Comments | johnpaul613: Faith and Reason

johnpaul613

Faith and Reason

May 15, 2009 07:43

"Though these facts are well known, they bear repeating. Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas were early advocates of Aristotelian science; Copernicus, the popularizer of the heliocentric understanding of the solar system, was a priest; Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics and a chief forerunner of Darwin, was a monk; many of the founders of modern ( Read more... )

faith

Comments 107

wickedthought May 15 2009, 15:51:07 UTC

They were also all white.

Obviously white people are more important to scientific discovery than anyone else.

wickedthought May 15 2009, 15:53:49 UTC

Oops. Forgot. Also all men.

Obviously white men are more important to scientific discovery than non-white and non-male human beings.

johnpaul613 May 15 2009, 17:05:25 UTC

You're tricksy... ;)
I still contend that acknowledgment of the compatibility of faith and reason is not unreasonable.

I'm not contending that these contributions are "more important". How would I know, most of their work is out of my field. This is the world you and I live in, the history we share. Do you think these persons contributions were not important.

Maybe it helps to think I'm some crazy, luddite, young earther, etc? I may know were you are coming from since I was an atheist for many years. I'm still a scientist that uses these methods to (hopefully) help people.

During my time as an atheist I thought the tiniest belief in God was a sign of intellectual weakness bordering on a psychological illness. Is this were you are in your impressions of faithful people?

wickedthought May 15 2009, 17:12:42 UTC

"During my time as a round-earther, I thought the tiniest belief in the flat earth was a sign of intellectual weakness bordering on a psychological illness ( ... )

johnpaul613 May 15 2009, 17:51:09 UTC

I was attempting to let you know that I understand you profound skepticism. I more than shared it for a long time. It was my hobby to show people just how delusional they were believing in God.

These beliefs are reasonable not empiric. Science only works with what it can measure. Things outside of this are not science but philosophy or theology.

Since we've had this discussion before, I have to ask, are you really interested in the philosophical arguments for belief in God? Faith and reason are compatible (even complementary) but they aren't the same thing. Don't expect to 'know' one completely with or without the other.

Thread 105

johnpaul613 May 18 2009, 23:19:35 UTC

Apparently Gmail doesn't let you place remote comments. The last 3-4 posts didn't make it here. *sigh* I have to go home now and I'll get back to this in the morning. Good night!

B-)

johnpaul613 May 20 2009, 20:01:03 UTC

Our comments are going off the screen...

So, I'll start down here to make it easier to follow. I've asked several questions which you've not gotten around to addressing. Since we've discussed so much it may be you lost track of them. I've plugged a couple up top. Can't go back and read them though so they may not be useful (sorry).

Most importantly, I'd like to know how you make any moral determinations. Is there anything that is right or wrong? And how did you come to the position that you did (agnostic/modified) materialism?

Thanks B-)