OT - Obamacare

The Choker wrote:

Now, these clueless morons are about to get us into World War III under some drummed-up pretense to save face over equally stupid statements and events that can't be verified.

Obama is a warmonger. He likes using the big guns and bombs.

We can't afford medical care, food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, employment and now he is starting another war that no one can predict the extent, duration or cost of.



Going to bomb again in Syria this time.

It's not so much warmongering, as his wanting to bring down the U.S.A.

No third term, just King of the Dictator ship, and Martial Law.

Wulfman... wrote:

CapnLoki wrote: Really??? My list is longer than your list? That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while!

And BTW, the atheist list is longer, much longer if you take into account that very few identified as an "atheist" before the 20th century, and agnostics like Albert Einstein aren't included.

Except that there are other links to lists (of scientists from other religions) noted in that article that are apparently not included in that list.

For what it's worth, I haven't even been to church (except for a couple of marriages and a funeral or two) for about 30 years. I've always had issues with "organized religion", but don't really consider myself a non-believer......just open-minded about it.

You've completely missed the point. The Atheist List was provided to disprove Granny's claim that:

ChicagoGranny wrote:Pagan, heathens and atheists contributed very little to the development of the scientific method

not that atheists are superior to believers in their scientific understanding. Your post does enough to show that.

If you want to pad your numbers, you could include Jewish scientists, which includes 185 Nobel Prize winners, although it includes avowed atheists like Richard Feynman and agnostics such as Albert Einstein. But there is no way to compare one list to another, nor is it even possible to say how many "believers" actually believed.

From the same original post:

ChicagoGranny wrote:Today many atheists who think science support their beliefs about "no God" have poor understandings of science.

Anyone who tries to prove or disprove the existence of God using the scientific method is on a Fool's Errand.

You've completely missed the point. The Atheist List was provided to disprove Granny's claim that:

ChicagoGranny wrote:Pagan, heathens and atheists contributed very little to the development of the scientific method

not that atheists are superior to believers in their scientific understanding. Your post does enough to show that.

Thank you CapnLoki, you nailed it precisely. I just found it very offensive that that atheists were being unfairly maligned. I am sure she'll have some SA snippy comeback as she always does.

49er

The Choker wrote:

Now, these clueless morons are about to get us into World War III under some drummed-up pretense to save face over equally stupid statements and events that can't be verified.

Obama is a warmonger. He likes using the big guns and bombs.

We can't afford medical care, food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, employment and now he is starting another war that no one can predict the extent, duration or cost of.



Going to bomb again in Syria this time.

Hmm,

With all due respect Choker, I get the feeling you are using the war issues to express false concern about medical care, food stamps, ect. In other words, if there weren't any wars occurring, you would find some reason to claim cost should shut these programs down.

49er

The remarkable scientific achievements of Isaac Newton (1642-1727) were neatly summarized in poet Alexander Pope's famous couplet:

Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night

God said: "Let Newton be!" and all was light.


One of the pioneers of this new understanding of laws of nature was the French philosopher and scientist Rene Descartes (1596-1650), who wrote that "God alone is the author of all the motions in the world."


Robert Boyle, the father of modern chemistry and author of the eponymous law, observed that God's creation operates according to fixed laws "which He alone at first Establish'd." God's authorship of the laws of nature guaranteed their universality and unchanging nature. Descartes thus argued that because these laws had their source in an eternal and unchanging God, the laws of nature must themselves be eternal and unchanging.

Descartes also set out a law of the conservation of motion, again arguing for it on the basis of God's immutability. This idea that nature was governed by constant and immutable principles was an important precondition for experimental science.

The mathematician Isaac Barrow, who was Isaac Newton's predecessor in the famous Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge, suggested that the only reason for having confidence that repeated experiments will yield general principles that hold true is because we can be assured that the laws of nature that God has instituted are constant. We have no reason to believe, he wrote, "that Nature is inconstant," for that would imply that "the great Author of the universe is unlike himself."


One of the perennial questions in the philosophy of mathematics concerns the status of mathematical truths: Are they human constructions, or are they eternal truths that are embedded in reality? Plato had held the first position, Aristotle had adopted the second, and it was Aristotle's view that tended to prevail throughout the Middle Ages.


If mathematics was primarily a product of the human mind, it could be argued that mathematics did not necessarily provide true a description of reality. It might be allowed, however, that mathematical models, although not ultimately true, nonetheless provided the basis for accurate predictions. Hence, mathematical astronomy, while regarded as falling short of offering a true account of the nature of heavenly bodies and the causes of their motions, was regarded as useful because made it possible to predict their positions. Mathematical models were thus thought of as useful fictions.

It was a difference of opinion on this question that led to Galileo's confrontation with the Inquisition. Galileo had wanted to insist that the sun-centred Copernican model system was more than an helpful mathematical device - it was an accurate physical description. Thus, not only did Galileo champion a new astronomical model, he also held to a new model of astronomy. The Catholic Church, for its part, supported the prevailing view. With the benefit of hindsight, we might judge its decision to have been unwise, but it was consistent with the scientific consensus of the time.

