Στοίχημα τοῦ Pascal – ΑΘΕΪΣΜΟΣ, τίνος είναι η αυταπάτη – Απαντήσεις στον Richard Dawkins – Κωστώφ Ιωάννης, Φυσικός

http://atheismosapantiseis.blogspot.com

ΑΘΕΪΣΜΟΣ – ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΕΙΣ

Στοίχημα τοῦ Pascal

ΑΘΕΪΣΜΟΣ, τίνος είναι η αυταπάτη

Απαντήσεις στον Richard Dawkins

Κωστώφ Ιωάννης, Φυσικός

Ἄς δοῦμε, τώρα, πῶς παρουσιάζει ὁ Richard Dawkins τό περίφημο στοίχημα τοῦ Pascal· ἐμεῖς, ἁπλῶς, παρεμβάλλουμε ἐπεξηγηματικές ἀγκύλες: «Ὁ μεγάλος Γάλλος μαθηματικός Blaise Pascal παρατήρησε ὅτι, ὁσοδήποτε μεγάλες κι ἄν εἶναι οἱ πιθανότητες μή ὑπάρξεως τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὑπάρχει μιά ἀκόμα μεγαλύτερη δυσαναλογία (sic) στήν ποινή γιά λανθασμένη ἐπιλογή. Τό καλύτερο πού ἔχουμε νά κάνουμε εἶναι νά πιστεύουμε στό Θεό [ζώντας σύμφωνα μέ τίς ἐντολές Του, ἐννοεῖται], διότι, ἐάν ἔχουμε δίκηο, θά κερδίσουμε τήν αἰώνια μακαριότητα, ἐνῶ, ἄν κάνουμε λάθος [ἄν δέν ὑπάρχη δηλ. Θεός], δέν θά ὑποστοῦμε καμμία συνέπεια, οὕτως ἤ ἄλλως. Ἀντιθέτως, ἄν δέν πιστεύουμε στό Θεό [καί δέν τηροῦμε τίς ἐντολές Του] καί ἀποδειχθῆ ὅτι κάνουμε λάθος, καταδικαζόμαστε στόν αἰῶνα τόν ἅπαντα, ἐνῶ, ἄν ἔχουμε δίκηο [ἄν δέν ὑπάρχη πάλι Θεός], δέν ἀντιμετωπίζουμε συνέπει(129)ες. Καθώς φαίνεται, ἡ ἀπόφασι δέν χρειάζεται πολλή σκέψι: πρέπει νά πιστεύουμε στό Θεό [στήν ὕπαρξί Του]»(Richard Dawkins, Ἡ Περί Θεοῦ Αὐταπάτη, ἐκδ. Κάτοπτρο, Ἀθήνα 2007, 128).

Ὑπάρχει κάτι ποιό ξεκάθαρο; Ἰδού, ὡστόσο, ὁ σχολιασμός τοῦ D.:

