tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post4376703415113009522..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Is atheism a religion? Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53198094301029169372020-09-20T08:01:48.132-07:002020-09-20T08:01:48.132-07:00Hal,
And Gaukroger is not interested in explainin...<br />Hal,<br /><br /><b>And Gaukroger is not interested in explaining why modern science did not emerge elsewhere,</b><br /><br />And so he does not address Starhopper's question. Thank you.<br /><br /><b>Science didn't emerge within the doctrinal beliefs of Christianity, it emerged within a culture which was dominated by Christianity.</b><br /><br />The doctrinal beliefs of Christianity nurtured the development of and the birth of modern science. That is Jaki's thesis. Your distinction makes no difference in this respect.<br /><br />Finally, it was you that claimed discussing and comparing religious beliefs "amounts to an apologetic for Christianity and a dissing of other religions." That claim looks like a counter-apologetic for an "all religions are the same...and wrong" worldview to me. <br /><br />Gaukroger may or may not be of that worldview but as far as you've shown, he thinks the development of modern science within Christianity was an accident of history. It could have just as well happened in any culture. At the base, this is the atheist creed. Things happen accidentally......for no reason.<br /><br />I'll let you have the last word.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21423955850819856062020-09-19T19:26:45.875-07:002020-09-19T19:26:45.875-07:00Hal,
I wonder why you keep posting the same sort ...Hal,<br /><br />I wonder why you keep posting the same sort of things without answering my repeated criticisms and conclude that somehow you are addressing my criticisms.<br /><br />1) You got offended and defensive because of Fr. Jaki's factual comparison of various religious beliefs and why they all failed to nurture modern science except for Christianity.<br />2) Gaukroger suits you better because he offers you a weak apologetic for atheism by leaving out the reasons why other religions failed to nurture modern science while Christianity did. It gives you cover to believe there is nothing special about Christianity and it was all an accident that modern science developed within Christianity rather than all those other cultures. Intentionally leaving out facts from an account for the purposes of persuasion is a form of apologetics, albeit a dishonest form of it.<br />3) The latest Gaukroger quotes you supply are irrelevant to the question of why did modern science develop within Christianity and no where else.<br />4) You somehow think making a distinction between Christianity and Christendom is relevant, but you don't tell me how. At least One Brow make an attempt by referring to Russia, but you have not provided any reason for anyone to think that this distinction of your's makes any difference.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71523628219603649962020-09-18T17:36:28.520-07:002020-09-18T17:36:28.520-07:00Hal,
Neither Gaukroger nor myself is engaged in a...Hal,<br /><br /><b>Neither Gaukroger nor myself is engaged in an apologetic for atheism. What are you basing that claim on? </b><br /><br /><i>I don't know how people can discuss Starhopper's question without discussing the beliefs of different religions. I also don't know how anyone considers objectively comparing those differences is an apology for any of them. I do consider it an attempt at atheistic apologetics to consider discussing religious beliefs as irrelevant or harmful. I could sense that from the author from the first set of quotes.</i><br /><br />Also, I wonder why you keep posting quotes about the various philosophical discussions that took place within Christianity wrt Aristotle. Plato thought there was only one big soul in the universe that individual souls came from and returned to after death in an eternal cycle. Christians didn't buy all of Platonic philosophy, nor did they buy all of Aristotle's philosophy. They took the parts that made sense and rejected the parts that didn't. The quotes do nothing to tell us why Christianity? rather than Buddhism, rather than Hinduism, rather than Islam, rather than Shintoism, rather than pagan Greece itself.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75679728115003952912020-09-18T11:23:34.481-07:002020-09-18T11:23:34.481-07:00Hal,
I don't see anything in that post that w...Hal,<br /><br /><b>I don't see anything in that post that was directed towards one of Starhopper's questions.</b><br /><br />I'm lost now. I don't honestly know what your beef is with respect to discussing theological differences between religions. Apologetics or something.<br /><br /><b>Not at all.</b><br /><br />And I'm lost here too. You told me apologetics were being practiced and you were not going to participate. Fine. I don't think Gaukroger is qualified to discuss religious beliefs at all from what you've supplied within Christianity or any other religion for that matter. As a result, he is supplying a weak apologetic for atheism.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79000468590120404162020-09-16T19:08:36.770-07:002020-09-16T19:08:36.770-07:00Hal,
