Sam says if the early church had science then no need for religion.
Silly.
We have very credible science today and Christianity for one is flourishing pretty well. Even in the science community.
This argument is as bad as, "Christianity is harmful to society" that Hitchens makes..
How many Atheist do you think have helped rebuild New Orleans and Mississippi after the Hurricane or how many served in the Tsunami stricken areas in the past.
But it is probably easier to write a book and complain about God then to help others get back on their feet.
Jamie, when you want to actually engage Sam Harris on the issues he raises on his terms let me know. I'm not sure you can actually deal with a specific argument in front of you without sidetracking it somewhere else. This is a habit for you I think.
Typical atheist rhetoric. How am i not addressing the issues.
He says if people knew why they got sick, died and stroms happened back then they would not have made up some Father figure.
Which is bogus. We have more information than ever on all the things Sam brings up and Religion is flourishing.
He says Religion is losing the argument ethically and spiritually. That is just simply false.
"We will understand spiritual experience.. that will make a mockery of religious denominations."
call me when that happens.
I think eventually science will prove all Sam has to say is wrong,.. I mean one day we will know where matter came from with absolute surety want we... We will know where energy comes from want we.... We will really be able to prove lightening hit a mud puddle billions of yr. (well in 10yrs we will move it back to trillions of yrs) and a cell formed and somehow made all of us, trees, bees, and men.....
I started thinking this back in the 1970's. Now, I didn't say "science" because it doesn't have the attributes of science, but that it was about explaining the universe.
The Bible is a book of legends made by the inhabitants of Palestine between the 6th century BCE and the 3rd century CE.
It can't possibly be expected to be true when it comes to: explanation of the origin of man, explanation of the origin of suffering, explanation of the scope and scale of the universe.
Why? Because it's not a science book.
It's wonderful to see you move closer to us. You now agree nobody could be expected to literally move a mountain, that it's just the Bible exaggerating the importance of faith. You also agree the writers of the Bible are scientifically illiterate and not to be taken as experts!
Evan, Are you a comedian? Because i am laughing. Did you get the part about God and Jesus.
Probably not because it is not in a science book.
I don't place my faith in science because it is ever changing and based on unprovable assumptions.
Trust me Evan one day your mind will change.
"Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2
This verse means me, you, John , Darwin, Buddah, George Burns, Richard Dawkins, Plato, John Lennon, Elton John, Ben Stiller, Sam Harris, Bill Gates, Lance Armstrong, Laverne and Shirley, the Fonz... etc.
Hope you get the point.
You were being funny so i thought i would as well.
But in all honesty "bow now or bow later" you will bow.
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father
Cool, so I can completely avoid this by being cremated and having my tongue cut out!
I don't place my faith in science because it is ever changing and based on unprovable assumptions.
You're kidding, right?
Substitute the word "bible" for the word "science" in the above quote, and you'll be spot-on.
Science is based on empirical evidence, wherever it is available, and strives to use experiment to produce empirical evidence when no such evidence yet exists.
Science itself is not "unprovable", as you suggest, but perhaps you meant that theories are unprovable -- in which case you are absolutely right. Theories are, by design, only disprovable. Science accepts, with no equivocation, that it can and will get things wrong from time to time, and in fact expects to be proven wrong as human knowledge progresses.
Contrast that with your precious religion, which, counter to your implication in the quote, is also ever changing, and is based on the fact that it is unprovable (indeed, Christianity seems to relish in this fact, because after all, you have to have "faith").
Where science recognizes that newfound knowledge will necessitate new, reworked, or replaced theories, laws, and principles, religion steadfastly denies any such necessity, while nevertheless constantly changing their official dogma in accordance with the scientific theories of the time.
"I don't place my faith in science because it is ever changing and based on unprovable assumptions."
I had to quote it again just to get another laugh out of it. You're truly a fool if you think that this sort of statement in any way supports your claims regarding the alleged superiority of your religion, and doubly so if you fail to see the clear parallel between your statement and the reality it belies. I can only hope that I won't be mistaken as a fool for arguing with you.
Jamie - "How many Atheist do you think have helped rebuild New Orleans and Mississippi after the Hurricane or how many served in the Tsunami stricken areas in the past."
Who caused the hurricane or the tsunami? Your god!
Christians have to come along and clean up after their own god...ha...ha.
