1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured The Virgin Birth of Science.

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by John D. Brey, Jan 23, 2021.

  1. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,358
    Ratings:
    +194
    Religion:
    Christian
    According to the view of science which I am trying to defend here, this is due to the fact that scientists have dared (since Thales, Democritus, Plato's Timaeus, and Aristarchus) to create myths, or conjectures, or theories, which are in striking contrast to everyday world of common [sensory or auditory] experience, yet able to explain some aspects of this world of common experience. Galileo pays homage to Aristarchus and Copernicus precisely because they dared to go beyond this known world of our senses . . ..

    Sir Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, p. 102.​

    Although Popper is always clear that science doesn't derive from natural observations or inductive logic so empowered, in the past he distinguish between the myth-makers, the religious high priests, versus the scientist. As was shown in the Popper threads, Popper claims that the scientist is different from the myth-maker or religious priest or prophet, in that whereas the former devises critical argumentation to test the mytho-theological tenet, the myth-maker merely accepts the tenet on faith, or religious dogmatism.

    And yet in the statement above, Popper doesn't seem to want to distinguish between the myth-maker, Plato, and his myth, Timaeus, versus the scientist who would create experiments to test the myth-maker's dogmatic statements?

    Popper unifies the myth-maker and the scientist in the statement (above) because he realizes that if the scientist never creates science by means of his natural observations (Popper says as much) then the scientist would have to have some other organ, or organon, of perception, able to see deeper into reality than what can be perceived by the eye or the ear. Popper realizes that if the eye and the ear, bodily means of perception, aren't the source of modern scientific insight (and he's clear they're not) then the scientist must have a non-empirical avenue to "see" reality in a clearer way than the way he sees it through his eyes and hears it through his ears.

    Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye the word of the Lord.

    Ezekiel 13:2.

    And he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears.

    Isaiah 11:3

    Do ya kinda see where this is going? What's the word of the Lord the true scientist must receive if he's not to be deceived by his lying eyes and ears? What's the means of arriving at viable theories of the true nature of the world if the eyes and ears, derived through evolution, don't cut the mustard? And more importantly, what does it mean that the human mind has an invisible organ, or organon, through which reality can be perceived since neither Darwinism, nor evolution, deal with invisible organs able to perceive reality:

    It is quite hard to realize that every soul possesses an organ better worth saving than a thousand eyes, because it is our only means of seeing the truth.

    Plato, Republic.

    The advance of science is not due to the fact that more and more perceptual experiences accumulate in the course of time. Nor is it due to the fact that we are making ever better use of our senses. Out of uninterpreted sense-experiences science cannot be distilled, no matter how industriously we gather and sort them. Bold ideas, unjustified anticipations, and speculative thought, are our only means for interpreting nature: our only organon, our only instrument, for grasping her.

    Sir Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, p. 280.​

    Even in this last statement Popper makes a gaff unfitting of his brilliance when he says "Out of uninterpreted sense-experiences science cannot be distilled, no matter how industriously we gather and sort them." The statement seems to imply that "interpreting" sense-experiences is the fix to "uninterpreted sense experiences". And yet Popper is clear that no sense experience is the source of scientific thought, "Bold ideas, unjustified anticipations, and speculative thought, are our only means for interpreting nature: our only organon, our only instrument, for grasping her."

    Where do the bold ideas come from? Popper is clear: myth and religion. His disjointed statement above is a way of not facing what we can see clear as day: that Popper has no means for explaining how religious thought, mythological reasoning, or faith, arrives at peculiarly valuable scientific speculation. And it ain't lucky guesses, or purely speculative thought, since there must be something to speculate about, and Popper is clear that empirical observation isn't the source of the speculation. So what is?



    John
     
  2. Clara Tea

    Clara Tea Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2020
    Messages:
    713
    Ratings:
    +236
    It's like saying..."thank goodness Edison invented the light bulb, because it gives us something to put in light sockets."

    Since the Torah was supposedly written by divine inspiration, it could very well have been written before letters had been invented. Thank goodness, then, that someone invented letters so that the Torah could be read and understood.

    However, the conventional view is that first letters were invented, then the Torah was written with those letters.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,358
    Ratings:
    +194
    Religion:
    Christian
    Thank you.

    From your first link:

    Most scientific (and technical) innovations prior to the scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Ancient pagan, Islamic, and Christian scholars pioneered individual elements of the scientific method. Roger Bacon, often credited with formalizing the scientific method, was a Franciscan friar.

    Wikipedia.​

    From your second link:

    The historical record revealed that science and religion are not necessarily incompatible and that the early Christian religion provided a fertile environment in which modern science could emerge.

