NOW you tell me it's a subset of Christian dogma? — god must be atheist

No, not a subset of Christian dogma. But many of the fundamental terms of early modern science, which laid the foundations for later science, such as substance, essence, motion, and so on, were all developed in the context of Christian philosophical principles (for which see God's Philosophers, James Hannam).

But the reason I say it formed from the 'hollowed out shell' is based on my earlier post, about the reduction to the Cartesian dualism of mind and matter and its consequences, was summarised pretty well by a Buddhist scholar in a keynote speech:

The early founders of the Scientific Revolution in the seventeenth century — such as Galileo, Boyle, Descartes and Newton — were deeply religious men, for whom the belief in the wise and benign Creator was the premise behind their investigations into lawfulness of nature. However, while they remained loyal to the theistic premises of Christian faith, the drift of their thought severely attenuated the organic connection between the divine and the natural order, a connection so central to the pre-modern world view. They retained God only as the remote Creator and law-giver of Nature and sanctioned moral values as the expression of the Divine Will, the laws decreed for man by his Maker. In their thought a sharp dualism emerged between the transcendent sphere and the empirical world. The realm of "hard facts" ultimately consisted of units of senseless matter governed by mechanical laws, while ethics, values and ideals were removed from the realm of facts and assigned to the sphere of an interior subjectivity.

It was only a matter of time until, in the trail of the so-called Enlightenment, a wave of thinkers appeared who overturned the dualistic thesis central to this world view in favor of the straightforward materialism. This development was not a following through of the reductionistic methodology to its final logical consequences. Once sense perception was hailed as the key to knowledge and quantification came to be regarded as the criterion of actuality, the logical next step was to suspend entirely the belief in a supernatural order and all it implied. Hence finally an uncompromising version of mechanistic materialism prevailed, whose axioms became the pillars of the new world view. Matter is now the only ultimate reality, and divine principle of any sort dismissed as sheer imagination. — Bhikkhu Bodhi

No, not a subset of Christian dogma. But many of the fundamental terms of early modern science, which laid the foundations for later science, such as substance, essence, motion, and so on, were all developed in the context of Christian philosophical principles ... — Wayfarer

Setting aside an apparent genetic fallacy for the sake of discussion - so what?

Much, if not most, natural philosophy of the Scholastic centuries - medicine, astronomy, mechanics, mathematics -  was acquired from Islamic schools of thought, translated into Latin from Arabic (which were translations from Greek, etc), which had preserved Classical & Hellenistic achievements (as much from papyrus-rotting oblivion as Church-sanctioned 'book burnings') - in particular and perhaps most significantly Aristotle's corpus - upon which the European - Christendom's - Renaissance was built. Interesting? Yeah. And gunpowder came from Tang Dynasty China - tell Alfred Nobel about it. Again, so what?

Hey, Inquistor: "E pur si muove" ...

Christian philosophical principles (for which see God's Philosophers, James Hannam). — Wayfarer

I simply don't buy that modern science has its fundations in the Scriptures.

If you say that early scientists in Christian Europe were all christians (such as alchemists), then I accept that. If a scientiific fact or theory is discovered, it matters absolutely not whether the scientist is Hindu, Christian, Buddhist or Atheist.

I think, @wayfarer, that it is simply Christian propaganda to say what you say, in order to inflate the importance of Christianity, as if it were the basis of science. Your post and your intentions are a partizan propaganda, in my opinion, which helps the self-confidence of Christians, by trying to "own" the genesis of science, and thus, the genesis of scientific thinking.

THERE IS NO OWNERSHIP OF LOGICAL, REASONABLE THOUGHT.

It a fallacy to think that just because someone of some religion or some nationality or some sex or some race thought of the first publishable scientific thought, all science owes everthing to the religion, race, nationality and sex of the first person who came up with something.

I view your post as a tribalistically patriotic statement. From your point of view.

From my point of view, it is a meaningless, biassed, fallacious claim.

I love what you wrote there. :up:

Yes, it’s odd, the extent to which atheists leave one foot in the religious circle, just enough to allow speaking about and thinking upon God. The root word “theist” still holds sway, it seems.

so what? — 180 Proof

Social psychology, history of ideas, cultural dynamics.