In the book she states that it can be used f...Hal,<br /><br /><b>In the book she states that it can be used for Christian apologetics.</b><br /><br />I was addressing Starhopper's question: <br /><i>"Interesting. I wonder what it is (was) about Christianity that made it a suitable incubator for the scientific method."</i> He then wondered why other religions failed.<br /><br />Fr. Jaki addressed this <b>theological</b> question. If one thinks that he is right, then one might be persuaded that Christianity has things more right than other religions and in that respect it may turn some people toward Christianity. I think that's why Stacy Trasanco says it <b>could</b> be used for apologetics.<br /><br /><b>Do you not agree that he is presenting his Thomistic view of science and how it relates to the Christian faith?</b><br /><br />I don't know if he was a Thomist or not. I never read anything where he claimed he was. He compared philosophical/religious commitments of various cultures and showed how they prevented modern science from developing in contrast to Christianity. There's nothing particularly Thomist about that but, more importantly, what precisely do you disagree with? The facts? Or mentioning the facts? <br /><br /><b>Doesn't he say that any definition of science that differs from his is mistaken?</b><br /><br />Who defines physics differently than he does? Why don't you just plainly state what you think is the problem?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4757817989248314632020-09-12T14:52:21.543-07:002020-09-12T14:52:21.543-07:00Hal,
I don't know what you mean. Why would I...Hal,<br /><br />I don't know what you mean. Why would I think Jaki opposed modern science. He had a PhD in physics.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49675668529807743662020-09-12T14:24:09.790-07:002020-09-12T14:24:09.790-07:00Hal,
It appears to me that Gaukroger and Jaki fin...Hal,<br /><br /><b>It appears to me that Gaukroger and Jaki find the conception of modern science to be problematical. </b><br /><br />Sorry. I don't understand this post at all.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71994574227954459262020-09-12T14:20:19.192-07:002020-09-12T14:20:19.192-07:00Hal,
You're mistaken. He was talking about p...Hal,<br /><br />You're mistaken. He was talking about physics. He called it 'exact science':<br /><i>"the quantitative study of the quantitative aspects of objects in motion."</i>bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5670993805474392782020-09-12T13:55:34.533-07:002020-09-12T13:55:34.533-07:00Hal,
Do you think it an apt description for all s...Hal,<br /><br /><b>Do you think it an apt description for all scientific activities?</b><br /><br />No. Physics is only one branch of what we now call science.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73150688296539634082020-09-12T13:53:15.577-07:002020-09-12T13:53:15.577-07:00Hal,
Gee, when Gaukroger points out that in the e...Hal,<br /><br /><b>Gee, when Gaukroger points out that in the emergence of modern science it became an autonomous pursuit you think he is gravely mistaken. </b><br /><br />My criticism of Gaukroger is that he apparently thinks theology was irrelevant to the development of science within Christendom. I haven't commented on 'autonomous pursuit' at all wrt Gaukroger.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16908210903367234602020-09-12T13:45:49.165-07:002020-09-12T13:45:49.165-07:00Hal,
I'm interested in what you think of this...Hal,<br /><br /><b>I'm interested in what you think of this claim:</b><br /><br />Sounds like a description of how modern physics is done.<br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65816753304937164972020-09-12T13:38:25.542-07:002020-09-12T13:38:25.542-07:00Starhopper,
Getting dangerously close to mind rea...Starhopper,<br /><br /><b>Getting dangerously close to mind reading here, but there's a huge difference between China's motivations for space exploration and India's.</b><br /><br />I suspect there are multiple motivations for nation states to explore space with the biggest motivation being military.<br /><br />Do they build particle accelerators? Of course findings from those could be for military purposes too.<br /><br />A big theme of Jaki is that when science separated itself from it's theological and therefore moral foundations, advances in science can and have become curses as well as blessings.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91450234142543035012020-09-12T13:27:31.657-07:002020-09-12T13:27:31.657-07:00Hal,
Sorry. I don't get either of your lates...Hal,<br /><br />Sorry. I don't get either of your latest points.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6018499422110550142020-09-12T13:25:46.199-07:002020-09-12T13:25:46.199-07:00"See the difference?"
