I think that one needs to proceed cautiously with terminology, understanding that a wide chasm separates spirituality from institutionalized relgion
The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?
by dark angle 239 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
botchtowersociety
Do you REALLY think astrology was an early form of science?
I do, as an early proto form of what we have today. It spawned the oldest of the sciences, astronomy. The same is true for alchemy/chemistry. Read any history of astronomy or chemistry and you will see that it began with astrologers and alchemists.
-
NewChapter
BTS---that is true---but through the process of science, astrology has been falsified. It did cause people to ask questions and learn more---so there are many seeds in many beliefs that led to scientific discovery---but that was generally because we figured out we were wrong. So in that way---yes.
But the comment went a step further to state that science was advanced superstititon. I found this a bizarre comment.
NC
-
tec
In the sense that a thousand years from now, our current scientific methods and conclusions could be seen in the same light as what we see astrology and alchemy... then yes.
Peace,
tammy
-
dark angle
Science does not deny its origins. it acknowledges them. However, science has outgrown its childish past and has moved on to a more realistic & practical approach. It has learned its own pitfalls, has recognized its dangers & has develope its own self correcting mechanism. Most of all, Science is not a dogmatic collection of immutable statements made by unassailable saints. It does not matter its beginning was incorrect about many things, as science is not tied to any individual or concepts regardless of being well accepted by many. It is just a sharp methology to study nature and discover things and principles that can better our lives and understanding, and shed us from our ignorant & superstitious past.
-
NewChapter
Yes, I suppose we will compare the theory of relativity, the theory of evolution, our outrageous progress in medical science---with all of its proven treatments---gentics, splitting atoms, satelites, space shuttles as we view astrology and alchemy today.
How many people understand the scientific method---truly understand it---so they can understand that comparing some things is an apples/oranges affair.
-
botchtowersociety
Well the whole thread is a false choice built on a category error. It is like asking: "Has double-entry accounting refuted impressionism?"
-
-
NewChapter
For you maybe, but some of us use science to investigate all things. But I can see how not considering science makes certain things easier to believe---which is why a person may see a need for separation.
-
ziddina
"In the sense that a thousand years from now, our current scientific methods and conclusions could be seen in the same light as what we see astrology and alchemy... then yes. ..." tec
Astrology and alchemy have fallen by the wayside, but when one looks at the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, Newton, and so forth, one realizes that THEIR scientific advancements were based on solid scientific observation, and have stood the test of time.
After all, a "thousand years from now", no-one is going to attempt to claim that the earth is at the center of the universe or solar system, or that the earth is flat, or that we remain on the planet due to some "magical" force....
It is far more likely that the "current scientific methods and conclusions" will continue to evolve until they are so advanced as to be hardly recognizable - but it is most likely that they will still be based upon the methods of the aforementioned scientists and the refinements and advancements accomplished by a long line of scientists continuing up through our time and beyond.