Pericles,
In answer to your final objection, i.e. your allusion to objectivity: The following Nobel Laureate’s in Physics - Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Erwin Schroedinger, Werner Heisenberg, Robert Millikan, Charles Townes, William Bragg, Arthur Compton, to name just few, all stated a conviction in ‘God’. Answer me this, does this belief compromise their objectivity (scientific or otherwise)in any way?

As our ‘straw-men’ appear to have faded, we are left with Polanyi's ‘tacit knowledge’ and your issue with a ‘scientifically correct’ church. Polanyi believes there is a type of knowledge that is not captured by language or mathematics. Because of this elusive character, we can see it only by its action. Tacit knowledge is knowledge that the actor knows he has (how to catch a ball, tie a knot, mark a line etc.) but which he cannot, nonetheless, describe in terms other than its own (skilful) performance: “..Rules of art can be useful, but they do not determine the practice of an art; they are maxims which can serve as a guide to the art only if they can be integrated into the practical knowledge of the art…” Galileo's ‘explanation’ therefore does not actually form a part of his ‘tacit knowledge’ but rather is incidental to it. For example, while the correct use of medical terms cannot be achieved in itself without the knowledge of medicine, a great deal of medicine can be remembered even after on having forgotten the use of medical terms. The medical practitioner’s skill is as much an art of doing as it is an art of knowing - perhaps a poor example, but it attempts to show the co-relation between the two separate entities of 'knowing' and 'doing.'

Polanyi also makes an illustration of incompetence: We draw here a distinction between two kinds of error, namely scientific guesses which have turned out to be mistaken, and unscientific guesses which are not only false but incompetent – the medieval Church seems to be guilty of the former, and ‘creation science’ the latter. So, yes, I was a little unclear.

>> As our ‘straw-men’ appear to have faded,

not faded, ignored.

>> "our scientists show a good deal of intellectual arrogance...
>> believing that they have 'understood' how the universe was made and how it evolved"

name one such scientist

>>many of those who dedicate themselves to scientific research,
>> nurturing the conviction that to make progress
>> it is necessary to refute completely, or even to ridicule, any notion that comes from faith or philosophical research.

name one such scientist

>> Many on this forum have made the mistake
>> and have taken a walk off the pier Feynman so eloquently describes.

name one such person on this forum.

>>...he also mentions beauty and hope;
>> my strong inference was that some here appear to ignore both

name one such person here

Hello all,
I'm a straw man of Squeers's, bound to do his bidding while he serves a month in the wilderness for flaming and talking back.

Did anyone else happen to listen to Daniel Dennet's wonderful segment on the science show just now? Should be available as a podcast presently. Do have a listen, it's a treat.
You ought to have a listen, Relda. All humanity's big intellectual breakthroughs have been profoundly humbling.
Perhaps that's why the path of faith hasn't led to any breakthroughs, just dubious epiphanies that, by definition, are never subjected to proper scrutiny. Never look a gift horse in the mouth eh?
Science, on the other hand, never rests on it laurels, and is never appeased by intellectual vanity--or at least, if a proponent does, s/he is eventually found out. There are no holy texts for science. To quote Rorty, "Truth is created [by the hubris of Man], not found".

Your talent for obfuscation knows no bounds, does it relda.

>>Pericles... the following Nobel Laureate’s in Physics - Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Erwin Schroedinger etc etc... all stated a conviction in ‘God’. Answer me this, does this belief compromise their objectivity (scientific or otherwise)in any way?<<

Lo, another white rabbit of irrelevance from your conjurer's hat of misinformation.

Of course not, relda, what a silly question.

(I've ignored the "or otherwise", since it is even more irrelevant than the rest of the question. If you feel that it is important, please define "or otherwise" a little more clearly.)

But the corollary must be, did their belief in any way influence their scientific discoveries, findings or conclusions?

Equally, the answer must be a resounding "of course not". Unless you can unearth some evidence to the contrary, where a step in the scientific process required belief in a deity in order to complete.

And you are definitely clutching at straws here, aren't you?

