Miracle

My definition of miracle from class:

Something out of the ordinary that happens and cannot be explained by facts and laws of the universe. It usually involves some sort of higher power or person who performs the miracle.

Online Dictionary:

an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause

such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of God. My Dad: an unexpected divine intervention  Merriam-Webster: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment My revised definition: A divine event unexplainable by the laws of science. I think that it is difficult but very possible for a scientific thinker to accept the notion of miracles. There is no way of proving true the miracles of the universe, and people who rely on facts and evidence to explain everything before they believe it may not be able to openly accept miracles. Because much of the basis for the definition and ideas behind miracles is a religious one, the acceptance is probably highly based on the scientists own personal beliefs.  There are many scientists who are Christians and many Christians who are scientific thinkers. In order to accept the notion of miracles, it does not require the scientist to be a Christian or a believer of some sort, but it does require them to have an understanding and an acceptance of the concept and faith behind believing in miracles.

Science, Evolution, and Creationism

The chapter headings of Science, Evolution, and Creationism show that its authors honor Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA principle.  The NOMA principle presents two "magisteria" (science and religion) as non-overlapping ideas which is backed up by the chapter and section headings of this book. The book essentially divides itself into two separate, main sections.  The first section is very thorough about presenting the truth, evidence, and intelligence of evolution.  All of the ideas, theories, and facts accounted for by evolution are presented by the section titles of the book in a very convincing, positive manner.  The second section, though also convincing, presents the creationist views as something completely separate from the studies of evolution.  The titles for this section clearly describe creationism as rejecting, unsupportive, and ultimately incomparable to that of evolution.  The two large sections of the book each present their claims in different lights, which suggests that these two magisteria of the NOMA principle shouldn't even be in opposition because they are so different.  

Presentation Notes

Christianity and the Newtonian Worldview

--Margaret C. Jacob

1. Context: Written as an original piece of work/study, but assumes the reader already knows a lot about previous things, which could mean it was written in response or in addition to another article.  Has somewhat of an original point/thesis, but seems to speak as if one already knows about it.

2. Audience: Fellow scientists or theologians already studying areas and topic that are similar.

3. Sources: A lost of sources and examples from other people and documents.

4. Thesis: Transformations in science and religion affect each other during a time of new intellectual learning, and overall, Newtonian science provides the intellectual foundation for a new Christianity that focuses on political stability and religious toleration within a rapidly changing and expanding commercial society. (pages 238 and 253)

-science and religion influencing and transforming each other, imposing the world order

-leads to the Enlightenment

-political influences looking for practical and applicable cases 

-new stage of Christianity (liberal Anglicanism) 1. religion as an individual matter 2. religion needs to be addressed to ordinary people rather than focusing on already important church people. 3. anti-materialistic world

-liberal Anglicanism becomes central to Newton's religion and construction of science.

-coined word "atheism" (focus on materialism and worldly interest)

-new atheists give rise to beliefs of living in the now, using the riches of the earth for all people, wondering what the real use of all the clergymen is, and is there really a Heaven and Hell? 

-atheists based on Atristotle philosophies of nature

-political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes says "we are nothing but matter impelled by force"(p. 242)  matter and motion govern everything...disliked by Christians

-Boyle lectures came about with many different versions of Newton religion and science and then Newtonianism became known as "an ideology that justified commercial capitalism, empire, scientific progress, and a new religiosity geared more to the vicissitudes of this world than the rewards of the next." (p. 244)

-turns into views of order in the world is from God, not by science, but is compelled by nature ?

-Newton's original view says politics rest on nature, Hobbes turns into nature relies on political.

-newtonianism and deism...view of God and nature lead to less respect for Christianity

-Christian opposition to newtonianism...deism and materialism is the fault of liberal Anglicans and science supports it. 

-Newtonians open door to the bad people and ideas (materialists) of the world

-anti-newtonians keep Newton's science but use nature to explain things rather than politics and science?

