How about a Religion or Anti-Religion Thread?

[FJR@DTS]

Well, so far lets recap. On the religion side of the posts we have covered (disparaged) several different religions, brought up weak hermeneutics for the genesis narrative, discussed monotheism vs polytheism, mentioned the obligatory war/killing which in effect is measuring a belief system by its abuses, not its tenants, and a few more I'm sure I missed.
It makes for pretty funny reading and makes me think we could have some more threads which are equally as much fun.

For example, lets start talking about how to diagnose and treat a myocardial infarction. Just jump in, please don't be put off by your own ignorance. You have a heart, right? The you should be qualified on the subject. You say you have not studied the the development of diagnostic methodologies? Well, go ahead and poke some fun at early mistakes that were made in the feild.

What about engineering? Let's discuss structural integrity under different types of stress. Hmm, you don't understand even basic physics huh? Well, you live in a house so you are qualified. Don't worry about strain mapping, weld modeling, residual stress, or any of that technical stuff. Why should trained and liscened engineers have all the fun?

So you don't have the foggiest concept of the history of doctrine? You don't understand the abuse of a belief system is not a grounds to evaluate it on, neither do you have a nuanced hermenutic which can properly adduce meaning from centuries old narrative, and other genres of ancient literature. Oops, did you know there were different genres of literature? Well what do you have? Ah, some cute quips and witty reparitee. Well, that qualifies you to discuss theology.

I guess we can pick any subject we have neither the background or training to discuss and just jump in with both feet, heck, I bet I can make up some plausible sounding trife in almost any subject.

Happy April FOOLS Day Indeed! :blink:

Please! science produces the knowlege that drives medicine engineering. Experts in these fields can talk based on fact. And even a ******* like me can take an engineering issue like "how do breaks work?" (for example) and learn things like friction heat conductance bla bla bla... I can learn the facts about myocardial infarction and then i can discuss these issues as an educated individual. I suppose you just go to the doctor and say "it hurts" and do whaever the doctor tells you? Man of faith!

If i want to learn about your religion what can I do? Where are the facts? The only fact that you have to offer me is that you have some books and they are old? You say I cant measure the value of a religeon by the number of people who die as a result of its existance? Rather I have to measure it by what its followers were supposed to be doing (following the tenets) while they were out chopping off hand and feet in order "to save imortal soles"? fool me once...

But hey its April FOOLS day, I just wonder though... "let he who be without foolishness cast the first.." no no "if he chops off your face turn the other...." no wait a minute its comming to me... Ah yes "what the **** would Jesus do?"

PS you can have your faith but dont get holier than though on my ***!

Ahem, yea, I'd rather not get on your *** in any particular fashion, (not that there is anything wrong with that :&gt

What does holier than thou(gh) mean?

Science is built upon certain presuppositions that are philosophical rather than scientific. In fact, many of these came from THEOLOGY, which was considered the queen of the sciences.

Yes, you can learn about any particular scientific field, and competently speak on that issue. Reason is the good friend of all those who attempt inquiry into any subject. If you throw all religions into one giant pot which then you disparage with witty comments, well, reason has then left the building with Elvis and anyone can make blanket statements about anything they want to.

Too bad this is all going to go away in a few hours :glare:

 

[TriggerT]

Jesus did it for the chicks!

 

[slapnpop]

From Penn Gillette

I believe that there is no god. I'm beyond Atheism. Atheism is not believing in god. Not believing in god is easy, you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love, and a spare tire?
So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself, has to start with no belief in god and then look for evidence of god. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write emails to often, are still stuck at this searching stage. The Atheism part is easy.

But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe - I believe there is no god."

Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I?m raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

Believing there's no god, means I can't be really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Believing there's no god stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without god, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But, all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no god lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

Believing there is no god means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn?t bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No god means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Believing there is no god gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, ***, Jell-o and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.

 

[FJR@DTS]

Mr McCain, that is completely untrue! I believe in *** and jello as much as any atheist. In fact, I believe that jello can play a number of important roles sexually :clapping:

 

[Kevin Daly]

What does holier than thou(gh) mean?

Uh, i dont use spell cheker on meaninless rant posts in response to bible thumpers?

