Whatever God is, it is a concept but God is definitely not "an imaginary idea", whatever it means. :cheese:
What is a concept?
If the Apostle's creed said "God is a concept, we can't be sure what shape or form, if any, it takes. We are open to inspiration and evidence that leads us to the true nature of life, the universe and everything." Then you might have something. I know YOU understand that god is a concept, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the billions of people throughout history who repeated the actual Apostle's creed over and over again, instead of opening their minds and trying to learn. It starts like this:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
Whatever God is, it is a concept but God is definitely not "an imaginary idea", whatever it means. :cheese:
What is a concept?
If the Apostle's creed said "God is a concept, we can't be sure what shape or form, if any, it takes. We are open to inspiration and evidence that leads us to the true nature of life, the universe and everything." Then you might have something. I know YOU understand that god is a concept, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the billions of people throughout history who repeated the actual Apostle's creed over and over again, instead of opening their minds and trying to learn. It starts like this:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
Which means god is a product of universal imagination. Nothing more. Repeating a mantra changes nothing.
Lois
In all debates about god(s), someoone always mention the great strides in science were made during religious governance and that religion has scientific value. But always in a historical context.
This is true but not due to the quality and value of religion brought to science, but simply the fact that everyone was religious in those days.
I should like to see a current count of the belief systems of practising scientists today. I have a feeling that the contributions made by religious scientists is getting smaller. But then fewer scientists are religious.
In all debates about god(s), someoone always mention the great strides in science were made during religious governance and that religion has scientific value. But always in a historical context.
This is true but not due to the quality and value of religion brought to science, but simply the fact that everyone was religious in those days.
I should like to see a current count of the belief systems of practising scientists today. I have a feeling that the contributions made by religious scientists is getting smaller. But then fewer scientists are religious.
The only reason science flourished in an age of religion is that humans are capable of putting religion aside while they work on problems. If they were unable to do that we would have died out long ago. Religion and science are generally incompatible.
Lois
In all debates about god(s), someoone always mention the great strides in science were made during religious governance and that religion has scientific value. But always in a historical context.
This is true but not due to the quality and value of religion brought to science, but simply the fact that everyone was religious in those days.
I should like to see a current count of the belief systems of practising scientists today. I have a feeling that the contributions made by religious scientists is getting smaller. But then fewer scientists are religious.
The only reason science flourished in an age of religion is that humans are capable of putting religion aside while they work on problems. If they were unable to do that we would have died out long ago. Religion and science are generally incompatible.
Lois
I agree, but ask any religious person and they will tell you that religion has contributed enormously to science. My point was, that it is true, but only in history and not because these scientists were religious per se (but were able to remove themselves from religion), sometimes in spite of great danger of punishment. (Hypatia, Gallileo) .
Kwan, have you ever heard the old saying "garbage in, garbage out"?
Of course. I assemble, configure and repair computers as a small personal business since 1996.
Wrt GIGO, from the wiki here]
Garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) in the field of computer science or information and communications technology refers to the fact that computers, since they operate by logical processes, will unquestioningly process unintended, even nonsensical, input data ("garbage in") and produce undesired, often nonsensical, output ("garbage out")
Perhaps, you mean this?
Garbage in, gospel out is a more recent expansion of the acronym. It is a sardonic comment on the tendency to put excessive trust in "computerised" data, and on the propensity for individuals to blindly accept what the computer says. Since the data go through the computer, people tend to believe them:
Decision-makers increasingly face computer-generated information and analyses that could be collected and analyzed in no other way. Precisely for that reason, going behind that output is out of the question, even if one has good cause to be suspicious. In short, the computer analysis becomes a credible references point although based on poor data.[4]
So, what has that got to do with religion and science? :-)
If the Apostle's creed said "God is a concept, we can't be sure what shape or form, if any, it takes. We are open to inspiration and evidence that leads us to the true nature of life, the universe and everything." Then you might have something. I know YOU understand that god is a concept, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the billions of people throughout history who repeated the actual Apostle's creed over and over again, instead of opening their minds and trying to learn. It starts like this:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
Quite appropriate, as something concrete and related to human experiences.
Substitute infinity, the tao or whatever for God?
How do we expect the "billions of people throughout history" to understand and comprehend the abstract concepts of infinity, the tao or God?
However, (being intelligent and curious) some of them would have questioned the literal meaning of the creed, observe nature impartially, record their observations accurately, reflect and derive theories to explain natural phenomena i.e. scientific investigations.
I agree, but ask any religious person and they will tell you that religion has contributed enormously to science. My point was, that it is true, but only in history and not because these scientists were religious per se (but were able to remove themselves from religion), sometimes in spite of great danger of punishment. (Hypatia, Gallileo) .
Not true.
From the wiki on the History of science here]
Medieval European scientists:
The first half of the 14th century saw much important scientific work being done, largely within the framework of scholastic commentaries on Aristotle's scientific writings.[62] William of Ockham introduced the principle of parsimony: natural philosophers should not postulate unnecessary entities, so that motion is not a distinct thing but is only the moving object[63] and an intermediary "sensible species" is not needed to transmit an image of an object to the eye.[64] Scholars such as Jean Buridan and Nicole Oresme started to reinterpret elements of Aristotle's mechanics. In particular, Buridan developed the theory that impetus was the cause of the motion of projectiles, which was a first step towards the modern concept of inertia.[65] The Oxford Calculators began to mathematically analyze the kinematics of motion, making this analysis without considering the causes of motion.[66]
Islamic scientists:
Muslim scientists placed far greater emphasis on experiment than had the Greeks.[67] This led to an early scientific method being developed in the Muslim world, where significant progress in methodology was made, beginning with the experiments of Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) on optics from c. 1000, in his Book of Optics. The law of refraction of light was known to the Persians.[68] The most important development of the scientific method was the use of experiments to distinguish between competing scientific theories set within a generally empirical orientation, which began among Muslim scientists. Ibn al-Haytham is also regarded as the father of optics, especially for his empirical proof of the intromission theory of light. Some have also described Ibn al-Haytham as the "first scientist" for his development of the modern scientific method.[69]
I agree, but ask any religious person and they will tell you that religion has contributed enormously to science. My point was, that it is true, but only in history and not because these scientists were religious per se (but were able to remove themselves from religion), sometimes in spite of great danger of punishment. (Hypatia, Gallileo) .