«Ὑπάρχει, ὅμως, κάτι πολύ παράξενο σ’ αὐτό τό ἐπιχείρημα: Ἡ πίστι δέν εἶναι κάτι τό ὁποῖο ἀποφασίζεις νά κάνης, σάν νά πρόκηται γιά ζήτημα πολιτικῆς —ἤ τουλάχιστον δέν εἶναι κάτι τό ὁποῖο μπορῶ ν’ ἀποφασίσω νά κάνω ὡς ἑκουσία πρᾶξι. Μπορῶ ν’ ἀποφασίσω νά πάω στήν ἐκκλησία ἤ ν’ ἀποστηθίσω τό “Σύμβολο τῆς Πίστεως” ἤ νά ὁρκισθῶ πάνω σέ μία στοίβα θεοπνεύστων βιβλίων ὅτι πιστεύω καί τήν τελευταία λέξι τους. Τίποτε ὅμως, ἀπ’ ὅλ’ αὐτά δέν θά μέ κάνη νά τά πιστέψω ἄν δέν πιστεύω ἀπό μόνος μου. Τό στοίχημα τοῦ Pascal θά μποροῦσε ν’ ἀντιπροσωπεύη ἕνα ἐπιχείρημα προσποιήσεως πίστεως στό Θεό. Μάλιστα, ὁ Θεός στόν ὁποῖο ἰσχυρίζεσαι ὅτι πιστεύεις καλό θά ἦταν νά μήν ἀνήκει σ’ ἐκείνους τούς παντογνῶστες, ἀλλιῶς θά διακρίνη τήν ἀπάτη σου. Ἡ γελοία ἰδέα ὅτι ἡ πίστι εἶναι κάτι γιά τό ὁποῖο μπορεῖς ν’ ἀποφασίσης νά κάνης διακωμωδεῖται ἀπολαυστικότατα ἀπ’ τόν Douglas Adams στό βιβλίο του Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency (Τό Ὁλιστικό Πρακτορεῖο Ντέτεκτιβ τοῦ Dirk Gently), ὅπου συναντᾶμε τό ρομπότ Ἠλεκτρικός Μοναχός, μία συσκευή ἐξοικονομήσεως χρόνου τήν ὁποία ἀγοράζεις “γιά νά ἐκτελῆ ἀντί γιά σένα τά θρησκευτικά σου καθήκοντα”. Τό de luxe μοντέλο διαφημίζεται ὡς “ἱκανό νά πιστεύη πράγματα τά ὁποῖα δέν θά Continue reading “Στοίχημα τοῦ Pascal – ΑΘΕΪΣΜΟΣ, τίνος είναι η αυταπάτη – Απαντήσεις στον Richard Dawkins – Κωστώφ Ιωάννης, Φυσικός”

Advertisements

‘It’s not science’ – Dr. Don Batten, Australia – Ph.D. in Plant Science

http://havefaithorthodoxy.wordpress.com

HAVE FAITH – ORTHODOXY

‘It’s not science’

by

Dr. Don Batten, Australia, Ph.D. in Plant Science

University of Sydney, Australia

Anti-creationists, such as atheists by definition, commonly object that creation is religion and evolution is science. To defend this claim they will cite a list of criteria that define a ‘good scientific theory’. A common criterion is that the bulk of modern day practising scientists must accept it as valid science. Another criterion defining science is the ability of a theory to make predictions that can be tested. Evolutionists commonly claim that evolution makes many predictions that have been found to be correct. They will cite something like antibiotic resistance in bacteria as some sort of ‘prediction’ of evolution, whereas they question the value of the creationist model in making predictions. Since, they say, creation fails their definition of ‘science’, it is therefore ‘religion’, and (by implication) it can simply be ignored.

What is science?

Many attempts to define ‘science’ are circular. The point that a theory must be acceptable to contemporary scientists to be acceptable, basically defines science as ‘what scientists do’! In fact, under this definition, economic theories would be acceptable scientific theories, if ‘contemporary scientists’ accepted them as such.

In many cases, these so-called definitions of science are blatantly self-serving and contradictory. A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they will claim, ‘scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.’ But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested) and found to be false if it’s ‘untestable’!

The definition of ‘science’ has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th century. The approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward:

observation → induction → hypothesis → test hypothesis by experiment → proof/disproof → knowledge.

Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality1 and induction2. The philosopher Hume made it clear that these are believed by ‘blind faith’ (Bertrand Russell’s words). Kant and Whitehead claimed to have solved the problem, but Russell recognized that Hume was right. Actually, these assumptions arose from faith in the Continue reading “‘It’s not science’ – Dr. Don Batten, Australia – Ph.D. in Plant Science”