Science is built upon certain presuppositions that are philosophical rather than scientific. In fact, many of these came from THEOLOGY, which was considered the queen of the sciences.
Yes, you can learn about any particular scientific field, and competently speak on that issue. Reason is the good friend of all those who attempt inquiry into any subject. If you throw all religions into one giant pot which then you disparage with witty comments, well, reason has then left the building with Elvis and anyone can make blanket statements about anything they want to.

Too bad this is all going to go away in a few hours :glare:

Well as a scientist by training and profession, I have never hear of theology as being the Queen of science. So thats a new one on me.

The fact that epistomology has its roots in philosophy and at one point in the distant past (when barbarians walked the earth) the church was the only place to study anything does not mean science and theology have anything to do with each other in the literal sense. And in fact science and theology, or shall we say religion, are incomensurable. Science is based in the observable and uses a specific method for theory creation and falisfication. Religion in ANY form deals soley within the realm of belief or faith. Faith is not subject to falsification. As i tell my students "I dont care if you believe in evolution, its your choice to ignore facts. I just want you to be able to explain it on a test." If I dont believe in a religion in most religions that makes me a sinner heretic or what ever kind of reject you care to call me. This is but one piece of meat in your "giant pot." As a scientist, i would call this a common factor "the hate factor" not all religions correlate to this factor but many do. Then there is the "political control" and "kill my enemy in the name of god because he wont submit to my will" factors.

but hey I'm just screwin with you. I believe in your god dont worry, we all do

 

[Fred W]

It does seem we have ferreted out the extremists today...

I'm jus' sayin'

Jesus did it for the chicks!

who wouldn't?

 

[evilmedic13]

What does holier than thou(gh) mean?

Uh, i dont use spell cheker on meaninless rant posts in response to bible thumpers?

Science is built upon certain presuppositions that are philosophical rather than scientific. In fact, many of these came from THEOLOGY, which was considered the queen of the sciences.
Yes, you can learn about any particular scientific field, and competently speak on that issue. Reason is the good friend of all those who attempt inquiry into any subject. If you throw all religions into one giant pot which then you disparage with witty comments, well, reason has then left the building with Elvis and anyone can make blanket statements about anything they want to.

Too bad this is all going to go away in a few hours :glare:

Well as a scientist by training and profession, I have never hear of theology as being the Queen of science. So thats a new one on me.

The fact that epistomology has its roots in philosophy and at one point in the distant past (when barbarians walked the earth) the church was the only place to study anything does not mean science and theology have anything to do with each other in the literal sense. And in fact science and theology, or shall we say religion, are incomensurable. Science is based in the observable and uses a specific method for theory creation and falisfication. Religion in ANY form deals soley within the realm of belief or faith. Faith is not subject to falsification. As i tell my students "I dont care if you believe in evolution, its your choice to ignore facts. I just want you to be able to explain it on a test." If I dont believe in a religion in most religions that makes me a sinner heretic or what ever kind of reject you care to call me. This is but one piece of meat in your "giant pot." As a scientist, i would call this a common factor "the hate factor" not all religions correlate to this factor but many do. Then there is the "political control" and "kill my enemy in the name of god because he wont submit to my will" factors.

but hey I'm just screwin with you. I believe in your god dont worry, we all do

Queen of sciences? Who's feeding people this ********? That's why Copernicus Heliocentric theory was forbidden and Galileo and others were tried as heretics for their belief in Copernicus (correct) theory.This went on until 1835, when the church finally removed all prohibitions on Copernican works that didn't agree w/ the scriptures. The church only agrees w/ science if it suits its needs at that time, just like the hypocrites that state science is for fools,yet they take the medication that science developed, not their god, that helps keep them alive.

As for those that say the bible is the literal truth by whoever, Do you eat seafood w/o fins, animals w/ cloven hoof? Have you had *** w/ a woman during her cycle?

If yes, go back and read Leviticus you disgusting vile sinners.

Oh yeah, how did Judas die?