And guess what Jamie?
We now know with the invention of the microscope, that diseases are caused by germs, bacteria and viruses, not by evil spirits and demon possession.
So the next time someone you know gets very ill, do not let them go to the hospital, just do as Jesus would do and just pray for them, since you have faith that prayer is more effective than modern medicine.
Like Billy Graham runs to the hospital, when a little prayer to Jesus was all that he needed, what a brainwashed delusional hypocrite.
Sean-- "I'd much rather choose Lord of the Rings as my fictional explanation of the Universe.'
Go ahead- you are responsible for your choice. I choose to submit to the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
Stan- "I can only hope that I won't be mistaken as a fool for arguing with you."
According to the bible you are a fool "The fool has said there is no God."
if the shoe fits wear it....
Steven-Like Billy Graham runs to the hospital, when a little prayer to Jesus was all that he needed, what a brainwashed delusional hypocrite.
Thanks for judging Billy Graham i didn't know you knew him so well. I don't think anyone ever mentioned not going to the hospital. I think Sam mentioned that in his little video.... but it has never been mentioned by credible Christians ever.
I the county I live in, almost all the Doctors are Christian and many have went with my Church to the Philippines to do medical clinics in villages. No atheist have ever been in these areas that we know of...
Maybe some of you guys would like to go sometime... get off the computer and do something with your lives to help mankind...
Maybe your science will lead you this way.... hope so
Jamie Steele Said: I don't place my faith in science because it is ever changing and based on unprovable assumptions.
Except of course you DO place your faith in Science. Everytime you drive in your car, visit your doctor, go to the movies, fly in a plane, turn on your central heating/air-con you trust the results that science has made possible.
Your religion and its pre-decessor has had over 2000 years to contribute to the advancement of mankind and in that time it has achieved what? Name one thing of worth that Christianity has done to advance mankind?
Now look at science, we've only had scientific methodology for 250 odd years and in that time humanity has advanced enormous amounts, from new materials, improved health, better education, better understanding of our world, increased prosperity, increased life span, increased reach (God didn't put a man on the moon, science did).
How can you possibly claim that you don't trust science but you do trust the god of the bible. I don't mean to be cruel and i don't like to use harsh language but what you said is possibly one of the most ill thought out and ridiculous things i've read.
As for your reasons for not trusting science, ever changing? This is a GOOD thing. And your religion changes too, albeit at a glacial speed. 200 years ago religion was used to prop up the slave trade, today its strongly against it. Back in the dark ages, the RC church propper up the feudal era and actively participated in the mass oppression/serfdom of the vast bulk of Europes population, now they are (claiming) to be into human rights. I'd guess you have no problem with wearing clothes made from more than one material, i guess you don't attack men without beards, i guess you don't get enraged about farmers planting 2 crops in one field. But these are all biblical commands (i love leviticus, its just crazy) and you can bet they were all followed at some point in time.
Your religion follows slowly after the rest of society. Science helps lead and improve society, even though this isn't its aim.
Jamie...how many atheist were in New Orleans or Miss.... Few to none.... Maybe some of you guys would like to go sometime... get off the computer and do something with your lives to help mankind...
Jamie, since you continue to want to talk about something unrelated to this specific post, then let me remind you that when it come to charitable giving you don't have a point.
oli-- (God didn't put a man on the moon, science did).
-God created the moon- dude -he also gave man the copacity to figure it out. You will find out one day....
"Back in the dark ages, the RC church propper up the feudal era and actively participated in the mass..."
-I am not nor ever have been nor ever will be a RC'er--
"But these are all biblical commands (i love leviticus, its just crazy)" -those commands were primarily for Jewish community-- if you are going to reference the Bible please try to do it in some context. Many of you here don't-- typical
"Your religion follows slowly after the rest of society."
my religion helps society. Atheism just complains about society while Christianity changes society...
John- I was responding to a comment. John your link is just a biased study that tries to explain away people giving money and time to serve. Bad example... How many atheist on this board do any type of volunteering? How many give to charitable causes?
i would like to know..
i my community most volunteering is done by Christians... what about in your area...
I don't place my faith in science because it is ever changing and based on unprovable assumptions.
I wonder to what degree values such as this play a role in many people's relion. Anecdotally, I've spoken to a number of believers who value the apparent rigidity and assuredness of their religion. Even after their falsifiable points have been pushed out of the conversation, they still cling to a belief that someone out there has to have a plan for this life to be meaningful.
