Nielsio: Solid_Choke: Nielsio: A moral theory must be developed like any other theory about reality. Supernatural beliefs cannot inform a theory about natural beliefs. Ever heard of Johannes Kepler? Kepler's Law of Planetary Motion were most definitely informed by his religious beliefs. How?
Solid_Choke: Nielsio: A moral theory must be developed like any other theory about reality. Supernatural beliefs cannot inform a theory about natural beliefs. Ever heard of Johannes Kepler? Kepler's Law of Planetary Motion were most definitely informed by his religious beliefs.
Nielsio: A moral theory must be developed like any other theory about reality. Supernatural beliefs cannot inform a theory about natural beliefs.
A moral theory must be developed like any other theory about reality. Supernatural beliefs cannot inform a theory about natural beliefs.
Ever heard of Johannes Kepler? Kepler's Law of Planetary Motion were most definitely informed by his religious beliefs.
How?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you have never read a single letter of Kepler's correspondence. Am I right? He constantly thanks God for his findings and his epistemology explicitly relies on God creating the most elegant and simple of possible universal configurations (without this he wouldn't know what kind of geometric shapes to look for in the astronomical tables). In the Harmony of the Worlds (the book which contains Kepler's Third Law), he traces out the implications of the ratios between the maximum and minimum angular speeds of the planets to show that at the time of creation, the planets were in perfect harmony and so sung "in perfect concord" (just as God would have it).
Modern astronomers would probably be embarrassed that such an explicitly religious book (one about music no less) was so important to the history of astronomy, but the fact remains that Kepler's supernatural beliefs informed his theories to a considerable degree.
P.S. I'm not religious, so don't bother asking me to defend any specific religion.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
I sort of got disinterested in this thread, but happen to read your latest post.
Solid_Choke: Nielsio: Solid_Choke: Nielsio: A moral theory must be developed like any other theory about reality. Supernatural beliefs cannot inform a theory about natural beliefs. Ever heard of Johannes Kepler? Kepler's Law of Planetary Motion were most definitely informed by his religious beliefs. How? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you have never read a single letter of Kepler's correspondence. Am I right? He constantly thanks God for his findings and his epistemology explicitly relies on God creating the most elegant and simple of possible universal configurations (without this he wouldn't know what kind of geometric shapes to look for in the astronomical tables). In the Harmony of the Worlds (the book which contains Kepler's Third Law), he traces out the implications of the ratios between the maximum and minimum angular speeds of the planets to show that at the time of creation, the planets were in perfect harmony and so sung "in perfect concord" (just as God would have it). Modern astronomers would probably be embarrassed that such an explicitly religious book (one about music no less) was so important to the history of astronomy, but the fact remains that Kepler's supernatural beliefs informed his theories to a considerable degree. P.S. I'm not religious, so don't bother asking me to defend any specific religion.
I'll repeat: this is all mere motivational and not informational.
If religious ideas were informational then they wouldn't be religious.
Nielsio: I sort of got disinterested in this thread, but happen to read your latest post. Solid_Choke: Nielsio: Solid_Choke: Nielsio: A moral theory must be developed like any other theory about reality. Supernatural beliefs cannot inform a theory about natural beliefs. Ever heard of Johannes Kepler? Kepler's Law of Planetary Motion were most definitely informed by his religious beliefs. How? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you have never read a single letter of Kepler's correspondence. Am I right? He constantly thanks God for his findings and his epistemology explicitly relies on God creating the most elegant and simple of possible universal configurations (without this he wouldn't know what kind of geometric shapes to look for in the astronomical tables). In the Harmony of the Worlds (the book which contains Kepler's Third Law), he traces out the implications of the ratios between the maximum and minimum angular speeds of the planets to show that at the time of creation, the planets were in perfect harmony and so sung "in perfect concord" (just as God would have it). Modern astronomers would probably be embarrassed that such an explicitly religious book (one about music no less) was so important to the history of astronomy, but the fact remains that Kepler's supernatural beliefs informed his theories to a considerable degree. P.S. I'm not religious, so don't bother asking me to defend any specific religion. I'll repeat: this is all mere motivational and not informational. If religious ideas were informational then they wouldn't be religious.
And you repeat wrongly again. The premise that the universe is designed in a way that humans are capable of grasping, is a truth claim about the world and isn't "merely motivational". It is a premise taken from Kepler's theology. Also, the metaphysical premise that the universe was created in the most elegant way possible (also taken from Kepler's theology) has actual informational content and it not "merely motivational". He used these premises (explicitly) in his work and they helped him narrow the range of shapes (mostly the ellipses and platonic solids) to check against astronomical tables to form his theory of the heavens. His religious premises played an integral role in his scientific investigations. To claim otherwise is ahistorical (no matter how irrational we think his behavior was now).
