/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7011545]

Hey /lit/, since this board seems to be mostly christfags who like to bash atheists, this seems like a good place to ask.

So what do you think is the relationship between science and religion in today's society? It seems to me that there's this popular notion that science is religion's nemesis, that religion had always impeded science and that scientific progress goes hand in hand with the decline of religiousness [somewhat pic related].
So what do you think, what role does religion play in this era where science is ever more advancing and challenging religious dogma?
Also can you guys recommend me some books/writings that challenge these negative notions and make the case for a more positive relation between those two?

[Anonymous No.7011559]

tips fedora

[Anonymous No.7011561]

here's your reply

[Anonymous No.7011567]

>>7011559
I think its a really good subject

[Anonymous No.7011575]

>>7011545
Read this:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phc2b2a.htm

[Anonymous No.7011631]

Not OP, but it seems like everyone in this thread just saw the picture and didn't read the post

I believe that religion is an important impetus for progress in some ways. I believe that, consciously or unconsciously, a belief in a higher power provides a goal to reach. The collective goal of humanity should be to come as close to godhood as imaginable, and science is the path to that.

I feel that could be a very interesting theme to explore but I'm having trouble thinking of anything that really tackles that. If you're into scifi, I think some of Simmons' stuff has a bit of that theme (I remember an undertone of that in the Hyperion Cantos, especially with the Technocore)

[Anonymous No.7011644]

>>7011631

>actually believing in progress

[Anonymous No.7011646]

http://www.amazon.com/Creative-Tension-Essays-Science-Religion/dp/1932031340/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1440188429&sr=8-2&keywords=michael+heller

[Anonymous No.7011649]

>>7011545
well the only reason that notion became famous was because of Enlightenment myths put forward by french anti-clerics, protestants (look at the Catholic Middle Ages!!) and the like

But there have been some works challenging that notion

[Anonymous No.7011658]

science is gay nerd shit
religion is super trendy and cool

[Anonymous No.7011688]

>>7011545
>in today's society

I fucking hate this, as if we are somehow special and history (and the thinkers of the last 2000 years) have nothing to say on the matter.

[Anonymous No.7011751]

>science flies you to the moon
does justice, sense of humor, positive integers, or love fly you to the moon too?

it's quite ironic that you treat an abstract notion, such as 'science', as something that is capable of doing something concrete.

[Anonymous No.7011777]

>>7011658

Also hats. Hats mean you're wrong about everything.

Checkmate you hat

[Anonymous No.7011783]

>>7011545
As a guy who works on molecular biology, I've come to form my own beliefs around what's known and what's not. I'm definitely non an atheist, and I've read a lot of literature and history books to know there is some validity to a lot of stories in the bible for example. It's really strange. I definitely think stuff like creationism the way Christians see it, is fucking stupid.

[Anonymous No.7011840]

>>7011783
creationism is a very broad term, would you like to define it more precisely?

[Anonymous No.7011851]

>>7011783
>creationism

while I agree with on that point, the fact that religious people try to justify their beliefs on finite and merely contingent things like that only shows how deeply they are influenced by enlightment itself.

It should never enter the mind of a man of faith to go beyod itself to base his beliefs.

[Anonymous No.7011878]

>>7011840
That's why I said as the Christians see it. As in God created everything in six days.

I had a biology teacher that actually believed aliens have affected humans on their path to evolution. Of course he had no proof, just speculation. He was really respected too.

But my point is there is no way to disprove him. When there's a missing link, you can feel the hole with whatever explanation you like, as long as it doesn't conflict with anything else. Until proof even the most insane thing can be used as a theory.

[Anonymous No.7012077]

>>7011783
>>7011878
>biology
>science

kek

[No True Scottist No.7012130]

>>7011545

The history of modern science is a footnote to the history of theology. Modern science has always had theological beliefs influencing it, these beliefs started positively in favor of Christianity, and later turned against Christianity. At first it sprouted from the theological rejection of Aristotle in the 14th Century leading to new cosmological horizons in light of theological orthodoxy- as theologians showed how things denied in Aristotelean physical science ( the existence of a vacuum, infinite space, and Heliocentrism to name a few things) could be possible by God's absolute power. What is funny is that while the secular masters usually followed Aristotle dogmatically, it was the theologians who actually made the majority of the intellectual innovations from Aristotle. Far from holding back Science, it was those working directly in the service of religion who advanced Science in that period.

