Saturday, December 31, 2016

Philosopher: Today We Segregate Science and Religion

Presentism

Mythologies do not arise from the ignorant, but from the elite. This timeless truth is nowhere more evident today than with the Warfare Thesis myth. This myth has many tentacles, including: (1) Christianity often conflicts with and opposes scientific advances, (2) Science is a strictly empirical endeavor, free of religion, (3) The modern scientist has no metaphysical influences. And while good historians and philosophers are attempting to disabuse everyone else of these falsehoods, there seem to be just as many others who continue to repeat them. To wit, yesterday’s National Geographic quotes philosopher James Force as follows:

What set Whiston and Newton apart from modern scientists is their assumption that the Bible was literally true, and that God’s “book of nature” could be used to understand God’s other book, the Bible. Today, we tend to keep science and religion in strictly segregated boxes. Not so Newton and Whiston.

It is not that there have been no changes in the way naturalists think since the seventeenth century, but the idea that scientists today don the white lab coat and are free of religious influence is simply false. This is evident in the literature, as we have pointed out many times.

4 comments:

  1. It used to be the thrill of uncovering and understanding God's Creation that drove scientists. Now it seems just the opposite- you have to be willing to kneel at the altar of materialism to be considered a scientist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But Joe, you told everyone you're not a Biblical Creationist and that ID has nothing to do with God.

      We knew you were lying the whole time so it's funny when you slip up and admit it. :D

      Delete
    2. But Joe, you told everyone you're not a Biblical Creationist and that ID has nothing to do with God.

      That is all true. There isn't anything in my post that indicates otherwise. Here, follow along:

      It used to be the thrill of uncovering and understanding God's Creation that drove scientists.

      Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Linnaeus, Pasteur, Einstein and countless others all fall under that category. Are you blaming me for what they did and their religious affiliation? Really? Or are you saying that because I know what the did and why that I am a Biblical Creationist? Are you that desperate? Could be- new year, same desperation. Just another day on the calendar.

      Now it seems just the opposite- you have to be willing to kneel at the altar of materialism to be considered a scientist.

      Also true. Anyone without tenure who rocks the boat gets booted. Anyone who doesn't submit to materialism is marginalized and ostracized.

      You have to be quite twisted in order to come to the conclusion you reached. I am sure that you disagree but I am 100% certain you will never make a case that supports it.

      I would say that you have to do better but we all know that you can't.

      Happy New Year

      Delete
  2. its not science verses religion but conclusions verses conclusions.
    The bible is a claimed written oral statement.
    Somebody said they know some boundaries in origins.
    Rejecting this is not neutrality but aggressive rejection of what someone said.
    Then creationists question humans competence in conclusions in science.
    Creationists are not in a war with science but in a war with conclusions claimed by one side to be science.

    ReplyDelete