Like others here, I disagree with Harris calling religion a science, failed or otherwise. I think philosophy might even be asking too much. For many people, it seems to simply be an emotional need that reason is applied to only as an afterthought. The folk biology, folk cosmology, folk medicine, etc that accompany religious beliefs might really be afterthoughts to this desire to see things as purposively ordered.
I'm an atheist and I donate to the local church because in my opinion they do a good job of helping those that are less fortunate. I also volunteer at the blood center and the local homeless shelter. One not need believe in god to be concerned about their fellows.
I would like to see some figures on the Chrstians in your area that do all this giving.
Where I come from all creeds, races and religions pitch in and help and whether you are religious or not doesn't come up.
Your prideful claim that Christians are the only ones that do any good work frankly disgusts me, and deminishes, the good people who happen to be christians working in your community. I volunteer, I donate time, money and blood.
"Your prideful claim that Christians are the only ones that do any good work frankly disgusts me,"
I didn't say Christians were the only ones just the majority, but i kind of see your point because we outnumber you guys by so many.
-Have you guys read Dinesh D'Souza's book "What is so great about Christianity."
-in this book he makes note of the claims of the new atheist saying Christianity is harmful and bad by saying and i will quote: Dinesh D’Souza notes this “indisputable fact”: “all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades. . . . . Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.”
Also in regards to science Paul Cohpan says and i quote "despite the new atheists’ appeals to science, they ignore the profound influence of the Jewish-Christian worldview on the West’s scientific enterprise. Despite naturalists’ highjacking the foundations of science as their own, physicist Paul Davies sets forth the simple truth: “Science began as an outgrowth of theology, and all scientists, whether atheists or theists . . . accept an essentially theological worldview.”
“Science began as an outgrowth of theology, and all scientists, whether atheists or theists . . . accept an essentially theological worldview.”
Ah ah ah, but we mustn't forget that science is always changing! Remember?
In my field, early work in historical linguistics assumed that by reconstructing the mothers of modern languages, philologists/linguists could eventually uncover the pre-Babel language that Noah spoke (possibly even the language Adam and Eve spoke). That objective has fallen to the wayside among professionals, and even the core idea - that all humans once spoke a single language - is being rejected based upon modern evidence. The same trend away from supernatural objectives can be demonstrated in cosmology, biology, chemistry, etc.
Early Christian and Islamic investigations may have begun with some notion of a lawgiver, but the modern understanding is that laws arise from the inherent properties of the objects they describe. No lawgiver is necessary.
Also, considering the degree to which individual scientists have struggled with the results of their own studies (see classical mechanics, early geology, early evolutionary theory), I think its a little too conspiratorial to talk about naturalism co-opting anything. Experimentation and the falsifiable models that best-explained the results demanded natural explanations. Scientists just followed the data as best they could.
Neither do I Evan. I just want Jamie to do a little research rather that accept anyone else's word for it and present us with arguments form authority.
32 comments:
An interesting perspective. Imagine if we had been able to push into the realm of religion say before the dark ages.
Wow, what a terrible argument.
Hopefully you guys will stick with Richard Dawkins at least he makes sense sometimes.
If Sam's atheism industry doesn't work out maybe he could stunt double for Ben Stiller.
Those guys favor don't you think.
Actually I think religion is failed philosophy not failed science, but the case Harris presents is the same.
Jamie I see you think his argument fails, but your response is entirely emotional.
Do you have a substantive criticism of his argument?
Sam says if the early church had science then no need for religion.
Silly.
We have very credible science today and Christianity for one is flourishing pretty well. Even in the science community.
This argument is as bad as, "Christianity is harmful to society" that Hitchens makes..
How many Atheist do you think have helped rebuild New Orleans and Mississippi after the Hurricane or how many served in the Tsunami stricken areas in the past.
But it is probably easier to write a book and complain about God then to help others get back on their feet.
Jamie, when you want to actually engage Sam Harris on the issues he raises on his terms let me know. I'm not sure you can actually deal with a specific argument in front of you without sidetracking it somewhere else. This is a habit for you I think.
Cheers.
"the issues he raises on his terms"
Typical atheist rhetoric.
How am i not addressing the issues.