Not true.
From the wiki on the History of science here]
Medieval European scientists:
The first half of the 14th century saw much important scientific work being done, largely within the framework of scholastic commentaries on Aristotle's scientific writings.[62] William of Ockham introduced the principle of parsimony: natural philosophers should not postulate unnecessary entities, so that motion is not a distinct thing but is only the moving object[63] and an intermediary "sensible species" is not needed to transmit an image of an object to the eye.[64] Scholars such as Jean Buridan and Nicole Oresme started to reinterpret elements of Aristotle's mechanics. In particular, Buridan developed the theory that impetus was the cause of the motion of projectiles, which was a first step towards the modern concept of inertia.[65] The Oxford Calculators began to mathematically analyze the kinematics of motion, making this analysis without considering the causes of motion.[66]
Islamic scientists:
Muslim scientists placed far greater emphasis on experiment than had the Greeks.[67] This led to an early scientific method being developed in the Muslim world, where significant progress in methodology was made, beginning with the experiments of Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) on optics from c. 1000, in his Book of Optics. The law of refraction of light was known to the Persians.[68] The most important development of the scientific method was the use of experiments to distinguish between competing scientific theories set within a generally empirical orientation, which began among Muslim scientists. Ibn al-Haytham is also regarded as the father of optics, especially for his empirical proof of the intromission theory of light. Some have also described Ibn al-Haytham as the "first scientist" for his development of the modern scientific method.[69]
Nevertheless, there is a large faction of people in the Islamic World and in the Christian world who deny any science that contradicts its religious view of the universe, how it came to be and how it works.
Lois
I am not disputing that in days of old the majority of scientific inquiry was done by religious people. But if everyone is religious, it is to be expected that any invention or discovery was made by a religious person.
But IMO, as long as a religious person entertains the concept a talking burning bush, I would say their claim that religion has been beneficial to science is misleading and presumptuous.
Kwan, have you ever heard the old saying "garbage in, garbage out"?
Of course. I assemble, configure and repair computers as a small personal business since 1996.
Wrt GIGO, from the wiki here]
Garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) in the field of computer science or information and communications technology refers to the fact that computers, since they operate by logical processes, will unquestioningly process unintended, even nonsensical, input data ("garbage in") and produce undesired, often nonsensical, output ("garbage out")
Perhaps, you mean this?
Garbage in, gospel out is a more recent expansion of the acronym. It is a sardonic comment on the tendency to put excessive trust in "computerised" data, and on the propensity for individuals to blindly accept what the computer says. Since the data go through the computer, people tend to believe them:
Decision-makers increasingly face computer-generated information and analyses that could be collected and analyzed in no other way. Precisely for that reason, going behind that output is out of the question, even if one has good cause to be suspicious. In short, the computer analysis becomes a credible references point although based on poor data.[4]
So, what has that got to do with religion and science? :-)
I'm fairly certain you have no idea or care what I meant. But you continue to demonstrait it.
I'm fairly certain you have no idea or care what I meant. But you continue to demonstrait it.
Hard telling what ideas Kkwan has. He's made no attempt to engage in any sort of real discussion, just keeps cutting and pasting other people's opinions.
The term "copy-and-paste" refers to the popular, simple method of reproducing text or other data from a source to a destination. It differs from cut and paste in that the original source text or data does not get deleted or removed. The popularity of this method stems from its simplicity and the ease with which users can move data between various applications visually - without resorting to permanent storage.
It's origins:
The term "cut and paste" comes from the traditional practice in manuscript-editings whereby people would literally cut paragraphs from a page with scissors and physically paste them onto another page.
In the internet age since Web 2.0, it has become a standard of communication.
As such it replaces the need for building own arguments. :cheese:
Sorry, could not resist...
The theological community tended to be isolated and so, as Grant puts it, “By the end of the Middle Ages, scholastic logic had become virtually unintelligible to anyone not immersed in its strange juxtapositions of words and bizarre sentences it used as examples". (12) Hannam tells us nothing of this. The best argument that can be made for scholasticism is that it fostered techniques of argument and analysis that could be transferred into new contexts. (Although I still have to find a work that shows that the reasoning of scientists in the seventeenth century can be traced back directly to scholastic logic – they seemed to work within the very different context of empiricism.)
He says lots lots more and there is a response from Hannam and a response back. Something we as mere mortal readers of history don’t get to see often.
Nevertheless, there is a large faction of people in the Islamic World and in the Christian world who deny any science that contradicts its religious view of the universe, how it came to be and how it works.
This is unjustified generalism.
Are atheists any better?
However, there are many Islamic and Christian scientists who do understand what science is, but are cognizant of its limits wrt reductionism and physicalism.
BTW, does science really know how the universe came to be and how it works?