-science begins to hinder rather than help ...affect of all the new beliefs of nature, order and God

-George Horne condemns people, even priests, who have turned toward this new science view 

-despite all this, newtonian science had proved useful for the intellectual development and foundations in both science and religion for the changing societies 

Note taking exercise

In comparison to notes taken by others in the class today, I think my notes would be considered mediocre.  While some note takers write a lot of good information down, sometimes in exact wording, I don't always find it to be the most helpful in rereading them to find important points. As a result, my notes tend to be very simple and concise, sometimes just one or two words, and almost never a complete sentence. I attempt to draw out what I think is important and would remind me of what I was reading/listening to if I were to go back and study these notes. The reason I say this would be mediocre in comparison is because if someone else were going to try to read my notes to get information, they may not be able to decipher exactly what I meant here or there because I don't always put down all the information I hear. I think "good notes" would also be concise, but be able to encompass the full ideas and points so that anyone who reads them could get a general understanding of the topic. 

Aristotle Condemnations

#48. "That God cannot be the cause of a new act [or thing], nor can he produce something anew." 

This statement of Aristotle's science was obviously condemned by the church because of the power stripped from God to create all things or change all things at His will.  It uses the word "cause", which could potentially produce disagreement, but the church holds that God IS, or should be, the cause of all acts or things that have been and will be created newly by Him.  This, however,  contributes to scientific society because it presents the fact that if the church is condemning it, then there must be more things to research and develop in regard to the reasons behind new acts and producing things "anew" that science should be able to consider and address from their standpoints. 

#35. "That without a proper agent, as a father and a man, a man could not be made by God [alone]." 

This statement is a little tricky to understand, but I think the church's reason for condemning it is also obvious because the whole point of the first part of Genesis and the Bible is that God created everything...the heavens, the earth, and man. Before man was created, there was only God and the formless, empty earth that He created.  There was no extra man there to be an "agent" to the all-powerful God. This does open up the issue of evolution for the scientific realm of thinkers, though. If what science knows about how humans are created, then it doesn't seem to make sense that one man could be created without the scientific process put forth of needing another human. It gives room to science to explore the options and evidence further.

#152. "That theological discussions are based on fables."

This statement is easily condemned by the church who believes the Bible to be true, inspired words of God given to man as proof and as a source of faith without seeing.  With the exception of the parables of Jesus, the Bible is true words, sources, and stories and accounts of history.  This condemnation also gives science room to explore into these beliefs and try to find proof and truth, which is fueled by science and scientific discoveries, which either back up or refute the churches condemnations. 

Force and Popkin Articles

Force focuses a lot on the "hues" of Newton and how he feels about certain writers or other interpreters tendency to focus on only one aspect of Newton's contributions.  In his article he argues that Newton himself did not focus on one aspect of his success, but rather, used his knowledge in both science and theology to fuel each other in his discoveries and claims. The Popkin article does exactly what the Force article was arguing against.  It focuses mainly on the points of Newton's theology-based contributions. He is able to influence the reader that Newton's theological standpoints were the undermining basis for much of his scientific beliefs. These two authors, with much evidence, research, and valid points that are constructed in their papers would probably receive an A+ if the assignment was to study Newton's work and determine the places, words, ideas, beliefs, and experiments that influenced his  contributions to science and theology.

3 Quotes from Church

1. "Certain people, in their concern to defend the faith, thought it necessary to reject firmly based historical conclusions.  That was a hasty and unhappy decision." -Pope (p. 19)

2. "If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly.  It is not the meaning of Scripture that is opposed to the truth, but the meaning that he has wanted to give to it." -St. Augustine (p. 19)

3. "...that it is not the sun which revolves round the Earth, but the Earth round the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great circumspection in the explanation of Scriptural texts which seem contrary to this assertion and to say that we do not understand them, rather than to say that what is demonstrated is false." -Poupard (?) (p. 21)

Dr. Levy,

Sorry for so many questions: 

Would you like us to talk about each author completely separate  in regards to their view points, or would you like us to find a general consensus between all three of them for a final conclusion?