Rhetoric 3302 Questions

Galileo is a magnificant person he really did a lot of good in this country and in the countrys around us!! He is an amazing scientist!! Of course that is in my own opinion I know some people believe differently!! The scientific revolution is amazing in the sense that it has developed kind of a union between science and religion to the fact that they both have something valuable to ubtain to the scientific revolution!! I can't see why science and religion would still argue with each other like they do? Why was there so much religious conflict between different religions when they were all fighting with science? In the chapter 9 they talked a lot about Protestants and there beliefs of God and a devine power. In chapter 11 they went into more of the mechanical philosophy of God and religion. They also went into the scientific mechanical philosophy!! This is where they started talking about the human body and how it is made up of atoms and other particles that make up the human body!! This is kind of when the science and religion contraversy does not make sense because they are using science and religion to discuss this in many different ways!! It just does not make sense to me whether they are talking in a scientific point of view or a religious point of view? Who says what makes up the human body? Who knows God could have made atoms or God could have built the human body nobody knows!!?? Well thats really all I have to say about those two chapters in the book that we read!!

Chapters 9&11: The scientific revolution finally gets in to an era where we are more accepting of the different ideas within religion and science. I thought chapter nine provided a good outline and description of just how varying the theories were.......In chapter 11, mechanical philosophy seems to be much more centered on science than religion. Although it tries to incorporate both, it seems to me that if you explain concepts by using the ideas of "atoms" and "collisions of small particles of matter" you are extending more along the lines of SCIENTIFIC exploration than anything else. But, if you place God as the creator of these "atoms" and "small particles" -(similar as to what Boyle describes) - are you then saying that God created science?

Early Protestantism

I don’t have a whole lot to say about this chapter, as it builds off the controversies and issues brought up in the chapters before. I was interested, however, in the manner in which Protestants viewed Copernicus’ theories with less defensiveness than the Roman Catholics. I guess this is because, in breaking free from Catholicism, they wished to create for themselves a distinct world view based on different methods for interpreting biblical readings. Protestants appear to have been one of the more important driving forces behind the scientific revolution, because they effectively opposed the rule of the Catholic Church, and they generally accepted newer ideas based on their alternative scriptural outlook.

Mechanical Philosophy

It was surprising to see how mechanical philosophy quickly became the next big idea in the scientific revolution, challenging the religious perspective even more. The way in which mechanical philosophers rejected the concept of God-controlled natural phenomena and replaced it with particle-and-motion controlled natural phenomena is very much like that used by scientists even today. This seems to be one of the defining points in the scientific revolution, in which scientific methods were approaching our current scientific view. I never knew that the complex notions of atoms, particles, free will, etc., were proposed so long ago!

These chapters, while offering little new fuel for class discussion, are really important to one’s understanding of the historical and cultural evolution of scientific and religious thought.

Early Modern Protestantism:

I think it's probably valid to say that Protestants definitely accepted the new ideas of the scientific revolution more readily than their Catholic counterparts. As Bryan mentioned, the fact that Protestants were trying to establish themselves as separate and distinct from the Catholic church probably fueled this. While it’s probably not so dramatic, it does give me an impression of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In that time period, perhaps the biggest distinction you could make from yourself to the Catholic church is your acceptance of the new scientific beliefs. However, I’m sure not everything was readily accepted by the Protestants, I’m sure there were many conflicts, but you have to admit, they took it a whole lot better than the Catholics.

Mechanical Philosophy

More than anything, I like it’s crazy that so far back in the past, people were thinking of things like atoms. There was no way that they could see atoms and the idea of infinitely small particles making up everything in the world is a pretty big jump. While they may have gotten some ideas wrong, like ether (but you can still find people who believe in some type of ether, I’m a little fuzzy on the details) and the banishment of force, they got some of the bigger ideas right, like matter and motion. On a different note, I found it interesting that Gassendi believed that the immortal soul was made up of small and swift particles. For some reason, to have the immortal soul, something so spiritual, to be made of something material seems like a contradiction. And kind of humorous. Because if it was material, I’m sure someone could think of a way to catch it and bottle it or something.

Early Modern Protestantism

The reformation allowed greater freedom for personal and scientific endeavor. Knowledge and opinion could be more easily shared. The text displays the slow process of gaining this freedom and the many groups responsible. Martin Luther had the greatest impact due to his position within the Catholic Church coupled with his personal grievances.

