<p>Kepler’s mother was put on trial as a witch.</p>
<p>Atheism, it seems, has become a necessary conditon of science.
Actually far from it
Atheism is the absence of theism which does not necessarily mean that an atheist is not religious.
Not all religions require the belief in God
However saying that science requires you to be either an atheist or religious is false.
That is like saying to be a philosopher you must be a theist, since many quoted from the ID camp are philosophers.
Science is not religion and religion is not science.</p>
<p>Frankly, I find the very idea that atheism was, or is, or has become a necessary condition for science personally insulting. There is a long tradition of 300 years of Quaker scientists, theists all, who have always viewed the process of science as a way of better understanding the Divine, both in themselves and the world. Catholics have generally viewed science this way at least since Cardinal Newman; Muslims since the first flowering of Arabic science and Avicenna. Jews have never viewed science in any other way. </p>
<p>But a belief in observation, the testing of hypothesis, and the ability to falsify them IS essential to science and scientific progress. To my mind, this ability is given to us by the Divine, and to deny these capabilities in humankind borders on the sacrilegious.</p>
<p>My idea of God doesn’t allow Her to put evidence of prehistoric shellfish on mountaintops in order to “test our faith”.</p>
<p>This is a very silly thread.</p>
<p>The whole issue is charged, but at least some people keep their sense of humor about it.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.venganza.org/[/url]”>http://www.venganza.org/</a></p>
<p>And, really, is there any argument you can advance against this if you believe in ID?</p>
<p>Paul Feyerabend (those involved in the philosophy of science should know this name well–UC-Berkley, FIT Zurich) in his book Science in a Free Society states:</p>
<p>Duly elected committees of layman must either examine whether the theory of evolution is really as well established as biologists want us to believe, whether being established in their sense settles the matter and whether it should displace other views in schools In all cases the last word should not be that of the experts but that of the people immediately concerned Conceited and intimidating scholars, covered with honorary degrees, university chairs, presidencies of scientific societies are tripped up by a lawyer who has the talent to look though the most impressive piece of jargon and to expose the uncertainty, indefiniteness, the monumental ignorance behind the most dazzling display of omniscience: science is not beyond the reach of the natural shrewdness of the human race.</p>
<p>Science in a Free Society, p. 95-95.</p>
<p>And for all you relig-o-phobes relax, Feyerabend is an atheist/skeptic.</p>
<p>As to Galileo:</p>
<p>For the record, Galileo was mistaken, as we now know. What made him important to science was simply that he was less wrong than his scientific predecessors. His model of the universe was mathematically incorrect, but intuitively close to correct based on his observations with the aid of a telescope.
The Catholic Church told Galileo that he was free to present his model as an alternative to the current view, but that he could not claim it to be the absolute and only possible model. He proudly declined and was placed under house arrest. Like many, he absolutely believed in his way.</p>
<p>This is a direct quote of Cardinal Bellarmino addressing Galileos innovative new cosmology at the time:</p>
<p> It seems to me that Your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves to speak hypothetically and not absolutely to say that on the supposition of the earths movement and the Suns quiescence all the celestial appearances are explained better than by the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run no risk whatever. .</p>
<p>Galileo, as Bellarmino implies, was not absolutely right, but simply more right; although, potentially completely wrong as far as the authorities of the day could know.</p>
<p>This is from Paul Feyerabends (UC-Berkley, FIT Zurich) essay Galileo and the Tyranny of TruthI dont have a link, I read his book and quoted.</p>
<p>Mini said,</p>
<p>this ability is given to us by the Divine</p>
<p>sounds like Intelligent Design to me;)</p>
<p>MrB,</p>
<p>They actually teach this drivel at Cornell?</p>
<p>The premise itself is ludicrous:</p>
<p>Myth: There is no war between science and Christianity.
Fact: The Church has persecuted or opposed almost every great scientist of the last 500 years.</p>
<p>Is this a joke?