It was these initial ideas developed by late Medieval theologians that lead to the new mechanical philosophy and cosmologies that began to take shape in the Renaissance and really came to fruition in the 17th century. Anyone well versed in early modern natural Philosophy( which was identical to Science at the time) know how theologically oriented and pious thinkers like Bacon, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz, and Boyle were- they all felt that Science was directly linked to God and worship of him. In the 17th century there was the fear that Science would lead to Atheism, but there was scarcely a respectable defender of it. One could say that this was due only to pressure by Religious institutions and society, but the early moderns could have easily just payed their minimal lip service to God, rather than making God so central and focusing so much of their attention on him. I suggest reading these two books.

Edward Grant: Physical Science in the Middle Ages

Roger K. French, Andrew Cunningham: Before Science: The Invention of the Friars' Natural Philosophy

To understand how theological concerns brought about scientific innovations.

In terms of early modern material, I can recommend off the top of my head.

J.J. MacIntosh : Boyle on Atheism
and Jan W.Wojcik: Robert Boyle and the Limits of Reason

Though much of the good secondary literature in general should have reference to how important God was to the early moderns.

There are certain myths about the Catholic Church persecuting scientists and holding back scientific progress. But this falls apart quite easily upon any serious exploration of the subject. People often cite the Galileo affair, but those actually schooled in history know that he suffered little more than a house arrest while in old age- not a particularly hefty punishment for one who directly insulted the Pope publicly . Religion may have utilized Science for it's own purposes, and certain Scientists may have gotten in trouble at times, but Christianity did indeed utilize it and support it's flourishing for the most part.

[No True Scottist No.7012175]

>>7011545
>So what do you think, what role does religion play in this era where science is ever more advancing and challenging religious dogma?

Honestly, Science is silent on so much that Religion is not ontologically. Science mainly gives us abstract physical and mathematical approximations of real phenomena based on what can be manipulated in a science experiment. Often the belief that Science replaces religion comes from a lack of understanding of what exactly the results of science tell us.

Consider Newton's Inertial Laws. They only tell us that objects continue to move infinitely until something stops them. Yet people assumed that the existence of them demonstrates that we don't need conserving causes. But say that something merely does happen in nature is not to have a working explanation of why they happen. The metaphysical primacy of God in the natural order is lost to people who see merely the productive fruits of natural science ( "we can build rockets with it- that is all that matters" is commonly argued) and think that this leaves the traditional metaphysical issues as solved, or pointless.

Another assumption is Biblical literalism vs Science. Which is silly, because as far back as there has been secondary literature on the Bible there has been a demand that the Bible should not be taken 100% literal- but involves several layers of meaning. Biblical literalism if anything is a modern heresy.

That there is a deeply rooted conflict between Science and Religion is false. Science and Religion need not be in conflict with one another. More scientists seem keen on this than ideologically driven atheists who don't actually do all that much science, or understand it particularly well.

[Anonymous No.7012181]

>>7011545
science and spirit (not religion) are being blended now more than ever. Its an interesting time were in
combining physics, psychology, philosophy, and metaphysics with faith. look into non-locality, Descartes's theory on substance duality and Carl Jung's psychology about the conscious, subconscious, and group consciousness. look into different religions as well. Ive never found anything too satisfying through catholocism/christianity. Kaballah is a really good teaching and interesting way of understanding and looking at things. also dalai lama has a lot of good books. both bring science into religion

[Anonymous No.7012229]

>>7012130

>Modern science has always had theological beliefs influencing it, these beliefs started positively in favor of Christianity, and later turned against Christianity

Stopped reading right there, because you are wrong, VERY wrong.

Science in general and it's conceptual theoretical counterpart, logic, come straight from Aristotle (not Aquinas).

Modern science with the Copernican revolution, was a reaction to the dogmatic Aristotelian theological scholasticism that had dominated Europe all these centuries.

Also with Regards to especially Bacon, he had nothing to do with theology, since the Baconian method was specificcaly meant to be pitted against the Organon of Aristotle and the notion of teleology it implies ( which was made into shibboleth by the Thomists ).

So no science doesn't owe particularly anything to theology.

Though I wouldn't go as far as to say that Catholicism went to hinder it, since monasticism and religious education was used as the basis for later specialized secular education.

[Anonymous No.7012244]

>>7011545
>>7011631
>mfw

[Anonymous No.7012246]

>>7011878
>as the Christians see it.
Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans make up 2/3 of Christians, and they dont believe in Genesis Creationism.

Creationism is the belief God made the universe, it isnt exclusive to Genesis

[Anonymous No.7012254]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EoTTyCU8Rs

[Anonymous No.7012258]

>>7012229
>dogmatic Aristotelian theological scholasticism that had dominated Europe all these centuries.
Scholasticism isnt any different than other philosphical ages with thinkers agreeing with each other. The dogmatic part was added by Enlightenment sophism

[Anonymous No.7012268]

>>7012258
>The dogmatic part was added by Enlightenment sophism
..."Dogmatic" is literally how the Orthodox and Catholics described their own tenets. Where do you think the word comes from?