This is why I don't discuss religion w/ anybody, because the answers to these questions will come back as an "interpreted" answer. In other words, the ****** that suddenly finds themselves on the wrong side of the bible will come up w/ a ******** "interpretation" of why it shouldn't apply to them, but all the others that do certain things they don't agree w/ are violators w/ no special dispensating "interpretation" for them. If it's good for the goose, it damn well is good for the gander.

I don't believe in god, not the one in the bible. There is something out there, it's what gives us and all other creatures the spark that makes us what we are,alive. We are related to all things in the universe and as such are not superior to any of it, just a part of it.

 

[protondecay123]

What does holier than thou(gh) mean?

Uh, i dont use spell cheker on meaninless rant posts in response to bible thumpers?

Science is built upon certain presuppositions that are philosophical rather than scientific. In fact, many of these came from THEOLOGY, which was considered the queen of the sciences.
Yes, you can learn about any particular scientific field, and competently speak on that issue. Reason is the good friend of all those who attempt inquiry into any subject. If you throw all religions into one giant pot which then you disparage with witty comments, well, reason has then left the building with Elvis and anyone can make blanket statements about anything they want to.

Too bad this is all going to go away in a few hours :glare:

Well as a scientist by training and profession, I have never hear of theology as being the Queen of science. So thats a new one on me.

The fact that epistomology has its roots in philosophy and at one point in the distant past (when barbarians walked the earth) the church was the only place to study anything does not mean science and theology have anything to do with each other in the literal sense. And in fact science and theology, or shall we say religion, are incomensurable. Science is based in the observable and uses a specific method for theory creation and falisfication. Religion in ANY form deals soley within the realm of belief or faith. Faith is not subject to falsification. As i tell my students "I dont care if you believe in evolution, its your choice to ignore facts. I just want you to be able to explain it on a test." If I dont believe in a religion in most religions that makes me a sinner heretic or what ever kind of reject you care to call me. This is but one piece of meat in your "giant pot." As a scientist, i would call this a common factor "the hate factor" not all religions correlate to this factor but many do. Then there is the "political control" and "kill my enemy in the name of god because he wont submit to my will" factors.

but hey I'm just screwin with you. I believe in your god dont worry, we all do

Queen of sciences? Who's feeding people this ********? That's why Copernicus Heliocentric theory was forbidden and Galileo and others were tried as heretics for their belief in Copernicus (correct) theory.This went on until 1835, when the church finally removed all prohibitions on Copernican works that didn't agree w/ the scriptures. The church only agrees w/ science if it suits its needs at that time, just like the hypocrites that state science is for fools,yet they take the medication that science developed, not their god, that helps keep them alive.

As for those that say the bible is the literal truth by whoever, Do you eat seafood w/o fins, animals w/ cloven hoof? Have you had *** w/ a woman during her cycle?

If yes, go back and read Leviticus you disgusting vile sinners.

Oh yeah, how did Judas die?

This is why I don't discuss religion w/ anybody, because the answers to these questions will come back as an "interpreted" answer. In other words, the ****** that suddenly finds themselves on the wrong side of the bible will come up w/ a ******** "interpretation" of why it shouldn't apply to them, but all the others that do certain things they don't agree w/ are violators w/ no special dispensating "interpretation" for them. If it's good for the goose, it damn well is good for the gander.

I don't believe in god, not the one in the bible. There is something out there, it's what gives us and all other creatures the spark that makes us what we are,alive. We are related to all things in the universe and as such are not superior to any of it, just a part of it.

Yeah this stuff is all fake.

L. Ron proved that!

Dianetics

h34r:

 

[evilmedic13]

Any being concocted by man is fake.

[SIZE=24pt]RA RULES[/SIZE]

 

[Khunajawdge]

Oh yeah, how did Judas die?

Doesn't matter. He's the reason why the number 13 became an unlucky number!

 

[evilmedic13]

Oh yeah, how did Judas die?

Doesn't matter. He's the reason why the number 13 became an unlucky number!

Not for all of us :yahoo: , don't put 7 anywhere near though :glare:

 

[FJR@DTS]

"Well as a scientist by training and profession, I have never hear of theology as being the Queen of science. So thats a new one on me."

Yea, thats because today, you are not taught the philosophy of science.

"Queen of sciences? Who's feeding people this ********?"

Well, history is actually feeding people this BS...