Myth: There is no war between science and Christianity. </p>
<p>Where is this myth being propagated? I have grown up hearing nothing but the opposite. You cannot even mention the Catholic Church without Galileos long-suffering ego coming up right-quick.
Where is this myth in vogue, Borneo? Because it is certainly not all the rage in North America, Europe, Japan or China. </p>
<p>Why not re-write the premise: </p>
<p>Myth: There is no war between science and The STATE.
Fact: The STATE has persecuted or opposed almost every great scientist of the last 500 years.</p>
<p>This lucid theory would be far more valid since there is a myth that it was not the STATE as such. That would be a ground breaking essay (actually, not, even that is becoming passé at this point: see Feyerabend).</p>
<p>So it turns out that the Church was tough on ground breaking science huh? That is simply startling; cutting edge stuff, Im glad somebody finally had the balls to take on that entrenched myth.</p>
<p>The resentment and anguish simply seethes out of the anti-religious folk.</p>
<p>[friction between cutting edge ideas and the ‘Powers that Be’–brilliant!]</p>
<p>So what if the article was written simply. For a person to criticize it in such a manner for no real reason except to show how they are, and how well educated. </p>
<p>When a person does that, and I have seen it many times, it shows that because they can’t disagree with what was written, they will disagree with the way it was written. </p>
<p>I enjoyed the article. Not everything has to be long and complicated to make the point. </p>
<p>It is actually quite amusing when the style of writing is attacked, when the words and statements are simply put, that when one can’t find alot wrong with the actual information given, they go after the format and choice of simplicity. </p>
<p>My D once acked me why Supreme Court Justices have life terms. I answered simply that the idea was to have less political influence on them. Her answer, very simply put, was “well, that hasn’t worked very well”.</p>
<p>Sometimes simple and sweet can get the points across.</p>
<p>FoutainSiren, I have never called you a name. Not once. Yet, you feel it in your right to call those that disagree with you names. You write well, but when you call names, to be honest, you lose credibility. </p>
<p>Anything after religo-phobes, well, has a lot less power. And when you tell concerned adults to relax, that is rather condecending and shows that you feel our concerns, our interests, our life experiences, our passions, have no meaning or importance. I would never tell you to relax.</p>
<p>Mini said,</p>
<p>this ability is given to us by the Divine</p>
<p>sounds like Intelligent Design to me"</p>
<p>Since you’ve already proven that I am God, I’m glad you give me credit for designing myself.</p>
<p>I doubt your not-so-crypto-Christian ID friends would take kindly to the notion. ;)</p>
<p>well CGM you have to remember she is only 17 or so- apparently this thread has struck a chord with her, as it has for several on this site- and as far as I can tell, explanations on either “side” don’t seem to have permeated more than perhaps a sliver.</p>
<p>I am concerned however- at young people who seem to have made their minds up so firmly, that they won’t listen to their elders who have a differing view- what hubris to know “everything” at such a young age- makes me wonder what they will be able to learn in college.</p>
<p>Hang in there, FountainSiren. And to those who are putting FS down while complaining that she is insulting you, why is it OK for you to be condescending toward her, but not vice versa? As my mother used to say, Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.</p>
<p>Fountain Siren, When you use the word “drivel” and Cornell in the same sentence to describe a book by Andrew White you are wrong. While I never studied Andrew White while I was at Cornell, I did read a number of his quotes which were ahead of his time and relevant to today. Not everyone agrees with White, here is one:</p>
<p>The Mythical Conflict between Science and Religion</p>
<p>Here is one web site that supports the belief that this is all a myth; it contains a simplistic criticism of White and denies the church unfairly attacked scientists. You may find it supportive of some of your views. It also comments on the current attack on evolution and it is written in an academic style.