    John Gerard Yegge, A Historical Analysis of the Relationship of Faith and Science and its Significance within Education.
    The third link appears broken. And the fourth deals primarily with critical thinking and creationism, neither of which is a specific line of thought in this thread.

    The final link is a very informative presentation on Popper's thought. But it doesn't get to the meat and potatoes of how Popper is being critiqued here. For instance, using quotations from Popper, I show that he has a significant problem with his overall understanding of the genesis of modern science.

    As an atheist, Popper would like to present modern science, and its stupendous achievements (space travel, artificial intelligence, etc.), as a product of a modern man freed from the bondage of ancient religious thought. So to look straight into the truth of the matter, which is that an I-phone 12 can genuinely be considered a reification of the Hebrew letters in the Torah, is something that would disturb Popper. In other words, Popper would be seriously disturbed by the fact of the matter, which is that modern science is undeniably merely a branch of human thought that by critiquing Christian mythology, came to the realization that the world is closer to Christian doctrine than any card-carrying atheist is likely to be able to swallow.

    Oxford Professor Bryan Magee, himself a card-carrying atheist (until he died two years ago), and who was also a close associate of Popper, in a discussion of the tremendous influence Immanuel Kant's thoughts had on modern science, and Albert Einstein in particular, put it this way:

    One thing that has always struck me forcefully about this doctrine of Kant’s is that it legitimates important components of a belief which he had held since long before he began to philosophize, namely Christian belief . . . what he did unmistakably (and un-remarked on to an extent that has never ceased to astonish me), is produce rational justifications for many aspects of the religious beliefs in which he grew up.

    Let me put it this way. We know for a fact that long before Kant started to philosophize he was dedicated, simply as a Christian, to the belief that the empirical world of time and space and material objects, within which everything is evanescent and everything perishes, is something that exists only for us mortals in our present life; that "outside" this world there is another, so to say infinitely more "important', realm of existence which is timeless and spaceless, and in which the beings are not material objects.

    Now it is as if he then said to himself: "How can these things be so? What can be the nature of time and space and material objects if they obtain only in the world of human beings? Could it be, given that they characterize only the world of experience and nothing else, that they are characteristics, or preconditions, of experience, and nothing else?" In other words, Kant's philosophy is a fully worked out analysis of what needs to be the case for what he believed already to be true.

    Bryan Magee, Confessions of a Philosopher, p.249,250.


    John
     
  4. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,358
    Ratings:
    +194
    Religion:
    Christian
    Modern science, and scientists, find themselves somewhat disturbed by the fact that outside the experiential domain of sentient organisms, or perhaps life in general, the perceived arrow of time tests out to be illusory. As Einstein put it, the idea that the past moves forward into the future is merely a stubbornly persistent illusion. He added, in Kantian fashion, that space and time aren't places we live, but ways we experience the physical forces of nature.

    Sound interpretation of science, and scripture, requires retrospective exegetical analysis of the texts and texture of what we're interpreting. We can continually re-read nature, and the Torah, each time better prepared to dig deeper than the last time we read and interpreted them.

    Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed saying in his heart, Shall a hundred year old be born and shall Sarah, barren ninety years, do the bearing? . . . How can a man be born when he's old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? . . . "Marvel not that I said you must be born again" . . . [For] circumcision is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but . . . marks the second, higher birth . . ..

    Genesis 17:17; John 3:4-6; The Hirsch Chumash at Gen. 17:23.​

    There's a genuine sense in which we can be thankful Edison invented the light bulb to place in the socket. Properly interpreted, perhaps retroactively, the Hebrew text of Genesis chapter 17 has Abraham exasperatingly asking God how the hell he (Abraham) can be re-born to his sister and wife Sarah, when, firstly, she's younger than he, and secondly, he's now ninety-nine years old. The exact same exasperation came upon a latter-day son of Abraham (named Nicodemus) when the exact same God told an elderly man, Nicodemus, the exact same thing. You must be reborn irregardless of your age. "How can I be born when I'm already here? Can a light bulb, which already exists, be the impetus for creating its socket?"

    Sound science is not for the weak of heart.



    John
     
    #25 John D. Brey, Jan 24, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2021
  5. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly seared on the reality grill.

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    3,319
    Ratings:
    +2,196
    Religion:
    none
    You're confusing the arrow of time with the passage of time - they are two different things.

    Are you ever going to actually stop the endless waffle, quotes, and name-dropping and actually clearly (are you capable of doing clarity?) state your view and present an argument for it?
     
