Avila

"Instead of taking umbrage with what is meant here by religion, why not take the opportunity to explain how you formulated the concept of religion." I didn't "take umbrage": I merely pointed out a flaw with the concept proposed, namely, that religion was fundamentally about ascribing supernatural causes to observable phenomena. This is problematic because Buddhism, which is considered a religion, does not have a deity, and does not ascribe supernatural causes to observable phenomena. The same with deism. So, I'll ask again: what do you think constitutes the common aspects of religion, by which we identify the concept "religion"?

"No. You did not "merely" take issue with what I've presented. You've also made clear that you don't think there can be any common aspects to "religion" -- "it is not possible"" Well, I'd like to hear your thoughts as to what might constitute common aspects beyond what you first proposed (which is problematic for the reasons I gave).

"I think the problem isn't with my concept of religion; it seems, rather, that you don't have any concept of religion from which we can proceed." I haven't proposed any concept of religion. I merely pointed out that your concept: "to be religious means to ascribe supernatural causes to observed phenomena" is inadequate, as it would leave out Buddhism and deism and traditional Christianity, yet these are considered religions.

" I would say that, fundamentally, to be religious means to ascribe supernatural causes to observed phenomena. And since science is concerned with determining the natural causes of observed phenomena, science and religion are necessarily at loggerheads." No, that's not "fundamental" at all: Buddhism, for example, doesn't actually have a deity, and its view of the origins of the universe are similar to the Objectivist position. And, as you've noted, Deism proposes a generic God who starts the thing going, so to speak, and then leaves us alone to figure things out. It certainly doesn't look to supernatural causes for observable phenomena. And if traditonal Christianity (Catholics, the Orthodox)believed what you claim they believed (ascribing supernatural causes to observed phenomena), then there simply wouldn't be the huge number of Catholics (and Catholic clergy in particular -- seismology, for example, was called the "Jesuit science" because of the contributions of that order in the field) who studied the natural world and sought to understand it. It simply wouldn't happen on such a large scale. Sure, there might be the occasional individual here or there, but you wouldn't have what did happen: the founding of universities, the building of some churches to be solar observatories as well as places of worship, fields of scientific enquiry dominated by clergy. I don't think you understand the implications of the Catholic concept that a rational entity -- God -- created the universe with ordered, rational laws governing it. To better comprehend the creator, then, it is logical to study and comprehend creation (and to do so is to honor the creator). There is no conflict between religion and science with this view. The historical record supports that assertion. I think the problem lies with your concept of "religion". You seek to lump very disparate ideas together by trying to find some common aspect, but it is not possible, unless you broaden the concept so broadly as to denote a set of "guiding principles" or "worldview". In that expansion, Objectivism would accurately be described as a religion. (Personally, I think it is a kind of religion, as it has its own doctrines, "sacred" books, and a founder who is almost god-like.) I think your allegiance the the "conflict thesis" biases your view of history. Modern historians (no, not just Christian apologists) have debunked this thesis. You're still clinging to the history written by the English Reformation and other biased sources.

"If I were to say, as you quoted Aquinas as having said, that all of our knowledge originates from the sense, however..., my "however" implies some exception." A poor choice of words, then, on my behalf -- I was simply trying to say that from our sense perceptions we are able to abstract ideas. "But even then, to have concluded that what you have seen are footprints brings other, previously acquired knowledge to bear on the evidence." We agree. "The concept of causality presupposes existence; or, causality exists within the universe; the universe does not exist within causality." There are a number of concepts in your sentence here: does the concept of causality presuppose existence? Yes, of course. Does causality exist within the universe? Yes, of course. But I don't know exactly what you mean by "the universe does not exist within causality.". I'm guessing that maybe you mean that the universe is eternal and uncaused. This would appear to violate some of the laws of thermodynamics (entropy, for one), as well as logic. Someone on this post gave Zeno's paradox as proof, I suppose, that infinite regress is possible. But mathematical abstractions (which is what that is) don't operate on the same level of actual existents. "The question, "what caused existence?," is invalid. The question assumes that existence as such requires some causal explanation." Saying a question is "invalid" simply makes you seem like mind-numbed robots who aren't allowed to think outside certain boundaries. "What caused existence" is an intriguing question for those who choose to think.