I see the differe..."<i>See the difference?</i>"<br /><br />I see the difference, but its awfully subtle. It's easier to spot when you talk about other cultures, such as Islam vs the Islamic world, or Marxism-Leninism vs the Soviet Union.Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73263060312825163612020-09-12T13:21:34.207-07:002020-09-12T13:21:34.207-07:00bmiller,
Getting dangerously close to mind readin...bmiller,<br /><br />Getting dangerously close to mind reading here, but there's a huge difference between China's <b>motivations</b> for space exploration and India's. China is in it for practical reasons - colonization, extraterrestrial resources (mining in space), and state power. Indian scientists seem to genuinely want to know what Mars is like, for its own sake. The MOM space probe serves no practical purpose.Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76081441730486292762020-09-12T13:12:34.999-07:002020-09-12T13:12:34.999-07:00Starhopper,
I thought you would have classified t...Starhopper,<br /><br />I thought you would have classified that as technology rather than pure science. China does space exploration also.<br /><br />I got the impression you classified pure science as something like theoretical physics.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62088039045823732452020-09-12T13:06:22.170-07:002020-09-12T13:06:22.170-07:00Hal,
You've accused Fr Jaki of being an apolo...Hal,<br /><br />You've accused Fr Jaki of being an apologist for supplying theological reasons for why Christianity nurtured science while other religions did not. I think he was uniquely qualified to speak on the matter:<br /><br /><i>He held doctorates in theology and in physics and was a leading contributor to the philosophy of science and the history of science, particularly to their relationship to Christianity.</i><br /><br />It seems you're OK with allowing talk about how science developed within a society just as long as we don't discuss anything about the actual religious beliefs of that society. Otherwise it is 'apologetics'. Maybe you can't see your own bias in making that accusation.<br /><br />You've wrote:<br /><b>It's just an historical fact that modern science developed within Christianity and no where else.<br /><br />That is not an historical fact. Modern science did develop in the West, a part of Christendom.</b><br /><br />I don't know how your mind works. Western Europe is part of Christendom and science developed in Western Europe. How is it <b>not</b> an historical fact to say science developed in Christendom then when it developed in a part of Christendom? You may want to argue that I'm not being precise enough for tastes but what I said is still a fact. It's like someone telling me that I'm wrong to say that I live in America because I actually live in Kansas.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47321466988695925102020-09-12T12:25:14.408-07:002020-09-12T12:25:14.408-07:00bmiller,
India Mars Orbiter Mission.bmiller,<br /><br /><a href="https://www.isro.gov.in/pslv-c25-mars-orbiter-mission" rel="nofollow">India Mars Orbiter Mission</a>.Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70913983305158213082020-09-12T11:38:40.030-07:002020-09-12T11:38:40.030-07:00Starhopper,
What would you point to as evidence o...Starhopper,<br /><br />What would you point to as evidence of India embracing pure science as opposed to other non-western countries? bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64593879592353814422020-09-12T04:35:50.867-07:002020-09-12T04:35:50.867-07:00bmiller,
Not "much more than any other cultu...bmiller,<br /><br />Not "much more than any other culture" but "much more than any other <b>polytheistic</b> culture".<br /><br />Japan's Shintoism does not fit very well into our Western notions of religion. I would be loathe to label it polytheism, despite the fact that Shinto declares there to be an infinite number of "gods" in nature. But none of these spirits (a better term, I think) are worshipped, but are rather venerated or (in the case of one's ancestors) respected.<br /><br />Neither China's Confucianism nor its variety of Buddhism worships any gods whatsoever, so that is not a polytheistic culture.<br /><br />But neither is China an especially scientific culture. Technological yes, but knowledge for the sake of knowledge? Hardly. Research in China is expected to have a practical purpose.<br /><br />I think India's willingness to accept, and even embrace, contradictions is its great strength here. The idea of there being a war between science and religion would make no sense in India. There would be no expectation of the two running in lockstep with each other, and any attempts to "reconcile" them would be met with a shake of the head or a "Who cares?" shrug of dismissal.Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14386421007533016802020-09-11T19:32:06.372-07:002020-09-11T19:32:06.372-07:00Starhopper,
Why do you think India is advancing s...Starhopper,<br /><br />Why do you think India is advancing scientifically much more than any other culture that came to accept western science. Japan and China come to mind.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82763029792526711752020-09-11T19:27:16.317-07:002020-09-11T19:27:16.317-07:00Starhopper,
