Método Cientifico? Teria surgido pela fé na existência de um Deus racional?

Tema inspirado no post abaixo:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4375646
jorangreef 6 hours ago | link

Regarding: “As Galileo was prosecuted for supporting Copernicus’ heliocentric theory (more specifically for championing reason over faith)”

Nothing could be further from the truth. The first proponents of the scientific method saw the process of describing the known universe as possible only because of their faith in a rational Creator, their definition of the word “faith” meaning “conviction backed by reason” (Hebrews 11). Their hypothesis was that the creation of such a rational Creator would necessarily be ordered, not chaotic as the pagans of the day believed, and that it would be possible to seek to describe the creation in terms of scientific laws and principles. By faith they understood that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. This was the basis for the birth of the scientific method.

In the days of Galileo, the Church as you refer to, was nothing more than a political militant state, opposed to the theology of the early Christians of the 1st century, and opposed to the Scriptures which exposed its hegemony. Indeed the Church would have mothers and fathers burnt at the stake for teaching children the ten commandments and the Lord’s prayer. People like William Tyndale, and many other brilliant Oxford and Cambridge scholars were hounded and martyred by the Church for translating the Bible into English and circulating and discussing it in the 1500s.

While the Church may have opposed heliocentrism, Galileo defended heliocentrism, and understood correctly that it was not contrary to the Scriptures.

For people like Galileo and Kepler, faith and reason were the same thing. By definition, it’s impossible to have faith that is not based on reason, nor is it possible to hold reason without faith. To do so is historical revisionism. If you have a bone to pick with faith, then the best place to start is with the life and death and resurrection of Christ in history. Did it happen? How soon after the events were the eye witness accounts recorded? At what cost? Independent? Do we read them as they were written? This is a matter of historicity: did it happen? Not of philosophical possibility (naturalism), or statistical possibility (frequentism).

xxx

Meu comentário:

Isto serve de alerta para nós que nos acreditamos “racionais”. Talvez nossa crença de que nossa inteligencia é um puro e legitimo produto evolucionario da longa cadeia de causas e efeitos da História natural Universal, portanto a mais genuina base para nos agarrar e ter vida melhor sintonizada com a natureza – esteja errada, porque não existiria uma longa cadeia de causas e efeitos sem interferencia do acaso mudando o destino do que vem rolando nessa cadeia. É um tema dificeil de esquematizar e tirar alguma conclusão inteligivel, mas acho que na matrix theorua existe uma boa solução. A história seria dividida entre fases de caos ( influencia dos acasos)  e fases de ordem ( controle de um elemento racional), porem todo caos é produzido pela entropia e fragmentação de um anteiror estado de ordem. Mas os bits-informação do estado de ordem existem no meio do caos e são eles que levantam a ordem, porem reproduzindo a forma ordenada anterior, o que imploca que houve design, e não acaso. Mas enquanto se desenvolve o design, o caos pode muta-lo. E então? talvez a mutação seja selecionada ou descartada por um sistema invisivel hierarquicamente superior, dcentro do qual o caos esteja ocorrendo.   Acho que nosso cérebro ainda não tem a estrutura necessaria para resolver esta questão, portanto, devemos manter nossa racionalidade sob suspeita. E o que tem isso a ver com o método cientifico? Deve ficar tambem sob suspeita: Não será ele igualmente um selecionador de dados? Nos condizindo a uma cosmovisão errada com uma ilusória temporaria onda de sucessos?

Tags: , , , ,