Δεν μπορεί ποτέ να αποδειχθεί ότι έλαβε χώρα η εξέλιξη διότι αναγκαία προϋπόθεση της αποδείξεως είναι η ύπαρξη εκείνου ο οποίος αποδεικνύει – Ιωάννης Κωστώφ, Φυσικός

http://atheismosapantiseis.blogspot.com

ΑΘΕΪΣΜΟΣ – ΑΠΑΝΤΗΣΕΙΣ

Δεν μπορεί ποτέ να αποδειχθεί ότι έλαβε χώρα η εξέλιξη διότι αναγκαία προϋπόθεση της αποδείξεως είναι η ύπαρξη εκείνου ο οποίος αποδεικνύει

Ιωάννης Κωστώφ, Φυσικός

Δέν μπορεῖ ποτέ νά ἀποδειχθῆ ὅτι ἔλαβε χώρα ἡ ἐξέλιξι διότι ἀναγκαία προϋπόθεσι τῆς ἀποδείξεως εἶναι ἡ ὕπαρξι ἐκείνου ὁ ὁποῖος ἀποδεικνύει. Ἐφόσον, ὅμως, σύμφωνα μέ τίς ἐξελικτικές ἀντιλήψεις ὁ ἄνθρωπος (ὁ ὁποῖος θά ἔπρεπε νά ἀποδείξη τό ζητούμενο) εἶναι ὁ τελευταῖος κρίκος τῆς βιοσφαιρικῆς ἁλυσίδος, αὐτό σημαίνει ὅτι δέν ἦταν παρών στά προηγούμενα στάδια καί συνεπῶς οὔτε τά παρατήρησε οὔτε τά κατέγραψε. Καί, βέβαια, τώρα πλέον δέν μπορεῖ νά τό κάνη αὐτό, διότι ἀνήκουν στό παρελθόν. Τό νά μποροῦσε νά τό κάνη —ὑποθετικά μιλοῦμε— ἰσοδυναμεῖ μέ τό νά παρακολουθοῦσε τήν ἀρχή του (σ᾽ ὁποιοδήποτε στάδιό της). Γιά νά γίνη, ὅμως, αὐτό, θά ἔπρεπε νά εἶναι προγενέστερος ἀπ᾽ αὐτήν (!), πρᾶγμα ἀπαράδεκτο λογικά.

Από το βιβλίο: Ἰωάννου Κωστώφ, Φυσικού, Συμβολή στήν Τελετή Λήξεως τῆς Θεωρίας τῆς Ἐξελίξεως, Ἐκδόσεις Ἅγιος Ἰωάννης ὁ Δαμασκηνός (2108220542, 6978461846), Σταμάτα 2015

‘Flat Earth’ Theory: A Secular Myth Fabricated to Defame Christianity

http://cominghomeorthodoxy.wordpress.com

COMING HOME – ORTHODOXY

‘Flat Earth’ Theory:

A Secular Myth Fabricated to Defame Christianity

Where did the idea of “Flat Earthers” come from? The idea has been traced back to “a slanderous fabrication invented by opponents of Christianity in the 19th century and has been thoroughly debunked by contemporary historians of science.” …

It’s taught in school textbooks, it’s a favorite citation of New Atheism, and it’s been referenced by no less than the President himself — Medieval Europe believed the Earth was Flat. And so it’s fact! – Except that they believed no such thing.

The popular view taught in schools is that scientists came along and rescued us all from the Medieval Church’s anti-scientific views that the World was Flat.

The only flaw in that story is that nobody ACTUALLY believed it was flat, and hadn’t believed it was flat in a very, very long time — as far back as Greek Antiquity. Even Pythagoras, Aristotle and Euclid called it spherical.

Textbooks from the middle ages described the world as round. So did Dante. And no less than the Catholic Church’s leading Medieval thinker, Thomas Aquinas wrote the following in his greatest work, Summa Theologica“:

“The physicist proves the earth to be round by one means, the astronomer by another: for the latter proves this by means of mathematics, e.g. by the shapes of eclipses, or something of the sort; while the former proves it by means of physics, e.g. by the movement of heavy bodies towards the center, and so forth.”

