Hi, loved the video! I want to give some constructive criticism. If you told an atheist these arguments, they might say something like, "The Church is better with science that nature-worshipping pagans, but atheism is better because it is purely reductionist." You might also want to point out that the Church offers a few things over atheism. It uniquely suggests that pursuing Truth is good in and of itself, while atheism has no value on truth and only sees it as useful. Atheists believe that it is not possible to reach higher absolute truths, so tends towards subjectivism. Subjectivism is harmful to the pursuit of science because for there to be an ordered world, it needs to be objective and constant. We can see that with the denial of the biological facts of man and woman, or the fact that a fetus is a human life. Finally, atheist reductionism assumes that there is no intentionality. That's why atheists rejected the doctrine of the Big Bang, because the Big Bang suggests intentionality if the universe had a beginning state of low entropy. It also will fail to be able to answer basic questions like the appreciation of music, which have no impact on survivability in the wild and likely wouldn't cause evolutionary pressure. Not to say it's not conceptually possible for there to be evolutionary reasons for music, but to close off any other alternative is to close off other possibilities to truth.
I appreciate your constructive criticism, but I do have to say that most of it falls outside the parameters of my presentation’s topic, which was on the history of the Church’s role in the development of Science. It was also limited to 45 min. But it was part of a larger conference with many other presenters who address some of the things you mention. Thanks for watching!
If the act of studying the world is not rooted in God, how on earth can we trust the the subject content we are studying because it would be rooted in man, which by his very nature is limited. This is so evident in schools today...teachers pushing their agenda through the learning of a subject. People taking on the subject as if it is their identity
Catholic monks invented hospitals, hospice ( place for poor to die, and hospitality for weary travelers which became hotels. See the book how the irish saved humanity
The presenter mentions the Judeo-Christian adjective a lot. It is typically used to emphasize the connected religious tradition. For true precision and to recognize the true origins of ideas, stories, dogmas and world-view pieces, that adjective should be: Canaanite-Babilonic-Asirio-Judeo-Egyptian-Christian
I notice that very early on, he states that Christianity was "not the sole factor in the rise of modern science." Your gloss would get sort of boring after a while, no?
@susand3668 your comment seems off-subject. Basically Christianity borrowed everything from millennia of polytheistic beliefs and called the other gods, angels and demons. For example, Beelzebub, originally, was not a demon, but Yahweh's brother Baal (also a god among many), who was represented by a gigantic bull or Baal Zebu
@jadejameson3644 google "wikipedia Canaanite religion", and look at the "Beliefs" section. I'm not saying to have faith in wikipedia. Just use it as a springboard to look for scholarly references. Israelites are Canaanites that reneged their origin. Actually, the word "Canaanite" is like European, and the word "Israelite" is like French. All Israelites are Canaanites, but not all Canaanites are Israelites. Cannan was a very large swath of land that encompassed many tribes.
@jadejameson3644 ok, you need to see it at first glance, I'll guide you a little bit. Access the link below and scroll past the first picture and you will see yahweh, baal, and Ashera mentioned together as Canaanite gods. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh If you research more, you'll find that the god El was married to Asherah and they had many children gods Yahweh, Baal, Mot, etc. Later on, Yahweh married his mother. You don't have to believe me, but at least try to dig deeper into the roots of your faith.
@jadejameson3644 from that wikipedia link .... "The early Israelites were polytheistic and worshipped Yahweh alongside a variety of Canaanite gods and goddesses, including El, Asherah and Baal." The oldest plausible occurrence of his name is in the phrase (Egyptian: tꜣ šꜣsw Yhwꜣ), "The Land of the Shasu YHWA," (Egyptian: 𓇌𓉔𓍯𓄿 Yhwꜣ) in an inscription from the time of Amenhotep III (1390-1352 BCE),[25][26] the Shasu being nomads from Midian and Edom in northern Arabia.[27] The dominant view is therefore that Yahweh was a "divine warrior from the southern region associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Teman".[5] here: Smith, Mark S. (2002). The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (2nd ed.). Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-3972-5.
I don’t think this is true. (And this is coming from a catholic btw) The Church did not invent classical science, but warmly embraced it. It is based on deductive reasoning and its synthesis with the faith is commonly called scholasticism, which is, if I’m not mistaken still the official philosophy of the church. Modern science based on experimental method and inductive reasoning was initiated by Francis Bacon, an English protestant, as an attack on scholastic science. Saying the Church invented something that was intently put forward as an attack on her teaching makes no sense. Modern science is not the same as classical science. Neither in methodology, underlying assumptions nor the resulting body of knowledge.
