Science vs. faith

[dafydd]

The ancients didn't anticipate the rise of atheism some two millennia later and so they didn't adjust their writting accordingly. But they surely didn't pray the way you think they did - the way modern Christians pray.

Name a period in history when everyone in the world believed in a god. There have always been atheists around. Also tell us more about these ancient forms of prayer.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I never suspected that you would use inclusive "we."

You're surprised at the use of "we" to describe the human race.

Which planet are you from, then?

 

[bruto]

The last portions of this thread have been attacked by the trolls and heavily edited, so it's better to see it walk into the waste basket. It should have been be tossed in there just by the virtue of its title that compares faith with science. Some folks, like the author of the OP, are not aware of the fact that faith is not a scientific method. But someone interpreted the title "Faith vs. Science" as "Faith in Science," meaning that faith contributes to scientific research, and that became the new topic.

From this
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/
you can get the idea that the ancients believed that some of their discoveries made in philosophy and mathematics were made with the assistance of gods. That's why the third century writer Porphyry compares Pythagoras to Jesus.

In modern times, public acknowledgement of such belief is very rare. For example, the brilliant Indian mathematician Srinisava Ramanujan credited his analytic abilities to a deity.

Src: Wikipedia

It kind of make sense, because Ramanujan didn't receive a formal training in mathematics, so someone had to help him.
The ancients didn't anticipate the rise of atheism some two millennia later and so they didn't adjust their writting accordingly. But they surely didn't pray the way you think they did - the way modern Christians pray.

It doesn't make any kind of the sense you state here. Ramanujan's statement is that mathematical truths, like all things, come from God, as a theist would. He does not state here, as you imply, that the discovery of these required God's intercession! He may well have attributed his genius to divine favor too, but he did the math. If he obtained a result it was a mathematical result, available for anyone who did the math to check without calling in any god.

As far as the Pythagorean idea is concerned, you can speculate all you want about prayer, but we have no evidence that the pious Pythagoreans prayed for their truths any more than Ramanujan did. No doubt, as theists, and especially as theists who predate the current idiotic craze of believing that religious truth negates science, they attributed everything good to divine origin, and they may well have prayed for wisdom and guidance. They may even have credited their success to the gods. It does not, in any way, suggest that they did not do the math just like everyone else.

 

[epix]

It doesn't make any kind of the sense you state here. Ramanujan's statement is that mathematical truths, like all things, come from God, as a theist would. He does not state here, as you imply, that the discovery of these required God's intercession! He may well have attributed his genius to divine favor too, but he did the math.

I didn't say that Ramanujan didn't do the math. Your interpretation of what I said is misconstrued, also because I didn't put the statement into the proper context. I would stick with a view of Ramanujan's mentor mathematician H.G. Hardy rather than yours.

Freeman Dyson called Hardy not just an ordinary atheist (who does not believe in God) but a passionate atheist (one who considers God to be their personal enemy).

http://philosopedia.org/index.php/G._H._Hardy

Ramanujan’s method of working even intrigued his Cambridge mentor, Dr Hardy, because the former used to highlight the spiritual factor in his discoveries that the latter, an atheist, could neither accept nor completely reject as pure ‘nonsense’. Dr Hardy, instead, quite happily let that aspect of the discoveries slip into the history of ‘unexplained’.

There were times, however, even Dr Hardy was forced to turn inwards when Ramanujan once famously said, “an equation has no meaning unless it expresses a thought of God.” Before coming to England, Ramanujan used to tell his Indian friends that goddess Namagiri, his family goddess, used to whisper the mathematical secrets into his ears even during his childhood, when asked to explain his brilliance at dealing with numbers.

Dr Hardy was convinced that Ramanujan was using a faculty other than human intelligence in producing wonders in the field of mathematics.

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/20...athematical-genius-who-caught-glimpses-heaven

As far as the Pythagorean idea is concerned, you can speculate all you want about prayer, but we have no evidence that the pious Pythagoreans prayed for their truths any more than Ramanujan did.

I said that the ancients didn't pray the way Christians do. I never used any comparative like more or less. Some historians of mathematics speculated on the subject of religion in ancient mathematics, and so I adopted some of their views.
Ramanujan obviously didn't pray for a particular knowledge. If he did, he surely wondered about why Namagiri held back the Last Fermat Theorem. LOL.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It doesn't make any kind of the sense you state here. Ramanujan's statement is that mathematical truths, like all things, come from God

No, he's right. It does 'kind of' make sense.

Here's how:-

1. It makes sense that everything that happens has a cause.

2. Ramanujan didn't receive formal training in mathematics, but something must have helped him gain that ability.

3. He doesn't have any rational explanation for what gave him that ability - therefore God!

It 'kind of makes sense' that God is responsible for anything we don't have a rational explanation for, because the alternative - that we just don't know - is unacceptable.

