Bede

"In science what matters most is to explain everything on a few and simple principles which can be verified independently. Explain more with less."

This statement is sort of true but only sort of rational. Why simplicity? Why should the universe not be more complex? You are quite right that aethetics is very important to scientists and stories abound of beautiful equations. The most beautiful of all are of course Maxwell's which even look cool on the page. I had done enough physics when I could read them too and appreciate their elegance.

But none of this is reason. Maxwell saw God in the equations (he was another devout scientist and as great as Newton, though less appreciated because his work is so hard to understand).

The search for these simple laws requires an a priori belief they are there to be found, a faith in the lawfulness of the universe despite the apparent chaos. NOGO points to Plato but to the Greeks he was just one philosopher amoung a multitude of weird ideas. Christianity gave that belief in a divine law giver to an entire civilisation. Perhaps we have Augustine to thank for bringing Plato to the masses... Plato too insisted that followers of the non-official religion deserved death, such was the nice tolerant chap he was, and unlike Christians, he didn't even worry if the official religion was true.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

lpetrich

Let's not forget how superdevout Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Cardinal Bellarmine had been. (sarcasm)

I wonder if the example of Albert Einstein has made Bede want to convert to Spinozist pantheism / Jewish agnosticism. Or whether the example of Erwin Schroedinger has made Bede want to convert to Vedanta. Or whether the example of Pythagoras has made Bede want to believe in reincarnation and the wickedness of eating beans.

Copernicus and Galileo haven't made Bede convert to Catholicism, however.

That is unnecessary. All that is necessary is to discover a few regularities -- that will whet one's appetite for more.

(belief in a divine lawgiver...)

Making Xianity not much different from most other religions. And let us not forget about all the miracle-working celebrated in the Middle Ages.

Bede joins Radorth at sneering at beliefs that are no more absurd than his.

He was actually honest -- he thought of religion as a tool for making people virtuous, and if one wants to be honest about that, then one has to concede that a false religion could do at least as well as a true religion.

NOGO

I was not talking about simplicity. I was talking about basic principles.
Take for example Kepler's laws.
1. Planets move in ellipses.
2. The area swept by the moving planet is constant for a given time interval.
3. The third law I can never remember.

Now Newton had two laws

F = G * mass1*mass2 / dist squared
and
F = ma

From these laws you can derive Kepler's three laws and also derive all that Galileo discovered concerning falling bodies.

Newton's laws are more basic. They explain more with less. It is not a question of simplicity. It is a question of being more fundamental. Put another way, it is the force which imposes the geometry. So if you understand force you derive the geometry.

What is more fundamental?
Seeing Mars retrogress or realizing that the observed motion is a combination of the real motion and the motion of the observer?

This apparent motion is not governed by force like the ellipses. It is a visual effect which Copernicus correctly identified. So in this case the fundamental principle is that observed motion can be partly caused by the motion of the observer.

Fundamental principles which are used to derive or explain observed phenomena.

Yes they are. But did you know that the Maxwell equation have a serious problem in them which led to special relativity?

Magnitism is a relativistic effect of electricity.

Actually we know today that the world is a lot more complex than Newton ever imagined but he was approximatively correct.

I know that God is the only reason for you.
I just think differently.

Kepler thought that geometry existed before creation and that God used it to create the world. He also said that geometry was God.

To me a mathematical model of the world is not the world. In fact it is not even how the world works. It is just a mathematical model which behaves approximatively like the real world. It is a human creation to mimic the real thing.

Is it true that two masses attract as Newton had it or is it as Einstein suggested with curved space-time? I say neither; they are just models.

Ptolemy made a mathematical model of the solar system and he was not Christian. Therefore Christianity is not a required element to do science.

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

lpetrich

Kepler's Third Law was the familiar square-cube law:

(period)^2 ~ (distance)^3

Kepler's Second Law is the conservation of angular momentum; it only requires that gravity be a purely radial force. The other two need the "full" expression of the Law of Gravity.

Bede

Ipetrich,

On lightening conductors, <a href="http://www.tektonics.org/norods.html" target="_blank">this</a> has just appeared from everyone's favourite apologist. I won't be doing any in depth research myself, but if you would care to refute Mr Holding, I would be fascinated to see what counters you have.

Oh, and I am a Catholic, some of whose beliefs are weird too.

NOGO, if we grant almost everything you say, we are left with some Christians who are doing science and saying that their religion is inspiring and driving them. We have other Christians opposed to particular scientific ideas who also think their religion supports them. You and Ipetrich would like to claim that the 'true Christians' are the ones on the latter side - largely due to you one-sided views about religon. This is invalid, wrong and patronising to the scientists you claim to admire.

So in the end, the very best you can do is claim that as Christians were on both sides, it didn't make any difference. I think this is wrong, but given the current state of the evidence is a reasonable conclusion. Your current position is not. As I said, in an earlier thread, I will meet you half way, but arguing with fundies who can't accept evidence against their heart-felt beliefs gets boring. Are you one of them, or a reasonable man?

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

lpetrich

I am NOT impressed.

