meester_bond (meester_bond) wrote,

Me vs Scott Part 3 The History of Science and Scientists of Religious Natures

Please list these experiments that you claim did this, Jon. The fact is that this isn't what happened at all. What happened is that natural philosophers explored nature as a way to learn more about God. They believed that nature was rational and discoverable because God made it and He made us with the ability to discover it. I don't doubt there were a few people here or there who tried to prove a point. But early science was an exploration of nature, and it was motivated by a belief that nature was discoverable because God made it.

People do not make great scientists because they are Christians, atheists, Muslims, wiccans, druids, or anything else. People make great scientists because their theories and subsequent tests of those theories present relevant explanatory principles that seem to shed light on the nature of reality. Simply because some scientists were Christians no more makes science and Christianity bosom buddies than some scientists being vegetarians/Muslims/Caucasians/Alchemists/etc. makes those things somehow any more or less compatible with science. Making such an argument is nothing more than an associative fallacy.

The idea that the first scientists, “natural philosophers,” were trying to study nature to see how their god manifested in it is true. However, by and large, they ran into the problem that it didn’t work and that studying nature disproved the Bible. Indeed, one of the “natural philosophers” warned against doing just that because it was obvious that nature and the Bible were not on the same page, so to speak.

Also, which god? Recall that science really got started amongst people who worshipped the Gods of Olympus. The formalisation of what they uberhaupt worshipped was quite willfully contrived by Homer. He (or those writers) was quite OK with creating them in the image of what he held to be salutary.

Plus, even if your quoted statement was true, it says absolutely *nothing* whatsoever regarding the question of whether or not there actually is or is not a God.

Whatever motivation compels a person to DO science has no impact of what the science, ultimately, ends up SAYING about reality.

The ideas that motivated Heyerdahl to build Kon Tiki did not affect even a single stone on the shores of Polynesia. (And Heyerdahl’s hypothesis was wrong.)
Tags: reliability bible
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic