"Since there are a good many Manicheans among the Moderns as we may remark in a moment, some may agree [that the creator of the earth was primarily the creator of the evil, whether we call him a devil or a god], some may be puzzled about it, some may only be puzzled about why we should object to it. To understand the medieval controversy, a word must be said of the Catholic doctrine, which is as modern as it is medieval. That "God looked on all things and saw that they were good" contains a subtlety which the popular pessimist cannot follow, or is too hasty to notice. It is the thesis that there are no bad things, but only bad uses of things. If you will, there are no bad things but only bad thoughts; and expecially bad intentions. Only Calvinists can really believe that hell is paved with good intentions. That is exactly the one thing it cannot be paved with. But it is possible to have bad intentions about good things; and good like the world and the flesh have been twisted by a bad intention called the devil. But he cannot make things bad; they remain as on the first day of creation.
The central question in the philosophy and history of science: what (or who) made the world, and was it made good, or bad, or both?
The atheist answer: nothing made the world. How this serves as an impetus to science remains obscure.
That it serves as a basis for nihilism and will to power is not obscure. No atheist (Marxist) country has produced new science in any meaningful way. Example: the Soviet Union, home to brilliant mathematicians and mathematical physicists, had to steal Western nuclear blueprints.
Another example: Trofim Lysenko, a paradigm of the atheist scientist, committed to ideological purity, rather than to an honest investigation of nature. For atheists, science is ideology pursued by different means.
The Manichean answer: good and evil made the world, mostly evil. It suppresses science. Why study matter, which is evil, when the purpose of life is to escape it? The Manichean thread runs through Buddhism and New Ageism, neither of which produces science.
The Thomist answer: Good Himself made the world, entirely good at creation. Evil is a spiritual degradation of good matter. The study of nature is good, because it is the study of that which is naturally good.
The Thomist understanding of creation is the basis for all modern science. It is no coincidence that the scientific Enlightenment followed on the High Middle Ages (13th century), once the scholastic understanding of nature had spread throughout Europe.
Chesterton comments on the current struggle between science and atheist ideology:
The work of heaven alone was material; the making of a material world. The work of hell is entirely spiritual.
Atheism lacks justification for natural science. Atheism is entirely spiritual, under a masque of science.
* Chesterton GK: Saint Thomas Aquinas Image/Doubleday 1933. p83f.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteIf your goal is to display a fusion of arrogance and ignorance, you are succeeding beyond any expectations. Take this assertion:
That it serves as a basis for nihilism and will to power is not obscure. No atheist (Marxist) country has produced new science in any meaningful way. Example: the Soviet Union, home to brilliant mathematicians and mathematical physicists, had to steal Western nuclear blueprints.
This is utterly, mind-bogglingly silly. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the history of science in the 20th century will immediately tell you that.
Soviet physics was quite prominent. So much so that in 1955, the American Institute of Physics began translating from the Russian the premiere physics journal of the USSR, the Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics. And not just because of theoretical papers. One can point out experimental discoveries of the Nobel caliber. Pyotr Kapitza's work on superfluidity of liquid helium, Basov and Prokhorov's invention of the laser come to mind.
Shame.
Another example: Trofim Lysenko, a paradigm of the atheist scientist, committed to ideological purity, rather than to an honest investigation of nature. For atheists, science is ideology pursued by different means.
ReplyDeleteIronically, Lysenko was dethroned thanks to the efforts of Soviet scientists, who were naturally atheists. Kapitza, Yakov Zel'dovich, and Vitaly Ginzburg spearheaded the effort to remove Lysenko from his post and succeeded in that. I have already mentioned Kapitza in my previous comment. Ginzburg also got his Nobel prize. Zel'dovich's name is legendary in astrophysics.
You are barking up the wrong tree, Mike. Belief in God, or lack thereof, has no bearing on the quality of one's science. No need to look at atheist scientists in the USSR. Look at the American Nobel laureates. The majority are atheists. There are a few Christians among them, too (Charles Townes, for instance).
Please. You are a ROMAN Catholic.
ReplyDeleteNot a Catholic.
The Thomist understanding of creation is the basis for all modern science.
ReplyDeleteThat's hard to believe. I see no way in which the views of a medieval scholastic can help in the understanding of, say, superconductivity. Or stellar evolution.
That's hard to believe. I see no way in which the views of a medieval scholastic can help in the understanding of, say, superconductivity. Or stellar evolution.
ReplyDeleteOf course you don't! That would violate a central atheist doctrine (promissory materialism) wouldn't it? I mean, we ALL know the future is where all the good stuff comes from, not the dumb old past...right? Besides didn't Darwin found all modern thinking when he ascended from ... er Nature?
I must assume that Oleg does is not a historian (or ANYTHING close), nor do they understand the influence of St. Thomas and his works on the mindset and intellectual climate of medieval Europe.