Solid_Choke: And you repeat wrongly again. The premise that the universe is designed in a way that humans are capable of grasping, is a truth claim about the world and isn't "merely motivational". It is a premise taken from Kepler's theology. Also, the metaphysical premise that the universe was created in the most elegant way possible (also taken from Kepler's theology) has actual informational content and it not "merely motivational". He used these premises (explicitly) in his work and they helped him narrow the range of shapes (mostly the ellipses and platonic solids) to check against astronomical tables to form his theory of the heavens. His religious premises played an integral role in his scientific investigations. To claim otherwise is ahistorical (no matter how irrational we think his behavior was now).
Why wouldn't reality be understandable and investigatable? Only in the field of religion do we get the message that reality is not something to be understood.
So none of this is very impressive.
MMMark:Insofar as "religious doctrine" encourages the killing of non-believers, Nielsio may be right, in the case of some religious doctrine. "Sin" seems to be a fairly common religious concept, and doctrinal proscription is frequently transformed into political punishment.
You find very little religious text from main stream religions that advocate killing non-believers. You might find instances in the stories where non-believers are killed but that is about it.
God created Eden and told Adam and Eve they could live there as long as they obeyed his rules. They didn't obey his rules so he kicked them out and they had to fend for themselves. That is about as libertarian as it gets.
MMMark: Maxliberty:All major religious text are big proponents of individual liberty and choice, the most important being to serve God or not.But are they consistent proponents? It would be nice if you could provide some substantiation for your statement here.
Maxliberty:All major religious text are big proponents of individual liberty and choice, the most important being to serve God or not.
I did, God in all major religions that I have some knowledge lets you freely decide to choose God or not. Every other decision is less important than that.
Nielsio: Solid_Choke: And you repeat wrongly again. The premise that the universe is designed in a way that humans are capable of grasping, is a truth claim about the world and isn't "merely motivational". It is a premise taken from Kepler's theology. Also, the metaphysical premise that the universe was created in the most elegant way possible (also taken from Kepler's theology) has actual informational content and it not "merely motivational". He used these premises (explicitly) in his work and they helped him narrow the range of shapes (mostly the ellipses and platonic solids) to check against astronomical tables to form his theory of the heavens. His religious premises played an integral role in his scientific investigations. To claim otherwise is ahistorical (no matter how irrational we think his behavior was now). Why wouldn't reality be understandable and investigatable? Only in the field of religion do we get the message that reality is not something to be understood. So none of this is very impressive.
Do you think the universe has a duty to be understandable to human minds? Why should it? Kepler believed it should because God made it that way. Have you never heard of skepticism? There have been many (nonreligious) people who believe that knowledge of reality is impossible.
I never claimed it was impressive, merely that one of your statements was false (and it is, as I have shown).
There's nothing illogical about believing that the universe has a creator, a first cause. In fact, it would be entirely illogical to deny such a position. Things do not create themselves; they are created. There are only two consistent positions: (a) theism and (b) global skepticism. All other positions are merely cop outs. Many of the enlightened thinkers rejected religion because they refused to accept anything on pure faith. They attempted to "stand on their own two feet" by replacing faith with science. Unfortunately, science has been unable to answer such questions; in fact, it has only revealed how peculiar the nature of the universe really is. Also, every branch of science accepts certain premises entirely on faith (which yield correct conclusions). Even math is forced to accept certain things on pure faith (zero factorial, for example).
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Kenneth: Does anybody here consider the Bible and Atlas Shrugged to be favorite books? I'm just interested in knowing this since the two origins of libertarianism are just polar opposites. Natural rights justice theory and subjective theory of value had it's roots in the Catholic church. Ayn Rand also became a popular starting point in the 20th century.
Does anybody here consider the Bible and Atlas Shrugged to be favorite books?
I'm just interested in knowing this since the two origins of libertarianism are just polar opposites. Natural rights justice theory and subjective theory of value had it's roots in the Catholic church. Ayn Rand also became a popular starting point in the 20th century.
No. I read the Bible, but only the Old Testament. A children's illustrated version. And I skipped everything to do with any prophets.
