Carl Sagan: Prophet of Scientism

[Clete]

Clete,

First, I am not an atheist.

Sorry, I generally assume quacking birds to be ducks. If you're not an atheist, what are you?

Second, you assert that science and religion are intertwined and inseprable. We'd probably both agree that a great deal of scientific progress has been made in the past 100 years. Could give me some examples of scientific and technological advances made within the past 100 years that were discovered by the Church or clergy or any mainly religious institution, or otherwise attributed to the Christian faith?

All of them.
That's right, all of them. 100% of any valid scientific discovery has come either directly or indirectly from a Christian worldview. The people who made the discoveries either held the Christian worldview for themselves or they borrowed from it (usually without realizing that they were do so).

Third, do you have any experience in the field of science?

I majored in Physics and consider science to be of great interest, even a hobby of sorts, but am not employed in a scientific field.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Gerald]

Everything! You cannot discover anything of the natural world without presupposing the supernatural (whether done intentionally or otherwise). If God does not exist, knowledge of anything is impossible.

Ah, the Argument from God as Operating System: if God were not running things from nanosecond to nanosecond, nuclear reactions wouldn't occur, chemical reactions wouldn't occur, and we wouldn't exist to contemplate these things.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse​

Interesting how none of these "invisible attributes" are noted. Not to mention that something that is invisible, by definition, can't be seen.

 

[Gerald]

All of them.
That's right, all of them. 100% of any valid scientific discovery has come either directly or indirectly from a Christian worldview. The people who made the discoveries either held the Christian worldview for themselves or they borrowed from it (usually without realizing that they were do so).

So, how do you account for the Chinese developing gunpowder some two centuries before Christians came on the scene?

Was Jesus reaching back through time, before his own birth, and putting ideas in their heads without them being aware of it?

 

[Jukia]

So, how do you account for the Chinese developing gunpowder some two centuries before Christians came on the scene?

Was Jesus reaching back through time, before his own birth, and putting ideas in their heads without them being aware of it?

Clearly a lie put forth by the pinko commie atheistic evolutionists.

 

[Clete]

Ah, the Argument from God as Operating System: if God were not running things from nanosecond to nanosecond, nuclear reactions wouldn't occur, chemical reactions wouldn't occur, and we wouldn't exist to contemplate these things.

:rotfl:
You guys are really going to have to start thinking better or else you won't even begin understand Jim Hilston's arguments in this up coming Battle Royale.

Oh! I can't wait! :bannana:

Interesting how none of these "invisible attributes" are noted. Not to mention that something that is invisible, by definition, can't be seen.

Make no mistake, you too are without excuse.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Aimiel]

First, what is it with you Christians and your persecution syndrome? It's like if you're convniced someone is constantly out to get you.

First, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get me. If you were Christian, you'd understand. The Lord gives us only enough to have faith in Him, and not in ourselves, and the circumstances of life are designed (by the god of this world, Satan) to cause us to doubt everything that is written and that we know about The Lord. It's not the way we view things, so much as our vantage-point. From this side of the fence, the fence is clear. From that side, you don't see a fence, hence the 'grey' thinking.

Second, I completely disagree that Contact portrays science as ultimate knowledge. You could say that Contact portrays science as the best man can do, standing alone with naught but his brain- but that goes without saying. The technology we all enjoy, the very technology that grants us such a high standard of living is a direct result of science. This much is obvious.

The trip to where 'evolved' sentient beings could communicate and interact with the traveller was due to the science of those who were 'unknown' in the story, those who designed the machine. In my book, that makes science the ultimate. Those who built the machine (the designers of it rather) were the ultimate, for the story.

Re-read the book and see the movie again, I believe you were so focused on how a few fictional characters were portrayed that you missed the whole point of Contact!

I haven't read the book yet, though I am going to get it, since I read what you said about it. Sounds like a good novel.

 

[Granite]

So, how do you account for the Chinese developing gunpowder some two centuries before Christians came on the scene?

Was Jesus reaching back through time, before his own birth, and putting ideas in their heads without them being aware of it?

Yeah, this idiocy is a whopper even for Clete.

 

[Clete]

So, how do you account for the Chinese developing gunpowder some two centuries before Christians came on the scene?

For "Christian worldview" read "a correct worldview". It wasn't known as the Christian worldview until Christiainity came along but the worldview didn't change, just the name. And yes, the Chinese borrowed from what is now called the Christian worldview when they performed the experiments required to perfect the recipe for gunpowder.

Was Jesus reaching back through time, before his own birth, and putting ideas in their heads without them being aware of it?

Nope. Nevertheless, they were operating in accordence to the Christian worldview, even though that, at the time, it would not have been called that.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[avatar382]

Sorry, I generally assume quacking birds to be ducks. If you're not an atheist, what are you?

I am agnostic.

All of them.
That's right, all of them. 100% of any valid scientific discovery has come either directly or indirectly from a Christian worldview. The people who made the discoveries either held the Christian worldview for themselves or they borrowed from it (usually without realizing that they were do so).

What a ridiculous claim.

Since you have a background in physics, maybe you can help me out here. I'm sure you are familar with the Bohr model of the atom, and with quantum physics.

The Bohr model is a depection of the atom made in 1913 by Niels Bohr. It has thus been replaced by Quantum mechanics, the product of many great minds, including Plank, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and others.

Please illustrate how both the Bohr model of the atom and quantum mechanics comes from a "Christian Worldview". Oh, and it's not enough just to say that the scientists were Christian. You've got to show that this "Christian Worldview" is philosophically or logically inseperable from the underlying concepts of these theories. That is, you've got to show that the Bohr model and quantum mechanics are dependant on this "Christian Worldview".

Thanks.

 

[Gerald]

You guys are really going to have to start thinking better or else you won't even begin understand Jim Hilston's arguments in this up coming Battle Royale.

Who is Jim Hilston and why should I care?

Can he make a case for the existence of the supernatural?

 

[Jukia]

:rotfl:
You guys are really going to have to start thinking better or else you won't even begin understand Jim Hilston's arguments in this up coming Battle Royale.

How much will the secret decoder ring cost so I can understand his arguments? Will he be speaking in tongues?
What is the point of having someone argue in such a way that I cannot understand it?

 

[avatar382]

Clete, lets get a basic question out of the way:

Exactly what is this "Christian worldview" of which you speak?

 

[Gerald]

For "Christian worldview" read "a correct worldview". It wasn't known as the Christian worldview until Christiainity came along but the worldview didn't change, just the name. And yes, the Chinese borrowed from what is now called the Christian worldview when they performed the experiments required to perfect the recipe for gunpowder.

And what exactly constitutes this "correct worldview"?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

How much will the secret decoder ring cost so I can understand his arguments? Will he be speaking in tongues?
What is the point of having someone argue in such a way that I cannot understand it?

A lawyer has to ask this question?

 

[Clete]

I am agnostic.

You know what agnostic means, right?

What a ridiculous claim.

How do you know?

You've got to show that this "Christian Worldview" is philosophically or logically inseperable from the underlying concepts of these theories. That is, you've got to show that the Bohr model and quantum mechanics are dependant on this "Christian Worldview".(Emphasis added)

Would you agree that these ideas of which you speak (not all of which have been proven correct but that's beside the point) were derived by way of logic and reason?

 

[Clete]

How much will the secret decoder ring cost so I can understand his arguments? Will he be speaking in tongues?
What is the point of having someone argue in such a way that I cannot understand it?

It is not likely that you would understand it if you tried no matter how he explains it. Perhaps you'll surprise me. (I'm not trying to be insulting here by the way. I'm just going by previous experience.)

 

[BillyBob]

I've always liked Sagan, I read all his books when I was a bit younger and especially enjoyed 'Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors' and 'Broca's Brain'.

 

[Jukia]

It is not likely that you would understand it if you tried no matter how he explains it. Perhaps you'll surprise me. (I'm not trying to be insulting here by the way. I'm just going by previous experience.)

Uh huh, thanks now I am sure I will understand. You guys with your secret stuff.

 

[avatar382]

You know what agnostic means, right?

Of course. An agnostic is one who believes that the truth of whether a higher, supernatural power exists is essentially unknowable.

How do you know?

Because your assertation that science is inherently tied to and dependant of, either philosophically or logically, this "Christian world view" of yours, which you have not described, makes absolutely no sense. Since you have merely asserted this, I am waiting for you to provide an argument to support this before I provide a real rebuttal.

Would you agree that these ideas of which you speak (not all of which have been proven correct but that's beside the point) were derived by way of logic and reason?

First, there is precious little in science that has been proven correct (in the absolute sense of the term) and its all found in the science of mathematics.

Second, to answer your question directly, yes. You could say, in a general sense, that the Bohr model of the atom and quantum mechanics were derived from logic and reason, although this seems tautological to me. It would be more complete to say that they were derived from
a.) past scientific discoveries,
b.) experimentation,
and c.) logic and reason.

 

[Clete]

Clete, lets get a basic question out of the way:

Exactly what is this "Christian worldview" of which you speak?

There's a hint in the opening post....

Carl Sagan began his highly acclaimed public television series Cosmos with a grand overview of the universe and our place within it. With a crashing surf in the background, Sagan declares,

"The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."(5)

Sagan eloquently expresses his conviction that matter and energy are all that exist. He goes on to describe his awe and wonder of the universe. He describes a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, as the greatest of mysteries is approached. With excitement, Sagan tells us our tiny planetary home the Earth is lost somewhere between immensity and eternity, thus poignantly emphasizing our simultaneous value and insignificance.

In the movie Contact, Dr. Ellie Arroway expresses this awe and wonder at several points in the film. The most dramatic episode occurs during her galactic space flight when she is confronted with the wonders to be seen near the center of the galaxy. She is at a loss for words in the face of such beauty and humbly suggests that a poet may have been a better choice to send on the trip.

While this is all very moving, the great emotion seems strangely misplaced and inappropriate. If the cosmos is indeed all there is or ever was or ever will be, why get excited? If we are lost between immensity and eternity, shouldn't our reaction be one of existential terror, not awe? Sagan borrows his excitement from a Christian worldview where the heavens declare the glory of God, which should produce a tingle in the spine and a catch in the voice.​