A clear line of reasoning can be drawn from the propositions of Theology which provided Science its basis for a beginning.

During the High Middle Ages theology was therefore the ultimate subject at universities, being named "The Queen of the Sciences", and serving as the capstone to the Trivium and Quadrivium that young men were expected to study. This meant that the other subjects (including Philosophy) existed primarily to help with theological thought.

{With the Enlightenment, universities began to change, teaching a wide range of subjects, especially in Germany, and from a Humanistic perspective. Theology was no longer the principal subject and Universities existed for many purposes, not only to train Clergy for established churches. Theology thus became unusual as the only subject to maintain a confessional basis in otherwise secular establishments. However, this did not lead to the abandonment of theological study.

Eventually, several prominent colleges/universities were started to train Christian ministers in the U.S. Harvard, Georgetown University, Boston College, Yale, Princeton, and Brown University all began in order to train preachers in Bible and theology. However, now some of these universities teach theology as a more academic than ministerial discipline.

With the rise of Christian education, renowned seminaries and Bible colleges have continued the original purpose of these universities. Chicago Theological Union, Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, Creighton University Omaha, University of Notre Dame in South Bend IN, University of San Francisco, Criswell College in Dallas, Southern Seminary in Louisville, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Wheaton College and Graduate School in Wheaton, Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, London School of Theology, as well as many others have influenced higher education in theology in philosophy to this day.} Excerpt from Wickipedia entry on Theology

Oh, I'm a big fan of science, don't get me wrong. Any system that progresses in its understanding with a open desire to get to the truth is great in my book. Unfortunately I've seen too many religious scientists who have constructed nice little bunkers for themselves and instead of investigating and testing, stoop to ad hominim or reduct o ad absurdum argumentation instead of science.

 

[twowheelnut]

Blahbiddy blah blah blah...

Try this: Stick you pointing finger up your nose and scrape out a nice juicy booger. Got it? Good. Now flick it on your monitor and watch it slide slowly down. Great fun, really.

 

[evilmedic13]

"Well as a scientist by training and profession, I have never hear of theology as being the Queen of science. So thats a new one on me."
Yea, thats because today, you are not taught the philosophy of science.

"Queen of sciences? Who's feeding people this ********?"

Well, history is actually feeding people this BS...

A clear line of reasoning can be drawn from the propositions of Theology which provided Science its basis for a beginning.

During the High Middle Ages theology was therefore the ultimate subject at universities, being named "The Queen of the Sciences", and serving as the capstone to the Trivium and Quadrivium that young men were expected to study. This meant that the other subjects (including Philosophy) existed primarily to help with theological thought.

{With the Enlightenment, universities began to change, teaching a wide range of subjects, especially in Germany, and from a Humanistic perspective. Theology was no longer the principal subject and Universities existed for many purposes, not only to train Clergy for established churches. Theology thus became unusual as the only subject to maintain a confessional basis in otherwise secular establishments. However, this did not lead to the abandonment of theological study.

Eventually, several prominent colleges/universities were started to train Christian ministers in the U.S. Harvard, Georgetown University, Boston College, Yale, Princeton, and Brown University all began in order to train preachers in Bible and theology. However, now some of these universities teach theology as a more academic than ministerial discipline.

With the rise of Christian education, renowned seminaries and Bible colleges have continued the original purpose of these universities. Chicago Theological Union, Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, Creighton University Omaha, University of Notre Dame in South Bend IN, University of San Francisco, Criswell College in Dallas, Southern Seminary in Louisville, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Wheaton College and Graduate School in Wheaton, Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, London School of Theology, as well as many others have influenced higher education in theology in philosophy to this day.} Excerpt from Wickipedia entry on Theology

Oh, I'm a big fan of science, don't get me wrong. Any system that progresses in its understanding with a open desire to get to the truth is great in my book. Unfortunately I've seen too many religious scientists who have constructed nice little bunkers for themselves and instead of investigating and testing, stoop to ad hominim or reduct o ad absurdum argumentation instead of science.

Okay, nothing I can argue there. I guess it's applicable on both side of this fence, somebody's always around to sully it up for everyone else. Science and religion would be amazingly advanced if one didn't dismiss the other. One tells us what God has done, the other shows us how.