<a href=“http://www.bede.org.uk/conflict.htm[/url]”>http://www.bede.org.uk/conflict.htm</a></p>
<p>Andrew White -
White was an education leader, he joined with Ezra Cornell to create Cornell University and he served as its first president. Among other things, he created a school that featured learning by engaging not just memorizing, he was one of the early supporters of “electives” which he introduced to Cornell before it was used in the other Ivys although Charles Eliot of Harvard is given credit for this idea. He believed that well advised students could pick and should pick their own courses.</p>
<p>He and Cornell believed that their school should help to advance society as well as the individual and wanted their school to offer all forms of education to all. At his inaugural address, White said, “Girls should have the same opportunity to become wise and useful to society as boys,” and he also argued that if Cornell would accept women and minorities the lesser colleges would adopt the practice. The first women graduated from Cornell in 1873.
He also separated religious doctrine from academic study requirements.</p>
<p>His books, his ideas are not drivel.</p>
<p><a href=“http://home.comcast.net/~erozycki/White.html[/url]”>http://home.comcast.net/~erozycki/White.html</a></p>
<p>I have never been condescending- I have been careful on these boards to admit what I don’t know- and I have appreciated links to more information that more fully explained someones point
I have always admitted that I don’t have a college education and perhaps because of that- I sometimes can’t follow someones line of logic- however- I maintain my position- that anyone- who posts consistently on the boards- but only to advance their own position, not to have a true conversation, is really showing their limits.
I try and make allowances for limited persepective with the younger people on the boards- but I am only human and I genuinely am concerned about young people who are so narrow minded and stubborn that they need to use language that slams other- especially adults who have more experience.
To get respect you have to earn it.</p>
<p>Mr. B, I really appreciated your posts and your links. And, emerald, I appreciate your reason and calm.</p>
<p>And I was very careful with my wording. And I am not an antireligious folk. I do not deserve that label.</p>
<p>EK4, something tells me that “narrow minded” and “stubborn” are very inappropriate when describing FountainSiren. She seems to have done a lot more research and thinking to back up her views than most people on this board.</p>
<p>[Andrew White] His books, his ideas are not drivel.</p>
<p>I have no idea, but as I have stated more than once in this thread, I find your posts, by and large, thoughtful and I have no reason to doubt your opinion of this man.</p>
<p>Myth: There is no war between science and Christianity.
Fact: The Church has persecuted or opposed almost every great scientist of the last 500 years.</p>
<p>However, this statement in the context of a discussion of ID and its affects on scientific inquiry, seems at best inappropriate to the point, and at worse a casual dismissal of what motivated many of the greatest scientist in history to do their science (according to their own words): Intelligent Design. </p>
<p>How does the churches view or proscription of their work affect their own fervent belief in Intelligent Design as a FACT and TRUTH? To me, that just shows the even greater depth of their faith and belief, not its obverse; that is, it makes my point exactly: ID is not a deterrent to science but a potential inspiration to inquiry.</p>
<p>Emerson and Coleridge, to name a couple, had already made the same points as White, in a much more nuanced way. Plato had something to say about it a couple thousand years agoalthough, like me, he was more inclined to blame the political system than the beliefs of those that were circumscribed by that system of power.</p>
<p>For all I know Andrew White was a saint, in fact, Ill concede it; however, that does not mean that I have to honor all his positions and accomplishments, especially in the context of this thread.</p>
<p>None the less, I hope I did not overly offend someone you seem to have such respect for. Drivel, was harsh…though common on a message board. Still, I’m sure he was a greater man than most, even only if based on your opinion</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom [post #431]</p>
<p>FoutainSiren, I have never called you a name. Not once. Yet, you feel it in your right to call those that disagree with you names. You write well, but when you call names, to be honest, you lose credibility.</p>
<p>Citygirlsmom to Fountainsiren [post #257]:</p>
<p>your bigotry is shining through bright and clear.</p>
<p>
you feel it in your right to call those that disagree with you names.</p>
<p>Please quote me, where did I call anyone on cc a name?</p>
<p>I’ve give you the dignity of showing you where you have done this, instead of saying you do. Moreover, I didn’t feel the need to say so. I would rather argue the issue than each other.</p>