• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Growing Disbelief in Evolution Among Republicans

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Right, and the chances you are going to become the next DeGrasse if you get into theoretical science? About nil! This is not rational. SUre,people covet tenure in all academic fields, so what? It's job security, it's not an assurance of riches.
There is grant money, publication money, departmental funding that depends on producing theories. In practical science those theories must be verified so not much of a problem. In the theoretical side theories about unknowable's cannot be checked but for the sake of the above must still be produced. This results in theories no one should have much confidence in, and it is almost always these theories used to contend with the bible. Practical or application science lines up very closely with the bible. There is a lot of money at stake even for the small time college professor no one ever heard of. However they are all not corrupted by it, but being human most are to some extent and theoretical science is the easiest type of science to get away with it in.
 

Moishe3rd

Yehudi
Take of the blinders, read this, and get back to us when you tire of dismissing much of history.

Jayhawker,
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that in discussions such as this, in 2014, when people are discussing the empirical validity of "science," people on basing their beliefs on what is commonly called the "scientific method," not the philosophies and beliefs that have been referred to as "science" for the last ten thousand years or so.
No?
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I would humbly suggest you study the history of the "scientific method."

In a nutshell, you will find that this idea was formally invented by Muslim and Christian scholars and that ALL institutions of Higher Learning (universities) that encouraged the scientific method of understanding were founded by devout religionists again, first by Muslims, then by Christians.
You will find that the philosophy of verifiable, repeatable experimentation, ie: the scientific method, grew from the religious concept that G-d Created an Ordered Universe and that it was incumbent upon Man to discover and use the Laws that G-d had put in place to rule this Ordered Universe.


Again, please study history.
You will find that "empirical naturalism" or scientific "naturalism" was invented by Christian scholars for the same reasons as noted above.



I know I sound like a broken reed here but, really - study the real history of both Bruno and Galileo.

Again, in a nutshell, Bruno was all over the map as a "free thinker" who was religiously; politically; and philosophically involved deeply with enemies of the ruling Roman Catholic Church and who made some particular enemies within the hierarchy who wanted to take him down. They did.

Galileo is even more straightforward. He was a friend of the Pope and the Pope asked him not to deliberately and literally refute and insult some Church scholars and their doctrines in his published works. Galileo agreed to not do so.
Galileo abnegated his agreements and attacked both the Church and certain scholars.
This ****** off the Pope.
And, the rest is history.

People tend to ignore the political ramifications of the disagreements between Church doctrines that were firmly rooted in Aristotle and Greek philosophies ("science") and Church scientists who, step by step, by using the scientific method invented by the Christian Church, refuted or altered these thousand year old philosophies.
The examples you mention and others, were almost 100% personal and political in nature and had little to do with the core beliefs of Christianity in terms of the bible and G-d.

In the time period you cite regarding Bruno; Galileo; and the Inquisition, was the time of the Great European Christian Sectarian Civil War, commonly called "the Reformation."
It lasted about 300 years; slaughtered tens of millions of mostly European Christians; devastated Europe from Scandinavia to Italia and Ireland to Moscow; took its internecine battles all over the world; and was fought by every possible faction, all against each other, including their own faction, to the point that people were summarily murdered for expressing a thought with which someone else disagreed.
It is, by the way, exactly what is going on today in the Great Muslim Arab Sectarian Civil War.

I see we have entered into a parallel narrative zone. What you've just described is, to me, a completely alien version of history, with no relationship whatsoever to the history I have read about and learned in school.

There's no point addressing any of this. If we can't agree on the facts, the only avenue of discussion we can take is this one: where are you getting this information from? Citations, links, etc. all welcome, but be forewarned I have a very high standard of evidence.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I would suggest that one doesn't "believe" in evolution any more than one would "believe" that 15 is a larger number than 5-- one either accepts it or they don't. The fact that evolution has been going on is not reliant upon one's belief. "Evolution" is simply change over time, and if we apply this to life forms, it means that eventually new species of life will possibly emerge, which we well know is true for a variety of reasons.

Uh, yeah, no ****. So, what does this have to do with my post?
 