 

[BernieB]

 

[Kevin Daly]

There is something out there, it's what gives us and all other creatures the spark that makes us what we are,alive. We are related to all things in the universe and as such are not superior to any of it, just a part of it.

Its called the "AllSpark"

 

[FJR@DTS]

"Okay, nothing I can argue there. I guess it's applicable on both side of this fence, somebody's always around to sully it up for everyone else. Science and religion would be amazingly advanced if one didn't dismiss the other. One tells us what God has done, the other shows us how."

Well said. Actually, there are a few places where science and theology get along after a fashion. One of them is Archeology. A great deal of the archaeological finds in the Ancient Near East have been made by scientists, who went to where the biblical record said a city was and found a city. Another great example is linguistics. 100 years ago the "form critics" were saying that Moses could not have possibly have written the Pentatuch because linguists thought that writing did not exist at the time he lived. Then the "black stele" - a sculpted stone containing the detailed laws of Hammurabi in large, wedge-shaped characters - was found in the Middle East. It was pre-Mosaic by at least three centuries; not only that, but it was pre-Abraham (2,000 B.C.). Amazingly enough, it antedated Moses, who was supposed to have been a primitive man without an alphabet. Another find that confirms the existence of writing centuries before the time of Moses is the discovery of the Ebla Tablets in northern Syria in the 1960's. The Ebla kingdom was actually in existence approximately 1000 years before Moses (reaching its height around 2300 B.C.). Ebla shows that a thousand years before Moses, laws, customs and events were recorded in writing in the same area of the world in which Moses and the patriarchs lived. These finds greatly influenced the theory on how languages developed and were used.

 

[Kevin Daly]

"Well as a scientist by training and profession, I have never hear of theology as being the Queen of science. So thats a new one on me."
Yea, thats because today, you are not taught the philosophy of science.

"Queen of sciences? Who's feeding people this ********?"

Well, history is actually feeding people this BS...

A clear line of reasoning can be drawn from the propositions of Theology which provided Science its basis for a beginning.

During the High Middle Ages theology was therefore the ultimate subject at universities, being named "The Queen of the Sciences", and serving as the capstone to the Trivium and Quadrivium that young men were expected to study. This meant that the other subjects (including Philosophy) existed primarily to help with theological thought.

{With the Enlightenment, universities began to change, teaching a wide range of subjects, especially in Germany, and from a Humanistic perspective. Theology was no longer the principal subject and Universities existed for many purposes, not only to train Clergy for established churches. Theology thus became unusual as the only subject to maintain a confessional basis in otherwise secular establishments. However, this did not lead to the abandonment of theological study.

Eventually, several prominent colleges/universities were started to train Christian ministers in the U.S. Harvard, Georgetown University, Boston College, Yale, Princeton, and Brown University all began in order to train preachers in Bible and theology. However, now some of these universities teach theology as a more academic than ministerial discipline.

With the rise of Christian education, renowned seminaries and Bible colleges have continued the original purpose of these universities. Chicago Theological Union, Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, Creighton University Omaha, University of Notre Dame in South Bend IN, University of San Francisco, Criswell College in Dallas, Southern Seminary in Louisville, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Wheaton College and Graduate School in Wheaton, Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, London School of Theology, as well as many others have influenced higher education in theology in philosophy to this day.} Excerpt from Wickipedia entry on Theology

Oh, I'm a big fan of science, don't get me wrong. Any system that progresses in its understanding with a open desire to get to the truth is great in my book. Unfortunately I've seen too many religious scientists who have constructed nice little bunkers for themselves and instead of investigating and testing, stoop to ad hominim or reduct o ad absurdum argumentation instead of science.

In your last post you implied that "queen of sciences" to mean that science or the philosophical basis of science was predicated in theology. Now you are saying "During the High Middle Ages theology was therefore the ultimate subject at universities, being named "The Queen of the Sciences", and serving as the capstone to the Trivium and Quadrivium that young men were expected to study. This meant that the other subjects (including Philosophy) existed primarily to help with theological thought."

