Dr. Harrison's other 5 lectures on the topic are the following on youtube: #2 Prof. Peter Harrison - The Cosmos and the Religious Quest #3 Prof. Peter Harrison - The Disenchantment of the World #4 Prof. Peter Harrison - Fallen Knowledge #5 Prof. Peter Harrison - Science and Progress #6 Prof. Peter Harrison - Science, Religion and Modernity
Good questions at the end. Newton engaged in numerous empirical experiments, that makes him a scientist, but yes, he also was concerned about cosmology which is historically a religious function. The two things were not seen as separate. Alchemy was the same.
That plot of the usage of the word "scientist" may also reflect scientific literacy in our culture...notice it's been dropping off precipitously since the 1970s
How so? Science seems to mostly advocate for a big bang at the moment, and has been increasingly so, and the Abrahamic monotheistic religions at least hold something seemingly quite similar..?
he discredits religious pluralism... but i disagree. i think religious pluralism is a better stand than exclusivism because although each religion thinks they have the whole, it makes more sense that they would each only have a part of the whole. analogous to the story of the blind indians & the elephant. one grabs the tail, another the trunk, etc. but each indian thinks they're describing the whole, and are ignorant of the rest of the animal. an interesting way to view religion.....
What a fake strawman argument. Start with selective etymological interpretations from the past, then talk about the imaginary impact of “discipline”. I expected some epistemic analysis of religion (Christianity and Islam, the two with 80% of market share) and science. But no luck. What a waste of time.
@@JS-ln4ns The purpose of these presentations should be to outline the arguments and give us a reason to read the books for a complete treatment. He failed.
@@JS-ln4ns I don’t need to listen to him for 60 minutes to know that it’s important to define the terms science and religion. The fact is, he failed to define either in a way that makes religion relevant or explain its role in a modern society. I could do that in 5 minutes and he took 60 minutes to fail at it.
Dr. Harrison's other 5 lectures on the topic are the following on youtube:
#2 Prof. Peter Harrison - The Cosmos and the Religious Quest
#3 Prof. Peter Harrison - The Disenchantment of the World
#4 Prof. Peter Harrison - Fallen Knowledge
#5 Prof. Peter Harrison - Science and Progress
#6 Prof. Peter Harrison - Science, Religion and Modernity
Good questions at the end. Newton engaged in numerous empirical experiments, that makes him a scientist, but yes, he also was concerned about cosmology which is historically a religious function. The two things were not seen as separate. Alchemy was the same.
@4:45 to skip introduction.
Really great lecture - clears a lot of common confusion I think. I'm excited to hear the rest.
Has anyone else noticed that all educational lecture videos on youtube have very low volume and are hard to hear?
endorsing the majority view point is potentially attacking science if the data conflicts with the majority view point as it did in Galileo's case.
As well as attacking the person, and indeed destroying the individual, as was the case for Giordano Bruno who supported heliocentrism.
@@grandepittore the didn't burn him for that. Just google it and you will find out.
That plot of the usage of the word "scientist" may also reflect scientific literacy in our culture...notice it's been dropping off precipitously since the 1970s
It should be no surprise many of us prefer science to religion; there is less accountability.
It seems the primary thing that science and religion conflict on is cosmology.
How so? Science seems to mostly advocate for a big bang at the moment, and has been increasingly so, and the Abrahamic monotheistic religions at least hold something seemingly quite similar..?
he discredits religious pluralism... but i disagree. i think religious pluralism is a better stand than exclusivism because although each religion thinks they have the whole, it makes more sense that they would each only have a part of the whole. analogous to the story of the blind indians & the elephant. one grabs the tail, another the trunk, etc. but each indian thinks they're describing the whole, and are ignorant of the rest of the animal. an interesting way to view religion.....
@ninjatoothpaste
Accidental, I'm sure.
science doesn't work all the time pracically and i too has feudalism and jealousy and pettiness
What a fake strawman argument. Start with selective etymological interpretations from the past, then talk about the imaginary impact of “discipline”.
I expected some epistemic analysis of religion (Christianity and Islam, the two with 80% of market share) and science. But no luck. What a waste of time.
@@JS-ln4ns The purpose of these presentations should be to outline the arguments and give us a reason to read the books for a complete treatment. He failed.
@@JS-ln4ns I don’t need to listen to him for 60 minutes to know that it’s important to define the terms science and religion. The fact is, he failed to define either in a way that makes religion relevant or explain its role in a modern society. I could do that in 5 minutes and he took 60 minutes to fail at it.
@@JS-ln4ns You were done before you started.