"Ultimately one must decide whether the universe is understandable or whether it is not." Agreed. "I think that religion comes down to deciding that the universe is not ultimately understandable." It depends entirely upon the religion. For example, Buddhism generally looks inward at the self, not outward at the world. There are differences based on a particular religion's view of God -- in the case of Islam, Allah is not bound by rationality and is entirely beyond human comprehension, thus one wouldn't be sure that the natural laws that Allah laid down could be depended upon. So, although Islam has made a few contributions to science (particularly in mathematics), it pales in comparison to the advancements made by Western civilization. Some Protestant sects (Baptists and fundamentalists of differing stripes) don't value science, for a variety of reasons. However, traditional (Catholic, Orthodox) Christianity maintains that God is not -- cannot be -- irrational, and that the rational, ordered world is the result. So the universe IS understandable. " To the extent that Thomas Aquinas sought for explanations apart from "God's will," he was acting as a scientist and not as a religionist. But if, at any point, he withdrew from seeking some natural answer and instead deferred to the divine -- to the mystery -- then it was at that point where he headed in the other direction." Aquinas saw all truth as one truth -- he would not have viewed the conflict you lay out as even possible.

It's difficult to compare and contrast, as Rand gave her own defintions to philosophical terms, which renders discussion clumsy and confusing. St. Thomas believed that abstracting -- a function of the "central sense" -- eliminated the limiting characteristics of matter and enabled the mind to apprehend the essence or "real" reality, while the organizing principle of identity remained. So: a material object or event stimulates one or more of our senses. Their reaction is carried to the brain via the nervous system. There the sensations from the various sense receptors (sight, sound, etc.) are pre-consciously combined into one unified percept (Thomis uses the term "phantasm"). We group, then, based on the abstracted essences of things. Does that answer your question?

"This is Objectivism Online." Yup, I knew that. I like aspects of Objectivism, though I am not an Objectivist. If you look at my profile, you will see that I've read a fair amount of Rand (though not all). I enjoy reading and occasionally commenting on the various threads. "Objectivism was derived from and grounded in reality." Yes, I know you believe that. Whether that's true or not is another question. Certainly some aspects of the philosophy are. "Science and religion are mutually exclusive, because they start from contradictory epistemologies." Are you familiar with Aquinas at all? His epistemology is similar -- it is through the senses that we become acquainted with material things, and sense perception is central to human cognition. Perhaps you really aren't acquainted with any religious epistemology, but have simply made some assumptions. " Objectivism takes observation and reason together as a valid source of knowledge." As does Thomism. "The dichotomy between faith and reason upheld by Objectivism is a principle firmly grounded in, and therefore applicable to, reality." That's more an opinion or bias than anything else, though I acknowledge that it is fundamental to Objectivism. "What are you doing here?" Just what I said above: I enjoy reading and occasionally commenting on the various threads. I happen to agree with Rand on a number of subjects (such as the arts), and I think she was generally right in what is wrong, economically speaking. But no, I'm not an Objectivist, though I was for some time in my late teens. "What interest do you have in convincing us that religion supports science?" Umm, why don't you look at the subject of this thread? The question was, how does one trust history, or find good sources? I answered because we have sort of inherited many beliefs about history (such as the Middle Ages, the Inquisition, etc.) that were, in fact, written with an English Reformation bias. Modern historians have debunked some of the myths that we have inherited as historical knowledge. That was the context of my remarks, with tangents necessitated by some comments of others. " A person can be religious and a scientist, but once you isolate the causal connection between rationality and progress, you can see that their faith had nothing to do with their progress. (And in many cases, held back their progress.)" No, what you are saying is based on your belief (bias) that religion and rationality are mutually exclusive. I don't agree, but that's the subject for another post. One of the aspects of Aquinas that I admire was his ability to state an opposing view with clarity and completeness -- he did not resort to attacking straw-men. I find that the making of straw-men and the caricaturing of an opposing view is indicative of a weakness of one's own position. I certainly see a lot of that here.

The author you quoted is an Objectivist, and therefore is an adherent to the idea that science and religion are mutually exclusive. Since I don't regard this view as reality-based, I would suspect that bias plays a large role in his assessment of Kepler.