Which is to say that religion was the dominant aspect of higher education and all other subjects were there in subordination to theology. that does not mean that theology has any claim on science, only that science was once used by theology, typical. The fact that theology is still taught in universities means no more than to say myth and folklore and fictional writing is taught at universities. Those studies can trace their roots back to the dark ages, just as science and scientific thought can be traced back to plato's teaching for example that we can only know what we percieve and what we percieve is only an imperfect reflection of reality. Oh and um he wasnt a christian now was he? In fact most epistomological thought can trace its roots back well before christ and spatially distinct from the jewish foundations of christianity.

but hey what you say has a certian truthieness to it. I have a feeling your right.

So you say your a fan of science, yeah who isnt, when it feeds you, cleans you, cloths you, and keeps you safe at night.

So what does religion provide you? a justification to vilify those who disagree with you. If your nice you'll just call me a sinner. maybe if I am not so lucky I will be tossed into the axis of evil.

 

[Kevin Daly]

"Okay, nothing I can argue there. I guess it's applicable on both side of this fence, somebody's always around to sully it up for everyone else. Science and religion would be amazingly advanced if one didn't dismiss the other. One tells us what God has done, the other shows us how."

No they have nothing to say to each other and that has always been the point. science is about observable fact and faith is about belief inspite of the facts.

Well said. Actually, there are a few places where science and theology get along after a fashion.

would that be the estimation of the age of the earth? the number of days it took to create? ok lets not get too literal. how about the lifespan humans in the old testement or how long humans have been walking the earth? You say Archeology and theology get along? BS that theologists who dig up old stuff and claim it is "Jesus's burial box" gimmie a break. 99.99% conjecture with 0.001% evidence. What about that group of scientist that dig just a little bit deeper and find bones of monsters? I suppose the devil put that crap there and place just the right amount of isotopes in the fossilized bones to make it look like they had been there for millions of years longer than the book says the earth and the universe existed.

IF things dont seem to ad up best check your premises

...and would you believe I am not an athiest?

 

[FJR@DTS]

Hey, thanks for throwing in the retoric like, axis of evil and so for, really contributes to the conversation and helps prove your point

Science is supposed to be one field of study where you just deal with bare facts, where the facts speak for themselves, where empiricism rules the day. Yet, the project of science itself depends on certain philosophical underpinnings.

The project of science begins with a presupposition that the world around us is real and understandable. This is not something native to all societies and many historians agree that Christianity is the native soil out of which the scientific enterprise grew. The Christian worldview says that there is a God, a God of order, who created a world of order. Thus the earliest scientists sought to understand the world that God created, to think His thoughts after Him.

Thus, the notion that there is persistant (through time) hostility between science and Christianity is false. The hostility that arose between science and Christianity arose as scientists abandoned Christian presuppositions for atheistic presuppositions.

However, it is not as if there is a "Christian philosophy of science" and an "atheist philosophy of science." Historically, there have been three dominant philosophies of science. All three have morphed at times, but the basic philosophies are Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic and Mechanistic.

Aristotle pictured the world as a vast organism. He believed that all forms of motion or change are accomplished because of an objects built in purpose or goal. Aristotle described things using metaphors of living organisms, not machines. Aristotelianism was rationalistic, viewing God as a rational mind whose thoughts are known by logical analysis. The development of living organisms was driven by some kind of internal pattern that assured they fulfilled their goal or purpose.

The Neo-Platonists were similar to Aristotelians in that they believed the world was a living organism. However, they differed in that how they explained this: "In explaining natural processes, it appealed not to rational Forms but to the creative power of spiritual forces. These forces were often regarded as divine, or at least as avenues of divine activity in the world.

The mechanistic worldview rejected Aristotelianism and Neo-Platonism in that it didn't see the world as a living organism, rather as a machine with God as the chief engineer.

There are many nuances within these basic worldviews and the worldviews are applied somewhat differently in different disciplines. Further, these are rough groupings and some scientists would be hard to categorize. But, these worldviews are portrayed as the grid through which almost all scientific disciplines are pursued. They also point out that, historically, each of these worldviews have been used in service to both Christianity and non-Christianity. Hence, the obvious implication is that there are certain faith commitments that form an even deeper sub-strata beneath the philosophies themselves.