Religion = Child; Science = Adult

[remez]

What I said was I do not believe that children, if left alone to explore the world, would invent an all-powerful deity to explain what they observe.

Actually I believe that has happened throughout history numerous times. Lighting, droughts, natural calamities etc. I’m not saying they all got it right.

In that sense, yes, the aspect of theism that 'explains' natural phenomena with "god did it" is not compatible with science.

I agree.

It is not an acceptable approach to scientific investigation.

But be fair would a child on its own invent modern science investigation?
Put science to the same test. What is more likely to happen? Science or deity?
See there has to be so much more than just your blank slate theory.

 

[remez]

I agree. Disputing the evidence is a critical requirement of any epistemology. Scientists and theists dispute scientific evidences and theories all the time. That’s how we progresses further towards the truth of reality.

Disputing the evidence is only constructive while those disputes are still reasonable. Young Earth creationists dispute the evidence because it disagrees with their doctrine, not because of any reasonable shortcomings in the empirical evidence or theories.

I disagree. They often argue that exact case; that there are shortcomings in the scientific data. I know because I have debated them on this very point. I still contend they are incorrect on both the theism and the science.

Their motivation for their case does not discredit their position. The science and the theism does, again IMO. Thus their motivation doesn’t in anyway provide any rational reason for you to discredit all theistic views as nonscientific. Their science may, but not their motivation.

The church opposed (and suppressed) heliocentrism because it contradicted their doctrine. That is not a reasonable disagreement.

You are distorting the history here.

Your use of the term “The church” is far too inclusive. Galileo was also a theist and not the only one that agreed with Copernicus. As I mentioned earlier theists and scientists had about a century to investigate Copernicus, also a theist, before the Galileo affair.

Reformers in both camps corrected the theism and the science.

I think you’re getting the reaction of “the Church” to Galileo wrong for the most part. You may want to explore this meme of yours a little more. Copernicus was encouraged by “the Church” to publish his ideas long before the Galileo affair. Please let me know what you find.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Actually I believe that has happened throughout history numerous times. Lighting, droughts, natural calamities etc. I’m not saying they all got it right.

In that sense, yes, the aspect of theism that 'explains' natural phenomena with "god did it" is not compatible with science.

I agree.

It is not an acceptable approach to scientific investigation.

But be fair would a child on its own invent modern science investigation?
Put science to the same test. What is more likely to happen? Science or deity?
See there has to be so much more than just your blank slate theory.

Ok.. putting science and deity to the same test, I would say that science wins. There are far more riddles that have been solved, questions answered, discoveries made, predictions verified, technology invented, and diseases cured through scientific investigation than through religious explanation. Please name a single technology the operation of which relies on religious tenet and not a scientific principle.

If you are saying that inventing a deity to explain things has happened in history numerous times, then so has science investigation happened numerous times. Whether either is really done by a child I cannot say.

 

[bigfield]

You are distorting the history here.

Your use of the term “The church” is far too inclusive.

Nonsense. I'm quite clearly referring to the Roman Catholic Church.

Galileo was also a theist and not the only one that agreed with Copernicus. As I mentioned earlier theists and scientists had about a century to investigate Copernicus, also a theist, before the Galileo affair.

Reformers in both camps corrected the theism and the science.

They changed Church doctrine well after Galileo provided empirical evidence for heliocentrism. The Catholic ruling elite expressed interest in Copernicues' theories before he published them, but evidently because hostile to the theory by the time Galileo made his observations.

I think you’re getting the reaction of “the Church” to Galileo wrong for the most part. You may want to explore this meme of yours a little more. Copernicus was encouraged by “the Church” to publish his ideas long before the Galileo affair. Please let me know what you find.

I'm quite familiar with the details of the Galileo affair. The Church banned books on heliocentrism and declared the theory heretical for over a century because it contradicted Church doctrine.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Ram started with a genetic fallacy.
We were discussing the compatibility of the theism and science of Galileo.

I have no idea what you are talking about in your first sentence.

Galileo's theism and his science were not compatible, which is why he was forced to recant. He didn't want to end up like Bruno.

 

[remez]

Ok.. putting science and deity to the same test, I would say that science wins. There are far more riddles that have been solved, questions answered, discoveries made, predictions verified, technology invented, and diseases cured through scientific investigation than through religious explanation.

That was not the test. Observe………..

What I said was I do not believe that children, if left alone to explore the world, would invent an all-powerful deity to explain what they observe.

So again……….

But be fair would a child on its own invent modern science investigation?
Put science to the same test. What is more likely to happen? Science or deity?
See there has to be so much more than just your blank slate theory.

