Science ... NOT God ...

[mikkel_the_dane]

See what I mean?

Yeah, you have it hard, right?

There are more than one meaning to reality and it is out there recorded in a dictionary. Yet you don't confront that.
Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary This time with the link, just to show you that I control the Internet.

So again:

I like words about reality. Here are some:
Subjective: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind
Objective: having reality independent of the mind

There are 3 versions of reality:

• Reality in total
• Reality as objective
• Reality as subjective

I can hold all 3.
And I know you do it differently. So you pick your definition and I pick mine. Words are so funny. So what is really real?

And BTW imagination and its connects are real, otherwise we couldn't talk about them. Now how that matches the rest of reality is another fun round of words.

And again: There are at least 5 versions of truth:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/

So you keep your truth and I keep mine.

 

[Polymath257]

IIRC (going from memory here and not watched them for a while so could be misremembering) that's not really what he is getting at though. He's not talking about when certain aspects of experimental natural philosophy, with hindsight and if taken in isolation, could have potentially been called science, but that in its time science didn't exist conceptually in the manner it does today (and neither did religion).

So he's not saying Newton didn't do anything that could count as science (he is aware that Newton used scientific methods), but that the idea of science as a specific field of enquiry distinct from philosophy (and theology) was not really in existence.

You are making the point that we can say science existed when the scientific method existed (which is fair enough), and he's making a point about how science emerged as a distinct and reified concept concerned with the cumulative and progressive acquisition of knowledge.



It's not just semantics though but how these concepts fitted in to an overall worldview, and how this evolved in the Western intellectual tradition.

Well, the hugely significant leap made around 1600 is the idea that we need to be able to *test* our ideas via observation. That was a solid break from Greek philosophy, which believed you could arrive at truth by merely thinking about things and which was very dismissive of the value of observation (because of the faults of the senses).

That idea, that ideas should be tested, was a wildly disruptive one. Yes, it flourished partly because of the interactions with the Reformation and was even possible because of prior philosophy stating that we expect natural laws to be understandable by humans. But to completely miss that crucial step means this speaker misses the whole point, at least as far as I can see. It devalues the advance by making it just another sociological phenomenon.

Yes, the professionalization of science is an interesting phenomenon, and how the words 'religio' and 'scientia' evolved over time is amusing, but my feeling is that this series of lectures is largely missing the core point of what science *is* and thereby why it had the influence it did *even before it was professionalized*. The idea that we should be skeptical of claims and require procedures to test them is the core revolution. This was the fundamental break from the 'faith' based views prior. And we even see it in the Protestant revolution in how ideas were tested against the Biblical text.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, you have it hard, right?

There are more than one meaning to reality and it is out there recorded in a dictionary. Yet you don't confront that.
Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary This time with the link, just to show you that I control the Internet.

So again:

You should ask yourself why you are the only one having such a hard time figuring out which definition applies in which context.

Like I already told you once, your "objections" amount to the equivalent of telling you "this is light reading" and you then starting to yap about how reading doesn't have any mass.

 

[Jollybear]

The real point to take away here is that people DID believe that Earth was the center of the universe for a long span of time. And they did so in exactly the way that people believe in the stories presented as the underpinnings of religion. And that is - without proper evidence, and based only on what they were told by someone else.

So do you see how it is related? The same sort of thinking must necessarily be employed to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe that is employed to believe that God created the universe from nothingness, or that Jesus rose from the dead and floated up into the clouds, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Your missing my point. Im not arguing that NO ONE believed the earth was flat or was the center of the universe. Im arguing that the authors of the bible DID NOT believe that.

 

[Jollybear]

I said "most". This was not an all-inclusive statement. There will always be non-atheists who conflate all atheists into one lump sum just as there will always be non-christians who assume all christians are the same, etc. Using the word "most" was intentional to help prevent exactly what you are accusing me of doing.



I was going to respond to this list, but thankfully, a couple others did it already. By the way, I grew up in a Pentacostal-type environment. I have heard multitudes of claims of miraculous healings. Never seen one though. Neither have you.



The YECs and Biblical Literalists should take heed to these words. Not all Christians believe in 7 day creation or a worldwide flood. Those that do make the entirety of Christianity look quite foolish.



Where religion -- Christianity in particular here -- fails is when it does. The Bible does give explanations on "how things work". It tells us to slaughter doves and spread the blood around as a treatment for leprosy, for example. It tells us that bats are birds and whales are fish, thus upending the classification systems of modern biology.

