On 16 September Mike Smith wrote:
…the first scientists were all very religious men. Bacon,
Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and Darwin for example.
Leaving aside that Darwin was hardly among the first scientists, it
is erroneous to state he was religious. On the contrary, he had ceased
to believe
Ah, a cool, inviting 65 degrees this morning. Well, the dark, pre-dawn
streets are for me one of the most sustaining and invigorating spiritual places
I know. Power walking on the asphalt outside gets me to my inside where I
confront my faults, think of the ultimate goals of my life
It sounds like Mike Smith's comments contain an idea common in the study of
religion, the separation of religion spirituality, and while it is a stretch
to link the former to science, the latter is easily done. When spirituality is
measured (and factor analyzed) a sense of transcendence is
My Mind,Brain,Evolution text has NO color photos (Linden's Accidental Mind),
and costs about $20 used. I just told the class yesterday to know everything,
and there are D grades. Three stat students stop in during my office hour
almost daily ... am I stuck in a Twilight Zone time warp?? :-0
John Kulig wrote:
But in general, Christian religions have not been exactly at the forefront of
science. Though the Catholic church is ultimately accepting of scientific
advances - sooner or later - example being the acceptance of Darwinian theory
as established science and more than just a
Bob:
I'm not going to defend Pope Benedict, but let me elaborate. In 1996 address to
Pontifical Academy of Sciences, JohnPaul II: ... new knowledge has lead to the
recognition of the [Darwinian] theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.
Further: A theory is a metascientific elaboration
Stat texts included practice problems but the answers to the problems were
not at the back pages of the text.The answers were printed in a separate
booklet and only the prof had a copy of the answers.
Michael omnicentric Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Flori
---
You are currently subscribed to
On Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 20:02:51 -0500, Michael Smith wrote:
Well, I didn't mean anything very deep.
Just that the first scientists were all very religious men. Bacon,
Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and Darwin for example.
They saw (like Aquinus) that an orderly, rational, lawful universe was
Enjoy the 200th anniversary celebrations.
Michael omnicentric Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4927
or send a blank email
As an historian, I'll attest that Michael Smith is right. Some of you are
showing your anti-religion bias. Newton, for example, felt that his greatest
work was not the Mathamatica Principia, but his commentary on the Bible. So,
if you think Michael's explanation is shallow, for starters, I
Was Thomas Aquinas deistic or christian? Didn't he write
a PRNCIPA?
Michael
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4931
or send a blank email to
There is no such term as deistic in the Middle Ages. That belief is one of
many outgrowth of the Reformation. Aquinaes, Dominican, was as Christian as
they come. In a shallow explanation, he felt that to merely say, I
believe wasn't a sufficient argument against the Islamic Moors,
I'm not showing an anti-religion bias at all. The fact that Newton felt his
greatest work was his commentary on the Bible in no wise shows that thoughtful
theologians are responsible for the development of science -- it merely shows
that Newton was religious (he was also, btw, something of an
Mike Palij wrote:
Perhaps Allen Esterson can comment on one of Raju's claims
such as the following; quoting from the Wikipedia entry:
|Raju built on E.T. Whittaker's beliefs that Albert Einstein's theories
|of special and general relativity built on the earlier work of Henri
Poincaré.
|Raju
An interesting point made by Gleick:
When Newton said 'I do not make an hypothesis' )or something to that effect --
my Latin is a bit rusty ;-) he was not (as sometimes said) rejecting the use of
hypotheses in general in science.
In fact, he was talking in a specific context. The best
Hi Paul-
I believe that the phrase you're looking for is, Hypothesis non fungo. You
are correct in assuming that he was not rejecting hypotheses in general, but
merely admitting that he had no clue as to the mechanisms underlying gravity.
-Don.
- Original Message -
From: Paul Brandon
Well...there's way too much there to comment on. But a couple of
comments anyway:
Some thoughts about Marc Carter's post.
Marc said that my original contention was that:
thoughtful theologians were responsible for modern science, not that the
collection of people who invented science were
Hi All-
For those of you who teach about sleep there is a good video on line that talks
about some of the recent research in this area shows how important it is in
learning.
http://fora.tv/2009/08/11/Matt_Walker_Secrets_of_the_Sleeping_Brain
or: http://tinyurl.com/kq89yj
-Don.
Don Allen
18 matches
Mail list logo