If one's "principles" require one to ignore reality and historical fact, then one ought to examine those principles and see if maybe they aren't really just biases. It's like someone holding as a principle the notion that man is a land-based creature, and therefore cannot venture into the water. Meanwhile, people are swimming, boats are sailing...... Well, that's convenient! Much easier to hide behind some lofty, reality-denying "principles".

"In principle, it's either science or religion. They are mutually exclusive." That's too blanket a statement. Some religions or some religious sects might not conducive to science (I'd need to research that, but offhand I would guess that some fundamentalist Christians, some Islamists, and possibly Buddhism might not view science very highly), but certainly traditional Christianity (Catholics and the Orthodox) view religion and science as compatible. In order to support your assertion, you should provide some evidence.

Software Nerd, you should try and understand that history involves facts. If you start out with the presumption that all Christians are irrational, and that the Catholic Church has held back progress, then you have already kissed objectivity goodbye. It would be more rational and more intellectually honest to actually KNOW something about those facts before delivering yourself of your opinions. Be informed, in other words. I responded to your likening the Catholic Church to a "poor manager" who "should take blame for holding back progress, even if he did do better than total ignorance or anarchy" with historical facts which contradict your bias. You responded with knee-jerk emotion -- actually, you seem to be consistently emotional rather than rational on this subject. It is no doubt bothersome to you that people holding beliefs that you despise actually have contributed significantly to the advancement of science. Apparently that disturbs your preconceptions so much that you are unable to see truth wherever it might be found.

"And the soviets put the first man in space." Your point being....?

I'm glad we agree. From another source: "To say that the Church played a positive role in the development of science has now become absolutely mainstream, even if this new consensus has not yet managed to trickle down to the general public. In fact, Stanley Jaki, over the course of an extraordinary scholarly career, has developed a compelling argument that in fact it was important aspects of the Christian worldview that accounted for why it was in the West that science enjoyed the success it did as a self-sustaining enterprise. Non-Christian cultures did not possess the same philosophical tools, and in fact were burdened by conceptual frameworks that hindered the development of science. Jaki extends this thesis to seven great cultures: Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya. In these cultures, Jaki explains, science suffered a "stillbirth." I met Jaki a number of times -- a very brilliant pries and physicist, though rather imperious. "Which is taken from http://www.catholice...tics/ap0255.htm Where you took your paragraph on Hitchens from." No, that's not the source where I got the information.

"Can't blame Catholics for wanting to point out that they were a bit better than the barbarians. Still, the poor manager should take blame for holding back progress, even if he did do better than total ignorance or anarchy." Your attitude simply reflects the bias of the English Reformation and its re-writing of history. You are believing a myth. In reality, the Catholic Church has been a supporter of the sciences for thousands of years. Of course, everyone always trots out Galileo, and no doubt many real errors were made -- scientific, theological, and moral -- but they hardly negate the fact that the Church has supported the sciences. Just take one discipline, astronomy: the Church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and, probably, all other, institutions. During Galileo’s time, the Jesuits had a highly respected group of astronomers and scientists in Rome. Many notable scientists in other disciplines received encouragement and funding from the Church and from individual Church officials. Many of the scientific advances during this period were made either by clerics or as a result of Church funding. Prior to Galilieo, Copernicus (a Polish priest) first advanced the doctrine that the sun and not the earth is the center of our system. His great work, De Revolutionibus orblure coelestium, was published at the solicitation of Cardinal Schömberg and the Bishop of Culm. It was dedicated to Pope Paul III, with his permission. No objections or difficulties were raised against Copernicus by any official of the Catholic church. Neither Paul III, nor any of the nine popes who followed him, nor the Roman Congregations raised any alarm. On the contrary, Copernicus was rewarded with honors by the Pope, and became an influential individual within the Catholic church. In sum, the heliocentric solar system was warmly received by the established church of the day. It's interesting to note that Copernicus entrusted his book to Andreas Osiander, a Lutheran clergyman who knew that Protestant reaction to it would be negative, since Martin Luther seemed to have condemned the new theory, and, as a result, the book would be condemned. Osiander wrote a preface to the book, in which heliocentrism was presented only as a theory that would account for the movements of the planets more simply than geocentrism did—something Copernicus did not intend. Ten years prior to Galileo, Johannes Kepler published a heliocentric work that expanded on Copernicus’ work. As a result, Kepler also found opposition among his fellow Protestants for his heliocentric views and found a welcome reception among some Jesuits who were known for their scientific achievements. Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds. Christopher Hitchens writes that "The attitude of religion to medicine, like the attitude of religion to science, is always problematic and very often necessarily hostile." He adds that medical research only began to flourish once "the priests had been elbowed aside." But that's simply another myth -- oddly, in the very next line he quotes Louis Pasteur as an example of this enlightened research, without acknowledging that Pasteur was a pious Catholic. It's also a myth that the Church forbade dissection.