Mechanical Philosophy

Mechanical philosophy helped redefine science and create a foundation for the pursuit of observational evidence. Early advocates filtered evidence through a theological perspective. Regardless of personal motive, mechanical philosophy separated individual bias from scientific work.

it seems that the next generation of scholar, in an attempt to justify his or her own significance as a brilliant mind quickly disconnects from previous "dated" ideas. contemporary athiests posing as scientist going out of their way to prove that early scientists held no religious convictions just to appease their own lack of convictions. rewriters of history conveniently attribute or take out of context what both scientists and theologians once said. attributing athiesm to the likes of newton and pascal and erroneosly showing condemnation of the words of theologians such as Luthar and Calvin of the sciences, all lead to a historical rewrite to justify the slander of contemporary religion. I pose the question, what if contemporary religion would go out of its way to align athiesm and science with aristotlism? at best the targets would say hey, we made a mistake and learned from it, but more likely as with anytime the scientific community has been questioned by the religios in recent years it attacks back and generally personally. contemporary scientist can only see one side of its sword, things HAVE to be black or white, if not they rely too heavily on Occum's razor and become confoundingly too fixed in their ways. one could thing of science as an angry teenager that absolutly knows it is right and has all the knowledge of the world where as religion can be looked at as the parent, the parent believes it is right but has taken years upon years of experience in order to come up with its perception.

I found chapter nine to be iteresting because it cited the protestant reformation as events which helpped give validity to science. I found this to be contradictory to my understanding of some forms of protestants. Lutherns believe that the bible is the ultimate form of truth and the church can manipulate their power if they are the only holders of the bible. Lutherns rely on their own understanding of the bible. This imortant part of the protestant reformation seems to a larger enemy of science. The bible is the sorce of untimate truth so the contradictions between science and religion would be more stuborn. I can see how the reformation helpped create a more social acceptance of questioning previous religious views, but I do not find it to form a atmosphere which neccisarily better for the progression of science.

In chapter 11 I enjoyed the views of Gassendi concerning Christianity and the progression of science, but found his thinking to seem to be a clever stretch between logical scientific thought and traditional Christian views. He believed in atoms and their relationship between eachother in void. He believed all atoms were created by God and that the forces which affect them is also because of Gods will. This view seems to view God as a watch maker, a force which created a self constructing universe. Gassendi goes one to say that God also has te abbility to change the outcome of atoms in void which can reconsile Christianity with science. I find this to be a very clever way to dampen the contervercy between science and religion. Gassendi found a way to have his cake and eat it too.

Ch. 9: The interplay between religion and science is interesting. Each tried to use the other to legitimize its relevance, yet a close examination upon either leads to a shallow or hollow correlation. And another interesting point is how extreme religious fervor (ie the Puritan movements in England) had a strong impact on science and natural philosophy, in that it hindered further exploration. With any type of extreme or zealous position, there is little room for new ideas. Change is the enemy of the purist, because it often presents challenges to the strict dogma. Yet it is an inevitable part of life, so the purist is ultimately bound to be conflicted.
Ch 11: It is astounding how scientists of this era were able to conceive the world--made up of tiny particles which interact. They had no proof at the time of what we now recognize as (for the most part) actual science. I can understand the conflict for many people with taking this mechanicalized view of the world and not being able to fit a God into the picture. This is definately where the "watch-maker" God plays a role. He created the system (ie. world and all humanity), but it functions independently of his influence. Also, I think the struggle of the period reflected just how difficult it is to rationalize how science and Christianity interact. If all things are composed of matter, and interact based on natural laws; and in addition the mind is free from original sin--a blank slate--where does Christianity fit into this? It is so hard to reconcile.

Early Modern Protestantism

Chapter nine was a lot about science trying to explain why things are the way they are. Also the theological assumptions of how things were created. This chapter also covered mainly on the protestant beliefs and the substance of science. The "new" science interacted in a variety of ways that showed both scientific influences on religious beliefs and the religious influences on scientific beliefs. I think that is how science and religion behave today on each other. Mechanical philosophers were said to believe that miraculous activities and powers were an act of God and nothing else. The laws of nature were even developed, which helped distinguish what was real and not real. I would have to agree that God does have the power to do miraculous things in the world today that we can't explain through the laws of nature. It was interesting to read about another man, Robert Merton who introduced the Merton thesis. He had many flaws through his approach, that helped other philosophers pin point those flaws. If we didn't have early modern protestantism, we wouldn't of never understood certain things today.

Mechanical Philosophy

In chapter 11, Osler went further into explaining exactly what mechanical philosophy was. When I first read what mechanical philosophy was, it reminded me of physics and biology which provide the study of matter and motion. I would have to disagree with mechanical philosophy just a little. I don't think we can ever explain all the natural phenomena in terms of matter and motion. Sometimes things happen for a reason, such as an act from God, or you just can't explain it. Even though in science we want to know why all things are or happened the way they do, I just can't see us accomplishing this all the time. In this chapter they talked about God creating atoms and he gave them motion. I believe God created everything, and we need to use science to interpret or understand it more better of what God created. If we didn't have such curious philosophers like we did, would we have discovered gravitation, the reflection and refraction of light, surface tension, capillary action, or chemical reactions?