Solid_Choke: Nielsio: Solid_Choke: And you repeat wrongly again. The premise that the universe is designed in a way that humans are capable of grasping, is a truth claim about the world and isn't "merely motivational". It is a premise taken from Kepler's theology. Also, the metaphysical premise that the universe was created in the most elegant way possible (also taken from Kepler's theology) has actual informational content and it not "merely motivational". He used these premises (explicitly) in his work and they helped him narrow the range of shapes (mostly the ellipses and platonic solids) to check against astronomical tables to form his theory of the heavens. His religious premises played an integral role in his scientific investigations. To claim otherwise is ahistorical (no matter how irrational we think his behavior was now). Why wouldn't reality be understandable and investigatable? Only in the field of religion do we get the message that reality is not something to be understood. So none of this is very impressive. Do you think the universe has a duty to be understandable to human minds? Why should it? Kepler believed it should because God made it that way. Have you never heard of skepticism? There have been many (nonreligious) people who believe that knowledge of reality is impossible. I never claimed it was impressive, merely that one of your statements was false (and it is, as I have shown).
The mere fact that he got it right does make it so that he was informed by his religion. The idea that our brains are evolved to understand the universe because it's beneficial to understand the universe is entirely different than the idea that the universe was made so that our brains could understand it. One of those is true, and the other is not. If you pick the wrong one, you are not informed based on that decision, even if some of the same conclusions can be reached.
Sam Armstrong:he idea that our brains are evolved to understand the universe because it's beneficial to understand the universe is entirely different than the idea that the universe was made so that our brains could understand it.
Why is the universe understandable at all? Why isn't there perpetual chaos? You take everything for granted.
Because our brains evolved to understand it. A being who only saw delicious strawberries when a rock was flying at it's head wouldn't last very long.
Sam Armstrong:Because our brains evolved to understand it. A being who only saw delicious strawberries when a rock was flying at it's head wouldn't last very long.
Our brains did not create order in the universe. You're putting the carriage in front of the horse. So again, why is there order in the universe to begin with (why is reason even useful)? Some say that this is a nonsensical question. But scientists ask such questions every single day. Newton's investigation into gravity was perfectly reasonable. Most people will tell you that there is order in the universe because there is order in the universe (post hoc ergo propter hoc), and others, the global skeptics, will tell you that there isn't order in the universe (nihilists).
Esuric: There's nothing illogical about believing that the universe has a creator, a first cause. In fact, it would be entirely illogical to deny such a position. Things do not create themselves; they are created. There are only two consistent positions: (a) theism and (b) global skepticism. All other positions are merely cop puts.
There's nothing illogical about believing that the universe has a creator, a first cause. In fact, it would be entirely illogical to deny such a position. Things do not create themselves; they are created. There are only two consistent positions: (a) theism and (b) global skepticism. All other positions are merely cop puts.
There might be universes where logic isn't useful. By the anthropic principle, we are in the universe where reason is useful.
It is a nonsense question. It's like asking what the color of a C chord is.
Also without humans, can you really say there is order? I mean, what does order even mean if not "the universe acts in a way that we have found a way to live in". The universe is out of order for the Nebulites who would have lived if space folded every second. But space doesn't fold every second, and so they don't exist.
Cal:How is atheism or deism logically inconsistent? Both can recognize a first cause or creator consistently.
First, when I say God, I'm referring to the creator of the universe. You can call it Bob if you like. Next, you're right about deism (logically consistent), but atheism cannot explain the origin of the universe, its order, or whatever (not that it cant answer this right now, but that it can never answer it).
Cal:Further, why would one assume that the "first cause" of the universe was an infinitely powerful, infinitely complex being
Since the first cause created all else, including the order and constancy we perceive in the universe, it seems perfectly reasonable to assign it such traits. It's hard to imagine a fallible creator of the universe, who can exist beyond space-time. The belief that it's an active influence over the universe is precisely that, a belief.
Cal:whose will can be known through the "divine revelations" of primitive people who had virtually no understanding of how the universe actually operated? (The positions of theists)
No.
Why does the universe need a first cause? Things can go infinitely forward, why can't it go infinitely backwards?
Sam Armstrong:There might be universes where logic isn't useful. By the anthropic principle, we are in the universe where reason is useful.
There is only one universe, by definition. But even then, you can not logically deduce the existence of another universe. It's pure speculation.
Sam Armstrong:It is a nonsense question.
Why there's order in the universe, and how does a system, comprised only of contingent objects, come into existence, are not nonsensical questions. Newton's inquiry into gravitational orbits was perfectly reasonable. Lacking a satisfactory answer for a question does not give you the right to automatically dismiss it. An honest answer is, "I don't know." But, instead, you choose to simply end the conversation for ideological reasons.
