader · 09-03-2009 01:29PM

Húrin wrote: »

Since we're not talking about a creationist, but Jakkass, this argument is irrelevant.

God and natural causes are not mutually exclusive, because most religious people think that natural causes did not come to exist by chance, but by God. To believe in God is not to deny natural causes. I can't believe you don't see this.

No, science has been professional since at least the 17th century. The Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge was founded in 1660, and its motto has always been "on the words of no-one" (nullius in verba) - a sentiment that still guides science.

Neither its principles nor those of 19th century scientists came from nowhere, but rather were the results of the natural philosophy conducted by Islamic and Christian philosophers, and Aristotle and the Indians before them.

Science was indeed more professionalised at the beginning of the 19th century than in the 17th, as industry and enclosure made the economy more urban and division of labour greatly increased.

It really depends on what you mean by science. Science has been around since long before Christianity or Islam were founded. For instance, technological advances all point to scientific pursuit, the development of steel, iron, bronze, etc are all technological advances which were arrived at through a process of trial and error, ie. experimentation. To say religion gave birth to science is an arrogant statement.

Húrin wrote: »

The methods of theology and philosophy are always changing. Science was not quite the 'clean break' you seem to think it was.

I believe that is the point, if the methodoligy for discovering something is constantly changing to suit the result you wish to arrive at, how can you rely on the validity of such a process?

PDN · 09-03-2009 02:47PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

It really depends on what you mean by science. Science has been around since long before Christianity or Islam were founded. For instance, technological advances all point to scientific pursuit, the development of steel, iron, bronze, etc are all technological advances which were arrived at through a process of trial and error, ie. experimentation. To say religion gave birth to science is an arrogant statement.

I don't think that is quite true. Technological advances do not necessarily involve application of the scientific method. For example, for centuries China produced many technological breakthroughs, often by happy accidents, yet they often failed to transfer these breakthroughs to other areas of knowledge. This was because their worldview was not one where the world operated in a coherent fashion.

One of the reasons why Christians and Muslim thinkers developed the scientific method to the degree they did is because their theology led them to conclude that there was a plan and order to the world, therefore they expected the world to work according to laws or principles that remained consistent when transferred from one field of knowledge to another.

However, I don't think one should argue that religion gave birth to science since there is no non-religious history with which to compare it. Everybody was religious in some shape or form for most of history, so you might as well argue that being human gave birth to science. What is more significant is that the scientific method developed more where people belonged to religions that teach an orderly world view (eg Judaism, Christianity, Islam) than than where events were considered to be the unpredictable results of the activities of capricious deities.

I believe that is the point, if the methodoligy for discovering something is constantly changing to suit the result you wish to arrive at, how can you rely on the validity of such a process?

But that isn't what Hurin said. He said that methodology changes, but you are putting words into his mouth by claiming that such changes are to suit the results at which we wish to arrive. In fact, in any field of study, methodology should be open to change as we learn more. Philosophy and theology are no exceptions to this.

antiskeptic · 09-03-2009 11:31PM

PDN wrote: »

One of the reasons why Christians and Muslim thinkers developed the scientific method to the degree they did is because their theology led them to conclude that there was a plan and order to the world, therefore they expected the world to work according to laws or principles that remained consistent when transferred from one field of knowledge to another.

However, I don't think one should argue that religion gave birth to science since there is no non-religious history with which to compare it.

When it comes to modern day science. And the fathers thereof?

Francis Bacon 1561-1626. Father of the inductive method of science (observation and experiment) "There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; the the volume of the Creatures, which reveal His power"

Johnannes Kepler 1571-1630. Father of modern physical astronomy."Since we astronomers are the priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, the glory of God"

Blaise Pascal 1623-1662. hydrostatics, hydrodynamics, differential calculus. Praying just before his death "Grant that I may conform to thy will, just as I am, that, sick as I am, I may glorify thee in my sufferings"

Robert Boyle 1627-1691 Father of Modern Chemistry / one of the founders of the Royal Society. Addressing his fellow scientists in his last address to that society "Remember to give glory to the One who authored nature"

John Ray 1627-1705. Father of English Natural History / founder of the Royal Society "There is for a free man no occupation more worthy and delightful than to contemplate the beauteous works of nature and honour the infinite wisdom and goodness of God".

