Ben Carson: Religion is needed to interpret science because ‘maybe it’s just propaganda’

America is funny.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: PsychoEmperor
Or are you under the false illusion that a Ben Carson Presidency would overturn Science and turn this country into a Theocracy...

Not at all. In fact, I pointed out that Ben has said he doesn't think religion belongs in government.

That's what he said alright....

And that being the case...I still don't trust Christians or politicians to respect my freedoms of religion or anything else for that matter.

I am not Christian per say but your freedoms came from Christians. I suggest you read two treatuses of governement by john locke. You would see after the glorious revolution how locke helped shape every western modern government. Kant as well.

So, Muslims invented algebra. What's your point here? An idea's origins doesn't give credibility to the group that originated the idea. Especially several hundred years removed from the creation of the idea. All the things that are credited to Christianity regularly have all evolved and changed over the years that you have to look at the them in a vacuum. They are no longer part of that religion.

What exactly is your point or argument. Christianity is a theological philosophy not a group first off. Because bad people who are affiliated with a religion may do bad things does not in anyway make the religion as a whole bad. The inquisition was not justifiable under the tennants of christianity. However the men who called themselves christians at the time did bad things.

The philosophers that created modern society through laws used the philosophical premises in christianity to come to these concepts in society. They used what exists in the philosophy of christianity and reason to come to how we should treat our neighbors, animals, and other religions.

Algebra has nothing to do with philosophy (it can also be debated that muslims invented the subject). Philosophy are beliefs, codes of conduct, thoughts.
Algebra is irrelevant to this debate.

originally posted by: luthier

What exactly is your point or argument. Christianity is a theological philosophy not a group first off. Because bad people who are affiliated with a religion may do bad things does not in anyway make the religion as a whole bad. The inquisition was not justifiable under the tennants of christianity. However the men who called themselves christians at the time did bad things.

My point is that saying that science came from Christianity is a useless statement outside of studying the history of science. It doesn't mean anything in this day and age nor does it give credence to Christianity. I didn't bring up the Inquisition or disparage Christianity in my post. I was just pointing out your terrible analogy.

The philosophers that created modern society through laws used the philosophical premises in christianity to come to these concepts in society. They used what exists in the philosophy of christianity and reason to come to how we should treat our neighbors, animals, and other religions.

First off, this isn't true. Morality predates Christianity as does our form of government. Freedom of religion also predates Christianity. The Roman Republic practiced long before it was an empire or Catholic.

Second off, so what? Who cares where it came from? Chemistry is based off of alchemy, but that doesn't make alchemy real or valid.

Algebra has nothing to do with philosophy (it can also be debated that muslims invented the subject). Philosophy are beliefs, codes of conduct, thoughts.
Algebra is irrelevant to this debate.

That's because you missed my point. Though Christians didn't invent philosophy... Western philosophy was invented by the Greeks.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Nicely said BH.

I wonder if Ben used religion to train himself in surgery.

And when is a doctor a scientist there is a difference.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: luthier

What exactly is your point or argument. Christianity is a theological philosophy not a group first off. Because bad people who are affiliated with a religion may do bad things does not in anyway make the religion as a whole bad. The inquisition was not justifiable under the tennants of christianity. However the men who called themselves christians at the time did bad things.

My point is that saying that science came from Christianity is a useless statement outside of studying the history of science. It doesn't mean anything in this day and age nor does it give credence to Christianity. I didn't bring up the Inquisition or disparage Christianity in my post. I was just pointing out your terrible analogy.

The philosophers that created modern society through laws used the philosophical premises in christianity to come to these concepts in society. They used what exists in the philosophy of christianity and reason to come to how we should treat our neighbors, animals, and other religions.

First off, this isn't true. Morality predates Christianity as does our form of government. Freedom of religion also predates Christianity. The Roman Republic practiced long before it was an empire or Catholic.

Second off, so what? Who cares where it came from? Chemistry is based off of alchemy, but that doesn't make alchemy real or valid.