"I've seen a Christian blog that depicts the dark ages as a period of happiness and enlightenment, and I've seen people attribute the Great Depression to factors of the free market." But all of this requires some definition and evidence: if the "Dark Ages" refers to the limited time period that most modern historians agree to (the period that followed the collapse of the Roman Empire until the advent of the Middle Ages), then of course they were a dark period.The societal structures and order that the Roman Empire had imposed were gone, and outside forces looted and pillaged at will, with no central (physical) defense. However, if this "Dark Ages" is applied to the Medieval period, then yes, modern research has shown that they were not at "dark" at all in many respects, especially in the area of scientific inquiry. The major universities of Europe were founded at this time, and the foundations of modern science were being laid. (This despite the influence of the Black Death, which killed a third of Europe.) The extension of the term "Dark Ages" to include the Medieval period had far more to do with a Protestant desire to re-write history than in any factual basis. I think a good example of this is the work of Eamon Duffy: His research shows a "top down" method of enforcement of Protestant ideas upon a reluctant population. What's significant about this is that he shattered the prevailing myths of the English Protestant establishment, and despite the controversial (and anti-establishment) conclusions he draws, there has been no effective rebuttal to his assertions. There was no counter-argument, as he simply provided facts. I have to wonder at the premise here, which appears to be that theists MUST have an agenda which colors their depiction of history. This is so incredibly narrow....on this basis (personal beliefs affecting one's objectivity), then why would atheists be any different?

I think you do need to go to the sources. Modern historians can be (or at least should be) more objective in their approach. Much of the new research paints a different picture of certain time periods or events such as the Middle Ages, the Crusades, and the Inquisition. Much of what we think we know about those periods has been shown to be myths -- the result of English-speaking (and English-writing) Protestants attempting to bash the Catholic church and Catholic countries they were warring with, such as Spain.

"You quote and, I take it, agree with Aquinas that "all of our knowledge originates from the sense"; however you also state, as a seeming exception, that "we possess a natural ability to abstract ideas." An "exception"? I don't see that at all. The abstraction of ideas flows from the rational faculty of observation -- let me try to illusrate this by a simple example: You see a footprint on a sandy beach. Your previous sense-perception observations (or at least the testimony of those whose opionions you regard as credible)leads you to conclude that actual footprints are left by actual beings who leave footprints. The observation of the natural world leads you to rationally conclude -- though without direct observation -- that an entity has passed by on this sandy beach. You might even be able to discern some attributes of the being who left the prints, even though you never observed the entity.

"I would certainly agree that the capability to abstract ideas is natural to man, but ability carries with it overtones of developed skill, proficiency, competence in performing a particular task." Ok, whatever works for you. We aren't in disagreement (at least on this one item).

"I certainly would not refer to the ability to abstract ideas as natural. We certainly have the capacity to abstract ideas, but the ability to abstract an idea has to be developed in order to ensure proper formulation, and avoid improper formulation, to ensure those ideas are used properly and avoid improper usage." I agree. However, I stand by what I said: the ABILITY to abstract ideas is natural -- that is, it is natural to Man. It is an attribute of rational Man. Of course it needs to be developed, but that doesn't mean it's unnatural.

