by bohm 62 Replies latest jw friends
With regard to the assumptions, do you consider those BAD things or not?
I've already mentioned that I think they are reasonable axioms to work with.
were all pioneered by Muslims.
No doubt. But they did not gain the necessary traction in the Islamic world.
BTS
However, it was in the west that knowledge truly blossomed.
Indeed.
Acts 16:10 We knew now for sure that God had called us to preach the good news to the Europeans. MSG
Syl
I can't remember which famous person once said that "no great religion ever originated in Europe."
BTS
I've already mentioned that I think they are reasonable axioms to work with.
Ah, OK, missed that part.
No doubt. But they did not gain the necessary traction in the Islamic world.
Well, they did, but science took a backseat after a century of war with Western armies and then an invasion by the Mongols, the Muslim culture became fractured and began to decline. Combined with the subsequent rise of Western civilization and science, building on what they learned from the Muslims, Western civilazion began to carry the torch.
It wasn't so much that the ideas didn't gain traction, but rather than invasion and war eventually took it's toll.
excellent points bts worth discussing
Which assumptions? 1) Nature is orderly: regular in pattern and structure. 2) Humans can know nature. They can deduce laws describing its order. 3) Everything has a natural cause. 3) Claims must be subject to objective demonstration to be true: nothing is self-evident. 4) Knowledge can be derived empirically through the senses, whether directly or through augmentation. 5) The senses can be trusted to provide a true knowledge of reality (see number 2 and 4) I am sure there are others. I'd like to add, most of these claims rest on developments in Christian theology/philosophy. It is for this reason that Modern Science emerged in the Christian West...and for the first time in human history. BTS |
but I'm going to disagree with you on point 1 that humans can know nature. I'd like to qualify that statment by saying humans can know how nature affects us. Science then homes in on what from nature causes those effects & affects. And science is very good at this as the info it provides is reliable, factual and usable.
I agree with 5, that the senses provide true knowledge of reality, but I don't think they(the senses) can be trusted in the same way as knowledge provided by science. However the senses provide us with knowledge that science cannot test (in the sense of verifying in the lab).
I can't remember which famous person once said that "no great religion ever originated in Europe."
I dunno, the naked dancing the Druids girls had sounds pretty good :)
(but other than that, i agree)
Well said, QL.
Has any scientist even attempted to explain telepathy?
Syl
Has any scientist even attempted to explain telepathy?
Sure. Many studies have been done but it can't reliably be demonstrated or repeated.
However the senses provide us with knowledge that science cannot test.
Like?
why thank you snowbird
NVL, we can talk about the reasons why or why not modern science emerged in one part of the world versus another, but they are incidental to the subject of this thread.
My point is (or one of them) that science rests on scientifically unprovable axioms.
These are philosophical axioms; unprovable assumptions.
Science itself cannot prove them.
Here is another that occurs to me:
I think Hume was the one that cracked that one open.
If we observe a phenomenon, there must have been a cause.
Has any scientist even attempted to explain telepathy?
Scientists have attempted to subject claims of telepathy to measurement. I am not aware of any scientific explanations.
BTS