Sir Isaac Newton 1642-1727 Universally recognized as one of the greatest scientists who ever lived. "Without all doubt this world.... could arise from nothing but the perfectly free will of God"

Carolus Linneaus 1707-1778 Father of biological taxonomy. "One is completely stunned by the incredible resourcefulness of the Creator"

William Herschel 1738-1822 outstanding astronomer, best known for his discovery of Uranus. "The undevout astronomer must be mad!"

Micheal Faraday 1791-1867. Chemist and Physicist. Discoverer of electromagnetic induction. In reply to a deathbed query as to his speculations Faraday underlined his faith in God when he replied "Speculations? I have none. I am relying on certainties."

Samuel Morse 1791-1872 Inventor of the electric telegraph. He testified to his faith with the first message sent by telegraph from Washington to Baltimore on 24 May 1844. "What hath God wrought?"

James Joule 1818-1889 The first to measure the mechanical equivilent of heat."It is evident that an aquaintence with natural laws means no less than an aquaintenceship with the mind of God therein expressed"

James Clerk Maxwell 1831-1879 Predicted the existance of radio waves and has been called the father of modern physics. Albert Einstein said that Maxwells achievements were "the most profound and fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton" He is recorded as praying "teach us to study the work of thy hands that we may subdue the earth to our use and strengthen our reason for thy service"

Húrin · 09-03-2009 11:40PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

It really depends on what you mean by science.

Indeed, and by science I do not mean technology. It wasn't until Francis Bacon that the two were linked conceptually, and it didn't consistently happen in real life until the late 18th century.

Science has been around since long before Christianity or Islam were founded. For instance, technological advances all point to scientific pursuit, the development of steel, iron, bronze, etc are all technological advances which were arrived at through a process of trial and error, ie. experimentation. To say religion gave birth to science is an arrogant statement.

This empirical technology was not scientific. Iron age peoples found that iron was better than bronze, but chemically, they had no idea why. It just was.

I believe that is the point, if the methodoligy for discovering something is constantly changing to suit the result you wish to arrive at, how can you rely on the validity of such a process?

To suit the result you wish to arrive at? I don't remember saying that! The methodology of theology, philosophy and science change simply because all things change.

gaynorvader · 10-03-2009 02:05PM

Húrin wrote: »

Indeed, and by science I do not mean technology. It wasn't until Francis Bacon that the two were linked conceptually, and it didn't consistently happen in real life until the late 18th century.

I'm pretty sure the Greek Philosophers attempted to understand the world through logical thinking long before Christianity was founded, perhaps you're right though.

Húrin wrote: »

This empirical technology was not scientific. Iron age peoples found that iron was better than bronze, but chemically, they had no idea why. It just was.

I'm still not sure what you mean by 'Modern Science'. The Iron age people might not have known the reason iron was better than bronze, but they arrived at the conclusion that it was through trial and error i.e. experimentation. Is that not the same standard we use today? When Thomas Jefferson invented the lightbulb, we didn't know exactly how electricity worked ( they had a pretty good idea, but mixed up the positive and negative charges ), but that doesn't make the advancements any less scientific.

Húrin wrote: »

To suit the result you wish to arrive at? I don't remember saying that! The methodology of theology, philosophy and science change simply because all things change.

I apologise, I read into your words too much. The truth of the matter is I'm a bit vague on how the methodology has changed in theology. I was under the impression that it had changed to avoid doubt cast by scientific studies. Again, I'm sorry for garbling your words.

Fanny Cradock · 10-03-2009 02:26PM

gaynorvader wrote: »

I'm still not sure what you mean by 'Modern Science'. The Iron age people might not have known the reason iron was better than bronze, but they arrived at the conclusion that it was through trial and error i.e. experimentation. Is that not the same standard we use today? When Thomas Jefferson invented the lightbulb, we didn't know exactly how electricity worked ( they had a pretty good idea, but mixed up the positive and negative charges ), but that doesn't make the advancements any less scientific.

I think you will find that Jefferson didn't invent the light bulb, it was Edison. And unlike Jefferson, he did know how electricity worked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison#Electric_light

gaynorvader · 10-03-2009 02:45PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think you will find that Jefferson didn't invent the light bulb, it was Edison. And unlike Jefferson, he did know how electricity worked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison#Electric_light

Sorry, by bad, my point was that not knowing how something works, does not make advances in it any less scientific. How else are we supposed to find out how things work after all?

Science Versus Religion! The Contest that isn't really there.

Comments