He says if people knew why they got sick, died and stroms happened back then they would not have made up some Father figure.
Which is bogus.
We have more information than ever on all the things Sam brings up and Religion is flourishing.
He says Religion is losing the argument ethically and spiritually. That is just simply false.
"We will understand spiritual experience.. that will make a mockery of religious denominations."
call me when that happens.
I think eventually science will prove all Sam has to say is wrong,..
I mean one day we will know where matter came from with absolute surety want we...
We will know where energy comes from want we....
We will really be able to prove lightening hit a mud puddle billions of yr. (well in 10yrs we will move it back to trillions of yrs) and a cell formed and somehow made all of us, trees, bees, and men.....
What a day that will be. CAn't wait.
I started thinking this back in the 1970's. Now, I didn't say "science" because it doesn't have the attributes of science, but that it was about explaining the universe.
Perhaps failed or failing explanatory vehicles is a better argument?
Does Jamie favour the explanation of Desert goat herders over modern science?
Jamie,
Speaking of horrible arguments, have you ever heard of The God of the Gaps?
You might want to read up on it, because history is not on your side.
billf
I heard you the first time.
Have you heard of the God of the Universe?
Does Jamie favour the explanation of Desert goat herders over modern science?
the bible doesn't try to be a science book, sean
God used Desert goat herders to explain your need for Jesus, because you are a sinner seperated from God.
That is what the Bible is about...
Guys like Sam just prove the Bible...
Atheism has been around since the Fall and it has changed nothing in society and never will.
the bible doesn't try to be a science book, sean
AMEN TO THAT!
So Jamie, why do you regard it as such?
The Bible is a book of legends made by the inhabitants of Palestine between the 6th century BCE and the 3rd century CE.
It can't possibly be expected to be true when it comes to: explanation of the origin of man, explanation of the origin of suffering, explanation of the scope and scale of the universe.
Why? Because it's not a science book.
It's wonderful to see you move closer to us. You now agree nobody could be expected to literally move a mountain, that it's just the Bible exaggerating the importance of faith. You also agree the writers of the Bible are scientifically illiterate and not to be taken as experts!
This is great progress.
Jamie,
The bible does not attempt to be a science book but it does attempt to provide explanation - poorly.
Sinner separated from God, oh alright if we must play the game. I'd much rather choose Lord of the Rings as my fictional explanation of the Universe.
Guys like Sam proove the bible? Missing the argument you are tryin to put forward here?
Please define Atheism for me
Evan,
Are you a comedian? Because i am laughing.
Did you get the part about God and Jesus.
Probably not because it is not in a science book.
I don't place my faith in science because it is ever changing and based on unprovable assumptions.
Trust me Evan one day your mind will change.
"Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2
This verse means me, you, John , Darwin, Buddah, George Burns, Richard Dawkins, Plato, John Lennon, Elton John, Ben Stiller, Sam Harris, Bill Gates, Lance Armstrong, Laverne and Shirley, the Fonz... etc.
Hope you get the point.
You were being funny so i thought i would as well.
But in all honesty "bow now or bow later" you will bow.
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father
Cool, so I can completely avoid this by being cremated and having my tongue cut out!
Jamie Steele said:
I don't place my faith in science because it is ever changing and based on unprovable assumptions.
You're kidding, right?
Substitute the word "bible" for the word "science" in the above quote, and you'll be spot-on.
Science is based on empirical evidence, wherever it is available, and strives to use experiment to produce empirical evidence when no such evidence yet exists.
Science itself is not "unprovable", as you suggest, but perhaps you meant that theories are unprovable -- in which case you are absolutely right. Theories are, by design, only disprovable. Science accepts, with no equivocation, that it can and will get things wrong from time to time, and in fact expects to be proven wrong as human knowledge progresses.
Contrast that with your precious religion, which, counter to your implication in the quote, is also ever changing, and is based on the fact that it is unprovable (indeed, Christianity seems to relish in this fact, because after all, you have to have "faith").
Where science recognizes that newfound knowledge will necessitate new, reworked, or replaced theories, laws, and principles, religion steadfastly denies any such necessity, while nevertheless constantly changing their official dogma in accordance with the scientific theories of the time.
"I don't place my faith in science because it is ever changing and based on unprovable assumptions."
