Posted on 03/25/2014 8:03:13 AM PDT by Heartlander
We live in interesting times. On the one hand, we're constantly assured that science and religion don't conflict. At the same time, we're told -- sometimes by the same people -- that religion hinders science. Perhaps this is to be expected. Materialists want to project a religion-friendly image because popular culture expects it, while at the same time they make arguments that they hope will ultimately erode religious belief. This requires a tricky balancing act, on vivid display in Sunday night's third episode of the new Cosmos reboot, "When Knowledge Conquered Fear."
As Jay Richards observes, Tyson calls Newton a "God-loving man" and "a genius." At the same time, Tyson tells viewers that Newton's religious studies "never led anywhere." Similarly, he acknowledges that Newton's work suggested the universe was "the work of a master clockmaker," but he says that Newton's appealing to God is "the closing of a door. It doesn't lead to other questions." In other words, it was only when Newton wasn't doing religion, and was doing science, that he contributed anything positive. If anything, Newton's religion hindered scientific advance. Tyson's message is simple: the best way to do good science is to throw off the shackles of religion.
History, in contrast, tells a different story. Early scientists including Newton were inspired to their scientific research precisely because of their religious beliefs. Newton was a monotheist who believed in a loving, truthful, personal God who would create an orderly, intelligible universe that God wanted us to discover and enjoy. It was these theological beliefs that propelled Newton to study the laws of nature.
Of course Tyson tells viewers none of this. To promote his revisionist history, he had to ignore numerous prominent historians of religion and science. Don't take it from me -- take it from them.
The eminent John Hedley Brooke writes scornfully:
The implications of scientific advance for Christian theology are often reduced to a plausible but simplistic formula: as natural phenomena, formerly explained by the will of a deity, were increasingly understood in mechanistic terms, increasingly brought within the domain of natural laws, so the belief in an active, caring Providence was eroded until the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob became nothing more than a remote clockmaker. (Brooke, 1996, p. 7)In fact, Brooke tells us, while religion and science have had disagreements over the years, Newton and his contemporaries were inspired by belief in God to do science in the first place:
Any suggestion that what was revolutionary in seventeenth-century thought was the complete separation of science from theology would be disqualified by Newton himself, who once wrote that the study of natural philosophy included a consideration of divine attributes and of God's relationship with the world. ... Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton saw the study of nature as a religious duty. A knowledge of God's power and wisdom could be inferred from the intelligence seemingly displayed in the designs of nature. Newton affirmed that the natural sciences had prospered only in monotheistic cultures... He believed the universality of his laws was grounded in the omnipresence of a single divine Will ... if he is made to symbolize the new canons of scientific rationality, then it cannot be said that the scientific revolution saw a separation of science from theology. (Brooke, 1996, p. 8)Brooke continues: "For Newton, as for Boyle and Descartes, there were laws of nature only because there had been a Legislator." (p. 9) These early scientists wanted to discover the laws that God had built into the natural world. They searched for those laws because they believed in a "Legislator." Cosmos again dramatically revises and indeed falsifies this history.
Lest you dismiss John Hedley Brooke, he is no religious apologist. He formerly taught at Oxford (among many other schools), and has served as president of the British Society for the History of Science and the International Society for Science and Religion. Another eminent scholar of science and religion worth considering is Ian G. Barbour, whom PBS says "has been credited with literally creating the contemporary field of science and religion." Barbour writes: "Newton himself believed that the world-machine was designed by an intelligent Creator and expressed God's purposes." (Barbour, 1997, p. 18) He explains just how profound an influence religion had in inspiring science in England during the crucial early stages of the scientific revolution:
The English authors whom we would call scientists called themselves "natural philosophers" or "virtuosi." They were mainly from Anglican (Church of England) and Puritan (Calvinist) backgrounds. The charter of the Royal Society instructed its fellows to direct their studies "to the glory of God and the benefits of the human race." Robert Boyle (1627-1691) said that science is a religious task, "the disclosure of the admirable workmanship which God displayed in the universe." Newton believed the universe bespeaks an all-powerful Creator. Sprat, the historian of the Royal Society, considered science a valuable aid to religion. This view is celebrated in Addison's hymn:The spacious firmament on high
With all blue ethereal sky
And spangled heavens a shining frame,
Their great Original proclaim.