"So what can we learn from the fact that certain specific men (philosophers and theologians of the past) have argued for the existence of a creator of existence?" That isn't what I stated. I said that certain questions -- the origins of the universe, origins of life, etc. -- were important questions for Man, as evidenced by the fact that they have occupied philosophers for centuries. "That man potentially desires to construct rationale to support preconceived beliefs." You are presuming that the beliefs are preconceived -- that is your preconception. Aquinas, as I've mentioned before, does not start with the premise that God exists, but constructs his arguments based on observation of the world. "That in order to even analyze the validity of the original question, it is vital to build a solid, objective foundation for metaphysics and concept-formation." Sure, though I don't think you understand what my original position (not really a question) was to begin with, based on what you've written. But anyway: Our knowledge originates in sense perception. To use Thomas Aquinas again: ""Now it is natural to man to attain to intellectual truths through sensible objects, because all of our knowledge originates from the sense." However, we possess a natural ability to abstract ideas.

"Appeal to tradition." You state this as if I have presented some argument that is refuted by your assertion. I have simply made the observation that atheists and some (not all) theists arrive at different conclusions about existence, etc., based on the same observable data. But your comment does warrant a closer look: "Appeal to traditon" -- just what does that dismissal mean? If the proper study of Man is Man, as Alexander Pope asserted, then what Man has believed, thought about, questioned, acted upon -- all of these are important to understanding the animal Man. It is not irrelevant that philosophers for thousands of years have contemplated certain questions. There is much to be gained in the understanding of what is reality by the study of what Man has always considered important. To dismiss this is to posit a different, hypothetical Man.

"Its also dubious to try and "explain" existence." But that's what philosophers have been doing for thousands of years. You can decide that you aren't interested in the questions of the origins of the universe and why existence exists, but they remain interesting questions and philosophers will continue to speculate about them. "Provide some empirical evidence or science" But that is precisely the point I was making when I commented on this thread: these are philosophical questions, and science can't answer them. As of right now all I hear is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth......." I think you hear that because that's what you want to hear. The argument that Jacob has been engaged in (where is he now, by the way? Did he get kicked off?) does not use that phrase as a starting point or premise. Aquinas starts with observable data. And that, again, is my point: the atheist and the follower of the Judeo-Christian tradition simply arrive at differing philosophical interpretations of the data.

I'm not the original poster. And I tire of the mantra of "stolen concept", so I'm simply not going to engage your post.

And requires a watchmaker... A professor I knew at Fordham, who taught metaphysics, put it this way: Since the parts make sense only within the whole, and neither the whole nor the parts can explain their own existence, then such a system as our world requires a unifying efficient cause to posit it in existence as a unified whole. Any such cause must be an intelligent cause, one that brings the system into being according to a unifying idea. For the unity of the whole—and of each one of the overarching, cosmic—wide, physical laws uniting elements under themselves—is what determines and correlates the parts. Hence it must be somehow actually present as an effective organizing factor. But the unity, the wholeness, of the whole transcends any one part, and therefore cannot be contained in any one part. To be actually present all at once as a whole this unity can only be the unity of an organizing unifying idea. For only an idea can hold together many different elements at once without destroying or fusing their distinctness. That is almost the definition of an idea. Since the actual parts are spread out over space and time, the only way they can be together at once as an intelligible unity is within an idea. Hence the system of the world as a whole must live first within the unity of an idea. Now a real idea cannot actually exist and be effectively operative save in a real mind, which has the creative power to bring such a system into real existence. Hence the sufficient reason for our ordered world—system must ultimately be a creative ordering Mind. A cosmic—wide order requires a cosmic—wide Orderer, which can only be a Mind. Such an ordering Mind must be independent of the system itself, that is, transcendent; not dependent on the system for its own existence and operation. For if it were dependent on—or part of—the system, it would have to presuppose the latter as already existing in order to operate, and would thus have to both precede and follow itself. But this is absurd. Hence it must exist and be able to operate prior to and independent of the system. Thus our material universe necessarily requires, as the sufficient reason for its actual existence as an operating whole, a Transcendent Creative Mind. Now, I know that you will dismiss all of this, but again -- the atheist and the Judeo-Christian tradition reach differing PHILOSOPHICAL interpretations of observable data. It's not a scientific question. The atheist position is not more rational, nor is it based on hard science.