I had to quote it again just to get another laugh out of it. You're truly a fool if you think that this sort of statement in any way supports your claims regarding the alleged superiority of your religion, and doubly so if you fail to see the clear parallel between your statement and the reality it belies. I can only hope that I won't be mistaken as a fool for arguing with you.
--
Stan
Jamie - "How many Atheist do you think have helped rebuild New Orleans and Mississippi after the Hurricane or how many served in the Tsunami stricken areas in the past."
Who caused the hurricane or the tsunami? Your god!
Christians have to come along and clean up after their own god...ha...ha.
And guess what Jamie?
We now know with the invention of the microscope, that diseases are caused by germs, bacteria and viruses, not by evil spirits and demon possession.
So the next time someone you know gets very ill, do not let them go to the hospital, just do as Jesus would do and just pray for them, since you have faith that prayer is more effective than modern medicine.
Like Billy Graham runs to the hospital, when a little prayer to Jesus was all that he needed, what a brainwashed delusional hypocrite.
Steven
Answer the question.
how many atheist were in New Orleans or Miss....
Few to none....
Sean-- "I'd much rather choose Lord of the Rings as my fictional explanation of the Universe.'
Go ahead- you are responsible for your choice.
I choose to submit to the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
Stan- "I can only hope that I won't be mistaken as a fool for arguing with you."
According to the bible you are a fool
"The fool has said there is no God."
if the shoe fits wear it....
Steven-Like Billy Graham runs to the hospital, when a little prayer to Jesus was all that he needed, what a brainwashed delusional hypocrite.
Thanks for judging Billy Graham i didn't know you knew him so well.
I don't think anyone ever mentioned not going to the hospital.
I think Sam mentioned that in his little video....
but it has never been mentioned by credible Christians ever.
I the county I live in, almost all the Doctors are Christian and many have went with my Church to the Philippines to do medical clinics in villages.
No atheist have ever been in these areas that we know of...
Maybe some of you guys would like to go sometime... get off the computer and do something with your lives to help mankind...
Maybe your science will lead you this way.... hope so
Cheers
Just had to jump on this
Jamie Steele Said:
I don't place my faith in science because it is ever changing and based on unprovable assumptions.
Except of course you DO place your faith in Science. Everytime you drive in your car, visit your doctor, go to the movies, fly in a plane, turn on your central heating/air-con you trust the results that science has made possible.
Your religion and its pre-decessor has had over 2000 years to contribute to the advancement of mankind and in that time it has achieved what? Name one thing of worth that Christianity has done to advance mankind?
Now look at science, we've only had scientific methodology for 250 odd years and in that time humanity has advanced enormous amounts, from new materials, improved health, better education, better understanding of our world, increased prosperity, increased life span, increased reach (God didn't put a man on the moon, science did).
How can you possibly claim that you don't trust science but you do trust the god of the bible. I don't mean to be cruel and i don't like to use harsh language but what you said is possibly one of the most ill thought out and ridiculous things i've read.
As for your reasons for not trusting science, ever changing? This is a GOOD thing. And your religion changes too, albeit at a glacial speed. 200 years ago religion was used to prop up the slave trade, today its strongly against it. Back in the dark ages, the RC church propper up the feudal era and actively participated in the mass oppression/serfdom of the vast bulk of Europes population, now they are (claiming) to be into human rights.
I'd guess you have no problem with wearing clothes made from more than one material, i guess you don't attack men without beards, i guess you don't get enraged about farmers planting 2 crops in one field. But these are all biblical commands (i love leviticus, its just crazy) and you can bet they were all followed at some point in time.
Your religion follows slowly after the rest of society. Science helps lead and improve society, even though this isn't its aim.
Jamie...how many atheist were in New Orleans or Miss....
Few to none....
Maybe some of you guys would like to go sometime... get off the computer and do something with your lives to help mankind...
Jamie, since you continue to want to talk about something unrelated to this specific post, then let me remind you that when it come to charitable giving you don't have a point.
oli--
(God didn't put a man on the moon, science did).
-God created the moon- dude
-he also gave man the copacity to figure it out. You will find out one day....
"Back in the dark ages, the RC church propper up the feudal era and actively participated in the mass..."
-I am not nor ever have been nor ever will be a RC'er--
"But these are all biblical commands (i love leviticus, its just crazy)"
-those commands were primarily for Jewish community-- if you are going to reference the Bible please try to do it in some context.