Make sense? Kind of...

 

[Cat Tale]

Geez, and all I wanted to know is who discovered one plus one is two! In math I never stood a prayer of a chance. Just wanted to say, great thread!

 

[RandFan]

3. He doesn't have any rational explanation for what gave him that ability - therefore God!

See Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate and The Math Gene by Devlin.

We evolved the ability to solve math problems. There is no mystery here.

 

[dafydd]

It doesn't make any kind of the sense you state here. Ramanujan's statement is that mathematical truths, like all things, come from God, as a theist would. He does not state here, as you imply, that the discovery of these required God's intercession! He may well have attributed his genius to divine favor too, but he did the math. If he obtained a result it was a mathematical result, available for anyone who did the math to check without calling in any god.

As far as the Pythagorean idea is concerned, you can speculate all you want about prayer, but we have no evidence that the pious Pythagoreans prayed for their truths any more than Ramanujan did. No doubt, as theists, and especially as theists who predate the current idiotic craze of believing that religious truth negates science, they attributed everything good to divine origin, and they may well have prayed for wisdom and guidance. They may even have credited their success to the gods. It does not, in any way, suggest that they did not do the math just like everyone else.

There is no such thing as religious truth. No gods. Savvy?

 

[Stamuel]

From this
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/
you can get the idea that the ancients believed that some of their discoveries made in philosophy and mathematics were made with the assistance of gods. That's why the third century writer Porphyry compares Pythagoras to Jesus.

Pythagoras was not primarily a mathematician or scientist, he was primarily known for his religious ideas. Though his name is attached to the famous theorem,

There is evidence that he valued relationships between numbers such as those embodied in the so-called Pythagorean theorem, though it is not likely that he proved the theorem.

(From the very source you cite.). You can find fragments of quotes and teachings attributed to him, like a prohibition against eating beans, assigning random numbers to stuff (I think justice was 4), and other ideas about cosmology.

In other words, as far as I can tell, nothing about him helps your case that prayer leads to advancements.

 

[bruto]

There is no such thing as religious truth. No gods. Savvy?

Quick writing but I sort of thought the conjunction of the phrase "idiotic craze" with "religious truth" might have sufficed in conveying my meaning of "their notion of religious truth."

 

[epix]

In other words, as far as I can tell, nothing about him helps your case that prayer leads to advancements.

Here we go once again: When I say that the ancient didn't pray the way Christians do, then my statement is twisted to a malform that only intolerant religion haters can come up with. There is no evidence of me saying that prayer leads to advancements in science, as much as there is no evidence that Jews are some subhuman species. There is evidence of me saying that faith is not a scientific method and therefore the title of this thread doesn't make sense. Not that I would be surprised by that.

 

[pakeha]

How does the Pythagorean theorem work?

Imagine right-angle triangle GOD where O_D is the hypothenuse. What is the length of it?

The Pythagorean theorem tells us that (O_D)² = (G_O)² + (G_D)²
Since, according to your view, the ancients couldn't reason and had to rely on prayers, Pythagoras could do nothing else but to pray to the God of Triangles, and that pagan divinity revealed to Pythagoras the formula that has been used since then. The formula is also used by atheist mathematicians of our modern times, because they couldn't come up with anything better than that, no matter how hard they reasoned.

What makes you think Pythagoras spoke English?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If you take things on faith, you're not doing science.

 

[Craig4]

See Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate and The Math Gene by Devlin.

We evolved the ability to solve math problems. There is no mystery here.

http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_will_our_kids_be_a_different_species.html

The presenter puts forward some interesting ideas about the "sexy nerd" and evolution here. I don't buy all his points right now but it seems that the ability to do math in a world run by technology is a selective pressure.

 

[dafydd]

Here we go once again: When I say that the ancient didn't pray the way Christians do, then my statement is twisted to a malform that only intolerant religion haters can come up with. There is no evidence of me saying that prayer leads to advancements in science, as much as there is no evidence that Jews are some subhuman species. There is evidence of me saying that faith is not a scientific method and therefore the title of this thread doesn't make sense. Not that I would be surprised by that.

Malform is a verb, not a noun. There is no such thing as a malform. I don't hate religion but do hate the horrid things that have been done in the name of religion. The world would be a saner place without this primitive superstition.

 

[dafydd]

What makes you think Pythagoras spoke English?

Having no education in maths and history?

 

[skyrider44]

No it hasn't been answered. What did Brigham Young mean by "black skin" and a "flat nose"? What about all of the scriptures that reference "black skin", why do they do that if it has nothing to do with skin color.

This is a skeptics site not get preached to by a Mormon site. If you want to express your views without critical scrutiny then you've come to the wrong place.