One of Holding's arguments, the idea of lightning as divine or demonic agency as pagan, could be applied to a lot of Catholic practice, such as all those saints. Protestants are usually better at avoiding quasi-paganism, but one would have to look to an extreme sect like the Jehovah's Witnesses to purge most quasi-pagan practice.

Also, there is plenty of Biblical precedent both for God striking people and for devils and demons being very active in our world. Simply consider how Jesus Christ had been described as an exorcist.

King George III's disagreement was only about the shape of the lightning rod.

Finally, I notice that no critic of Andrew Dickson White's account has ever attempted to demonstrate that all the clergymen and theologians had accepted lightning rods with open arms and placed those objects on their houses of worship as fast as the rest of the population did. ADW would thus be guilty of selectivity, but nobody has tried to indict him for that with a serious quantity of counterexamples.

Amos

It is because the Catholics have saints that the Church is the envy of the world. Communion with the saints is equal to our admiration for the Universal mind of God as presented to us by the Church in its various forms of art.

NOGO

What is half way?
The question is this
Is Christianity a necessary prerequisite for the development of science?
I do believe that the answer is either yes or no.
So how can you meet me half way?

You are saying that there were (and I suppose that there still are) some Christians who do science and sone who (opposed or) have opposed particular scientific ideas.

The question that you raise is on which side is the "true" Christian faith?

First comment is that this is rather far cry from a prerequisite.

Second, if we look back to the 16th century you have to admit that back then most people agreed with Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Cardinal Bellarmine rather than Copernicus, Kepler or Galileo. You cannot just wave this consideration away. You cannot say that Kepler and a few others are the only representatives of the "true" Christian faith back in the 16th and early 17th century just because they accepted science. Your bias here is plainly shown.

Third, for you to argue that Christianity is a necessary prerequisite you must show that some Christian doctrine is necessary for science. Showing us individuals who did science will not do.

Forth. Ancient Greeks did science as well and they were not Christian.

All the evidence is against you.
You can accuse others of being fundies but actually you show all the signs of ignoring evidence that you do not like.

Vorkosigan

On lightening conductors, this has just appeared from everyone's favourite apologist. I won't be doing any in depth research myself, but if you would care to refute Mr Holding, I would be fascinated to see what counters you have.

It's very much a typical Holding rebuttal, not addressing any of the issues, and going off into tangents. A small error: Divis' invention of the lightning rod was in 1753, Franklin's in September of 1752. Therefore Franklin is getting credit he deserves. Not really much to rebut there, because there isn't anything that refutes the contentions about lightning rods.

Vorkosigan

Sojourner553

The title of the post implies that Christianity was required ("a necessary prerequisite")-- but again this is how NOGO summarized it and you state that this role could have been filled by a pagan religion (by which I infer you mean a non-CHRISTIAN religion.)

But help me out: EXACTLY what role did Christianity play from the years 400 - 1200? If ancient Christianity is to be touted as "friendly" to science, then its attitudes of its authorities towards allowing observation and the use of rationality must (at a minimum) be no worse than that of the ancient Greeks/Roman authorities...

This is important because, as we both know, early science was often conducted by INDIVIDUALS or small elite groups, so they would need intellectual freedom to conduct their studies-- by which I define this as meaning not to be threatened physically for holding/spreading their theories.


The COPYING of writings by Christian monks was primarily of CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS works -- possibly as high as 99% by some estimates. Most secular --INCLUDING SCIENTIFICALLY-ORIENTED writings emphasizing observation and/or logic-- were lost in the West.

The only reason why the writings of Aristotle survived is because they were preserved by the Muslims. Therefore --DURING THIS TIME--the Muslims should be credited with the preservation and advancement of science (and not Christianity.)

Or to put this another way: If one asked the question WHICH religion was most friendly to science around the 1100s, ISLAM WOULD BE THE UNDISPUTED LEADER (in comparing Christianity and Islam anyway)

Can you find me ONE original Christian work that was scientific in nature during the years 400-1200 AD? Here is a sample of what I've seen on what the "scientific" writings were like during this time:

Did I miss the science (ie an emphasis on observation and rationality)? If you think my examples are NOT representative during this time, I look forward to seeing some better ones...

Even after 1200, I see much of the role of Church AUTHORITIES as being opposed to the scientific outlook, not friendly to it. A few examples:

As you and I have discussed before, I see it as more relevent that science grew first from competition with the Muslims, (the West realized the Arabs were more advanced in medicine and the general sciences following their contact with them during the Crusades.)

I also think there is a correlation between science and the ABSENCE of an authoritarian body that has a monopoly power on what is considered "orthodox" (like the role the Catholic Church held for many centuries.)

Protestants have typically stressed more individual freedom within both religion and secular matters-- than the Catholics. I think that it is NO COINCIDENCE that science evolved much more rapidly in Protestant than in Catholic countries!!

This correlation also explains the DECLINE of science throughout the Muslim world -- ie authoritarian fundamenalist regimes killed off independent thought.

But this is the same as today. What percentage of today's population do you consider interested in intellectual content in either the sciences or general philosophy? Would I be off if I suggested a small minority?

Sojourner

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>