I have less frustration with most sects of Toaism and Buddhism, for example, because these belief systems do not make such scientific claims then feign innocence then scream "persecution" when they're told that they're wrong.



That doesn't make your version of BS "true". You know, I rather liked the idea of believing I was in the palm of the hand of an omnipotent god. Liking that idea and that idea mattering to me, didn't make that idea true.



What does "love" have to do with religion? "Love" brings others together (You know, I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony!) Religion is among the most divisive forces known to man; which is contrary to love.



Yes, yes, and you love to play with words as it feeds your ego.

You do understand that dictionaries are descriptive and not prescriptive, yes? That words are defined according to how people are using those words, and is not an authority source on what those words are supposed to mean?

You should also understand that a lake being "real" and it being "real" that you can imagine one is a grotesque false equivocation, right?

Nevermind ...



Then why has not one scientific achievement in all of humanity stemmed from reading his word?

You havent seen one? How would you? First, youd have to see someones cancer, then second youd have to see it go away.

First youd have to see someones aids then second, see it go away. List goes on.

How are you gonna see all that unless your studying these people directly?

Get real man.

Also, i had someone tell me they had aids and he was at church praying and he felt a warm heat come on him, he started speaking in tongues and then his aids got healed. He verified that with a specialist.

He had nothing to gain in lying to me about that.

 

[Jollybear]

The ones having a different religion or those that have none?

Yes, have a nice day too.

Edited because ….

Either or. A none religious person can be wise enough to spot religious propaganda and a true religious person also can be wise enough to spot religious propaganda.

Some religious people and none religious people can be stupid to not spot it as well.

 

[Augustus]

Well, the hugely significant leap made around 1600 is the idea that we need to be able to *test* our ideas via observation. That was a solid break from Greek philosophy, which believed you could arrive at truth by merely thinking about things and which was very dismissive of the value of observation (because of the faults of the senses).

That idea, that ideas should be tested, was a wildly disruptive one. Yes, it flourished partly because of the interactions with the Reformation and was even possible because of prior philosophy stating that we expect natural laws to be understandable by humans. But to completely miss that crucial step means this speaker misses the whole point, at least as far as I can see. It devalues the advance by making it just another sociological phenomenon.

Yes, the professionalization of science is an interesting phenomenon, and how the words 'religio' and 'scientia' evolved over time is amusing, but my feeling is that this series of lectures is largely missing the core point of what science *is* and thereby why it had the influence it did *even before it was professionalized*. The idea that we should be skeptical of claims and require procedures to test them is the core revolution. This was the fundamental break from the 'faith' based views prior. And we even see it in the Protestant revolution in how ideas were tested against the Biblical text.

He does discuss that though: why was there a move to experimental science and why did this catch on. He talks about Jonathan Swift mocking experimental science in Gulliver's Travels, and how the experimental approach gained societal legitimacy due to it's links to theological concerns, etc.

He wrote a whole book on the topic too.

 

[Polymath257]

He does discuss that though: why was there a move to experimental science and why did this catch on. He talks about Jonathan Swift mocking experimental science in Gulliver's Travels, and how the experimental approach gained societal legitimacy due to it's links to theological concerns, etc.

I have not yet finished the lectures, so I may not have got to that point. Thanks.

He wrote a whole book on the topic too.

Which has been put on my (unfortunately too extensive) reading list.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Your missing my point. Im not arguing that NO ONE believed the earth was flat or was the center of the universe. Im arguing that the authors of the bible DID NOT believe that.

I didn't miss the point, trust me... it was you who missed mine. I responded in exactly the way I did BECAUSE you insisted that it was important to point out that the authors of The Bible did not believe that the Earth was the center of the universe. My point was that it takes exactly the same kind of thinking to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe without proper evidence, as it does to believe in a god without proper evidence. So, if there was any "missing of points" being done - it was by you.

 

[Polymath257]

Your missing my point. Im not arguing that NO ONE believed the earth was flat or was the center of the universe. Im arguing that the authors of the bible DID NOT believe that.

Can you support that statement? Given that it was the dominant view at the time, especially in that area, it would be remarkable if they *didn't* believe that. The Biblical writings certainly support that viewpoint.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Also, i had someone tell me they had aids and he was at church praying and he felt a warm heat come on him, he started speaking in tongues and then his aids got healed. He verified that with a specialist.
He had nothing to gain in lying to me about that.