Early Modern Protestantism

During the scientific revolution new religions were introduced that changed the views people had on interpreting scriptures and explaining the world. The Protestant movement was perhaps the most powerful of all the reformed churches because of its philosophy. Protestants believed that individuals could reach revelations directly inspired by God. They also saw passage into heaven as being based on faith alone. I believe that the views of the Protestant religion really inspired some of the changes that were taking place in the scientific revolution. Prior to this time period the Roman Catholic church had a very strong influence on people that were of the Christian faith. By introducing new belief systems and embracing them we can all get along better because there is an understanding that people think differently.

Mechanical Philosophy

Does Mechanical Philosophy mean the world operates like clockwork? If it does than I disagree with it totally because I believe that miracles and interventions do happen. I find it difficult to accept the fact that some people believe in this world view. Even though things do repeat themselves, to explain the functioning of this world as being a wound up mechanical clock is silly. There is divine intelligence in creation and it is my belief that God plays an active role in making the earth and its creatures live as they do. The one thing that I can argue would be that free will does not seem to be mechanical since it is possible for us to think and do anything we want.

The readings this week resonate a theme we have been learning about. The complex relationship of religion and science both at war and at peace with the other. Although the two are typically seen at war, we are again introduced to different ways that they can benefit and strengthen the other. The Protestants seeked a new balance to religion and science, as a branch from the Catholics. Even in present day, we are witnessing more and more religious branches to accommodate the array of beliefs and interpretations. Could this be a possible reaction to the advances of modern science? A more complex network of belief systems?

it's fascinating to see how the relationship between science and religion wasn't neccessarily a conflict, but a mutually beneficial teaming of beliefs. the protestant revolution made this teaming all the more obvious when it proposed that god had much less direct control over the universe. i think that this view was not only an important one in the evolution of modern thought, but one that is much more likely and appealing than the other. i also prefer this theory because in many ways it condones the pursuit and discovery of science, which was stated in the text. so in a way, the protestant movement lessened the gap between science and religion in that it presented a new branch of christianity that was a lot more science-friendly. this not only helped the field of science expand, but obviously branched christianity in to more areas.

Early Modern Protestantism
In this article I really liked the views of the Protestants. I think that they were much more open to the findings of science. This was really shown when this church supported the view that the sun was the center of the universe and the earth moved. Some leaders even found proof in the bible, where that was the case. They even believed the idea, when the book on the subject was put on the banned book list. I think that the whole religion was more open to the different discoverers that science found. I also like in this chapter how they talked about the scientific revolution, and they talked about the first atheist was thought of as the years went on and the sciences found more. If some thought to become atheists, the majority felt they were finding were just enforcing there beliefs in god.

Mechanical Philosophy
I thought that the ideas that science came up with in this chapter were amazing. Not for the fact that the ideas are different but that the scientist are thinking of atoms and molecules this early in history. I think that this view really caused problems with the church because it really gives god the watchmaker view. This is not a god many people want to live with. I also thought that the idea that the soul was made of little particles was amazing. Though if you are made of little particles isn't it plausible that you soul (a part of you) is also made of these particles.

Early Modern Protestantism
In this article I really liked the views of the Protestants. I think that they were much more open to the findings of science. This was really shown when this church supported the view that the sun was the center of the universe and the earth moved. Some leaders even found proof in the bible, where that was the case. They even believed the idea, when the book on the subject was put on the banned book list. I think that the whole religion was more open to the different discoverers that science found. I also like in this chapter how they talked about the scientific revolution, and they talked about the first atheist was thought of as the years went on and the sciences found more. If some thought to become atheists, the majority felt they were finding were just enforcing there beliefs in god.

Mechanical Philosophy
I thought that the ideas that science came up with in this chapter were amazing. Not for the fact that the ideas are different but that the scientist are thinking of atoms and molecules this early in history. I think that this view really caused problems with the church because it really gives god the watchmaker view. This is not a god many people want to live with. I also thought that the idea that the soul was made of little particles was amazing. Though if you are made of little particles isn't it plausible that you soul (a part of you) is also made of these particles.