 

[remez]

Your use of the term “The church” is far too inclusive.
Nonsense. I'm quite clearly referring to the Roman Catholic Church.

My contention was that it was not the entire RCC. Heliocentrism also had support with the reformers as well. In the church as well as in science a revolution was taking place. He had many supporters in the church. He had just and many detractors in the science camp as well. Galileo himself said that the professors of science were stirring up trouble in the church to meet their own ends.

I'm quite familiar with the details of the Galileo affair. The Church banned books on heliocentrism and declared the theory heretical for over a century because it contradicted Church doctrine.

I’m not denying the egregious error made by the inquisition. But that inquisition did not reflect the growing number of theists supporting the heliocentric model. Much of that decision made by the inquisition was based not on the weak scientific evidence of Galileo, but about his arrogant manner in deriding any theist or scientist opposed to his views. He really just ticked off a lot of people with his deriding arrogance.

So the Galileo affair is not a case where theism and science are incompatible. Galileo’s theism and science both supported a heliocentric model. Galileo’s theism was supported by many in the church, and that theism was compatible with science regardless of the boneheaded decision of the inquisition.

 

[remez]

Galileo's theism and his science were not compatible, which is why he was forced to recant.

Think about it.
What was he forced to recant?

Fact: Galileo’s theism and science both supported a heliocentric model.

Which logically renders them compatible.

Now granted these additional conditions were present…..Some theists and scientists opposed him.
The nearsighted inquisition forced him to recant.

But neither of those conditions logically alters the fact.

 

[bigfield]

Much of that decision made by the inquisition was based not on the weak scientific evidence of Galileo, but about his arrogant manner in deriding any theist or scientist opposed to his views. He really just ticked off a lot of people with his deriding arrogance.

Galileo's arrogant and derisive manner does not explain why the Church declared heliocentrism heretical, and banned Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium.

You cited the Galileo affair as an example of the compatibility of theism and science, but the Galileo affair is actually one of the most infamous examples of religious opposition to science: one of the most powerful religious institutions in history chose to suppress scientific knowledge rather than change their doctrine.

 

[Learner]

Galileo's arrogant and derisive manner does not explain why the Church declared heliocentrism heretical, and banned Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium.

You cited the Galileo affair as an example of the compatibility of theism and science, but the Galileo affair is actually one of the most infamous examples of religious opposition to science: one of the most powerful religious institutions in history chose to suppress scientific knowledge rather than change their doctrine.

It is more sensible to say imo that Galileo probably opposed a science "theory" rather than science as a whole. Science "not compatible" with theism is an erroneous argument. If it were possible to have all the data collected for example; you would have closer to real explanations of what is thought of in theistic beliefs (rather than incompatibilty) as you would also of the big bang. Georges Lemaître (Priest and Prof of Physics) would have probably agreed with some sort of compatibilty in this regard .

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The nearsighted inquisition forced him to recant.

LOL

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Science "not compatible" with theism is an erroneous argument. If it were possible to have all the data collected for example; you would have closer to real explanations of what is thought of in theistic beliefs as you would also of the big bang.

The problem with that statement is that you cannot support it with evidence. Why, for example, do children not continue with Santa belief as adults, but only pretend that it is real on certain occasions? Adults know that Santa isn't real but still pretend that it is because it is their cultural norm. Is that the compatibility you're talking about?

Or are you saying that if adults knew everything there was to know about Santa they would continue to believe?

 

[LordKiran]

Much of that decision made by the inquisition was based not on the weak scientific evidence of Galileo, but about his arrogant manner in deriding any theist or scientist opposed to his views. He really just ticked off a lot of people with his deriding arrogance.

Galileo's arrogant and derisive manner does not explain why the Church declared heliocentrism heretical, and banned Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium.

You cited the Galileo affair as an example of the compatibility of theism and science, but the Galileo affair is actually one of the most infamous examples of religious opposition to science: one of the most powerful religious institutions in history chose to suppress scientific knowledge rather than change their doctrine.

My guess is they probably viewed the whole matter as more trouble than it was worth especially when the status quo suited them just fine.

The important take away is that the Galileo affair has nothing to do with theism's incompatibility with science and everything to do with large social constructs being dominated by a strict authoritarian hierarchy, who will bury people and their world changing research for no reason other than simply crossing the men at the top.

 

[Shadowy Man]

That was not the test. Observe………..

What I said was I do not believe that children, if left alone to explore the world, would invent an all-powerful deity to explain what they observe.