You entirely underestimate the value of the separation of metaphysical and physical science, hence your (atheistic) desires/attempt to explain the physical world spiritually (through the constant application of non-BELIEF) and the spiritual/existential world materialistically.
The influence of St Thomas drew that line. Cience here, faith there.
That line brought on the high medieval period, which was the cradle of the Renaissance.
Atheism is obviously a PRE Thomistic view that has still to come to terms with that brilliant Medieval mind.
Shame.
Dax says:
Please. You are a ROMAN Catholic.
Not a Catholic
Please!
A Roman CATHOLIC is a Catholic AND a Christian too! He could also mention his hair colour and favourite icecream in the title, Dax... what is it to you?
I am a Catholic and a Christian too. Can you guess where my head Church is? Alexandria? Iraq? Lebanon? England? Do I have a Pope or an Archbishop? What Saint is my Church named after?
Does it MATTER in this debate?
Other than to expose your distaste for Rome, I don't see your point.
Perhaps you are a Calvinist? A 'new earther'? Or an even more dogmatic, monistic, and fanatically extreme western belief system...like GNU Atheism?
Science here, faith there.**
ReplyDelete(edit ... damned netbook!)
crusadeREX,
ReplyDeleteYou forgot to explain how Thomist ideas are relevant to scientific studies of Nature. How does it impact organic chemistry? Geology? Astrophysics? I see it as a useless diversion, but perhaps I am wrong and you could point out its usefulness.
I see it as a useless diversion, but perhaps I am wrong and you could point out its usefulness.
ReplyDeleteI understand that. Philosophy and theology are imaginary sciences to the Atheist. Why study and understand a mind or soul, when their is only a brain. Such are the limits of your Canon.
You forgot to explain how Thomist ideas are relevant to scientific studies of Nature. How does it impact organic chemistry? Geology? Astrophysics?
I did not forget. The explanation is above:
".. the separation of metaphysical and physical science".
This marriage of philosophy and theology, and divorce of reason from metaphysics - this is the impact.
Alas, unlike the atheist, I do not engage in futility, but with purpose.
So then...Knowing that, how shall I point out the usefulness of any philosophy to someone who is blind to it's purpose and influences?
Such futile gestures are meaningless. I have explained (albeit: Reductio ad absurdum) the meaning and influence of Aquinas, and you have rejected that idea in the most basic terms.
You suggest that a medieval scholar and theologian could not possibly have contributed to the formation of modern sciences. Why? Only you can answer that, Oleg.
Judging by your previous musings that I have read, I would suggest it is your adherence to promissory materialism.
I may be wrong.
It could be some other dogma that prevents you from crediting Aquinas for his due. Whatever the causation, you do not accept the influence of St Thomas Aquinas on modern Science and the acceptance of it... fair enough. All I can suggest is you read up on the subject. Maybe actually read Aquinas?
What more is there to say of interest?
crusadeREX,
ReplyDeleteI did not ask you about the influence of Thomism on the formation of modern sciences. My question was why would a modern scientist need Thomism nowadays to do science? Why would we add Thomism to the curriculum of a physics or biology student?
This blog could be used as the type specimen of fractal wrongness.
ReplyDeleteRight.
ReplyDeleteIf articles on this blog weren't cross-posted on the Discovery Institute web site, I would have thought that someone is doing a parody of Egnor. Poe's law applies, I suppose.
Oleg,
ReplyDeleteSorry it took so long to respond.
It is a gorgeous day here on Georgian bay, and so I have been at the beach/shore taking in some of the glory of creation with my family (and dogs!).
Simply put, I would suggest to you the importance of studying the works of men like Aquinas is one of foundations. To understand where and WHY we are, you need to understand where we came from - hence the importance of seminal works such as those of Aquinas (or Newton).
There is more, but I am not sure it would be of any interest to an Atheist mindset.
Does that clarify my position to you?
This blog could be used as the type specimen of fractal wrongness.
ReplyDeleteWrongness? Could you expand that idea, BeingItself?
Cheers.
crusadeREX,
ReplyDeleteI am not against learning Aquinas from the historical perspective. In fact, I am just now reading a book that mentions his contributions to theological thought, however briefly.
However, I still do not see any basis for Egnor's assessment that "Thomist understanding of creation is the basis for all modern science." I would like to see concrete examples of Aquinas's thoughts about creation being so useful in modern science. If it concerns all modern science, examples should be abundant. Where are they?
Roman catholics calling themselves "catholic" is rather like the children of god calling themselves "the children of god", or mormons calling themselves "latter day saints". The name itself embodies a claim that many dispute.
ReplyDeleteAs to the absurd idea that one cannot look up at the stars in wonder and curiosity without first believing in an invisible beardy sky-man: these christians really are blinkered, aren't they?