The unwearied sun from day to day,The virtuosi identified themselves with the Christian tradition in which they were nourished, and many of them see to have experienced a personal response of reverence and awe toward the marvels they beheld. The psalmist had written, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth God's handiwork," and the virtuosi felt they could appreciate this handiwork in ways not possible to any previous generation. Expressions of awed surprise and admiration of the skill of the Creator dot the pages of their writings. The sense of the grandeur and wisdom of God was evidently a very positive experience for many of them and not just an abstract intellectual formula or a concession to cultural respectability. (Barbour, 1997, pp. 19-20, emphasis in original)It's not hard to understand how the founders of the world's most prestigious and long-lasting scientific society -- who believed in a wise and powerful Creator -- would then be inspired to investigate the "workmanship" of that Creator. In its Episode 3, Cosmos admits that early intellectual giants of science like Hooke, Newton, and Halley were a part of this same society. Religion and the founding of modern science went hand-in-hand, but Cosmos doesn't tell viewers that.
Does his Creator's power display,
And publishes to every land,
The work of an Almighty hand.
Another great figure in the early history of modern science, Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), wrote:
The heavenly motions are nothing but a continuous song for several voices (perceived by the intellect, not the ear); a music which, through discordant tensions, through sincopes and cadenzas, as it were (as men employed them in imitation of natural discords) progresses towards certain predesigned, quasi six-voiced clausuras, and thereby sets landmarks in the immeasurable flow of time. It is, therefore, no longer surprising that man, in imitation of his creator, has at last discovered the art of figured song, which was unknown to the ancients. Man wanted to reproduce the continuity of cosmic time within a short hour, by an artful symphony for several voices, to obtain a sample test of the design of the Divine Creator in His works, and to partake of his joy by making music in imitation of God." (Johannes Kepler, Harmony of the World, 1618, quoted in Olenick and Apostol (1985), p. 553)Ian Barbour asks, "Why was it in Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world, that science in its modern form developed?" (Barbour, 1997, p. 27, emphasis in original) Because only the West had what Barbour says are the needed "intellectual presuppositions underlying the rise of science." Those presuppositions came directly from the Judeo-Christian worldview, which had uniquely permeated the West. Barbour explains:
[T]he medieval legacy also included presuppositions about nature that were congenial to the scientific enterprise. First, the conviction of the intelligibility of nature contributed to the rational or theoretical component of science. The medieval scholastics, like the Greek philosophers, did have great confidence in human rationality. Moreover, they combined the Greek view of the orderliness and regularity of the universe with the biblical view of God as Lawgiver. Monotheism implies the universality of order and coherence...
Second, the doctrine of creation implies that the details of nature can be known only by observing them. For if the world is the product of God's free act, it did not have to be made as it was made, and we can understand it only by actual observation. The universe, in other words, is contingent on God's will, not a necessary consequence of first principles. This world is both orderly and contingent, for God is both rational and free. ...
Third, an affirmative attitude towards nature is dominant in the Bible. The goodness of the world is a corollary of the doctrine of creation. God's purposes involve the created order and the sphere of time and history ... biblical religion had never deified natural forces or vitalities of organic life; the world was not an object of worship, and thus it became an object of study. (Barbour, 1997, p. 28, emphasis in original)Barbour concludes: "many historians of science have acknowledged the importance of the Western religious tradition in molding assumptions about nature that were congenial to the scientific enterprise." (p. 29)
Holmes Rolston III, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Colorado State University and winner of the Templeton Prize, likewise explains:
Indeed, to turn the tables, it was monotheism that launched the coming of physical science, for it premised an intelligible world, sacred but disenchanted, a world with blueprint, which was therefore open to the searches of the scientists. The great pioneers in physics -- Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Copernicus, -- devoutly believed themselves called to find evidences of God in the physical world. Even Einstein, much later and in a different era, when puzzling over how space and time were made, used to ask himself how God would have arranged the matter. A universe of such beauty, an Earth given over to life and to culture -- such phenomena imply a transcending power adequate to account for these productive workings in the world. (Rolston, 1987, p. 39)Yet another scholar, David C. Lindberg of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, former president of the U.S. History of Science Society, writes:
There was no warfare between science and the church. The story of science and Christianity in the Middle Ages is not a story of suppression nor one of its polar opposite, support and encouragement. What we find is an interaction exhibiting all of the variety and complexity that we are familiar with in other realms of human endeavor: conflict, compromise, understanding, misunderstanding, accommodation, dialogue, alienation, the making of common cause, and the going of separate ways. Out of this complex interaction (rather than by repudiation of it) emerged the science of the Renaissance and the early-modern period. (Lindberg, 2000, p. 266.)Or consider another authority, Discovery Institute fellow Michael Keas, who explained in Salvo Magazine:
Are Christianity and science at war with one another? Not according to leading historians. "The greatest myth in the history of science and religion holds that they have been in a state of constant conflict," wrote historian of science Ronald Numbers in 2009. Even though he and other historians of science have documented this conclusion thoroughly, many myths about the alleged warfare between science and religion continue to be promulgated in the popular literature and textbooks.