I simply don't buy that modern science has its foundations in the Scriptures. — god must be atheist

I didn't say 'scriptures'. Western culture incorporated Greek philosophy, Muslim philosophy and many other sources. And the emotionalism of your response speaks volumes.

And the emotionalism of your response speaks volumes. — Wayfarer

So does your propostition.

The philosophical tradition that gave rise to modern science passed down through a phase of Christian heritage, sure, but it also predates it, at least back to ancient Greece. To say that science is somehow rooted in a hollowed out Christianity is thus akin to saying that Christianity is rooted in a hollowed out Greek polytheism, because Christianity adopted philosophical thoughts that originated with Greeks who were polytheists.

many of the fundamental terms of early modern science, which laid the foundations for later science, such as substance, essence, motion, and so on, were all developed in the context of Christian philosophical principles — Wayfarer

It seems that one would have to separate out the philosophical background of Greco-Roman thinking from Christian (or Judeo-Christian-Islamic) thinking. When that is done, what does one have left?

Granted, the Christians who succeeded the Roman Empire (in the West) had other things on their plate: Converting the pagan Europeans (not completed until 1380, the Lithuanians were the last to submit), keeping their scriptoriums from being torched by the Vikings, defending Europe from Moslem armies, plagues, crusades, etc. But it doesn't seem like they really accomplished all that much until the Renaissance, which was stimulated by the new-found texts of the classical period, which were not Christian scripture.

Granted, there were technological innovations every now and then; the medieval period wasn't the Dark Ages. It wasn't as if nobody was thinking about anything but devils behind every bush and angels guarding the faithful. But I'm not sold on the idea that scripture led to the renaissance.

I wouldn't want to brand the Church as the mother of all superstitious nonsense, but it doesn't seem like the opposite extreme is appropriate either.

Ray Brassier - as always - put it best: "Religion obviously satisfies deep-seated human needs, but it has been a cognitive catastrophe that has continually impeded epistemic progress—contrary to the pernicious revisionism that claims monotheism was always on the side of science and truth. Human knowledge has progressed in spite of religion, never because of it. Philosophers should simply have no truck with it.

...Religion’s rational credibility can be rebuked without evoking modern science or nihilism: Democritus and Epicurus did so over two thousand years ago, using arguments that are still valid today, even if theists prefer to ignore them. But of course, the irrationality of religious belief has never impeded its flourishing; indeed, it is precisely what immunizes it against rational refutation, since religion is designed to satisfy psychological needs, not rational requirements. Marx was right: religion will never be eradicated until the need for it evaporates. Obviously, this evaporation will have to be accomplished practically as well as cognitively."

(c)

I'm not sold on the idea that scripture led to the renaissance. — Bitter Crank

Actually the Renaissance humanists - Ficino, Pico Della Mirandolla in particular - were mainly Platonist and Neo-platonist. Their emphasis on Plato was a major influence on Galileo, with his 'the book of nature is written in mathematics' being directly derived from Platonist principles. When Copernicus discovered the orbits of the planets he was likewise pursuing Platonist principles. All of them had a very uneasy relationship with the Church, but none of them were materialist; they were in the broader sense products of the Christian west, by no means religiously orthodox in their outlook.

Bear in mind also that Aquinas incorporated a great deal of Aristotelian philosophy: Thomas ...reconciled religion with reason, expanded it towards experimental science, insisted that the senses were the windows of the soul and that the reason had a divine right to feed upon facts, and that it was the business of the Faith to digest the strong meat of the toughest and most practical of pagan philosophies.' (Chesterton on Aquinas).

I'm not sold on the idea that scripture led to the renaissance. — Bitter Crank

I didn't say that, did I? The underlying concepts of philosophy - substance, form, purpose, the nature of causation - reached their unique form in Western culture which was primarily Christian in orientation. I didn't say 'founded on Scripture' although it's kind of illuminating that it seems to have been interpreted that way.