If we destroyed all history books the presenter could create the "Gospel of Richard" that testifies the miraculous forethought of the Catholic Church. This is an awesome rewriting of history and reality.
Dear@@dankernut3750, perhaps. But if he is here now, perhaps he would have more information to go on than he had while bound to the limits of this life. When he saw the Face of God, did he recoil? Or did he leap for joy? That is the moment of judgment. We, with his brother Peter, can pray for him.
The Catholic Church built universities for religious studies, and those buildings were much later used for Science studies, just like some churches were converted into mosques.
Well I can see a couple of problems here. Islamic science. And the fact that Christianity had been around for 1500 years before the Western Scientific Revolution kicked off.
The presenter suggests that the Middle Age (Dark Age) was instrumental to create Modern Science. It's like saying that carpet-bombing a neighborhood is instrumental for building renovation. Amazing.
Interesting that you imply that the Middle Ages are synonymous with the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages preceded the Middle Ages. The Dark Ages were at a time of the invasion of Rome during the Invasion of the Goths and Vandals in the late 400's. There would be no knowledge of the ancient world had it not been for the Irish monks who preserved the Greek and Roman works. You obviously have never read works of the Middle Ages as you would know that the works of Aquinas are still considered brilliant no matter what your religion.
@@thomasmcculey7942 if you actually read history (and not hystery) you will find that the Dark Age is the first half of the Middle Age (500 to 1,000 CE).
@@Denis.Collins carpet bombing is the destruction of a wide geographic area, and during the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church conducted a systematic destruction of wide areas of literature, art, knowledge and competing religious beliefs.
@@Denis.Collins I agree. For christians the Dark Ages were very bright; dogma flourished, competing religions were eliminated with ease, the strong were diminished and the weak were taken advantage of. The Church was strong and awesome, and the Christian art shone like the sun. The "others" were not that happy; you know, the people that like to make decisions based on facts.
Thank you on this 🤓
This was an excellent summary of some of the most prolific scientists in history who were faithful Catholics.
Thanks for the interesting video. It would be fascinating to have a video series that could go into depth about some of the historical examples!
Yes and also showing the results, methods used, along side the faith.
Comment for traction.
All roads lead to Rome
Absolutely beautiful. The study of God's creation is something truly laudable.
Also inb4 athetist cringe in the comments.
Hi, loved the video! I want to give some constructive criticism. If you told an atheist these arguments, they might say something like, "The Church is better with science that nature-worshipping pagans, but atheism is better because it is purely reductionist." You might also want to point out that the Church offers a few things over atheism. It uniquely suggests that pursuing Truth is good in and of itself, while atheism has no value on truth and only sees it as useful. Atheists believe that it is not possible to reach higher absolute truths, so tends towards subjectivism. Subjectivism is harmful to the pursuit of science because for there to be an ordered world, it needs to be objective and constant. We can see that with the denial of the biological facts of man and woman, or the fact that a fetus is a human life. Finally, atheist reductionism assumes that there is no intentionality. That's why atheists rejected the doctrine of the Big Bang, because the Big Bang suggests intentionality if the universe had a beginning state of low entropy. It also will fail to be able to answer basic questions like the appreciation of music, which have no impact on survivability in the wild and likely wouldn't cause evolutionary pressure. Not to say it's not conceptually possible for there to be evolutionary reasons for music, but to close off any other alternative is to close off other possibilities to truth.
I appreciate your constructive criticism, but I do have to say that most of it falls outside the parameters of my presentation’s topic, which was on the history of the Church’s role in the development of Science. It was also limited to 45 min. But it was part of a larger conference with many other presenters who address some of the things you mention. Thanks for watching!
Well done you.
Critical thinking is no longer taught unless it's in better universities
If the act of studying the world is not rooted in God, how on earth can we trust the the subject content we are studying because it would be rooted in man, which by his very nature is limited.
This is so evident in schools today...teachers pushing their agenda through the learning of a subject.
People taking on the subject as if it is their identity
😊👍👍👍
Catholic monks invented hospitals, hospice ( place for poor to die, and hospitality for weary travelers which became hotels. See the book how the irish saved humanity
So did the Islamic Caliphate
The presenter mentions the Judeo-Christian adjective a lot. It is typically used to emphasize the connected religious tradition.
For true precision and to recognize the true origins of ideas, stories, dogmas and world-view pieces, that adjective should be:
Canaanite-Babilonic-Asirio-Judeo-Egyptian-Christian
I notice that very early on, he states that Christianity was "not the sole factor in the rise of modern science." Your gloss would get sort of boring after a while, no?