[No True Scottist No.7012278]

>>7012229

That historical narrative was acceptable in the early 20th century. These days scholarship on the period has progressed. It is still maintained in pop science works, but is historically inaccurate.

>Modern science with the Copernican revolution, was a reaction to the dogmatic Aristotelian theological scholasticism that had dominated Europe all these centuries.

Look up the Condemnations of 1277- and also the two books I recommended on the subject, the rejection of Aristotle began in Theology first at that time, and influenced Science from there. The Theologians I was talking about were also by in large rejecting Aquinas, not just the secular arts masters who utilized him more dogmatically. Scholasticism is not identical to Aquinas.

Copernicus was using tools passed down from him by 14th Century Theologians, he was just the first to make a really positive theory out of it, rather than just considering the possibilities. Much of what Galileo did was also borrowed from these Theologians and added on from. There was no sudden arrival of modern Science, like with everything else there was a gradual development.

>Science in general and it's conceptual theoretical counterpart, logic, come straight from Aristotle (not Aquinas)

Yes we can trace it back to Aristotle, but there were major innovations in terms of actual Science, and also in logic, in the middle ages before we get Modern Science. Early Modern Science is rooted in these innovations, not in Aristotle.

This narrative that the Middle Ages was nothing but Aristotle applied to Theology is a major modern distortion of the period.

[No True Scottist No.7012324]

>>7012278

Here is a good short article on the subject actually. Not a replacement for real historical work. But a good demonstration of what I am talking about.

http://www.strangenotions.com/from-faith-came-science-the-condemnations-of-1277/

>Some historians have interpreted the condemnations of the University of Paris as antagonistic to the autonomy of philosophy, as a symbol of an “intellectual crisis” in the University and culture of the late thirteenth century and a demonstration of the conflict between faith and what would become science.5 This interpretation is partially correct, but "tension" is a more accurate word than "crisis." The refusal of the theologians and philosophers to separate the truths of faith from the truths of reason may have caused tension, but hardly a crisis, for this tension to purify Greek thought from whatever conflicted with Christian theology is tension that brought about the intellectual purification that led to the emergence of modern science. The rejection of the ancient ideas of an eternal, cycling, pantheistic, animistic world had to be refuted before a realistic physics, and thus science, could emerge in Christian Europe. This rejection is a distinction that isolates the Christian West culture from all others, a theological distinction that allows one to say, with confidence, that science indeed emerged from a reconciliation of the cosmic view with Christian faith.

[No True Scottist No.7012364]

>>7012324

Alos, to pre-preemptively counter the claim that Buridan was not a Theologian, which is true, but not damning to my point as he was still operating an intellectual culture defined by Theology and based much of his innovations on his faith. These same kind innovations can also be found in Albert of Saxony, Nicole Oresme, William of Ockham, and even Robert Grosseteste a century earlier.

[Anonymous No.7012397]

>>7011545
>Hey /lit/, since this board seems to be mostly christfags
fuck off

[Anonymous No.7012428]

>>7012397

He did say mostly. Nevertheless, I think it would be fair to say that /lit/ takes at least some more nuanced positions than merely being a fedora-atheist (that is at least my experience). But that doesn't necessarily mean no-one on this board is an atheist. I, for one, am an atheist that does not care for onto-theological questions concerning the existence or non-existence of God. I am more interested in questions within the purview of 'religion' that do not operate on the binary of non-theist/theist, examples would include liberal forms of theology, mysticism, existential theology, postmodern theology, poetic and aristic religious expressions, etc. (examples would include people like Kierkegaard, Gabriel Marcel, Paul Ricouer, Martin Buber, Paul Tilich, Feuerbach, etc.)

[Anonymous No.7012711]

>>7012428
Hegel's position on Christiatinity might interest you.

[Anonymous No.7012781]

>>7011545
In society today religion seems to mainly hold back science. This does not mean the two cannot coexist. There is no way for science to prove whether or not there is a God, so everything can work out for everyone except fundamentalists

[Anonymous No.7012809]

>>7012781
>prove whether or not there is a God

God doesn't exist apart from the religious comunnity that gives birth to his spirit. That's what science will never understand.

[Anonymous No.7013223]

>>7011631
Why should the collective goal of humanity be to reach godhood?

[Anonymous No.7013230]

>>7012268
but youre giving the label to Scholasticism you big doofus

[Anonymous No.7013251]

>>7011545
>Ctrl-f "Summa Theologica"
>No results

I weep