 

[Augustus]

Given that it was the dominant view at the time, especially in that area, it would be remarkable if they *didn't* believe that.

Do you know the idea of a round earth gained widespread acceptance among the educated classes of the classical world? (not when it was first proposed, but when it became the dominant view)

*edit* should read: do you know when the idea...

 

[Polymath257]

Do you know the idea of a round earth gained widespread acceptance among the educated classes of the classical world? (not when it was first proposed, but when it became the dominant view)

Yes. But that wasn't when the relevant parts of the Bible were written. The OT actually shows a variety of different views of the nature of the Earth, from flat with a dome overhead, to later ones that show some awareness of the round Earth model.

 

[Augustus]

Yes. But that wasn't when the relevant parts of the Bible were written. The OT actually shows a variety of different views of the nature of the Earth, from flat with a dome overhead, to later ones that show some awareness of the round Earth model.

Wasn't about the Bible, but a general question out of curiosity. I was just wondering if it is known when it became the dominant view and it would have been considered a bit strange to think the world was flat.

 

[Polymath257]

Wasn't about the Bible, but a general question out of curiosity. I was just wondering if it is known when it became the dominant view and it would have been considered a bit strange to think the world was flat.

It didn't happen everywhere at once and was not accepted even by the intellectuals uniformly.

Certainly Aristotle accepted the sphericity of the Earth. And Ptolemy built on that. I would bet that among educated Greeks and Romans it was widely accepted by the first century and probably before. I *think* I read that it was mentioned as early as the 7th century BCE (Pythagorus--who also thought the Earth orbited the sun), but I doubt it was common then.

But IIRC, Isadore of Seville argued for a flat Earth as late as the 7th century AD.

 

[Windwalker]

Here is one early Christian's view of science and religion:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7] - St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim​

Wow. How profoundly appropriate for today! In fact, it's these sorts of Christians Augustine rebukes here, who created Richard Dawkins, and flowing fountains of neo-atheists at the ready to call them out. Funny to imagine they lived back then to, your science-denying, evolution-denying Ken Ham's of the ancient world! Marvelous!

 

[Polymath257]

Do you know the idea of a round earth gained widespread acceptance among the educated classes of the classical world? (not when it was first proposed, but when it became the dominant view)

I misunderstood this at first because the word 'when' is missing in your first sentence.

 

[Augustus]

I misunderstood this at first because the word 'when' is missing in your first sentence.

So it is, my mistake

 

[Jollybear]

I didn't miss the point, trust me... it was you who missed mine. I responded in exactly the way I did BECAUSE you insisted that it was important to point out that the authors of The Bible did not believe that the Earth was the center of the universe. My point was that it takes exactly the same kind of thinking to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe without proper evidence, as it does to believe in a god without proper evidence. So, if there was any "missing of points" being done - it was by you.

No, you missed my point.

Im arguing the bible authors did not believe the earth was flat or the center of the universe.

Can you support that statement? Given that it was the dominant view at the time, especially in that area, it would be remarkable if they *didn't* believe that. The Biblical writings certainly support that viewpoint.

I sure can support that statement!

Isaiah 40:22

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

Genesis 1:1-2

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Notice, the circle of the earth. It does not say its flat or square, it says circle.

Also notice, God created the heavens and earth. Period. It dont say 'and God made the earth the center of the heavens'. It dont say that at all.

 

[Windwalker]

Thoughts and beliefs are real. What is being thought or believed doesn't necessarily reflect something real.

Physical effects as a result of thinking / believing things is normal.

But here's the fascinating spin. That thought, while it may not reflect something real at the time, can of often does as a result of being believed to be true or real, will create that very reality it images to be true. It is already real to him, and through that, it can manifest in physical reality.

Example, paranoid man believes his girlfriend is cheating on him. This belief changes how he sees and relates to his GF. GF withdraws from him and begins cheating on him before she leaves. His imagination created the reality. The same is true for positive things as well.

This extends to pretty much everything we imagine is reality. It becomes reality for us, through what we imagine it is. If we see it as true, it becomes true. To put a term to this, these are self-reinforcing, self-amplifying feedback systems. Imagination becomes reality. See that city outside? Imagination brought that into existence.