Algebra has nothing to do with philosophy (it can also be debated that muslims invented the subject). Philosophy are beliefs, codes of conduct, thoughts.
Algebra is irrelevant to this debate.

That's because you missed my point. Though Christians didn't invent philosophy... Western philosophy was invented by the Greeks.

Actually christians did invent what we consider western philosophy. If you are talking about greek philosophy thats called classical.

Also lets take the republic since you seem to at least reference some philosophy. How does it reference the common person? Greek and roman philosophy does not lend itself to the common man at all. We can debate that in depth if you want.

Second you obviously have zero understanding of empericism and scientific method and why it was created using what philosophical reason. You also dont have a clue what the US or any modern society is based off of. I suggest you read the federalist papers, the constitution, Locke, and Roseau. Read some history the bloody revolution, the french revolution, the glorious revolution. Otherwise you just dont have any thing to back up you very general statements towards half pbilosophical truths.

It is very relevant. Do you need religion to make fair evaluations? No. But you do need some kind of morality. It can be marxist for all i care. But science without morality is dangerous and we are definetely in dangerous waters trusting science without philosophy.

The tenants of private property, personal liberty, treatment of animals neighbors, and foes in modern western society come from men who used the christian bible as a reference for why this is so.
Sorry it just is how it is.

Doesnt mean Marx, or Neitche doesnt influence things too. But godless Neitzche was a war mongering capitalist.

originally posted by: olaru12
And that being the case...I still don't trust Christians or politicians to respect my freedoms of religion or anything else for that matter.

Politicians are liars .....I can show you some examples if you would like....

Oh, you don't have to show me... I see it every day. I was just responding to PsychoEmperor, who seemed to think I was accusing Carson of wanting a Theocracy.

originally posted by: luthier
Actually christians did invent what we consider western philosophy. If you are talking about greek philosophy thats called classical.

Also lets take the republic since you seem to at least reference some philosophy. How does it reference the common person? Greek and roman philosophy does not lend itself to the common man at all. We can debate that in depth if you want.

Second you obviously have zero understanding of empericism and scientific method and why it was created using what philosophical reason. You also dont have a clue what the US or any modern society is based off of. I suggest you read the federalist papers, the constitution, Locke, and Roseau. Read some history the bloody revolution, the french revolution, the glorious revolution. Otherwise you just dont have any thing to back up you very general statements towards half pbilosophical truths.

More like YOU don't know the history of these things. History of Scientific Method - Early Methodology

There are few explicit discussions of scientific methodologies in surviving records from early cultures. The most that can be inferred about the approaches to undertaking science in this period stems from descriptions of early investigations into nature, in the surviving records. An Egyptian medical textbook, the Edwin Smith papyrus, (c. 1600 BC), applies the following components: examination, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis, to the treatment of disease,[2] which display strong parallels to the basic empirical method of science and according to G. E. R. Lloyd[3] played a significant role in the development of this methodology. The Ebers papyrus (c. 1550 BC) also contains evidence of traditional empiricism.

Aristotle is the true father of Empiricism though.

Aristotle's inductive-deductive method used inductions from observations to infer general principles, deductions from those principles to check against further observations, and more cycles of induction and deduction to continue the advance of knowledge[13]

Organon(Greek: Ὄργανον, meaning "instrument, tool, organ") is the standard collection of Aristotle's six works on logic. The name Organon was given by Aristotle's followers, the Peripatetics. The order of the works is not chronological (which is now hard to determine) but was deliberately chosen by Theophrastus to constitute a well-structured system. Indeed, parts of them seem to be a scheme of a lecture on logic. The arrangement of the works was made by Andronicus of Rhodes around 40 BC.[14]

Yes, Christianity played a part in developing the scientific method, but to lay its creation solely at the feet of Christianity is disingenuous.

What does the Constitution and the Federalist Papers have to do with the history of the Scientific Method though? Are you trying to suggest that the country was founded as a Christian nation or something? Because that isn't true either.

It is very relevant. Do you need religion to make fair evaluations? No. But you do need some kind of morality. It can be marxist for all i care. But science without morality is dangerous and we are definetely in dangerous waters trusting science without philosophy.