For the record, since I seem to have ...Starhopper,<br /><br /><b>For the record, since I seem to have been repeatedly misquoted in this discussion, I never said Christianity was a prerequisite for a culture adopting a scientific outlook on the physical world. I said monotheism was.</b><br /><br />No one misquoted you that I remember, and no one claimed or claimed you said "Christianity was a prerequisite for a culture adopting a scientific outlook on the physical world.".<br /><br />It's just an historical fact that modern science developed within Christianity and no where else. Given that fact, I pointed to Fr Jaki's theory which actually studies the worldviews, philosophy and theology of other cultures compared to Christianity. <br /><br />The Gaukroger quotes that Hal has supplied seem to ignore what Christians actually believe(d) about God and rather focuses on which philosophy they ended up with (who knows why) and a fight between the Pope(s) and the king(s) of Germany (while there were no such fights in Italy, France, Britain, etc.) while apparently ignoring theology altogether. It may as well be titled something like <i>A Materialist's Explanation of Religion</i> as far as I'm concerned.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88262919142723065992020-09-11T19:00:22.070-07:002020-09-11T19:00:22.070-07:00Hal,
Where is an atheistic apologetic in my remar...Hal,<br /><br /><b>Where is an atheistic apologetic in my remarks?</b><br /><br />I think it's a weak indirect apologetic. Apology by ommission if you will that he doesn't mention concurrentism. How can I think that?<br /><br />When I mentioned how the different conceptions of God between Christianity (concurrentism) and Islam (occasionalism) allowed science to move forward in the case of the former and stop in the case of the later you accused me of apologetics:<br /><b>What I am not interested in is engaging in a discussion that amounts to an apologetic for Christianity and a dissing of other religions.</b><br /><br />A faithful Sunni Muslim would not take offense at his view of God being explained so I have to assume that you think the argument is directed against you, atheism or both since you are an atheist, and atheists have an incorrect idea of what God is from both the Sunni and Christian perspective.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-355060321300547612020-09-11T15:22:19.859-07:002020-09-11T15:22:19.859-07:00I've been off-line for the past week, having s...I've been off-line for the past week, having spilled a glass of water on my computer and frying it. I now have a new laptop. And now my phone is dead! I am a Luddite for good reason!!!<br /><br />For the record, since I seem to have been repeatedly misquoted in this discussion, I never said <b>Christianity</b> was a prerequisite for a culture adopting a scientific outlook on the physical world. I said <b>monotheism</b> was.<br /><br />That said... Islam is a special case, since it never developed its own embrace of science. It basically stole it from Byzantium (like it did so much else). And for a couple of centuries the Arabic world ran with the stolen goods, achieving truly impressive heights in the Middle Ages. But without a foundational cultural commitment to science, Islamic science eventually ran out of steam, and it has accomplished little of note for the past 500 years or so.<br /><br />Interestingly, the polytheistic culture of India has followed a completely opposite path. Like medieval Islam, India appropriated its attitude toward science from the West - it did not organically arise from within Indian culture. But unlike Islam, India has thoroughly, wholeheartedly, and enthusiastically embraced a scientific outlook and there is no end in sight to what they have yet to accomplish.<br /><br />I fear however that the West may very well go the same route as Islam, now that our culture has abandoned its religious roots. We're already seeing the beginnings of the collapse of western science, in the rise of conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxers, "alternative facts", climate change denialism, etc.Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7087386600096235062020-09-11T13:08:58.430-07:002020-09-11T13:08:58.430-07:00Hal,
Nope, never said that.
What I am not intere...Hal,<br /><br /><b>Nope, never said that.<br /><br />What I am not interested in is engaging in a discussion that amounts to an apologetic for Christianity and a dissing of other religions.</b><br /><br />I don't know how people can discuss Starhopper's question without discussing the beliefs of different religions. I also don't know how anyone considers objectively comparing those differences is an apology for any of them. I do consider it an attempt at atheistic apologetics to consider discussing religious beliefs as irrelevant or harmful. I could sense that from the author from the first set of quotes.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.com