RE: Scientific Knowledge? If there is no God?
September 6, 2011 at 3:03 pm
(This post was last modified: September 6, 2011 at 3:18 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Philosophy, then natural philosophy, then science sure. Postulating "natural causes for natural phenomena" is I think the loosest possible definition for science (as it opposes religion or superstition). It would be unfair to strip early thinkers of their achievements because they did not have the tools or methodologies available to them that we have available to us. Without that simple statement science may never have been born. Some do consider them to be "pre-scientific" though.
I could opine near endlessly about the attempts made within and by religious tradition to explain the world around them. Why are we here? Where did we come from? Why do we die? Why must we suffer? All of these are great questions. It's hardly the sort of conversation about religion that I get the chance to engage in often, but as Ive said before, many times religions contained within them the best "science" of their time. All part of our journey to understanding our surroundings. There is a line though were some of the conclusions drawn were incorrect. I never blame the originators of these faiths for this, because they had no reason to believe otherwise and every reason to believe what they did (given the tools available). Religion was once very much based in empiricism. It just so happens that some of the evidence we once pointed to for god turns out to have a better explanation elsewhere. Recently (especially in the case of the RCC) religious traditions were active in the suppression of the pursuit of knowledge, which is unfortunate, as they were early pioneers in the field. I've found this particular conversation to be dissatisfying to both the religious and the irreligious, like most "shades of grey" arguments.
I could opine near endlessly about the attempts made within and by religious tradition to explain the world around them. Why are we here? Where did we come from? Why do we die? Why must we suffer? All of these are great questions. It's hardly the sort of conversation about religion that I get the chance to engage in often, but as Ive said before, many times religions contained within them the best "science" of their time. All part of our journey to understanding our surroundings. There is a line though were some of the conclusions drawn were incorrect. I never blame the originators of these faiths for this, because they had no reason to believe otherwise and every reason to believe what they did (given the tools available). Religion was once very much based in empiricism. It just so happens that some of the evidence we once pointed to for god turns out to have a better explanation elsewhere. Recently (especially in the case of the RCC) religious traditions were active in the suppression of the pursuit of knowledge, which is unfortunate, as they were early pioneers in the field. I've found this particular conversation to be dissatisfying to both the religious and the irreligious, like most "shades of grey" arguments.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