As was the case for laws of nature, the idea that mathematical relations were real had a theological justification. Individuals such as Galileo, Johannes Kepler, Rene Descartes and Isaac Newton were convinced that mathematical truths were not the products of human minds, but of the divine mind. God was the source of mathematical relations that were evident in the new laws of the universe. Like the Bible, the "book of nature" had also been written by God and, as Galileo was to insist, this book was "written in the language of mathematics."

Other scientists shared this view. Johannes Kepler, who discovered the laws of planetary motion, argued that God had used mathematical archetypes in his creation of the cosmos. Because of this, he wrote, the old Aristotelian prejudice against the mathematization of nature was to be rejected:

"the reason why the mathematicals are the cause of natural things (a theory which Aristotle carped at in so many places) is that God the Creator had Mathematicals with him as archetypes from eternity in their simplest divine state of abstraction."

Descartes even claimed that God had created the laws of logic and mathematics, maintaining that the equation 2 + 2 = 4 was true only because God had so willed it. In support of the idea that God was a mathematician, Descartes quoted the biblical verse: "thou hast ordered all things in measure and number and weight" (Wisdom of Solomon 11:20). Newton subsequently described the cosmos as inhabited by an "infinite and omnipresent spirit' in which matter was moved by 'mathematical laws."

Identifying God as the author of mathematics was thus a crucial step in asserting the reality of mathematical relations, and it was this development which enabled the subsequent application of mathematics to the subject matter of physics. Combined with the idea of a divine legislator, this insight produced the modern view that nature is governed by mathematical laws.



In each of these seventeenth-century developments - the emergence of natural laws, the mathematization of nature, the new mechanistic and atomic understanding of matter - God was imagined to be more intimately involved in nature than he had been in the medieval world picture. Indeed, this was the explicit intention of some of the principal agents of the scientific revolution, who argued that their new views of nature were more genuinely Christian than the supposedly "pagan" science of Aristotle.

Francis Bacon and his successors in the Royal Society, for example, clearly saw themselves as attempting to regain the dominion over nature which Adam had forfeited as a consequence of his disobedience. As Bacon expressed it:

"For man by the fall fell at the same time from this state of innocency and from his dominion over creation. Both of these losses however can even in this life be in some part repaired; the former by religion and faith, the latter by arts and sciences."

Scientific activity thus came to be regarded as an integral part of a redemptive process. This more active engagement with the natural world was still pursued from theological motives, but clearly these were quite different from those of medieval allegorists

Religious considerations provided vital sanctions for the pursuit of scientific knowledge and, arguably, it is these that account for the positive attitudes to science which have led to the high status of science in the modern West.

This is not to deny that there have been those in the past who have opposed certain scientific views on religious grounds. This has been especially the case since the advent of Darwinianism, which met with a mixed reception in religious circles. It is often forgotten, however, that Darwinism met with a mixed reaction in scientific circles, too.

Those who have magnified more recent controversies about the relations of science and religion, and who have projected them back into historical time, simply perpetuate a historical myth. The myth of a perennial conflict between science and religion is one to which no historian of science would subscribe.quote

Sheffey wrote:The remarkable scientific achievements of Isaac Newton (1642-1727) were neatly summarized in poet Alexander Pope's famous couplet...

First of all, when you copy so freely from a published article its polite, not to mention ethical, to credit the source. My apologies if you actually are Peter Harrison, Director of the Centre for the History of European Discourses at the University of Queensland.

Also, when you do copy so freely, it would be nice to not edit out portions that you don't think support your view, such as:

Peter Harrison wrote:Could modern science have arisen outside the theological matrix of Western Christendom? It is difficult to say. What can be said for certain is that it did arise in that environment, and that theological ideas underpinned some of its central assumptions. Those who argue for the incompatibility of science and religion will draw little comfort from history.

I take from this that Harrison is saying that religion does not prevent science. Of course, we have no idea what alternate paths history might have taken in this regard, so it is foolish to claim that modern science could only have been created with religion.

While I would not presume to argue with any of Professor Harrison's points, I would mention that most of the scientists mention lived long before modern science started to unravel the true creation of our world, with Geology, Evolution, Biology, Cosmology, etc. These early thinkers had no metaphor other than (for the most part) Christian theology to explain their existence. One wonders if Galileo would have been an atheist had he lived in a later age. I have a lot of trouble believing that Newton's genius was helped by his (at the time popular) mystical musings, rather than hindered by them.

I would also point out that while its true that many of the Renaissance scientists framed their work in a theological metaphor, the classical philosophy and mathematics that dominated western thinking for two thousand years did not. While some for the classical science seems naive to us now, much of it was quite sophisticated and served as the basis for numerous advances that were overshadowed by later developments.