So again……….

But be fair would a child on its own invent modern science investigation?
Put science to the same test. What is more likely to happen? Science or deity?
See there has to be so much more than just your blank slate theory.

Well, we'd have to do the experiment to know properly. Recall that I said "I do not believe..." My personal experience with my children is that they haven't invented a deity to explain anything in their lives and I've never told them that there is. But you could say they haven't been "left alone to explore the world" because I've been there trying to give explanations that don't involve a deity when they ask me questions.

 

[remez]

Galileo's arrogant and derisive manner does not explain why the Church declared heliocentrism heretical, and banned Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium.

BTW what was the actual verdict? Not the sentence, the verdict.

Again I admit the trial went poorly, and reached a wrong conclusion and provided an unjust sentence that was not really taken very seriously. Have you ever seen that happen in a trail? Certainly we have seen shocking trial results that went against reason.

If you don’t know of the arrogance perspective or of “Simplicio” then you wouldn’t understand what I was asserting. Look it up.

You cited the Galileo affair as an example of the compatibility of theism and science, but the Galileo affair is actually one of the most infamous examples of religious opposition to science: one of the most powerful religious institutions in history chose to suppress scientific knowledge rather than change their doctrine.

The way you have presented it, I view it more as a meme reconstructed to meet a skeptic conclusion.
Further…..
I cited it because HIS theism and HIS science supported the correct heliocentric model and hence were compatible. I certainly didn’t mean that all scientists and theists agreed with him at the time. All revolutions have their oppositions, example the Tories of the American Revolution.

 

[remez]

Ok.. putting science and deity to the same test, I would say that science wins. There are far more riddles that have been solved, questions answered, discoveries made, predictions verified, technology invented, and diseases cured through scientific investigation than through religious explanation.

That was not the test. Observe………..

What I said was I do not believe that children, if left alone to explore the world, would invent an all-powerful deity to explain what they observe.

So again……….

But be fair would a child on its own invent modern science investigation?
Put science to the same test. What is more likely to happen? Science or deity?
See there has to be so much more than just your blank slate theory.

Well, we'd have to do the experiment to know properly. Recall that I said "I do not believe..." My personal experience with my children is that they haven't invented a deity to explain anything in their lives and I've never told them that there is. But you could say they haven't been "left alone to explore the world" because I've been there trying to give explanations that don't involve a deity when they ask me questions.

That was precisely my point.
Recall that I inferred earlier that most prescientific communities actually did invent deities to address the unknowns.
So your theory that children left alone would not produce deities stands in opposition to known history.
Thus your blank slate theory does not counter my assertion that theism and science are very compatible.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Recall that I inferred earlier that most prescientific communities actually did invent deities to address the unknowns.
So your theory that children left alone would not produce deities stands in opposition to known history.
Thus your blank slate theory does not counter my assertion that theism and science are very compatible.

I didn't realize that children developed the major religions of the worlds. When children become adults things do change. Further, it's not clear to me, historically, how much early populations truly believed that the "gods" they created were really responsible for the unknowns and how much was simply mythology that was later adopted as "truth". I'm not a historian.

Also, I didn't state that theism and science aren't compatible. I stated that Santa Claus and science are incompatible. But I said that "theism" is too broad a term, and means so many different things to so many different people, to come to that conclusion.

 

[bigfield]

BTW what was the actual verdict? Not the sentence, the verdict.

Again I admit the trial went poorly, and reached a wrong conclusion and provided an unjust sentence that was not really taken very seriously. Have you ever seen that happen in a trail? Certainly we have seen shocking trial results that went against reason.

If you don’t know of the arrogance perspective or of “Simplicio” then you wouldn’t understand what I was asserting. Look it up.

I'm already familiar with the details. Galileo wasn't tried until 1633, after he published his Dialogue. The Church declared heliocentrism heretical, and banned De revolutionibus, in 1616, after Galileo published a pamphlet providing evidence for heliocentrism.

 

[Oecolampadius]

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." (1 Corinthians 13:11)

 

[remez]

I didn't realize that children developed the major religions of the worlds. When children become adults things do change.

That was my point to your blank slate theory that children would, without religious input, become scientists. There was more to it.

Further, it's not clear to me, historically, how much early populations truly believed that the "gods" they created were really responsible for the unknowns and how much was simply mythology that was later adopted as "truth".

I was appealing to the classic atheist premise for a God of the gaps fallacy presented against theism.

But I said that "theism" is too broad a term, and means so many different things to so many different people, to come to that conclusion.

I’m more comfortable refining it to Christianity.