To say that science is somehow rooted in a hollowed out Christianity is thus akin to saying that Christianity is rooted in a hollowed out Greek polytheism, because Christianity adopted philosophical thoughts that originated with Greeks who were polytheists. — Pfhorrest

Well, the aspects that Christianity incorporated from the Greeks were mainly from Platonism which was atheist so far as the Greek cults were concerned. But the point I'm making is in respect of the historical roots of current culture and specifically the underlying worldview, which is nowadays mainly materialist in orientation. As it has to be - what happens, in Western culture, when you remove the notion of divine creation? What's left to work with?

Yes, it’s odd, the extent to which atheists leave one foot in the religious circle ... — NOS4A2

Though foot prints are not blueprints - Perhaps the Xtian 'Dark Ages' were, after all, dark enough for thinking men (& women) to lucidly see the stars and follow their lumen naturæ rationalis out of the millennium-old, blinkered, catacombs of Infallible ignorance & superstition. Thanks, Mother Church, for motivating our epic flight over your dogmatic cuckoo's nest and into the great wide open wonderous hazards of Freethought & defeasible reasoning. Grazie Signore. :naughty:

Bellissimo! :ok:

The relationship of the medieval Christian church to education strikes me as analogous to the relationship between modern states and government. I’m a philosophical anarchist and think we should eventually do away with states as they are unjustified authorities, but a non-authoritarian form of governance is good, and I’m glad that there is presently some form of governance, even if I want it to become less authoritarian and eventually not at all. Likewise, I think churches especially of the medieval model are unjustified epistemic authorities that we were right to move away from, but I do still support there being some form of non-authoritarian education and I’m thankful for the medieval churches for providing some form of education when there was none other even though I’m glad we’ve since moved on to a better model (mostly).

I’m thankful for the medieval churches for providing some form of education when there was none other — Pfhorrest

The church first destroyed all other cultures that provided education. Naturally, there was no alternative. This is not a merit of the church, it is, instead, its shame.

To say that science is somehow rooted in a hollowed out Christianity is thus akin to saying that Christianity is rooted in a hollowed out Greek polytheism, because Christianity adopted philosophical thoughts that originated with Greeks who were polytheists — Pfhorrest

Agreed. And Jews took most of their mythology from Babilonian tales.

The Babilonians took their tales from Jihodanian legends, and the Jihodanians based their legends on Futriamass folklore. The Futiamass folklore originated in, and took on many elements of the Haddecombi dances, and the Haddecombi dances were mainly offshoots of Dingdongbatty tattoos and other skin arts. ETC.

The same (or analogous) is true of all modern states and equally a (major) problem, but nevertheless I am still glad to have some government rather than none, even if I’d prefer it be better and have come about a better way.

Christianity adopted philosophical thoughts that originated with Greeks who were polytheists — Pfhorrest

By no means have I read all or most or even a sizeable amount of the scriptures or of Greek mythology and philosophy, but the readings I've done showed up no connection between the scriptures and Greek stuff.

This is not the first reference that I read to that movement.

I can imagine that there were tiny, microscopic elements of the Greek art of thought in the Christian scriptures, but to me, there were no visible marks of it.

Other than that Mark was one of the evangelists.

The same is true of all modern states and equally a (major) problem — Pfhorrest

The same what? Unreferenced pronoun. No clear antecedent. Actually, no antecedent at all. Please provide. Thanks.

By no means have I read all or most or even a sizeable amount of the scriptures or of Greek mythology and philosophy, but the readings I've done showed up no connection between the scriptures and Greek stuff. — god must be atheist

The actual scriptures predate the Christian philosophy I'm talking about, which as other have mentioned adopted a lot of Platonist and Neoplatonist thought. I'm not saying that Christianity really has its roots in Greek polytheism, but making a reductio against the claim that science has its roots in Christianity. Science has its roots in philosophy that was passed down (and added to) by Christians, but those Christians likewise got their philosophy from Greeks. It's absurd to say Christianity is rooted in Greek religion, and it's likewise absurd to say science is rooted in Christianity.