Moishe3rd

Yehudi
I see we have entered into a parallel narrative zone. What you've just described is, to me, a completely alien version of history, with no relationship whatsoever to the history I have read about and learned in school.

There's no point addressing any of this. If we can't agree on the facts, the only avenue of discussion we can take is this one: where are you getting this information from? Citations, links, etc. all welcome, but be forewarned I have a very high standard of evidence.
Okay.
As Wiki seems to be the resource of first choice, how about this?
History of scientific method

As an addendum, you might consider that what you were "taught" in school... is wrong.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Okay.
As Wiki seems to be the resource of first choice, how about this?
History of scientific method

As an addendum, you might consider that what you were "taught" in school... is wrong.


Wait, the wiki article agrees with what I was taught in school and all the subsequent reading I undertook for pleasure.

So, if your position is that all of this is wrong, you should now provide citations and links outlining the evidentiary basis for your counter-claim that science is entirely rooted on Christian and Islamic theology.
 

FranklinMichaelV.3

Well-Known Member
One could make the argument that science as it developed did so well in the western world because it encouraged one to explore what God had created.
 

Moishe3rd

Yehudi
Wait, the wiki article agrees with what I was taught in school and all the subsequent reading I undertook for pleasure.

So, if your position is that all of this is wrong, you should now provide citations and links outlining the evidentiary basis for your counter-claim that science is entirely rooted on Christian and Islamic theology.
I do not claim that the term "science" is "entirely rooted on Christian and Islamic theology."

I am claiming the "scientific method," which is what is used today to "prove" the Absolute Validity of "science" was, indeed, invented by theological scholars, mostly Muslim and Christian.
This is so stated in the Wiki. More than that, this is a totally accepted Fact by any real scientist or historian.
To claim otherwise is, as some here are wont to say, that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
It is not really an arguable fact.

This current discussion of "evolution" is based on the idea that some of you believe that "scientific methodology" has proven macro and micro evolution, which would include the origins of Life.
It has not but - nonetheless, those who argue that it has are not relying on scientific philosophy but, rather on what science today regards as the "scientific method."
This is not a distinction without a difference.
Otherwise - Aristotle; Copernicus; Newton; Einstein; and today's bright boys are all equally valid.
I don't think that those of you touting "evolution" over "Creation" believe that All so called science is equally valid. Do you?
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I do not claim that the term "science" is "entirely rooted on Christian and Islamic theology."

I am claiming the "scientific method," which is what is used today to "prove" the Absolute Validity of "science" was, indeed, invented by theological scholars, mostly Muslim and Christian.
This is so stated in the Wiki. More than that, this is a totally accepted Fact by any real scientist or historian.
To claim otherwise is, as some here are wont to say, that the Sun revolves around the Earth.
It is not really an arguable fact.

This current discussion of "evolution" is based on the idea that some of you believe that "scientific methodology" has proven macro and micro evolution, which would include the origins of Life.
It has not but - nonetheless, those who argue that it has are not relying on scientific philosophy but, rather on what science today regards as the "scientific method."
This is not a distinction without a difference.
Otherwise - Aristotle; Copernicus; Newton; Einstein; and today's bright boys are all equally valid.
I don't think that those of you touting "evolution" over "Creation" believe that All so called science is equally valid. Do you?

You've lost me. Can you please quote the section of the wiki article that supports this claim that Christian and Muslim theologians invented empirical naturalism - as opposed to the more generally accepted view that the pioneers of empiricism were the likes of Aristotle, Plato, Democritus and company?
 

brokensymmetry

ground state
Thank you.
And, thusly, you do not fit my criteria that I described above as one who is hostile to the ideas of a Creator or "Intelligent Design" due to your assertive belief in evolution.
Okay.