Philosophy stops being relevant to science pretty quickly. All philosophy contributes to science is hypotheses. Then science tests them.

The tenants of private property, personal liberty, treatment of animals neighbors, and foes in modern western society come from men who used the christian bible as a reference for why this is so.
Sorry it just is how it is.

Private property and anti-theft laws predate Christianity. Personal liberty isn't a Christian idea either. It is a secular idea that Christians came up with. There is no talk of personal liberty in the bible.

The way we treat our enemies comes from an international treaty called the Geneva Conventions. Before that, there were no rules or conducts for how any country was supposed to treat enemies. As for animal treatment, that is an entirely new thing that environmentalists have started.

You are claiming Christian credit for so many things, but have failed to back up any of your claims with sources. Sure most of it does have Christians contributing to these things, but the person's religion had no effect on the idea. It is a false correlation. Just because an inventor is Christian doesn't mean their religion played a part in their creation.

Your grasp of history appears to be biased and centered around Christian white-washing. How about studying real history for a change?

This is a classic case of cognitive dissonance. He realizes that science doesn't always (if ever) correlate with his religious doctrine, so instead of seeing religion for what it is, propaganda, he flips the switch and calls science propaganda.

Science is something that is testable and observable, religious dogma is not. His religious upbringing and indoctrination overrides his sense of logic so he sees it opposite of what it actually is.

Please don't elect this guy.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
This is a classic case of cognitive dissonance. He realizes that science doesn't always (if ever) correlate with his religious doctrine, so instead of seeing religion for what it is, propaganda, he flips the switch and calls science propaganda.

Science is something that is testable and observable, religious dogma is not. His religious upbringing and indoctrination overrides his sense of logic so he sees it opposite of what it actually is.

Please don't elect this guy.

Don't worry, Bush has already been selected. If you listen closely, you can hear the war drums off in the distance. The pattern is well established; the blood ritual is upon us once again!!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: luthier
Actually christians did invent what we consider western philosophy. If you are talking about greek philosophy thats called classical.

Also lets take the republic since you seem to at least reference some philosophy. How does it reference the common person? Greek and roman philosophy does not lend itself to the common man at all. We can debate that in depth if you want.

Second you obviously have zero understanding of empericism and scientific method and why it was created using what philosophical reason. You also dont have a clue what the US or any modern society is based off of. I suggest you read the federalist papers, the constitution, Locke, and Roseau. Read some history the bloody revolution, the french revolution, the glorious revolution. Otherwise you just dont have any thing to back up you very general statements towards half pbilosophical truths.

More like YOU don't know the history of these things. History of Scientific Method - Early Methodology

There are few explicit discussions of scientific methodologies in surviving records from early cultures. The most that can be inferred about the approaches to undertaking science in this period stems from descriptions of early investigations into nature, in the surviving records. An Egyptian medical textbook, the Edwin Smith papyrus, (c. 1600 BC), applies the following components: examination, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis, to the treatment of disease,[2] which display strong parallels to the basic empirical method of science and according to G. E. R. Lloyd[3] played a significant role in the development of this methodology. The Ebers papyrus (c. 1550 BC) also contains evidence of traditional empiricism.

Aristotle is the true father of Empiricism though.

Aristotle's inductive-deductive method used inductions from observations to infer general principles, deductions from those principles to check against further observations, and more cycles of induction and deduction to continue the advance of knowledge[13]

Organon(Greek: Ὄργανον, meaning "instrument, tool, organ") is the standard collection of Aristotle's six works on logic. The name Organon was given by Aristotle's followers, the Peripatetics. The order of the works is not chronological (which is now hard to determine) but was deliberately chosen by Theophrastus to constitute a well-structured system. Indeed, parts of them seem to be a scheme of a lecture on logic. The arrangement of the works was made by Andronicus of Rhodes around 40 BC.[14]

Yes, Christianity played a part in developing the scientific method, but to lay its creation solely at the feet of Christianity is disingenuous.