The same what? Unreferenced pronoun. No clear antecedent. Actually, no antecedent at all. Please provide. Thanks. — god must be atheist

The whole post I was replying to:

The church first destroyed all other cultures that provided education. Naturally, there was no alternative. This is not a merit of the church, it is, instead, its shame. — god must be atheist

Existing states first destroyed all other systems of governance in their territories, and that's as bad as what the church did to other systems of education, but given that that happened, it's still good that there is some form of governance / education, even if it needs major improvement and got there in a bad way. If I was in medieval Europe I would advocate for reforming the church-centric university system to be more freethinking (as happened in reality), rather than abolishing it for being religious; just like I presently advocate for the reform of governments to be more anarchic, rather than abolishing them because they're statist.

I don't know why I thought you said scripture was the source. Christianity was hatched in Jerusalem, but it grew up under the influence of Athens (and later, Rome). So we are clear on that. Good.

Yes, it’s odd, the extent to which atheists leave one foot in the religious circle ...
— NOS4A2

Though foot prints are not blueprints — 180 Proof

Some atheists, at least, have one foot in the Xian circle because before they became atheists, both of their feet were there. I grew up in a Protestant milieu, and like it or not, I can no more erase that large block of experience than I can forget my mother tongue. So I don't believe that God exists, especially the God that I grew up with. Of course, there is more to religion than the godhead. There is the application of preaching, folk ways, social connections, ritual, music, poetry, and so forth as well.

Bertrand Russel noted that religious deserters who become atheists tend to be the kind of non-believer that they were as believers. So, some atheists are screeching doctrinaire bullies, and others are rather more relaxed about their disbelief and other people's beliefs.

The god that I don't believe in is laissez-faire. If you want a cartoon picture, then "god is in heaven, busy with whatever god does up or out there, and we are here, busy with whatever we do here. It's a long, long way between god - up or out there, and us down here. We are on our own."

I wasn't a screeching doctrinaire Christian and I am not a screeching doctrinaire atheist -- and I don't have a lot of patience with Christians or atheists who are.

Kant may have been religious sure (but see the rest of this thread since), but his Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals never says anything like “...and here is where you inset the Law and the Prophets” or anything like that. It makes no references to God for its system of morality, and the world is full of self-avowed Kantian philosophers who are also atheists. You can argued that their system of morality fails somehow, but not that there aren’t systemic moral philosophies that don’t depend on theism. Same story with Bentham and Mill and utilitarianism, Aristotle and his virtue ethics, etc.

But it sounds like you’ve now moved the goalposts and want an example of a whole social group who unanimously adhere to one such system, not just of a system that is independent of theism.

defending Europe from Moslem armies — Bitter Crank

That was rather:

preventing the non-Chalcedonian Christians from inviting the Moslims in -- or before that, the Persians -- to get rid of Byzantine-Chalcedonian religious persecutions.

For example, how did the Moslims get into Spain and southern France, if not to assist the Arians in their fight against the Catholics (=Chalcedonians)?

Julian, Count of Ceuta (Spanish: Don Julián, Conde de Ceuta,[nb 1], Arabic: يليان‎, (Īlyan [nb 2]) was, according to some sources a renegade governor, possibly a former comes in Byzantine service in Ceuta and Tangiers who subsequently submitted to the king of Visigothic Spain before joining the Muslims.[3]:256 According to Arab chroniclers, Julian had an important role in the Umayyad conquest of Hispania, a key event in the history of Islam, in which al-Andalus was to play an important part, and in the subsequent history of what were to become Spain and Portugal.

Every Muslim conquest followed the same pattern. The region was inhabited by non-Chalcedonian Christians who were sick and tired of the Byzantine religious persecutions, and who were happy to invite the Muslims with a view on expelling the Byzantines; because the Muslims had promised religious freedom. Furthermore, it is because the Muslims kept their promise of religious freedom that it was so hard for the Chalcedonians to ever come back.

thanks, for clarifying both of my questions for me. Much appreciated.

Hmmm, history is so fucking complicated. I'll have to chew this over for a while.

For example, how did the Moslims get into Spain and southern France, if not to assist the Arians in their fight against the Catholics (=Chalcedonians)?

Julian, Count of Ceuta (Spanish: Don Julián, Conde de Ceuta,[nb 1], Arabic: يليان‎, (Īlyan [nb 2]) was, according to some sources a renegade governor, possibly a former comes in Byzantine service in Ceuta and Tangiers who subsequently submitted to the king of Visigothic Spain before joining the Muslims.[3]:256 According to Arab chroniclers, Julian had an important role in the Umayyad conquest of Hispania, a key event in the history of Islam, in which al-Andalus was to play an important part, and in the subsequent history of what were to become Spain and Portugal.