However, just to further my queries - I would question strongly connecting "Man" and our emotions and thoughts and actions to your idea that " life has changed so radically for humans over the past few hundred years is evidence to me that environment matters, knowledge matters and so on."
Purely based on history, it seems that "Man" is still mostly preoccupied with the urges towards sex, lies and power with all of their other attendant "virtues" as was Man of three or four thousand years ago.
The Romans were clever at inventing concrete and certain battle techniques.
The force multiplier of mankind makes us clever at inventing more complex toys.
However, the basic biology, emotions. and intellect appear relatively unchanged.
In other words, the "environment" does not seem to have made a more advanced monkey - just one that has learned how to push computer buttons to express desires and emotions.
The way we live our lives has drastically changed and will continue to unless something enormous happens. The fact that you and I are having this discussion right now is what I have in mind. We have more personal security, and this improves for most people on earth over time, better health, and unprecedented access to information. We are also less violent, a trend I thoroughly hope continues (though of course the exceptions make this claim seem absurd I realize, just think of the fact that people used to go watch public torture and executions as a family sport!). I am not sure how far we can go in this and I agree with you, much of what makes us less than awesome remains and will continue to remain.

But, the upshot for me and what I have in mind is, if you look at Western and Northern Europe, look at the degree of secularization there, then look at the relevant stats concerning crimes, I am not sure why anyone would fear mass mutual killing were religion to dissipate in importance. Apparently people are able to find a way to live as decent human beings with a sense of meaning and direction in life without it.
 

brokensymmetry

ground state
Jayhawker,
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that in discussions such as this, in 2014, when people are discussing the empirical validity of "science," people on basing their beliefs on what is commonly called the "scientific method," not the philosophies and beliefs that have been referred to as "science" for the last ten thousand years or so.
No?

Hopefully it's cool if I comment on this, though I realize you have posted it to someone else. I am interested in this discussion about the origins of science and what science consists of.

I think you could dispute that any cultures thoroughly founded science except Europe.Yes, Islam developed some astronomical predictions, algebra etc., but failed to come up with a truly scientific space. It's the same with China, or India also, and of course before that Greece and Rome! Some amazing technology was developed by China, why no Science then? I suggest this is more for political reasons than the influence of Christianity. My thought is this, Europe at the time of the Scientific Revolution was fractured and warring. This allowed for ideas to take root in a way that couldn't happen in truly unified empires. There was just enough political instability, but enough political stability, for the sciences to find a niche and take hold. Then, at some point, the technological advances were realized by competing states who then encouraged it. In contrast, in uniform empires or empires with enough centralized control, ideas which were deemed threatening could be effectively squashed or censored. So while obviously a number of scientists in Europe were silenced, others could pop up elsewhere untouched by the other regime.
 

brokensymmetry

ground state
There is grant money, publication money, departmental funding that depends on producing theories. In practical science those theories must be verified so not much of a problem. In the theoretical side theories about unknowable's cannot be checked but for the sake of the above must still be produced. This results in theories no one should have much confidence in, and it is almost always these theories used to contend with the bible. Practical or application science lines up very closely with the bible. There is a lot of money at stake even for the small time college professor no one ever heard of. However they are all not corrupted by it, but being human most are to some extent and theoretical science is the easiest type of science to get away with it in.

If by 'lining up with the Bible' you mean establishes the truth of stuff like evolution and a 4.5 billion yr age for the earth sure. Theories are tested against experimental evidence. No one is going to take your theory seriously unless it matches evidence gathered. These are not disconnected worlds. That's why there are experimentalists. This is why the LHC exists- to test scientific theories against nature.
 

Moishe3rd

Yehudi
You've lost me. Can you please quote the section of the wiki article that supports this claim that Christian and Muslim theologians invented empirical naturalism - as opposed to the more generally accepted view that the pioneers of empiricism were the likes of Aristotle, Plato, Democritus and company?
No.
Do you believe that the theory of evolution is based on "empirical naturalism?"
If so, are other modern sciences such as biology and physics also based on "empirical naturalism?"

As I noted, I am pretty sure that most science today is based on what is called the scientific method - "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

I could be wrong. Maybe you all are not basing your theories on the "scientific method."
If that is true, then I really don't have much of a disagreement with anyone.
Everyone believes what they find is the most interesting thing to believe, as has been stated here.

However, if, somehow, somewhere, you all are basing your beliefs on what is called the scientific method then, there is room to discuss.