  6. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,358
    Ratings:
    +194
    Religion:
    Christian
    Time passages is inarguably Al Stewarts greatest hit. The arrow of time, on the other hand, is a pointy nuisance that sticks in the craw of scientific thinkers who get too close to those of us hunting the big foot of truth with our Cross bow.


    John
     
  7. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    34,178
    Ratings:
    +16,066
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    The "child" did not come exclusively from the "mother" in this case.

    Secondly, the "scientific method" is not used within the Abrahamic religions in regards to the most basic religious beliefs, although there are some people within them that do use it in other areas. If one doubts that, please provide objectively-derived evidence using the scientific method that there are not multiple gods?
     
  8. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,358
    Ratings:
    +194
    Religion:
    Christian
    Are you aware that Isaac Newton claimed Moses was the greatest scientist the world has ever known. That would seem to imply that so far as the second greatest scientist the world has ever known is concerned, the first used the scientific-method?



    John
     
  9. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    34,178
    Ratings:
    +16,066
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    Whether he did or didn't simply is irrelevant, plus you didn't answer my question.

    I am an anthropologist, and I have long studied theology as part of my studies, and the Abrahamics simply do not use the scientific method with their own basic theology since they're mostly faith-based. OTOH, both Hinduism and Buddhism may use the scientific method at times with their theology, depending on their approach.
     
  10. Treasure Hunter

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Messages:
    228
    Ratings:
    +72
    Religion:
    None
    John, I don’t want to take this thread on a tangent, but I think there is more dialogue to be had on Genesis 17 if you are open to it.
    Specifically:
    -What does it mean to be male?
    -What does it mean to be “circumcised in the flesh”?
    -Why were the names of Abram and Sarai changed during this conversation with God?
    -What does it mean to be a “father of nations” in this context?

    Do you remember which thread of yours it was that you explained yourself on this topic? Maybe I can reread it and determine if there is something I can add that would make the topic worth re-engaging.
     
  11. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,358
    Ratings:
    +194
    Religion:
    Christian
    In an orthodox sense you may be correct. But in the Popper threads, I discussed a new viewpoint concerning the nature of the scientific-method. In those threads, as well as this one, I've pointed out some biases and logical problems concerning how Popper defines the genesis and growth of the scientific-method.

    In a nutshell, what I'm proposing, is that what Popper calls "systematic observations" (what he considers the genesis of the scientific-method) is what the Tanakh calls either the "knowledge of the Lord" דעה יהוה, or else the "word of the Lord" דבר יהוה. I quoted Ezekiel berating the scientist/prophets of Israel for accepting the orthodoxy of their eyes rather than subordinating that kind of knowledge to the "systematic observations" (scientific-method) that overrules empirical observations using the god-given rationales of logic, truth, i.e., "knowledge of the Lord."



    John
     
  12. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,358
    Ratings:
    +194
    Religion:
    Christian
    From my studies being "male" means you're Gentile. You're conceived using genitalia. To be Jewish means you're part of an androgynous species, ha-adam prior to Genesis 2:21 (where, that verse, is where and when he's fitted with genitalia).

    There's two answers to that. First there's "ritual" circumcision, which takes a knife to "male" flesh, implying that its creation and existence are part and parcel of the original sin, and secondly there's actual circumcision, being born to a conception process freed from the "male" flesh: virgin birth.

    The names were changed signifying, ritually, that Abraham and Sarah represent a new spiritual species (2 Corinthians 5:17). In the new species, reproduction doesn't occur genitally.

    With a corrected context and understanding of these things the Hebrew of Genesis chapter 17 can be seen to say not that Abraham is --- directly ---the father of a conglomeration of Gentile nations, but that he's "given" נתן (in his line, one of his future sons) this "father of Gentile nations." In this sense, Abraham is no doubt a father of many nations. But it's stated clearly in the Hebrew text (properly interpreted) that he becomes the father of the multitude of Gentiles by becoming the father of the father of those many Gentile nations.

    Abraham isn't directly the father of the Gentile nations, the Church. He's the father of the father of the Church. He's given the promise and guarantee that this unique individual, the father of the Church, will come through his singular genetic line. Of himself, directly, Abraham is the father of a multitude of Semitic nations.



    John
     
    #33 John D. Brey, Jan 26, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2021
  13. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    34,178
    Ratings:
    +16,066
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    The Tanakh, including Ezekiel, did not use the scientific method nor anything close to it, because of they had, the Tanakh would read VERY differently.

    Scientifically, we simply cannot posit a monotheistic deity, along with this deity's supposed teachings, with any certainty of being correct. The Book of Ezekiel is a book of faith, not science.