The truth is that science and biblical religion have been friends for a long time. Judeo-Christian theology has contributed in a friendly manner to such science-promoting ideas as discoverable natural history, experimental inquiry, universal natural laws, mathematical physics, and investigative confidence that is balanced with humility. Christian institutions especially since the medieval university, have often provided a supportive environment for scientific inquiry and instruction.
Why have we forgotten most of the positive contributions of Christianity to the rise of modern science? This cultural amnesia is largely due to the influence of a number of anti-Christian myths about science and religion. These myths teach that science came of age in the victory of naturalism over Christianity. (Keas, 2013)Dr. Keas goes on to debunk these myths, He explains in detail how Judeo-Christian theology provided the fertile ground that was necessary and natural for that development. Read Dr. Keas's essay for the full argument -- it's free online.
Cosmos Episode 3 tells us that Isaac Newton's religion was like the "the closing of a door," and "never led anywhere" because belief in God "doesn't lead to other questions." This is historically wrong. A chorus of modern historians of science and religion observe that Judeo-Christian conceptions of God played an important, positive role in the rise of modern science. Not only that, but Judeo-Christian religion is crucial in answering a question that has long puzzled historians: Why did modern science only arise in the West? Cosmos whitewashes all of this, presenting instead a shallow revisionist formula: science good, religion bad. If scientists themselves thought in such simplistic terms, we never would have had science.
Do you believe that your mind was ultimately formed by mindlessness - lacking any intelligence?”
Science comes from Christianity. Only the ignorant say different.
Believe? No. It’s not a matter of what I believe to be true, but what there is evidence for.
I am asking what you believe based on the evidence - come on, you can do it... Do you believe that your mind was ultimately formed by mindlessness - lacking any intelligence?
But they did, and it may be that at some point when the church lost that Feudalistic power it once had that things eased up. But to try and gloss over Christian (under the guise of various Man made church organizations) persecution of advanced thinkers is undeniable.
There was a pretty long period of time of when the Church couldn’t control it, they destroyed it.
Yes, absolutely. Science and religion are opposed, and you shouldn't expect a discussion of one to defer to the other.
Yes, I know the history. But the history of something is not the thing itself. Talking about the history of science is not the same thing as science.
To its credit, the church was central to spreading and promoting learning. It did this to promote its own goals. It did not expect independent learning to conflict with religious truth. When it did the church could also be pretty vigorous about opposing it.
The reality is, religion and science have an essential conflict by their very nature. It's not about whether they agree on any particular conclusions, or not. It's about the method of arriving at truth. They claim opposite values. Religion values faith. Believe without reason. Science values doubt. Question everything, see for yourself. With one faith is a virtue, with the other a vice. One should not expect science or religion to be unbiased towards something that is essentially at odds with itself.
Now, some scientists — emphasis on “some” — do not like religion and are militant atheists. But many scientists are believers. So, again, there is no inherent all-or-nothing opposition between the systems.
Science wants to study the material world. And who would oppose that?
People of faith want to contemplate the immaterial world — but they may also be very interested in the physical world (we live here, you know). The history of science is largely the history of the Christians studying God's creation.
Lastly, if the show “Cosmos” simply wanted to talk about the physical world, and the current thinking of scientists about material things, that could be done in a pretty neutral way. Just stay focused. But they don't do that — they go out of their way to bring in the topic of believers and criticize them. And why? It's really unnecessary. But they cannot help themselves, because they feel threatened by people who engage in independent thought. Yes! If someone does not accept current scientific dogma, and if someone believes that something exists beyond the physical world, some scientists are very threatened by that. So they mock the believers. Meanwhile, people of faith are far more broad-minded. We accept both the physical world and the spiritual world and we have no need to discount half of that and say “There's just nothing there”.
You really will not find Christians who say "Science does not exist" but you will find some scientists who will say "God does not exist". They think they have proven a negative and their closed minds will not accept the idea that there is more to life than atoms.
I specifically identified what that inherent opposition was. I don't think it's necessary to post it again. If you think it's wrong you should explain how that is so.
When Galileo died of natural causes in Jan 1642, the Pope at the time was Urban VIII; not Benedict XVI.
Yes, absolutely. Science and religion are opposed, and you shouldn't expect a discussion of one to defer to the other.