Early Modern Protestantism-
This chapter was a good insight into what happened during the times of the Protestant Reformation and the Scientific Revolution. It was interesting to see the steps scientists went through to reach the ideas we still hold as true today. One thing that interested me about this chapter was an idea of Galilieo's that stated, "But in his heart of hearts, he believed that the word 'science', or knowledge, was properly applied only to knowledge that was absolutely certain and could not be otherwise, the kind that only mathematics and logic could provide." I think this statement is positively true. Now that the world has a substantial amount of information on the processes of the world, most anything can be explained in terms of mathematics or logic. Mathematics is now a belief that is indisputable. As I said in small discussion groups, 2+2 here is the same as anywhere else in the world. But the word "god" is not universally agreed on. I think this is a point that should be given some thought. Mathematics and logic contain the information that is "absolutely certain".

Mechanical Philosphy-
This chapter explains many of the ideas of modern physics, which I think it amazing, considering they were discovered hundreds and thousands of years ago. Mechaincal philosophy is an area of study involving everyday processes that can be broken down into physical explanations. In the beginning of this chapter Olser explains how MP posed a serious problem for those holind a christian worldview. They feared it would lead to materialism or deism, resulting in the denial of creation and divine providence. This does along with what I was saying about those religious being afraid that their beliefs would be contradicted and possibly disproven, which is why I believe the church took such a strong stand on limiting sciece, as we talked about last week. Science will forever be opening doors that have been locked for centuries. It's now the obligation of the church to embrace these discoveries and try to bridge the gap, instead of being stubborn.

"mechanical philosophy"
it was this chapter that made me fully realize how wrong i was in an argument that i made in our first paper, and that is that science is progressive while religion is not. throughout this chapter, it explains how scientists were discovering new information about laws of nature and how they changed their views on religion to make sense of these discoveries. it's interesting to find out about how heavily these people weighed religion on scientific discovery, in that they would not accept something unless they could fit it in to theological ideas. for example, the chapter spoke about newton's theory of gravity and how he rejected as being a matter of mechanical action, and would not accept it until he could relate it to god. that seemed to be the theme of this chapter as well as of mechanical philosophy altogether, in that it was the ongoing struggle of modern scientists to explain science by means of religion, and vice versa, which is not neccessarily achieveable in my opinion. i think that the two support eachother in that interest spawned by religion can motivate one to want to discover with science, but i don't think that the one belief can answer a question that is strictly an issue of the other.

Early Modern Protestantism:

I actually wasn’t particularly impressed by the article; it seems a bit unfocused and self indulgent. I did find the two competing viewpoints of theological voluntarists and theological rationalists intriguing, though. Theological rationalists emphasized divine reason, while theological voluntarists emphasized the freedom of the divine will. It’s not hard to see the appeal of both sides: a rational god fits in perfectly with a rational universe, while a god that can be above reason allows for miracles and would seem to have no real limits. Is trying to understand God from a human standards of rationality pointless and presumptuous? It’s easy to say yes and just be done with it, but for me at least, that’s just not an entirely satisfying answer.

Mechanical Philosophy

What’s interesting to me is how what seems to be the core idea of mechanical philosophy -- that the workings of the observable world can be explained by the movement and interaction of fundamental particles -- has been more or less affirmed by modern science. A great deal of how the world works can be understood by looking at atoms and their components. Obviously, it’s currently insufficient to explain *everything*; even something as fundamental to the universe as gravity is still pretty much inexplicable, not to mention mysterious issues like consciousness. However, considering that experimental evidence for atoms and their interactions was nonexistent when this philosophy was being figured out, it’s fairly impressive that people were able to conceive of the world this way.

The questions mechanical philosophy raises also seem to lead directly into a discussion of free will, but that’s another issue and I imagine we’ll tackle it at a later time.

I thought the chapter Early Modern Protestantism was okay. I am a little confused as to exactly what everyone thought of the two sides. It seems that this really started the whole gray area between science and religion. I think a lot of scientists and priest were a little confused themselves and had a hard time finding where they personaly stood. I feel like you either had to be on one side or the other as the debates went on.

The chapter on Mechaniical Philosophy was really interesting. It just amazes me to read about what scientists thought about common observations hundreds of years ago. Religious people tried to discredit science because they feared it would "emphasize materialism" and disprove the creation theory. I have to agree with them on this one!

It was interesting to learn more about the Reformation in this first chapter. I did not realize that Martin Luther's Reformation sparked others. It was also interesting to see that Protestants seemed more open to science, or at least they were willing to listen to what the scientists had to say. In the second article, it seemed like mechanical philosophy was trying to tie religion and science together. I am not sure if it was meant to do that, but that is the way it seemed. Also in this chapter, it talked about Boyle, who was a very religious man, but I am slightly confused as to how he was tied into the scientific movement.