Oleg, a sensible question deserves a sensible answer, and so I will prepare a decent and succinct one. I will post it a little later. (work!! damn it!)
ReplyDeleteAs for our diligent resident anti-Christian bigot, paulmurray... no such diligence or care is required - simple reciprocity will do!
He wrote:
As to the absurd idea that one cannot look up at the stars in wonder and curiosity without first believing in an invisible beardy sky-man: these christians really are blinkered, aren't they?
It is an absurd idea, and I wonder at what type of mind altering substances you ingested to take that away from the above post. Maybe it is just about age, education, or maturity (men among boys - boys among men etc)
Perhaps translated into 'adult', what you mean is something more like: "It is absurd to think people could be inspired to greatness by faith in a deity." To be followed by "I just cannot understand what the Christian faith teaches. I only believe in what I can see, or what 'scientists' tell me is real."
I will answer these translations, as they are at least answerable.
As to the assertion of absurdity: No, in fact many great minds have been inspired by the transcendental. By God(s), by the memories of loved ones, by the general altruism that is inherit in the Human Soul. What IS absurd is your statement. Your statement has the same weight as 'no scientific experiment has been inspired by curiosity' - it flies in the face of what is known as fact.
As for your lack of understanding and blind faith in men of learning, only age and wisdom may help you with that. You may become less 'blinkered' yourself when you have done some growing up.
No I am not saying you're a child (a definite possibility) but your attitude is juvenile at best.
My advice: GROW UP, if you want to talk to the big boys.
Oleg?
ReplyDeleteIf you're still about I will post some more.
If not allow me to summarize for those who may browse this page.
In a nutshell, the importance of Aquinas to modern science is the same as it always has been: To set limits on fruitful research.
To give sciences and religions (all metaphysics really) their own separate provinces. An example within science are the various disciplines. An example in the metaphysical fields would be the various theological and philosophical disciplines.
Aquinas did not detail what those classes should be, but rather popularized the ideal. Again, foundations. Without them the whole construct collapses; overlap becomes the norm, and we end up with madness like 'evolutionary psychology' and eugenics.
Augustine's thoughts on 'pious inquiry' could also be of great value to modern scientific 'ethics'.
I can expand on this if anyone is interested.
crusadeREX,
ReplyDeletePlease continue. Your previous comment does nothing to answer my question. Here it is, again:
I would like to see concrete examples of Aquinas's thoughts about creation being so useful in modern science. If it concerns all modern science, examples should be abundant. Where are they?
Oleg,
ReplyDeleteMaybe there is a comment I cannot see?
You are asking me how foundations studies are good for science - or any discipline. You then accept they are, but repeat your question.
Maybe it is not the answer at fault, but the question itself.
Could it be you missed the central point of the original post by Mike
The study of nature is good - The Thomist perspective.
This is a perspective that predates and allows for material sciences to progress more or less unhindered, provided they have meaning and purpose.
The Thomist view is the view what allows for the human mind to examine different disciplines with different tools. Spiritual/Existential/philosophical with their own set, and the material studies with another.
It counters the Manichean view of 'bad matter' and the market force driven apathy of Atheist thinking(ie promissory materialism - the 'Atheism of the Gaps')
Morality and purpose combined with curiosity and the desire to better the material existence of living people.
Get it Oleg?
I am SURE you don't agree... but do you at least UNDERSTAND? Right?
Thomist: How AND Why, with faith in the divine.
Manichean: NO! With ONLY faith in the divine.
Atheist: Yawn...how or whatever. With faith in the 'future' and 'science'.
For a concrete example simply read this blog.
In many ways, it is an exercise in Thomist thought written by a man of science.
Thomist thinking is what allows men of Christian faith (for centuries now) to confront the realities of nature, while not discounting the obvious realm of the spiritual.
The further concrete examples you seek ARE the sciences you study. It is their raison d'être.
The purpose of science is NOT to prove your atheistic views, it is to seek answers in the cosmos.
Science is meant to 'go where the facts take us', I recall one such early mind as saying. Science is NOT simply for the purpose of disproving a God, and indeed it cannot do so. Such ideas are not only pretensions, but poison the pond of research: They LIMIT inquiry.
You may choose to remember these words as you hurl your arrows from the top of your tower trying to kill a God you don't believe is there.
Try your logic on this parallel question: What good is a constitution for an American democracy now that it already exists.
The answer is more or less the same.
Final note: Studying matter (material science) is NOT the same as Materialism. You enjoy your discipline? Fine! No need to worship it as life's purpose.
crusadeREX,
ReplyDeleteI have been asking the same question over and over again in this thread. You said several times that you would try to answer it, unsuccessfully. Your latest comment suggests that something is wrong with my question. Well, if you don't like it, don't answer it. The question stands.
So long.