@susand3668 your comment seems off-subject. Basically Christianity borrowed everything from millennia of polytheistic beliefs and called the other gods, angels and demons.
For example, Beelzebub, originally, was not a demon, but Yahweh's brother Baal (also a god among many), who was represented by a gigantic bull or Baal Zebu
@jadejameson3644 google "wikipedia Canaanite religion", and look at the "Beliefs" section. I'm not saying to have faith in wikipedia. Just use it as a springboard to look for scholarly references. Israelites are Canaanites that reneged their origin.
Actually, the word "Canaanite" is like European, and the word "Israelite" is like French. All Israelites are Canaanites, but not all Canaanites are Israelites. Cannan was a very large swath of land that encompassed many tribes.
@jadejameson3644 ok, you need to see it at first glance, I'll guide you a little bit. Access the link below and scroll past the first picture and you will see yahweh, baal, and Ashera mentioned together as Canaanite gods.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh
If you research more, you'll find that the god El was married to Asherah and they had many children gods Yahweh, Baal, Mot, etc. Later on, Yahweh married his mother.
You don't have to believe me, but at least try to dig deeper into the roots of your faith.
@jadejameson3644 from that wikipedia link ....
"The early Israelites were polytheistic and worshipped Yahweh alongside a variety of Canaanite gods and goddesses, including El, Asherah and Baal."
The oldest plausible occurrence of his name is in the phrase (Egyptian: tꜣ šꜣsw Yhwꜣ), "The Land of the Shasu YHWA," (Egyptian: 𓇌𓉔𓍯𓄿 Yhwꜣ) in an inscription from the time of Amenhotep III (1390-1352 BCE),[25][26] the Shasu being nomads from Midian and Edom in northern Arabia.[27] The dominant view is therefore that Yahweh was a "divine warrior from the southern region associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Teman".[5]
here:
Smith, Mark S. (2002). The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (2nd ed.). Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-3972-5.
I don’t think this is true. (And this is coming from a catholic btw)
The Church did not invent classical science, but warmly embraced it. It is based on deductive reasoning and its synthesis with the faith is commonly called scholasticism, which is, if I’m not mistaken still the official philosophy of the church.
Modern science based on experimental method and inductive reasoning was initiated by Francis Bacon, an English protestant, as an attack on scholastic science. Saying the Church invented something that was intently put forward as an attack on her teaching makes no sense.
Modern science is not the same as classical science. Neither in methodology, underlying assumptions nor the resulting body of knowledge.
If we destroyed all history books the presenter could create the "Gospel of Richard" that testifies the miraculous forethought of the Catholic Church. This is an awesome rewriting of history and reality.
I wish Christopher Hitchens was there
@@Denis.Collins I think he would have made a very compelling argument that religion has stunted the progress of humankind/science.
Dear@@dankernut3750, perhaps. But if he is here now, perhaps he would have more information to go on than he had while bound to the limits of this life.
When he saw the Face of God, did he recoil? Or did he leap for joy? That is the moment of judgment. We, with his brother Peter, can pray for him.
@@susand3668 oh he’s talked about that as well.
The Catholic Church built universities for religious studies, and those buildings were much later used for Science studies, just like some churches were converted into mosques.
Well I can see a couple of problems here. Islamic science. And the fact that Christianity had been around for 1500 years before the Western Scientific Revolution kicked off.
The presenter suggests that the Middle Age (Dark Age) was instrumental to create Modern Science. It's like saying that carpet-bombing a neighborhood is instrumental for building renovation. Amazing.
Interesting that you imply that the Middle Ages are synonymous with the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages preceded the Middle Ages. The Dark Ages were at a time of the invasion of Rome during the Invasion of the Goths and Vandals in the late 400's. There would be no knowledge of the ancient world had it not been for the Irish monks who preserved the Greek and Roman works. You obviously have never read works of the Middle Ages as you would know that the works of Aquinas are still considered brilliant no matter what your religion.
youre REALLY BAD at analogies and metaphors, dude.
@@thomasmcculey7942 if you actually read history (and not hystery) you will find that the Dark Age is the first half of the Middle Age (500 to 1,000 CE).
@@Denis.Collins carpet bombing is the destruction of a wide geographic area, and during the Dark Ages, the Catholic Church conducted a systematic destruction of wide areas of literature, art, knowledge and competing religious beliefs.
@@Denis.Collins I agree. For christians the Dark Ages were very bright; dogma flourished, competing religions were eliminated with ease, the strong were diminished and the weak were taken advantage of. The Church was strong and awesome, and the Christian art shone like the sun.
The "others" were not that happy; you know, the people that like to make decisions based on facts.