    OTOH, I certainly am not going to the other extreme, thus I focus in my general belief in God and that God deals with Truth and Love. My opinion, although being uncertain if it's correct, is more based on experiences and observations, namely that I believe there's Something that seems to be pointing in the direction the importance of Truth and Love. And it's Jesus, and numerous others throughout history, that do teach about Truth and Love.

    "Truth" I define in this context with attempting to deal with reality, no matter how uncomfortable this may be at times; and "Love" deals with our nature and that of many organisms to not only reproduce but to take care of our young and also others in our company. Extensive "Love", which I believe Jesus taught, involves loving all of Creation, thus not just some of it.

    At least this is where I'm coming from, whether I be correct or not.
     
  14. Treasure Hunter

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Messages:
    228
    Ratings:
    +72
    Religion:
    None
    Ok, so it seems we agree that God is commanding the latter - actual circumcision, which is a circumcision, not of the male genitalia, but in the Spirit:

    “His disciples said to him: Is circumcision useful or not? He said to them: If it were useful, their father would beget him from their mothers (already) circumcised. But the true circumcision in the Spirit has proved useful in every way.” (Gospel of Thomas #53)

    The question then is: how can actual circumcision be both in the Spirit and in the flesh?

    Interesting. If Jews cannot be considered male, then how can they be in relationship with God since the covenant depends on male circumcision?

    “This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.”
    -John 16:10
     
  15. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,358
    Ratings:
    +194
    Religion:
    Christian
    I'd say it's difficult, if not impossible, to say the Tanakh doesn't use the scientific-method without an agreed on criteria for what that method entails. I was up front saying I have a different conception of what it entails than persons like Popper.

    I think we mostly agree here.



    John
     
  16. John D. Brey

    John D. Brey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,358
    Ratings:
    +194
    Religion:
    Christian
    Therefore, the physical birth of the child is completed on the seventh day. The eighth day, the octave of birth, as it were, repeats the day of birth, but as a day of higher, spiritual birth for his Jewish mission and his Jewish destiny.

    Rabbi Hirsch, The Collected Writings Volume III, p. 110-111.​

    Jesus said we must be born again. We're born the first time of a pregnancy that requires male flesh. But the new birth has nothing to do with male flesh. It's a virgin process in that no phallic sex takes place.

    We're in the flesh because of an uncircumcised conception. Standing there, in our flesh, we deny the male flesh and become pregnant like Mary did.

    Circumcision is, ritually speaking, entry into the covenant. You can't enter into the covenant uncircumcised.



    John
     
  17. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    48,220
    Ratings:
    +4,726
    sooooooo.....odd

    wasn't Dawkins a nonbeliever?

    and even as he looks to the formation of Man
    he fails to see that Man was formed to create....unique spirit
     
  18. Treasure Hunter

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Messages:
    228
    Ratings:
    +72
    Religion:
    None
    Well, maybe we don’t agree like I previously thought. You differentiated the ritual from what you called “actual circumcision”, but you see the ritual as what the covenant is based on?

    I don’t want this to seem like I am trying to corner you, so I will explain my view. The human mind is considered male and the flesh is female. I believe you know this. The mind and flesh are initially one (think of a baby). To become male is to identify with the mind and alienate yourself from the flesh. Before actual circumcision can happen, we are to become male in this way.

    When we become male, after the mind is alienated from the flesh, we are to seek actual circumcision and a new covenant with God. Before a new covenant can be established, the old covenant with the “Be fruitful and multiply” version of God must be broken. Sacrifices will have to be made in order to complete this process.

    Once the old covenant is broken and we are free agents, only then can actual circumcision begin. Circumcision is to take place in the Spirit, meaning the Holy Spirit, and in the flesh. In other words, the alienated, male mind has to follow the Holy Spirit back into the feminine flesh where crucifixion, nakedness, and death awaits.

    The new covenant is only for the people who make these moves. Abraham was the first to make these moves. His version of God is not the same version of God that Adam obeyed. His version of God is not the same version of God that any static, religious group (which is all groups) is in covenant with. If we don’t know Abraham’s version of God, then we can’t know Jesus, the Son of Man, or the Father.

    Oh, in my opinion. I’m supposed to say that more on this forum according to the Moderators.
     
  19. Treasure Hunter

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Messages:
    228
    Ratings:
    +72
    Religion:
    None
    To expand further on this, Adam’s version of god is the one who clothes us. Circumcision is to remove that clothing, to remove that which we previously used for security and comfort. Death is the sword that cuts. The Messianic Male must descend into and accept death in order to access the circumcision. In my view and only from my perspective of course.

     
Loading...