>>we are left with Polanyi's ‘tacit knowledge’ and your issue with a ‘scientifically correct’ church.<<

My "issue", if you recall, was that your suggestion, that the church was scientifically correct because of Galileo's "tacit knowledge"

But now, it appears, you agree with me.

>>Galileo's ‘explanation’ therefore does not actually form a part of his ‘tacit knowledge’ but rather is incidental to it<<

Precisely my point.

I assume therefore that you now accept that your original assertion is utter rot, and was plucked from your imagination because it sounded clever.

>>Polanyi also makes an illustration of incompetence<<

Polanyi, Polanyi, always Polanyi.

Polanyi is not the most convincing source around, relda. He was a most devout Christian, of course, as is expected of a convert. But not everyone is convinced about "tacit knowledge".

http://www.jstor.org/pss/187340

http://www.jstor.org/pss/186871

Have a great day.

Bushbasher re your request for a single example of religious thought "informing" science ( rational thought) in any sensible manner....

I have often reflected upon the appropriation by our secular brothers and sisters of established ideas from the truths founded in sacred Scripture; the sense of the common good, the dignity of the person, communal solidarity through fellowship. So there is a start. But let me quote Jurgen Habermas (refer to my previous post..) who specifically describes the passage of a Scriptual truth held by Christians and the other monotheistic faiths into the language, too often as rhetoric, of secular humanism.

"This is because the mutual compenetration of Christianity and Greek metaphysics not only produced the intellectual form of theological dogmatics and a hellenization of Chritianity ( whiich was not in every sense a blessing). It also promoted the assimilation by philosphy of genuine Christian ideas. This work of assimilation has left its mark in normative conceptual clusters with a heavy weight of meaning, such as responsibility, autonomy, and justification; or history and remembering, new beginning, innovation, and return; or emancipation and fulfillment; or expropriation, internalization, and embodiment, individuality and fellowship. Philospohy has indeed transformed the original religious meaning of these terms, but without emptying them through a process of deflation and exhaustion.

One such translation that salvages the substance of a term is the translation of the concept of "man in the image of God" into that of the identical dignity of all men that deserves unconditional respect. This goes beyond the one particular religious fellowship and makes the substance of biblical concepts accessible to a general public that also includes those who have other faiths and those who have none..... Page 44 The Dialectics of Secularization"

BushBasher et Al... In the context of my contribution can I ask you to focus and comment on the position of one of the world's leading princes of rational thought that has him talking of a post-secular age. An age where the Secular Thesis is dead and those still taking sustenance and hope from it take on the property of the dinosaur.

That's not particularly convincing, boxgum.

>>re your request for a single example of religious thought "informing" science ( rational thought) in any sensible manner... I have often reflected upon the appropriation by our secular brothers and sisters of established ideas from the truths founded in sacred Scripture; the sense of the common good, the dignity of the person, communal solidarity through fellowship. So there is a start.<<

Are you implying that these truths were non-existent before "sacred Scripture"? Or that only those who had access to "sacred Scripture" held these beliefs?

If not, then you cannot under any circumstances claim that these ideas were appropriated by secularism, can you?

If any appropriation was conducted, it would have been the other way around, with the "sacred Scriptures" re-issuing and promoting accepted social norms as their own proprietary religious product.

>>can I ask you to focus and comment on the position of one of the world's leading princes of rational thought that has him talking of a post-secular age<<

Habermas? That fraud?

I particularly enjoyed Darshana Medis' observation:

"It's a serious misunderstanding if someone thinks the reason for Habermas' fame is the brilliance of his thought. On the contrary, as comrade Rippert quite rightly put it, the authority of the Habermas' theory lies solely in the indigestible terminology of his writings."

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jul1999/hab-j27.shtml

It's also worth considering that, bearing in mind Haberman's track record of standing by his principles and convictions, we can expect yet another major change of heart any minute now.

Apart from that, what evidence is there that we live in a secular age? As far as I can tell, religious beliefs infuse every aspect of our government, the US government, the Saudi government, the Iranian government, and most governments around the world.

We should first be contemplating the peace and tranquility promised by a truly secular age, before considering what might be meant by "post secular".