(Then again, Alceste, it is possible that you are fooling me and being most deliberately obtuse in which case, I must agree with you, we live in parallel universes.)
 

Moishe3rd

Yehudi
The way we live our lives has drastically changed and will continue to unless something enormous happens. The fact that you and I are having this discussion right now is what I have in mind. We have more personal security, and this improves for most people on earth over time, better health, and unprecedented access to information. We are also less violent, a trend I thoroughly hope continues (though of course the exceptions make this claim seem absurd I realize, just think of the fact that people used to go watch public torture and executions as a family sport!). I am not sure how far we can go in this and I agree with you, much of what makes us less than awesome remains and will continue to remain.

But, the upshot for me and what I have in mind is, if you look at Western and Northern Europe, look at the degree of secularization there, then look at the relevant stats concerning crimes, I am not sure why anyone would fear mass mutual killing were religion to dissipate in importance. Apparently people are able to find a way to live as decent human beings with a sense of meaning and direction in life without it.
As it is not a real interest of mine, I will decline to research the subject but, a quick Google gives me this:
Crime Rate in Europe vs. US
It does not necessarily appear to be as you perceive.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
No.
Do you believe that the theory of evolution is based on "empirical naturalism?"
If so, are other modern sciences such as biology and physics also based on "empirical naturalism?"

As I noted, I am pretty sure that most science today is based on what is called the scientific method - "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

I could be wrong. Maybe you all are not basing your theories on the "scientific method."
If that is true, then I really don't have much of a disagreement with anyone.
Everyone believes what they find is the most interesting thing to believe, as has been stated here.

However, if, somehow, somewhere, you all are basing your beliefs on what is called the scientific method then, there is room to discuss.

(Then again, Alceste, it is possible that you are fooling me and being most deliberately obtuse in which case, I must agree with you, we live in parallel universes.)

You're being evasive. Please support your argument that the foundation of science is Christian and / or Islamic theology with citations or links. Even the names of the specific theologians you credit with the invention of science will do, or a more specific factual claim that I can look up for myself.

For example, it seems you do not believe Aristotle is generally considered to be one of the most important contributors to the development of the scientific method. So, according to you, who is?
 
Last edited:

Moishe3rd

Yehudi
Hopefully it's cool if I comment on this, though I realize you have posted it to someone else. I am interested in this discussion about the origins of science and what science consists of.

I think you could dispute that any cultures thoroughly founded science except Europe.Yes, Islam developed some astronomical predictions, algebra etc., but failed to come up with a truly scientific space. It's the same with China, or India also, and of course before that Greece and Rome! Some amazing technology was developed by China, why no Science then? I suggest this is more for political reasons than the influence of Christianity. My thought is this, Europe at the time of the Scientific Revolution was fractured and warring. This allowed for ideas to take root in a way that couldn't happen in truly unified empires. There was just enough political instability, but enough political stability, for the sciences to find a niche and take hold. Then, at some point, the technological advances were realized by competing states who then encouraged it. In contrast, in uniform empires or empires with enough centralized control, ideas which were deemed threatening could be effectively squashed or censored. So while obviously a number of scientists in Europe were silenced, others could pop up elsewhere untouched by the other regime.
Except that nearly all of the "great" scientists from the 1400's onward were churchmen or closely associated with the Church.
 

brokensymmetry

ground state
As it is not a real interest of mine, I will decline to research the subject but, a quick Google gives me this:
Crime Rate in Europe vs. US
It does not necessarily appear to be as you perceive.

List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the sort of thing I have in mind. If you look down by the rate, then list the countries by rate, the US has a higher rate than the more secular European countries. There are a lot of reasons for this, by the way, I wouldn't blame religion on there being more homicides in the US or enlightened atheism for less in these European countries. However, I do think this sort of thing is evidence that lack of religion in a society doesn't condemn that place to moral chaos and mass murder.
 

Moishe3rd

Yehudi
You're being evasive. Please support your argument that the foundation of science is Christian and / or Islamic theology with citations or links. Even the names of the specific theologians you credit with the invention of science will do, or a specific factual claim that I can look up for myself.
I don't understand...
Here are just three from the previously cited Wiki article.
I would suggest you read the article to gather more data.

