Hi Roger:
Luther contributed indirectly to modern science by adopting the Duns Scoto
and the Occam rejection of universals. The Lutheran mindset was more
concentrated in the study of particular phisical things and rejected
speculation This gave the modern meaning of the world science.

 (I will not extend this,  to avoid to mention the G-world and induce
another rant by Pavlovian conditioning).


2013/1/25 Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net>

>  Hi Alberto G. Corona
>
> Luther wasn't a rationalist, and so contributed nothing to modern science.
>
>
>
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> *From:* Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com>
> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> *Time:* 2013-01-24, 13:26:59
> *Subject:* Re: Martin Luther on Rationality
>
>
>
>
> 2013/1/24 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>
>
>> On 1/24/2013 9:41 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>
>>> In fact it is just the opposite: 爐he position of Luther, like the one of
>>> Ocham or Duns Scoto, which were strongly anti-reason, created the modern
>>> science and 爓ere precursors of the most radical forms of Positivism.
>>>
>>
>> They were anti-rationlism, the idea that knowledge of the world could be
>> arrived at by arm chair cogitation. 燗 'precursor' to radical positivism
>> would be moderate postivism whose precursor would simply be empiricism
>
>
> that is ahistoric. Rationalism did not exist at that time. You have to
> know the mentality of that time and what where their main philosophical
> preocupations. That is something that you have not the least intention to
> know.�
>
>
>>> Why? It is simple to understand: The three of them were against the use
>>> of reason in MORAL matters, in the knowledge of what is Good and what is
>>> Evil and in the knowledge of God, and in the meaning of life. They were
>>> against the use of Greek philosophy to interpret and complement the
>>> knowledge of the biblical revelation (the naturalist knowledge about these
>>> matters was called "natural revelation"). But they were not agains the use
>>> of science in any non religious matters. So they stablished the modern
>>> radical separation between faith and science, between "is" and "ough" .
>>> (which I strongly think is at the root of the contemporary social diseases )
>>>
>>> Islam took a more radical path, While the protestants proclaimed the
>>> independence of God from any natural 爈imitation of moral reasoning
>>> stablished by greek philosophy, but admitted natural causations, so science
>>> in the modern sense was not only possible but promoted, 爐he main schools of
>>> Islam proclaimed no natural causation. For Islam, life was a continuous
>>> miracle,
>>>
>>
>> Exactly as argued by Aquinas who formulated the Church doctrine that God
>> is the ground of all being and continuously sustains the world.
>>
>> That is not true. 燱ith almost as contempt for the details as you, I would
> say that the God of Aquinas was limited by reason. That is exactly what
> Duns Scotus, Ocham and Luther rejected.
>
>>
>> and what appeared to be laws were nothing but the customs of All� that
>>> would change at any moment. So there was no motive to study what may change
>>> at any moment.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr.Pervez Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani physicist and professor at Quaid-e-Azam
>>> University in
>>> Islamabad, said, according to The New York Times (10/30/2001), that 搃t
>>> was not
>>> Islamic to say that combining hydrogen and oxygen makes water. 慪ou were
>>>
>>> supposed to say that when you bring hydrogen and oxygen together then by
>>> the will of
>>> Allah water was created.挃
>>>
>>
>>
>> Brent
>> "The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an
>> atheist deserving of punishment.
>> � ---Sheik Abdel-Aziz ibn Baaz, the supreme religious authority of
>> � � 燬audi Arabia, 1993, quoted by Yousef M. Ibrahim,
>>
>> � � � The New York Times, 12 February 1993
>> � � � Yes, that's 1993 CE, not BCE.
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to 
>> everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>> .
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> *DreamMail* - Your mistake not to try it once, but my mistake for your
> leaving off. use again  www.dreammail.org
> <%--DreamMail_AD_END-->
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to