I would also point out that while its true that many of the Renaissance scientists framed their work in a theological metaphor, the classical philosophy and mathematics that dominated western thinking for two thousand years did not.

At quick read that looks like a critical statement. But on contemplation, I cannot find any meaning in it at all.

Do you hold atheism to the high test that you seem to hold Christianity, i.e., atheism was the metaphor for the classical philosophy and mathematics that dominated western thinking for two thousand years?

Whatever the case and to the chagrin of atheists, the fact remains that the Christian church, and particularly Catholic universities in Europe, were the dominant fertile environment for development of modern scientific thought.

Quite likely, as their faculties were made up of the most educated people of their time, but it doesn't mean that science necessarily is an offshoot or product of religion, more like a lucky result of having a university with good libraries and literate people (even if their literacy followed religious teachings) already handy to work in. There were very many religious based scholars, products of their times and environment, who added greatly to world knowledge including science, but being able to (more recently) study science in a non religious environment is freeing to many students who can separate their religious (or nonreligious) beliefs from their work.

Not Fade wrote:

I would also point out that while its true that many of the Renaissance scientists framed their work in a theological metaphor, the classical philosophy and mathematics that dominated western thinking for two thousand years did not.

At quick read that looks like a critical statement. But on contemplation, I cannot find any meaning in it at all.

Meaning? You want Meaning? For that, we have to charge extra!

Not Fade wrote:Do you hold atheism to the high test that you seem to hold Christianity, i.e., atheism was the metaphor for the classical philosophy and mathematics that dominated western thinking for two thousand years?

I hold Christianity to no test whatsoever. My only point is that although modern science evolved in a Christian environment, that does not imply that the theology had much to do with it. Perhaps I should say, it was not necessarily a net positive influence.

Not Fade wrote:Whatever the case and to the chagrin of atheists, the fact remains that the Christian church, and particularly Catholic universities in Europe, were the dominant fertile environment for development of modern scientific thought.

That is more a statement of fact than a cause and effect relationship. Its like Willie Sutton is said to have said, "I rob banks because that's where the money is." The universities were "where the books are."

One could also argue that although the Catholic church had a virtual monopoly on literacy, they stifled general education and the advancement of science for over a thousand years. Given the total dominance the Church had in Europe, it hard to give them credit without also assigning blame. One wonders, for instance, how much more science might have come out of the Jewish community, had it not been for the almost continuous persecution by the Church. Were it not for the Reformation and printing, would science continue to have been stifled by the church? We'll never really know.

What we do know is that once the scientific method started to evolve, it exploded (and continues to explode) faster than anyone could have imagined. And at the same time, scientists (and politicians) started to distance themselves from organized religion and dogmatic theology. While almost all 17th century thinkers were tied to the Church, there were already some notable exceptions, such as Spinoza, even though there was great personal cost. By the end of the 18th century, science and engineering was largely secular.

EDIT: I realized some might notice I failed to address the question of atheism as a metaphor for classical philosophy and mathematics. That's true. To a non-believer, atheism as a metaphor is pretty meaningless.

Given the total dominance the Church had in Europe, it hard to give them credit without also assigning blame. One wonders, for instance, how much more science might have come out of the Jewish community, had it not been for the almost continuous persecution by the Church.

Were it not for the Christian Church in Europe, Muslims would have overrun Europe and we would not be having this forum today.

Were it not for the Reformation and printing

I think you, as an atheist, just made a big slip and gave Christianity more credit than you ever intended to.

CapnLoki

How do you feel now that you are part of a religious movement? http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/08/ ... 377548616/

TheUglyTruth wrote:

Given the total dominance the Church had in Europe, it hard to give them credit without also assigning blame. One wonders, for instance, how much more science might have come out of the Jewish community, had it not been for the almost continuous persecution by the Church.

Were it not for the Christian Church in Europe, Muslims would have overrun Europe and we would not be having this forum today.

What if this? What if that? Maybe OSA would have been cured by a Muslim doctor. Maybe Columbus would still have been Jewish when he discovered America. The what if game can be played ad nauseum. What if Christianity hadn't taken hold in Rome? What other theology/philosophy would have evolved?

TheUglyTruth wrote:

Were it not for the Reformation and printing

I think you, as an atheist, just made a big slip and gave Christianity more credit than you ever intended to.

Why do you think I'm an atheist? Because I don't think all progress in the world emanates from religion? I've only maintained that modern science did not evolve because of the influence of the church, perhaps it was in spite of it. Also, that atheists, once it was feasible to identify one's self as such, made contributions equal and perhaps even greater than believers. My point about printing and the reformation is that these events altered the course of history - without them Europe might have stagnated for hundreds of years more; we'll never know.

This isn't new but I thought it was worth repeating here. . .

"If you think health care is expensive now wait till it's free."
P J O'Rourke