What does the Constitution and the Federalist Papers have to do with the history of the Scientific Method though? Are you trying to suggest that the country was founded as a Christian nation or something? Because that isn't true either.

It is very relevant. Do you need religion to make fair evaluations? No. But you do need some kind of morality. It can be marxist for all i care. But science without morality is dangerous and we are definetely in dangerous waters trusting science without philosophy.

Philosophy stops being relevant to science pretty quickly. All philosophy contributes to science is hypotheses. Then science tests them.

The tenants of private property, personal liberty, treatment of animals neighbors, and foes in modern western society come from men who used the christian bible as a reference for why this is so.
Sorry it just is how it is.

Private property and anti-theft laws predate Christianity. Personal liberty isn't a Christian idea either. It is a secular idea that Christians came up with. There is no talk of personal liberty in the bible.

The way we treat our enemies comes from an international treaty called the Geneva Conventions. Before that, there were no rules or conducts for how any country was supposed to treat enemies. As for animal treatment, that is an entirely new thing that environmentalists have started.

You are claiming Christian credit for so many things, but have failed to back up any of your claims with sources. Sure most of it does have Christians contributing to these things, but the person's religion had no effect on the idea. It is a false correlation. Just because an inventor is Christian doesn't mean their religion played a part in their creation.

Your grasp of history appears to be biased and centered around Christian white-washing. How about studying real history for a change?

Oh i backed it up. JOHN LOCKE. Two treatises. Newton. I dont need google to know the ideas of these two men shaped society imensely.

Empericism certainly used the greeks. As did Thomas Aquinas, and so on. However they were very different in who should be able to do what in society. That was not the case prior to the proof i gave you. The three revolutions i mentioned. Also need to understand what these men were thinking.

Philosophy gets irrelevant fast? The very best scientists in the world as well as engineers are usually also philosophers. Without philosophy there is no science. If philosophers hadnt first come up with the scientific method. Which was done by creating rules for debate and formulas to find truth. The scientific method as we know it as a philosophy on its own is more related to Newton and Locke as well as the rules (method) philosophers used to refute claims.

You can google stuff all you want i am trying to have a debate with what is currently known by the debaters.

I am also not biased or Christian. Just stating the progression of philosophy and christianity having an impact on it. I studied anthro and philosophy and now i make musical instruments.

I am fully aware the US was a nation founded by diests. I consider myself one. I find most religious practice modernly impracticle but i am not better than it. I believe in god because through reason i believe there is enough proof in nature as well as deep philosophical anomolies and physical anomolies that have trouble without devine intervention of some kind.

a reply to: olaru12

I assume you are referring to Bush saying God told him to invade Iraq? This is usually the case when someone religious is put into power, they feel like everything they do is "God's will", even war crimes.

Maybe that's been the point of religion all along, to justify terrible actions as God's will. Also to group certain people together then get a candidate to spout their beliefs to get elected, then call their actions afterwards as the will of God.

Pretty disgusting really.

a reply to: luthier

Like I said, philosophy provides hypotheses to science. Scientists think about something then use that to ask a question about reality. Then they develop a test to test the results. But other than that there isn't much need for philosophy in science. You just follow the evidence.

Your entire point would make sense if you'd just said that Christians improved on these ideas instead of coming up with them, because that is all they did.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: luthier

Like I said, philosophy provides hypotheses to science. Scientists think about something then use that to ask a question about reality. Then they develop a test to test the results. But other than that there isn't much need for philosophy in science. You just follow the evidence.

Your entire point would make sense if you'd just said that Christians improved on these ideas instead of coming up with them, because that is all they did.

They put the ideas into practice and made a society based on them. For all the US faults there is a reason we innovated the world. With even the limited form of liberty used in this society the greatest minds of any backround could advance. What I am sayimg is the philosophical principles in christianity support that. Not muslims (what women can do), not hindus (castes) nor did jewish scholars at the time when there were large jewish states use the bible for liberty. Today the jews incourage liberty at least for their own.
What I am saying the difference is that christianity draws a lot from budhism in philosophy (not practice). The men of the enlightment era were able to justify their findings with the bible to the religeous bigots of the time. Thats is unique to Christianity.

