Bio not provided
And no bluish pentile display
2 years ago on HTC Rumored To Release 5", 1080p Phone This Fall. Could This Be A Worthy Galaxy Note II Competitor?
Btw, for a concise overview of the argument for the christin roots of modern science, see http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/. I would contend that Darwinism has done nothing to aid science, and plenty to impede it, while Christianity was necessary (but not sufficient) for the rise of modern science, just the opposite of what modern atheists have been brainwashed to believe by anti theist enlightenment pseudo historians. History debunks the science/religion conflict polemic of the bitter anti theists. All they can really claim credit for in history are the atrocities of atheist regimes, and a paltry few contributions to science and man's welfare, and nearly nothing to ethics or the valuing of human life, IMO.
2 years, 1 month ago on It Doesn’t Matter If God Exists
@blamer @Dgsinclair Well, Wikipedia is a good place to start, though it's hardly impartial or representative. Regarding the composition of philosophers, I'm not sure such a correlation means as much as you suppose, though it's not a bad assumption. And as you know, truth is not determined by majority opinion. For a fuller perspective on the relationship between faith and science, see this list of books:
GUIDE: Books on Christianity and Science
Also, historical analysis shows that the spread of literacy, technology, medicine, And human progress are strongly correlated with xianity. For example, see
The biblical origins of science
Religion, innovation and economic progress – Part I
Religion, innovation and economic progress – Part II
@blamer Do you have a source for Christians believing in an eternal universe? I can, however, answer why the catholic church supported the geocentric model... It was the prevailing view of science! Too bad they developed their doctrine to fit science instead of scripture, if scripture even mentions such details. With regard to an eternal universe, I think science has overwhelmingly validated its cosmology of a beginning, not to mention more correct historic and archaeological confirmations than any other ancient document. But that's another topic.
@ZachsMind... If your source for discussing the various definitions of theological, philosophic, or other intellectual concepts is the dictionary, this will indeed be a short conversation. If, you mean to do no more than support your narrow, self serving pejorative opinions of faith, a pedestrian understanding will do.
The roots of modern intellectual and scientific thought and practice can be found in Christian and enlightenment thought, and the tension you express between religion and reason is partly true, but greatly, it is a myth created by anti Catholic enlightenment thinkers. The most famous example is the now thoroughly debunked but still influential pseudo history of William Draper's "History the Conflict between Religion and Science"
First, it must be admitted that any strongly held ideology will manipulate the pursuit of knowledge, be it religion, atheism, or Darwinism, all of which have strong histories of impeding human progress. Also, religion has some special opportunities to deny reality in that it speculates on things which are beyond the grasp of science (like the existence of God), though reason apart from direct empiricism can help us winnow out particularly bad assumptions or arguments.
My bottom line is this. Faith and reason are not in conflict in Christian tradition, even if some or many practice it that way. And I am not talking about the neutered faith of those who separate reality, intellect, and science from some private piety. Many of our greatest scientists and thinkers, like Pascal, Keppler, and Hoyle, have had robust faiths and sharp intellect that worked in concert in discovering and describing reality, and this is a real practice even today.
Those who have suffered anti intellectual faith may assume that all faith is such, but I think they are suffering from various combinations of personal injury and disappointment, fear of the subjective nature of our intuitions, feelings, and conscience, and various forms of ignorance: of history, of healthy faith and doctrine, and of their own motives.
@ZachsMind... If I shared your definition of faith, I would hate it too. My guess is that you view it as an unthinking obedience to an authority, with reason in abeyance. While some people follow this type of 'blind faith' and view faith and reason as non overlapping magisteria (Hinduism in particular views things this way), this is not the christian view at all. While empirical science is a great epistemic method, it is not the only tool at our disposal.
Faith, when seen as temporary trust in a reliable source (one that has proved itself to us in previous matters) allows us to function with knowledge and wisdom that is beyond our current comprehension or empirical abilities, which can later be verified by reason and science, if not experience. I dare say that all of us, except the most cynical, have authorities whom we trust, even though our own comprehension is minimal compared to theirs. Such trust does not have to be absolute or beyond scrutiny or doubt in order to be called faith...only the most narrow definition is unquestioning.
While blind faith certainly is in opposition to reason, healthy faith is not. I have written on this at the following urls if you are inclined.
How sure can we be of our spiritual convictions?
Faith and Reason – Link Dump
The Atheist’s Caricature of Faith
The Weslyan Quadrangle III – Scripture and Reason
@mspeir And what about something 'irreducibly complex'? How would you determine, for example, that highly intelligent aliens have not engineered our dna? or drawn crop circles?
@blamer but as i wrote in one of my articles, Pasal suggested this, assuming that this practice would LEAD to faith because the fruits of such an attitude and practice would prove themselves and eventually PRODUCE faith. Essentially, remaining truly open to faith is what Pascal would call the reasonable position.
A more than superficial understanding of Pascals wager would shame this author into rewriting, even retracting this piece. http://www.wholereason.com/2009/02/pascals-wager.html
2 years, 1 month ago on It Doesn't Matter If God Exists