There is no justification for a science program to be intentionally biased against religion or to mischaracterize religion in order to fit a false narrative. Science should not have an agenda and should be free to follow evidence wherever it leads. This Cosmos series is a mixture of Hollywood and science – and Hollywood comes with its own agenda , beliefs, and ‘faith’.
Beyond this, the ‘conflict’ between science and theism is fairly new. Excerpt from Pulitzer Prize-winning author Daniel Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1844, p. 464:
As this chapter is written in the early twenty-first century, the hypothesis that the universe reflect intelligent design has provoked a bitter debate in the United States. How very different was the intellectual world of the early nineteenth century! Then, virtually everyone believed in intelligent design. Faith in the rational design of the universe underlay the world-view of the Enlightenment, shared by Isaac Newton, John Locke, and the American Founding Fathers. Even the outspoke critics of Christianity embraced not atheism but deism, that is, belief in an impersonal, remote deity who had created the universe and designed it so perfectly that it ran along of its own accord, following natural laws without need for further divine intervention. The common used expression “the book of nature” referred to the universal practice of viewing nature as a revelation of God’s power and wisdom. Christians were fond of saying that they accepted two divine revelations: the Bible and the book of nature. For desists like Thomas Paine, the book of nature alone sufficed, rendering what he called the “fables” of the Bible superfluous. The desire to demonstrate the glory of God, whether deist or – more commonly – Christian, constituted one of the principal motivations for scientific activity in the early republic, along with national pride, the hope for useful applications, and, of course, the joy of science itself.
; )
Cardiac arrhythmia following a bout of pneumonia at age 77 yrs.
77 years of agony under the tortuous hand of Benedict XVI. No wonder they called him "God's Rotweiller".
Benedict retired in 2013.
; )
What's all this extra baggage that I never said? It wouldn't be correct for anyone to mischaracterize anything or make it fit a false narrative. But I never suggested that did I?
Science by definition is biased against religion. Religion doesn't require evidence and makes a virtue of believing in things without it. One of the fundamental ideas of science is to reject that idea. Of course it's biased against religion. If one chooses to take the religious approach seriously, fine. But it's not reasonable to expect that science should do so.
I pointed out a false narrative to you in post 24 as identified by the NCSE. Again, Peter Hess stated, “It is odd that a great scientific series on the cosmos should open with an attempt to single out one victim of the Inquisition and hold him up as a martyr to science… But Cosmos makes Bruno out to be a martyr who died heroically in the defense of early modern science, and this is a role he certainly did not play…”
And you responded with “ I agree that the Bruno segment was strange and out of place, and its connection to the subject was strained. But that’s not the point. Complaining about a bias against religion on a science program? That’s what I don’t get. Why shouldn’t it be biased?”
Now if you want to convince yourself and justify why this bias is acceptable – go ahead. But you’re wasting your time and mine if you think you are going to convince me…
So again I state, there is no justification for a science program to be intentionally biased against religion or to mischaracterize religion in order to fit a false narrative. Science should not have an agenda and should be free to follow evidence wherever it leads. This Cosmos series is a mixture of Hollywood and science – and Hollywood comes with its own agenda , beliefs, and ‘faith’.
It wasn't a false narrative. They actually said in the show that Bruno wasn't a scientist and he only made a lucky guess. Which underscores the question about why they used it, but what they said wasn't false, and it didn't mischaracterize religion.
Regardless, the question at hand is why it should be a bad thing for a science program to be biased against religion. You seem to load more concepts onto the word "bias" than it actually has. Bias doesn't mean dishonest. I might have a bias to tell the truth, which would make that bias more honest. I might be biased towards a correct belief. Bias doesn't mean dishonest or wrong.
"Science should not have an agenda and should be free to follow evidence wherever it leads."
Yes, and that very thing puts it in opposition to religion, because religion does NOT work that way. That's the point. In being free to follow evidence wherever it leads, science is necessarily biased against religion which requires not doing that.
Is that a bad thing? No. Christianity is biased against Islam, which it must be, and vice versa. Capitalism is biased against Communism, by necessity. They are incompatible beliefs. Reason is biased against superstition. Science is biased against religion, and vice versa. It is the nature of the thing.
And again I state, there is no justification for a science program to be intentionally biased against religion or to mischaracterize religion in order to fit a false narrative. Science should not have an agenda and should be free to follow evidence wherever it leads. This Cosmos series is a mixture of Hollywood and science – and Hollywood comes with its own agenda , beliefs, and ‘faith’.
With the addition of - Go peddle that crap to someone else 'cause I ain't buying.
Yup, that's what you did. Ignoring that I've already addressed what you said. So see my previous post. There's no need to say it again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.