Sam Armstrong:Also without humans, can you really say there is order?
Yes. The universe is not a social construct.
Sam Armstrong:Why does the universe need a first cause? Things can go infinitely forward, why can't it go infinitely backwards?
Adding up a series of contingent objects yields a series of contingent objects. Contingent objects do not create themselves, by definition. So the question remains: how does a system, which is comprised of only contingent objects, first come into existence? Well, you can say that it (a) either created itself, (b) it was created, or (c) it is this way because it is this way. (A) is a reductio, and (c) is fallacy. Furthermore, science has revealed that the universe is finite; it had a beginning.
How could the creator come into being without order and constancy? Is the being infinite?
An atheist can logically recognize the need for a first cause of the universe, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it must be a god.
Esuric: Sam Armstrong:There might be universes where logic isn't useful. By the anthropic principle, we are in the universe where reason is useful. There is only one universe, by definition. But even then, you can not logically deduce the existence of another universe. It's pure speculation.
And you can't dismiss the idea of multiple universes. Or at the very least if you insist that universe doesn't have multiple definitions, a part of the universe which doesn't have any use for logic. It too is pure speculation.
Esuric: Sam Armstrong:It is a nonsense question. Why there's order in the universe, and how does a system, comprised only of contingent objects, come into existence, are not nonsensical questions. Newton's inquiry into gravitational orbits was perfectly reasonable. Lacking a satisfactory answer for a question does not give you the right to automatically dismiss it. An honest answer is, "I don't know." But, instead, you choose to simply end the conversation for ideological reasons. Sam Armstrong:Also without humans, can you really say there is order? Yes. The universe is not a social construct.
Order has no meaning without us. What is order without some goal behind it. Like I said, the universe is out of order for those beings which might exist if the universe acted differently. If the universe didn't have the strong force, but some other force, we might not exist, and the universe would be in chaos to us. Other particles might exist and show different properties, and if we were suddenly transported there, we'd disintegrate or deform or something. But the beings who did live there would be fine, because they have the ability to function in that universe. It would be ordered to them. So order is subjective, not objective. Thus the question "why does the universe have order?" doesn't mean anything.
Esuric: Sam Armstrong:Why does the universe need a first cause? Things can go infinitely forward, why can't it go infinitely backwards? Adding up a series of contingent objects yields a series of contingent objects. Contingent objects do not create themselves, by definition. So the question remains: how does a system, which is comprised of only contingent objects, first come into existence? Well, you can say that it (a) either created itself, or (b) was created. The former is a reductio, and akin to saying, "it is this way because it is this way." Furthermore, science has revealed that the universe is finite; it had a beginning.
Adding up a series of contingent objects yields a series of contingent objects. Contingent objects do not create themselves, by definition. So the question remains: how does a system, which is comprised of only contingent objects, first come into existence? Well, you can say that it (a) either created itself, or (b) was created. The former is a reductio, and akin to saying, "it is this way because it is this way." Furthermore, science has revealed that the universe is finite; it had a beginning.
Cal: How could the creator come into being without order and constancy? Is the being infinite? An atheist can logically recognize the need for a first cause of the universe, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it must be a god.
Instead its....nothing.
Seph: Cal: How could the creator come into being without order and constancy? Is the being infinite? An atheist can logically recognize the need for a first cause of the universe, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it must be a god. Instead its....nothing.
Cal:How could the creator come into being without order and constancy? Is the being infinite?
Yes.
Cal:An atheist can logically recognize the need for a first cause of the universe, but it doesn't necessarily follow that it must be a god.
No. Atheists don't believe that anything exists outside of the universe (God). Any explanation which claims that the universe was created by something within the universe (space-time continuum) is absurd.
Sam Armstrong:Order has no meaning without us.
Meaning does not mean order. The universe has order whether we're here or not. If tomorrow the entire human race is eliminated, it's structures will stand for some finite period of time; they will not vanish to one of those alternate universes you fantasize about.
Sam Armstrong:If the universe didn't have the strong force, but some other force, we might not exist, and the universe would be in chaos to us. Other particles might exist and show different properties, and if we were suddenly transported there, we'd disintegrate or deform or something.
All you're saying here is that the universe has order, but that this doesn't necessarily have to be the case. I agree. There could be black wholes and paradoxes everywhere, but there aren't.