Every Muslim conquest followed the same pattern. The region was inhabited by non-Chalcedonian Christians who were sick and tired of the Byzantine religious persecutions, and who were happy to invite the Muslims with a view on expelling the Byzantines; because the Muslims had promised religious freedom. Furthermore, it is because the Muslims kept their promise of religious freedom that it was so hard for the Chalcedonians to ever come back. — alcontali

I love this. So fucking beautifully complicated, yet sensible and logical. Except the Byzantines would not get expelled, due to lack of religious persecutions, and they would continue to strive. But without their upper hand of oppressing other religions, of course.

What a screwhole of events.

Where is any of that documented? Where do these communities live, who actually implement it? — alcontali

Well, in the published works of the relevant philosophers, of course.

You're still not being clear here about what you mean. I'm trying to be as charitable as possible and assume that you're not so poorly educated that you don't even know that people have written books about ethics, but I'm really struggling to understand your question outside of that interpretation.

It seems clear that you do believe there is a god of some sort, but that you arrive at that after some more general philosophizing, so I don't see why you think the second option doesn't fit you. — Pfhorrest

Ok, I went ahead and voted for 'theist'.

With respect to the other question about why no 'theist' were perhaps voting, I can only speculate. To this end, I think it might be because many think of 'Theism' as more of a vocational role in their so-called professional lives. And since we have much more of a social structure relative to religion or religious beliefs more than not, maybe many, including myself, would not want to claim they are something they are not. In other words, what would you call someone who isn't a Priest or Monk?

Otherwise, many Christians or deeply spiritual individuals think of thier 'theism' as a personal relationship, and perhaps are not really interested in being an evangelist, priest, monk, or Evangelical Christian as it were.

I don't know, maybe consider a category that says: Spiritual.

I think that would capture more of a 21st Century movement anyway...

Well, in the published works of the relevant philosophers, of course.

You're still not being clear here about what you mean. I'm trying to be as charitable as possible and assume that you're not so poorly educated that you don't even know that people have written books about ethics, but I'm really struggling to understand your question outside of that interpretation. — Isaac

The Bible and the Quran are also books about ethics. These books are really used by entire demographics to determine ethical questions. For example, professing Christianity means that you follow Christian determinations and rulings in ethics. From there on, you have entire communities doing that. What philosophy book has entire communities determining morality according to its text? If such community does not exist, then that book is not being used; which is pretty much the same as saying that it is "useless".

But I really got a glimpse to religion and how the religious think gradually over twenty or forty years. It is a complex system, belief, or can be; and it can be as complex or as simplex as the believer wants it to be. — god must be atheist

Definitely, but I've always had the impression that the complexity was a factor of smart people who had been indoctrinated with religious beliefs as a kid--so that they couldn't exactly just drop the beliefs on a emotional level--realizing that they need to try to figure out some way to make something that's pretty obviously ridiculous seem not-so-ridiculous instead. That's why you get ideas like, "Yeah, it's not a big boogie man in the sky, it's an 'organizing force'" and so on.

What philosophy book has entire communities determining morality according to its text? — alcontali

I still don't understand the distinction you're looking for. You're obviously not seriously suggesting that there aren't any deontologists, that no one is a utilitarian... That would be absurd. So what is the distinction you're trying to make between people who have read, say, Kant, and try to follow his method, and people who have read, say, the Bible, and try to follow its methods?

I still don't understand the distinction you're looking for. You're obviously not seriously suggesting that there aren't any deontologists, that no one is a utilitarian... That would be absurd. So what is the distinction you're trying to make between people who have read, say, Kant, and try to follow his method, and people who have read, say, the Bible, and try to follow its methods? — Isaac

I missed the first part of this discussion, but in service of some reading comprehension help :blush: he's asking for a philosophical ethics text that has had anywhere near the cultural impact on ethics--the ubiquity, pervasiveness, etc. of the Bible or Quran. (Why he's asking for that I don't know--I didn't read that part.)