Robert Grosseteste (/ˈɡroʊstɛst/ grohs-test) or Grossetete (/ˈɡroʊsteɪt/ grohs-tayt;[2] c. 1175 – 9 October 1253) was an English statesman, scholastic philosopher, theologian, scientist and Bishop of Lincoln. He was born of humble parents at Stradbroke in Suffolk. A.C. Crombie calls him "the real founder of the tradition of scientific thought in medieval Oxford, and in some ways, of the modern English intellectual tradition".

Pūr Sinɑʼ (Persian ابن سینا or ابو علی* سینا or پور سينا Pur-e Sina; [ˈpuːr ˈsiːnɑː] "son of Sina"; August c. 980 – June 1037), commonly known as Ibn Sīnā, or in Arabic writing Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Sīnā[2] (Arabic أبو علي الحسين بن عبد الله بن سينا) or by his Latinized name Avicenna, was a Persian[3][4][5][6] polymath, who wrote almost 450 works on a wide range of subjects, of which around 240 have survived. In particular, 150 of his surviving works concentrate on philosophy and 40 of them concentrate on medicine.[7]

His most famous works are The Book of Healing, a vast philosophical and scientific encyclopedia, and The Canon of Medicine,[8] which was a standard medical text at many medieval universities.[9] The Canon of Medicine was used as a textbook in the universities of Montpellier and Leuven as late as 1650.[10] Ibn Sīnā's Canon of Medicine provides an overview of all aspects of medicine according to the principles of Galen (and Hippocrates).[11][12]

His corpus also includes writing on philosophy, astronomy, alchemy, geology, psychology, Islamic theology, logic, mathematics, physics, as well as poetry.[13] He is regarded as the most famous and influential polymath of the Islamic Golden Age.[14]

Roger Bacon[edit]
Roger Bacon was inspired by the writings of Grosseteste. In his account of a method, Bacon described a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and the need for independent verification. He recorded the way he had conducted his experiments in precise detail, perhaps with the idea that others could reproduce and independently test his results.

About 1256 he joined the Franciscan Order and became subject to the Franciscan statute forbidding Friars from publishing books or pamphlets without specific approval. After the accession of Pope Clement IV in 1265, the Pope granted Bacon a special commission to write to him on scientific matters. In eighteen months he completed three large treatises, the Opus Majus, Opus Minus, and Opus Tertium which he sent to the Pope.[35] William Whewell has called Opus Majus at once the Encyclopaedia and Organon of the 13th century.[36]

Part I (pp. 1–22) treats of the four causes of error: authority, custom, the opinion of the unskilled many, and the concealment of real ignorance by a pretense of knowledge.
Part VI (pp. 445–477) treats of experimental science, domina omnium scientiarum. There are two methods of knowledge: the one by argument, the other by experience. Mere argument is never sufficient; it may decide a question, but gives no satisfaction or certainty to the mind, which can only be convinced by immediate inspection or intuition, which is what experience gives.
Experimental science, which in the Opus Tertium (p. 46) is distinguished from the speculative sciences and the operative arts, is said to have three great prerogatives over all sciences:
It verifies their conclusions by direct experiment;
It discovers truths which they could never reach;
It investigates the secrets of nature, and opens to us a knowledge of past and future.
Roger Bacon illustrated his method by an investigation into the nature and cause of the rainbow, as a specimen of inductive research.[37]
 

brokensymmetry

ground state
Except that nearly all of the "great" scientists from the 1400's onward were churchmen or closely associated with the Church.

Sure. The early scientists were not paid for their scientific work. They needed another source of income. There were churchmen, or, they were gentleman scientists with an independent source of wealth.
 

Moishe3rd

Yehudi
Sure. The early scientists were not paid for their scientific work. They needed another source of income. There were churchmen, or, they were gentleman scientists with an independent source of wealth.
The implication in your dismissal is that historical figures do not believe what they claim to believe.
That claim can be made about anything and anyone.
However, all we have is an historical record.
The historical record indicates that these same scientists were deeply believing Christians and theologians.
 
Top