You are NOT answering questions in any meaningful way.

Brigham Young said some unfortunate things, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses. You are well aware of that. What matters, however, is that just as Jesus grew from "grace to grace," the Church--through its living prophets--has done the same thing. If you're going to claim that what Brigham Young said circa 178 years ago is still Church doctrine, than--for the sake of consistency--you must claim that the following statements are still scientific doctrine: 1) "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." --Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895. 2) "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Former IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, 1943. 3) "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk." --Harry M. Warner, Co-founder of Warner Brothers, 1906. 4) "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." --Albert Einstein, 1932 5) "That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is supported by that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced." --Scientific American in a 1909 report.

I don't see you dwelling on these scientific statements as you dwell on statements made by BY when the Church was in its infancy.

 

[Empress]

Brigham Young said some unfortunate things, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses. You are well aware of that. What matters, however, is that just as Jesus grew from "grace to grace," the Church--through its living prophets--has done the same thing. If you're going to claim that what Brigham Young said circa 178 years ago is still Church doctrine, than--for the sake of consistency--you must claim that the following statements are still scientific doctrine: 1) "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." --Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895. 2) "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Former IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, 1943. 3) "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk." --Harry M. Warner, Co-founder of Warner Brothers, 1906. 4) "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." --Albert Einstein, 1932 5) "That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is supported by that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced." --Scientific American in a 1909 report.

I don't see you dwelling on these scientific statements as you dwell on statements made by BY when the Church was in its infancy.

Who here is claiming that scientists are infallible? That's the great thing about the scientific method. As knowledge increases old ideas that are proven to be non-factual are tossed aside and our understanding of the natural world improves. I've never heard anyone say that evolution is correct, for example because Darwin says so. Evolution is correct because it's an established fact, proven over multiple scientific disciplines.

Contrast that with your church, which claims a direct line to god, and was only brought forth into the world b/c all the other churches were wrong. Why can't your church get it right if you're personally led by a perfect god? Sounds like you know your god is a moron, but want to excuse him and his fallible prophets for not being perfect. If your god isn't perfect--and being a racist ******* certainly qualifies as imperfect--then why follow him?

 

[tsig]

Brigham Young said some unfortunate things, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses. You are well aware of that. What matters, however, is that just as Jesus grew from "grace to grace," the Church--through its living prophets--has done the same thing. If you're going to claim that what Brigham Young said circa 178 years ago is still Church doctrine, than--for the sake of consistency--you must claim that the following statements are still scientific doctrine: 1) "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." --Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895. 2) "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Former IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, 1943. 3) "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk." --Harry M. Warner, Co-founder of Warner Brothers, 1906. 4) "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." --Albert Einstein, 1932 5) "That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is supported by that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced." --Scientific American in a 1909 report.

I don't see you dwelling on these scientific statements as you dwell on statements made by BY when the Church was in its infancy.

So you agree that your church was wrong then but you think it's right now.

 

[jsfisher]

Brigham Young said some unfortunate things, as recorded in the Journal of Discourses.

To characterize Young's proclamations as unfortunate is, well, unfortunate.

You are well aware of that. What matters, however, is that just as Jesus grew from "grace to grace," the Church--through its living prophets--has done the same thing.

It is good for the Church to recognizes its faults and moves to correct them. I am not sure who is this "we" of which you speak, though. Janadele clearly does not agree with you. For that matter, where has the Church said explicitly that Brigham Young, for example, was wrong?

If you're going to claim that what Brigham Young said circa 178 years ago is still Church doctrine, than--for the sake of consistency--you must claim that the following statements are still scientific doctrine: 1) "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." --Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895. 2) "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." --Former IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, 1943. 3) "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk." --Harry M. Warner, Co-founder of Warner Brothers, 1906. 4) "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." --Albert Einstein, 1932 5) "That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is supported by that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced." --Scientific American in a 1909 report.

False analogy much? This is absolute rubbish on so many levels. None of those individuals were ever anointed as the official spokesperson for an inerrant God. None were deemed to speak in holy scripture of Science. Moreover, Science is well understood to be fallible. It makes mistakes, readily admits them, corrects them, and moves on. Science doesn't come with its own Articles of Faith that deny the very position you are claiming for the Church, above.

I don't see you dwelling on these scientific statements as you dwell on statements made by BY when the Church was in its infancy.

The dwelling on the statements from the likes of the bigoted scumbag, Brigham Young, is because upstanding Mormons the likes of Janadele accept them as divinely inspired doctrine.

If the statements from the likes of the bigoted scumbag, Brigham Young, in his role as Prophet aren't to be taken as divinely inspired doctrine, that doesn't leave much for the Church's foundation.