Sam Armstrong:But the beings who did live there would be fine, because they have the ability to function in that universe. It would be ordered to them. So order is subjective, not objective.
You're creating another fantasy.
Sam Armstrong:Well as far as we know, the very base that makes up this universe is not contingent. We know that mass and energy has never been observed to have been created or destroyed, just converted from one to the other.
This is simply impossible. Matter and energy cannot predate the universe. The universe is comprised of matter and energy (in different forms) against the backdrop of space and time. Before the universe there was neither space nor time. Thus, to say that matter existed before the universe (15 billion years) is to say that something can exist nowhere and never. Are we willing to throw logic out of the window?
I guess I don't quite understand your argument. If you are willing to accept that something can be infinite, why not accept that there is no creator, but rather that the universe itself is infinite? From my limited knowledge of cosmology, cosmologists have traced back the evolution/expansion of the universe to a "singular point of infinite density." Anything before that is merely speculation. If you are willing to accept something as having no creator, i.e. god, why not start with the singular point of infinite density, instead?
All you're saying here is that the universe has order, but that this doesn't necessarily have to be the case. I agree. There could be black wholes and paradoxes everywhere, but there aren't. You're creating another fantasy.
And you are choosing to simply end the conversation for ideological reasons. It's a hypothetical to show a point. But somehow you see "You're creating a fantasy" as a proper response.
That's not what I'm saying. Here's a good question to ask instead of "why is there order". Ask, why does the universe act the way it acts. The universe acting the way it acts does not mean there is order. We exist because of the way the universe acts. We were created because of the way it acts. And because of that, we see order in it. A being who doesn't see order in the universe it lives in will not be able to survive for long. Thus anything which lives in a universe will see order in it. Like I said, if you see strawberries when a rock is headed toward you, you won't know to dodge.
Now we both can conceive of a universe where things acted differently, why is it all of a sudden fantasy land when I conceive of a being who lives there? So let us just say that that being somehow came into this universe. That being would no longer see order, it would see chaos.
Come on guy, please make a connection for yourself. There might not be a before the universe. There's a before the big bang, but that doesn't necessarily mark the beginning of the universe, nor the creation of every particle in the universe.
Cal:I guess I don't quite understand your argument. If you are willing to accept that something can be infinite, why not accept that there is no creator, but rather that the universe itself is infinite?
(A) nothing in the universe is infinite. It is a series of contingent objects; a contingent series. How does a contingent object (in this case a series) create itself? If you add one apple to another apple you don't get a truck. (B) it simply doesn't correspond to the facts. Cosmic back round radiation tells us that the universe had a beginning and is expanding.
Cal:From my limited knowledge of cosmology, cosmologists have traced back the evolution/expansion of the universe to a "singular point of infinite density." Anything before that is merely speculation. If you are willing to accept something as having no creator, i.e. god, why not start with the singular point of infinite density, instead?
The singularity supposedly contained all of the matter and energy in the universe. But there was neither space nor time before the universe, before the "big bang" (some kind of explosion). To say that it existed before the universe is to say that it existed nowhere and never, and that it caused the explosion, or the "big bang." Now, your best position is that belief in this singularity is no different then my belief in a god. Fine. But I would say that it's a semantical distinction. But that's just more speculation.
Sam Armstrong:That's not what I'm saying. Here's a good question to ask instead of "why is there order". Ask, why does the universe act the way it acts. The universe acting the way it acts does not mean there is order.
But there is order. We can use mathematical formulas to figure out the precise dates of supernovas, in the far distant future (billions of years), and which also reveal the orbits of objects, ranging from moons to galaxies.
Sam Armstrong:We exist because of the way the universe acts.
The universe doesn't act; it exists. It's automated. You're dancing around my question.
Sam Armstrong:Come on guy, please make a connection for yourself. There might not be a before the universe.
The singularity "existed" before the universe.
Esuric: Sam Armstrong:That's not what I'm saying. Here's a good question to ask instead of "why is there order". Ask, why does the universe act the way it acts. The universe acting the way it acts does not mean there is order. But there is order. We can use mathematical formulas to figure out the precise dates of supernovas, in the far distant future (billions of years), and which also reveal the orbits of objects, ranging from moons to galaxies.
All you are saying is that the universe acts in a certain way, and that we have assigned structures to represent those actions. Agreed.
Esuric: Sam Armstrong:We exist because of the way the universe acts. The universe doesn't act; it exists. It's automated. You're dancing around my question.
Things that exist act. Automations act. And what am I dancing around. I've demonstrated multiple ways how order is subject dependent.