Many of you here don't-- typical
"Your religion follows slowly after the rest of society."
my religion helps society.
Atheism just complains about society while Christianity changes society...
John-
I was responding to a comment.
John your link is just a biased study that tries to explain away people giving money and time to serve.
Bad example...
How many atheist on this board do any type of volunteering?
How many give to charitable causes?
i would like to know..
i my community most volunteering is done by Christians...
what about in your area...
I don't place my faith in science because it is ever changing and based on unprovable assumptions.
I wonder to what degree values such as this play a role in many people's relion. Anecdotally, I've spoken to a number of believers who value the apparent rigidity and assuredness of their religion. Even after their falsifiable points have been pushed out of the conversation, they still cling to a belief that someone out there has to have a plan for this life to be meaningful.
Like others here, I disagree with Harris calling religion a science, failed or otherwise. I think philosophy might even be asking too much. For many people, it seems to simply be an emotional need that reason is applied to only as an afterthought. The folk biology, folk cosmology, folk medicine, etc that accompany religious beliefs might really be afterthoughts to this desire to see things as purposively ordered.
I'm an atheist and I donate to the local church because in my opinion they do a good job of helping those that are less fortunate. I also volunteer at the blood center and the local homeless shelter. One not need believe in god to be concerned about their fellows.
Jamie,
I would like to see some figures on the Chrstians in your area that do all this giving.
Where I come from all creeds, races and religions pitch in and help and whether you are religious or not doesn't come up.
Your prideful claim that Christians are the only ones that do any good work frankly disgusts me, and deminishes, the good people who happen to be christians working in your community. I volunteer, I donate time, money and blood.
"Your prideful claim that Christians are the only ones that do any good work frankly disgusts me,"
I didn't say Christians were the only ones just the majority, but i kind of see your point because we outnumber you guys by so many.
-Have you guys read Dinesh D'Souza's book "What is so great about Christianity."
-in this book he makes note of the claims of the new atheist saying Christianity is harmful and bad by saying and i will quote:
Dinesh D’Souza notes this “indisputable fact”: “all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades. . . . . Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.”
Also in regards to science Paul Cohpan says and i quote "despite the new atheists’ appeals to science, they ignore the profound influence of the Jewish-Christian worldview on the West’s scientific enterprise. Despite naturalists’ highjacking the foundations of science as their own, physicist Paul Davies sets forth the simple truth: “Science began as an outgrowth of theology, and all scientists, whether atheists or theists . . . accept an essentially theological worldview.”
Cheers!
Hope you guys have a Happy Easter
“Science began as an outgrowth of theology, and all scientists, whether atheists or theists . . . accept an essentially theological worldview.”
Ah ah ah, but we mustn't forget that science is always changing! Remember?
In my field, early work in historical linguistics assumed that by reconstructing the mothers of modern languages, philologists/linguists could eventually uncover the pre-Babel language that Noah spoke (possibly even the language Adam and Eve spoke). That objective has fallen to the wayside among professionals, and even the core idea - that all humans once spoke a single language - is being rejected based upon modern evidence. The same trend away from supernatural objectives can be demonstrated in cosmology, biology, chemistry, etc.
Early Christian and Islamic investigations may have begun with some notion of a lawgiver, but the modern understanding is that laws arise from the inherent properties of the objects they describe. No lawgiver is necessary.
Also, considering the degree to which individual scientists have struggled with the results of their own studies (see classical mechanics, early geology, early evolutionary theory), I think its a little too conspiratorial to talk about naturalism co-opting anything. Experimentation and the falsifiable models that best-explained the results demanded natural explanations. Scientists just followed the data as best they could.
b h,
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Give me one example of anyone killed in the name of Atheism? Think real hard about it.
Science as an outgrowth of theology? Explain the assertion, instead of parroting someone else.
I take it to mean that without theology religion there would be no science?
Sean:
Science is an outgrowth of theology. It is to a degree true.
Astronomy is an outgrowth of astrology.
Chemistry is an outgrowth of alchemy.
Religion is to science what astrology and alchemy are to astronomy and chemistry.
I have no problem with that.
Neither do I Evan. I just want Jamie to do a little research rather that accept anyone else's word for it and present us with arguments form authority.
Why is this video, Religions are failed Sciences by Sam Harris, no longer available?
Post a Comment