The errors of the Church in the adoption of Aristotelean science can not be so easily dismissed. For a thousand years this 'divinely inspired' syncratism between Greek science and Catholic theology that provided the medieval synthesis provided the church with much need credibility that back dated christianity by around 400 year before Christ.
It was the unimpeachable claim that Greek science was endorsed by the Pope and the wider church. It became heresy to contradict this revelation. It is common enough to the faithful to blame science when it suits them. For the early church right up to the moment that Geology and Darwin proved it as false, the story of creation was the LITERAL truth provided by god to the faithful. Archbishop Ussher had determined by revelation and arithmetic that the genesis story set the actual date for the creation at 11/10/4004 BC, just after dinner time in the evening. The idea that genesis was ONLY a parable is false. For the vast majority of the faithful from the Jews through to the Christians and Muslims the LITERAL truth of genesis was taken as 'gospel' and it was heresy to think or speak of any other version. Heresy was punishable by death. You might think that science is a poor tool for determining truth statements, but paradoxically you are employing the finding of science in order to make that statement. Truth is not that which is self evident, nor is it to be found in the whims of the papacy. Truth is uncovered with hard work and serious thinking and investigation. This may take thousands of years and the successful manipulation of nature is testament to its voracity. On the other hand theology has nothing to say about truth being capricious and dogmatic. On May 2, 11:42 pm, Robert Henry <[email protected]> wrote: > Science is the very method by which the church made assertions about > the creation of the universe. For geocentric theories of the universe > stem not from religious dogmas but archaic scientific ones. Genesis > is a parable, an enigmatic explanation of beginnings, not a technical > explanation. And furthermore, according to the principle of > pessimistic induction in philosophy, based on the history of > scientific theories, where older theories are ALWAYS superceded by > subsequent ones, current theories would probably ad futuris be > themselves superceded by future ones. > > As far as I can tell, Science makes a poor tool for truth statements > about reality. Rather, it makes an excellent tool for manipulating > the physical environment through acceptance of its proposed theories > within the framework of methodological acceptance of them. I find > that scientific theories should never be held in a philosophical sense > as true. Rather, I find the most appropriate regard for them is in > their instrumentality, not in their ontological claims. After all, > Plato may very well be true, but Aristotle's science was completely > wrong fundamentally...for although Aristotle's method and cursory > observations had some accuracy we in the modern era disregard it, yet > we still debate his metaphysics....hmmmm... > > > > > > On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 6:01 PM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The thing you have to realise is that the big-bang theory IS accepted > > by science; it was invented by science; from evidence provided by > > science. > > It does NOT confirm the story of the bible, though politically the > > steady state was preferable in some ways. > > The simple fact is that ALL astronomy contradicts the bible and the > > medieval church. > > The simple fact that the entire story of creation in the bible is > > contradicted by science. > > > Now if you want to assert an intelligent design hypothesis then let's > > hear it, but don't confuse a bad theory with political resistance of > > some scientists to the ideology of fools that have tried to prevent > > the march of science since Ockham. > > > On May 1, 6:11 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Few ideas are so readily ridiculed among materialist scientists than > >> the suggestion that the universe is intelligently designed by a > >> supreme being. > > >> In order to understand why this is so, we must take a look at history, > >> and in particular, Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding. > >> Today we accept Hubble's expansion with little doubt. But at the time > >> of its announcement, there was a great controversy. Why? > > >> Because up until then, the steady state theory had prevailed. In the > >> steady state view, there was no beginning, no moment of creation. > > >> Now why, you might ask, was the idea of a Beginning, a Moment of > >> Creation, so unwelcome among scientists? > > >> It was because the Steady State Theory was directly contrary to the > >> opening words of the Bible. "In the beginning, God created..." The > >> Bible said there was a beginning. The steady state theory strongly > >> suggested that there was not. Could the scientists bear to admit that > >> they had been wrong, and that the Bible had been right? Perish the > >> thought! > > >> Scientists claim to be open to any theory, even a Theory of God. Just > >> present the evidence, they say, and conform to the scientific method. > >> If your evidence passes muster, then we have no objection to admitting > >> your theory into the science text books. > > >> But scientists are not always quite the pristine seekers after truth > >> that they are reputed to be. They are as concerned with personal gain > >> as anyone else is, and by personal gain, we must include egotistical > >> and ideological factors as well. > > >> The Hubble announcement caused somewhat of a panic among scientists > >> who should have celebrated the discovery. Not only did the universe > >> have a sudden beginning, but for a few tense moments, it also appeared > >> that WE are at the center of the universe. > > >> A sigh of relief could all but be heard when the centerless universe > >> was restored by curvature of space theory. And after a time, the idea > >> of a moment of creation settled in, as the primordial point particle > >> seemed safely agnostic once more. > > >> With M theory, we have once again reverted to the comfort zone of a > >> meta-steady-state theory, so to speak. We have unending sequences of > >> Big Bangs, not moments of creation, but rather, collisions between > >> membranes that manufacture multiple universes. In this mega-verse of > >> universes, we have safely retreated back into the underlying > >> philosophy that has dominated physics for the last few centuries, the > >> philosophy called by various names, mostly including the word, > >> material or matter. > > >> But there is a problem. > > >> According to the materialist view of nature, we are condemned forever > >> to think only inside the box, or at least, into an infinite > >> progression of boxes. Everything inside the box of nature can--- and > >> must--- be explained only in terms of what is already inside the box. > > >> We are not allowed to go too far in terms of questioning what might be > >> outside the box. As soon as one suggests that there MUST be an > >> outside, the immediate challenge is to redefine outside as inside. > > >> Thus, if someone says that the box is best explained by an external > >> reality called God, the first response is to say that we must measure > >> God by the standards of the INSIDE of the box. > > >> If we say that God is the uncreated Creator, then the materialist > >> places upon God the requirement that He, too, must have been created. > >> You see, the universe can be uncreated, a self-existent reality with > >> no beginning. But God cannot be uncreated and self-existent. It is > >> not allowed. Because then, there might be a God. > > >> Which is why scientists scoff at the idea of intelligent design. Why, > >> just because the universe SEEMS to be organized, that does not mean > >> that it really is. It could all be randomness. And even if the > >> universe IS organized, that could be purely by chance, there need be > >> no organizer, not even an ultimate principle that requires > >> organization. > > >> And so in the end, you find that the materialists really do have their > >> own, sort of, god. Like the big G God, the little g god is uncreated, > >> self-existent. But after that, the differences become major. > > >> The little g god is not an intelligent designer, although nature can > >> produce intelligent designers. > >> The little g god has no purpose, although it can produce purposeful > >> creatures. > >> Materialist nature has no independent free will, and therefore, > >> neither do its creatures, because everything has to proceed according > >> to the dictates of natural law, not the dictates of sovereign > >> individuals. > > >> Which of course means that if you disagree with me, it is because you > >> MUST do so, because you do not choose to disagree, you are compelled. > > >> Indeed, in the materialist view, there is no real science, because > >> there is no truly independent inquiry. The scientist believes not > >> what the evidence states, but rather, what the laws of physics dictate > >> what he must believe. > > >> If we must scoff at an idea that seems ridiculous, why don't we scoff > >> at that, instead of intelligent design? > > >> Why Is Intelligent Design such a bad idea? > > >> -- > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > >> "Epistemology" group. > >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> [email protected]. > >> For more options, visit this group > >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Epistemology" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- > Never Look to a motionless face for memories, > Life is found in the pace, not the chemistry > Robert Lewis Henry > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