Esuric: Sam Armstrong:Come on guy, please make a connection for yourself. There might not be a before the universe. The singularity "existed" before the universe.
And so might the things that caused the singularity, which might have been a previous big bang and collapse.
Sam Armstrong:Things that exist act.
No. Action action involves choice. Comets don't "act;" they wonder aimless through space on a fixed trajectory.
Sam Armstrong:And so might the things that caused the singularity, which might have been a previous big bang and collapse.
Well, we're back to speculation. Either way, you're just taking the question one step backwards.
Sam Armstrong: Solid_Choke: Nielsio: Solid_Choke: And you repeat wrongly again. The premise that the universe is designed in a way that humans are capable of grasping, is a truth claim about the world and isn't "merely motivational". It is a premise taken from Kepler's theology. Also, the metaphysical premise that the universe was created in the most elegant way possible (also taken from Kepler's theology) has actual informational content and it not "merely motivational". He used these premises (explicitly) in his work and they helped him narrow the range of shapes (mostly the ellipses and platonic solids) to check against astronomical tables to form his theory of the heavens. His religious premises played an integral role in his scientific investigations. To claim otherwise is ahistorical (no matter how irrational we think his behavior was now). Why wouldn't reality be understandable and investigatable? Only in the field of religion do we get the message that reality is not something to be understood. So none of this is very impressive. Do you think the universe has a duty to be understandable to human minds? Why should it? Kepler believed it should because God made it that way. Have you never heard of skepticism? There have been many (nonreligious) people who believe that knowledge of reality is impossible. I never claimed it was impressive, merely that one of your statements was false (and it is, as I have shown). The mere fact that he got it right does make it so that he was informed by his religion. The idea that our brains are evolved to understand the universe because it's beneficial to understand the universe is entirely different than the idea that the universe was made so that our brains could understand it. One of those is true, and the other is not. If you pick the wrong one, you are not informed based on that decision, even if some of the same conclusions can be reached.
That he used such arguments IS a fact. Just because we think they are unsound doesn't mean he didn't rely on such arguments to arrive at his theories. BTW, I'm not advocating taking theism for granted in scientific practice, only that Kepler (and some others) did as a matter of historical record and in this particular case he discovered something important.
Esuric: Sam Armstrong:And so might the things that caused the singularity, which might have been a previous big bang and collapse. Well, we're back to speculation. Either way, you're just taking the question one step backwards.
And I can take it one step backwards Infinitely. Of course it's speculation. You said I could not logically hold the position that the universe existed without a first mover. I have to use a hypothetical to show that the position can be held logically. You are speculating that nothing existed before the big bang, I'm speculating that everything existed before the big bang.
Solid_Choke: That he used such arguments IS a fact. Just because we think they are unsound doesn't mean he didn't rely on such arguments to arrive at his theories. BTW, I'm not advocating taking theism for granted in scientific practice, only that Kepler (and some others) did as a matter of historical record and in this particular case he discovered something important.
I agree that he used them to come to a valid conclusion. All I was saying is that incorrect premises can lead to correct discoveries.
Sam Armstrong: Solid_Choke: That he used such arguments IS a fact. Just because we think they are unsound doesn't mean he didn't rely on such arguments to arrive at his theories. BTW, I'm not advocating taking theism for granted in scientific practice, only that Kepler (and some others) did as a matter of historical record and in this particular case he discovered something important. I agree that he used them to come to a valid conclusion. All I was saying is that incorrect premises can lead to correct discoveries.
He used an unsound (according to modern sensibilities) argument to come to (what we now think is) an approximately true conclusion. I am in agreement with your second point.
Here's the Universe. Debate over.
The universe is a doughnut? I like doughnuts.
Cal:Or "unknown."
So you admit that atheism is a religion?
And a state funded one at that?
How is atheism a state funded religion? Any proof?
Kenneth: How is atheism a state funded religion? Any proof?
Go to your local university for all the proof you need.
Are you seriously postulating that efforts to teach biblical Christianity in a state run university, versus efforts to teach atheism in a state run university, would be met with identical results?
I'm sorry but Christianity was and is a state funded religion as well, at least according to that ridiculous definition. It was one of the justifications for compulsory education, so that they could teach the children the proper religion when their parents wouldn't.
Sam Armstrong: I'm sorry but Christianity was and is a state funded religion as well, at least according to that ridiculous definition. It was one of the justifications for compulsory education, so that they could teach the children the proper religion when their parents wouldn't.
You didnt answer my question.