The killing, bloodshed, and hate go back to nature with humans not religion. The yanomami for intance a tribe in brazil (domestic scale culture animism no religion) limit female off spring and then war tribe against tribe for women. Insanity and hate go way back.
Neitzche was an athiest and he was horrible as far as humanity goes. We have far more athiest Nietzche in our philosophy now and it allows people to trample each other just as much.

a reply to: olaru12

Science needs proof, faith doesn't. That is the definition of faith to believe without proof.

When in search for an answer some scientist will have faith in the course they are running for producing results. They don't know why but they have faith it will work.

Everybody has faith in something at some point in their lives.

We have the ability to believe which to me means we are able to concede the existence of something with minimal or no proof. Like i believed as a younger man that i was able to become an electrical engineer and it turned out to be a fact in the end, but it started as a belief.

Faith will never be debunked by science since they work together. Science can also be used to control people, it all depends on the BELIEFS of an individual.

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
a reply to: olaru12

Science needs proof, faith doesn't. That is the definition of faith to believe without proof.

When in search for an answer some scientist will have faith in the course they are running for producing results. They don't know why but they have faith it will work.

Everybody has faith in something at some point in their lives.

We have the ability to believe which to me means we are able to concede the existence of something with minimal or no proof. Like i believed as a younger man that i was able to become an electrical engineer and it turned out to be a fact in the end, but it started as a belief.

Faith will never be debunked by science since they work together. Science can also be used to control people, it all depends on the BELIEFS of an individual.

Well said

originally posted by: luthier

They put the ideas into practice and made a society based on them. For all the US faults there is a reason we innovated the world. With even the limited form of liberty used in this society the greatest minds of any backround could advance. What I am sayimg is the philosophical principles in christianity support that. Not muslims (what women can do), not hindus (castes) nor did jewish scholars at the time when there were large jewish states use the bible for liberty. Today the jews incourage liberty at least for their own.
What I am saying the difference is that christianity draws a lot from budhism in philosophy (not practice). The men of the enlightment era were able to justify their findings with the bible to the religeous bigots of the time. Thats is unique to Christianity.

No it is unique to secularism. Christianity isn't any better than those other religions in regards to tolerance. Look how they've treated women over the years.

The killing, bloodshed, and hate go back to nature with humans not religion. The yanomami for intance a tribe in brazil (domestic scale culture animism no religion) limit female off spring and then war tribe against tribe for women. Insanity and hate go way back.
Neitzche was an athiest and he was horrible as far as humanity goes. We have far more athiest Nietzche in our philosophy now and it allows people to trample each other just as much.

Don't make a false correlation that because one atheist is reprehensible then all are. Also this: Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies

A few hundred years ago, alchemy that could been made for medicine was considered a work of Satan.

Saying the world was round and it rotated around the Sun, was a work of Satan.

Electricity or Thunder was the work of Satan...

Any other book...Was a work of Satan...

Who challenged God, so God be could God...Was a work of Satan.

There your paradigm.

originally posted by: Specimen
A few hundred years ago, alchemy that could been made for medicine was considered a work of Satan.

Saying the world was round and it rotated around the Sun, was a work of Satan.

Electricity or Thunder was the work of Satan...

Any other book...Was a work of Satan...

Who challenged God, so God be could God...Was a work of Satan.

There your paradigm.

Today its "Evolution is a work of Satan. Satan hid all the dinosaur bones on Earth to trick us."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And today, Satan supposed open a can of whoop ass, because they failed God, so they wouldn't ever fail again...Ever.

originally posted by: luthier





They put the ideas into practice and made a society based on them. For all the US faults there is a reason we innovated the world. With even the limited form of liberty used in this society the greatest minds of any backround could advance. What I am sayimg is the philosophical principles in christianity support that.

You just lost all credibility with that BS. One of the philosophical principals supported and even encouraged in the Bible was Slavery. So much for Christian principals and ethical behavior.