Hello George,

I do agree that Christianity provided models, only I would add that “design” and “systems” were known to earlier times too: The Trinity could be said to model the atom, yet the Eygptians had a trinity, long because Jesus. That said, Christianity did provide models at the right time. Creation stories pre-date the OT, yet it is Creation stories from Christianity –not elsewhere- which provided the West a model.

While recoginize, the leap foward from Newtonian mechanics, personally, I still see Einstein between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, between Maxwell and Heisenberg. As a construct, referential frames were known to Galileo. Einstein resisted QM.

[Just the same Einstein provided astroninhing, insights of course.]

My earlier post, on Deism in the Enlightenment was made to suggest the mechanisms of religious stories and the mechanisms of Science could co-exist under similar frameworks, including Natural Philosophy.

Afterwards, we have post-Revolutionary France and the raise of the secular State (United States). Also, I guess in England, the village minister, who would call by for a cuppa and bikkie, was less threatening than a Catholic Mission.

Ultimately, the literate didn’t have to “read between the lines” to study Science, as was the case in the two centuries of Deist ascendancy. [Unfortunately, this liberalisation gave us Hegel and as a consequence Marx..

Oly

Oliver,
If I understand you properly you mean to say that the basic elements of faith, ontological models, ethical norms, liturgical practice, etc. on which Christianity stands (in spite of the frequent ethical failures of its adherents) did not “fall from heaven“ but arrived through natural developments from pre-existing historical sources.

That is a “self-revelation” today almost as obvious as that the world was not created in six days, from Monday to Saturday. You cannot expect a contemporary educated Christian to feel uneasy about it, the same as you cannot expect him/her to feel uneasy about sharing 95% of his/her DNA with a chimpanzee.

Nevertheless, Christians sticks to the Book of Genesis as part of what defines their world-view, their identity, although with a different, less naive, understanding of it than centuries ago. The same about the extra-Christian (and extra-Judaic) sources you refer to, and the fact that Christians still stick to the OT and the NT, and Catholics also to their tradition properly defined.

In both cases mainly the open-minded Christians have no problems with what I understood you wanted to say. However, also the less open-minded have the right to benefit from being a Christian if they can, since not so much open-mindedness as open-heartedness CAN (no guarantees here) make you a Christian. Indeed, "the heart has its reasons that the reason knows nothing about" (Blaise Pascal).

There were times when the role of religion as ersatz-science was needed and justified. Those times are (or should be) over; and as I said before, I believe that the role of science as ersatz-religion - that some scientists and many non-scientist-fans-of-science still believe in - is also temporary.

George,

Thank you. A good and accurate summation.

One might say Oested set-out "specifically" to the find commonalities between electricty and magnetism. In reality this might only be "somewhat" true. Oested was of the mind that there was a single fundmental physical force in the universe. This priming permitted him to be open minded to electromagnetism.

In kind, spiritual Humanity seems primed to want to join the the dots, particularly on something so fundamental as existence. Here, animists before the advanced religions "built" stories which are "constructions". For example, Aboriginal myth is very rich. There are underlying systems to the myths and strong elements to reflect, design.

So, yes, Science owes a doubt to the constructions of spirituality generally, including Christity, I suggest. What I have added, and, you will have noted, is, spirituality overaches Christianity.

I liked the Pascal quote. Deist, Oestede, would likely have held Man reasons because, Man is made in the image of God. Further, said reason, when applied to the study of nature (God'e works) glorifies God's creation Man and His larger creation too. In this way, Natural Philosophy allowed Science to co-exist with Religion, in a new way, proved the author chose his or her words carefully

Oersted not Oested. Sorry I, should have looked it up. Hans Christian Oersted.

Rhian, Thanks for responding. Though I didn’t catch where Jayb sad anything about miracles.

With regard to the healing of the demon possessed man, I thought the miraculous part of the story was that part about Jesus healing the man, not whether Jesus had made a correct diagnosis. Whether it was mental illness or not, the people there saw that a miracle had been demonstrated.

After looking at your posts, I think you're being inconsistent.

(20/8) “science does Christians a favour in affirming that these [miracles] are not historical accounts or statements about the operation of the natural world.”

(25/8) “we have no direct evidence for or against specific events the bible describes in the life of Jesus.”

In the first post, you are saying that science affirms something specific, that is, that the miracles are not historical. Then in the second post, you admit we don’t have any evidence, either for or against.

How can we affirm something without any evidence? If we are making any pronouncements based on zero evidence, it is clear that these are not scientific pronouncements. Once again I put it to you that you are mistaking science for what are more likely your philosophical preconceptions.

I agree that science won’t ever ‘discover’ that everything was created in a week. Science has difficulty observing origins. If science has anything to do with method and observation, then how can a scientist observe the origin of anything older than himself, such as the universe?

You speak of world views, and I would concur that herein lies the issue. You have discounted miracles a priori from your thinking of what is possible. You make fundamental metaphysical and epistemological claims about ‘what we know of how the world can and does work’. Well, or course, if you make miracles impossible as an assumption, then you won’t fit them in to your conclusion.

Many Christians today and for two thousand years have prayed and seen God answer prayer. For them, miracles occur. But don’t mistake your naturalist preferences for sound and true scientific theory.

Dan S de Merengue wrote: "Many Christians today and for two thousand years have prayed and seen God answer prayer. For them, miracles occur. But don’t mistake your naturalist preferences for sound and true scientific theory."

Dear Dan,

According to the New Testament Jesus on the cross asked why God had forsaken him. You have given the reason. Jesus was not a Christian so his prayers didn’t count. God wouldn’t bother answering the prayers of a Jew. It was only after Jesus died and his followers invented Christianity that God started to answer prayers.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy), “In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature.”

The above definition of naturalism is completely consistent with ‘sound and true scientific theory.’ There are scientists who believe in religion and other forms of supernaturalism. However, if scientific evidence or theory conflicts with such beliefs they must give precedence to the scientific evidence or theory, or they are not acting on the basis of ‘sound and true scientific theory.’