Where did the idea of “Flat Earthers” come from? The idea has been traced back to “a slanderous fabrication invented by opponents of Christianity in the 19th century and has been thoroughly debunked by contemporary historians of science.”

As it happens, Washington Irving wrote a fictional novel about Columbus, which was reported as history by John William Draper (History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science) and Andrew Dixon White’s similar tome. The “Conflict Thesis“ (idea of Religion and Science being incompatible) is attributed to Draper’s work.

“Contra Mundum: The Flat-Earth-Myth” is the article much of my piece has been summarizing. It goes into greater depth, and gives references. I highly recommend it.

This leaves us with two closing thoughts.

(1) If the authors and “historians” who gave rise to the Flat Earth Theory have been dismissed by serious historians as propagandists of their day, which are really behaving like “Flat Earthers” … people of faith, or those who blindly parrot debunked historians? (The latter includes, ironically, Richard Dawkins.)

(2) If the so-called historian to whom the “conflict thesis” has been attributed was caught in a lie, how much weight should we put on his characterization of the tension between faith and science? Is it not possible that a public duped by an untrue Flat Earth myth might also have fallen for his Conflict Theory? Maybe instead of “taking scientists word for it” we could decide for ourselves whether the two are in conflict.

Sources:

https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2013/09/flat-earth-theory-a-secular-myth-fabricated-to-defame-christianity/

https://www.oodegr.com/english/epistimi/flat_earth_theory.htm

Ο Άγιος Παΐσιος ο Αγιορείτης (+1994) και ένας Αρχιμανδρίτης που υποστήριζε και δίδασκε τη “θεωρία της εξελίξεως”

http://saintpaisios.wordpress.com

SAINT PAISIOS OF MOUNT ATHOS

Άγιος Παΐσιος ο Αγιορείτης

Ο Άγιος Παΐσιος ο Αγιορείτης (+1994)

και ένας Αρχιμανδρίτης που υποστήριζε και δίδασκε

τη “θεωρία της εξελίξεως”

Ὁ Ἅγιος Παΐσιος ὁ Ἀγιορείτης (+1994) πολύ εἶχε στενοχωρηθῆ μέ κάποιον Αρχιμανδρίτη στόν κόσμο, ὁ ὁποῖος εἶτε λίγο εἶτε πολύ ὑποστήριζε τήν “θεωρία τῆς ἐξελίξεως”. Ὁ Γέροντας τοῦ ἐμήνυσε μέ κάποιον γνωστό του νά μετανοήση γι᾽ αὐτό, γιατί ἀλλιῶς θά τόν τιμωρήση ὁ Θεός. (Γιατί ἔκανε κακό καί σέ πολύ κόσμο μέ τίς ὁμιλίες του ἐπί τοῦ ἐν λόγῳ θέματος). “Πόσο μπορεῖ νἀ ξεφύγη κανείς, ἀκόμη καί ἐκλεκτός”, ἔλεγε ὁ Πατήρ, “ὅταν τά ἑρμηνεύη ὅλα μέ τό μυαλό, δίχως νά ἔχη τή Χάρι τοῦ Θεοῦ!”.

Πηγή:

http://agiosioannisdamaskinos.blogspot.com

ΑΓΙΟΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΣ ΔΑΜΑΣΚΗΝΟΣ

Video – Russia: When Technology glorifies God

http://faithbookorthodoxy.wordpress.com

FAITHBOOK – ORTHODOXY

Russia: When Technology glorifies God

What was Adam like? – Ken Ham

http://havefaithorthodoxy.wordpress.com

HAVE FAITH – ORTHODOXY

87b620f651cdbef8e1565f72cd8761a1

What was Adam like?

by Ken Ham

Did Adam have black hair, brown skin, and brown eyes? Was he six feet eleven inches tall? These are questions we cannot answer sure, because we were not there to see Adam. However, from reading Genesis, and armed with a basic knowledge of genetics, we can learn a lot about what Adam was probably like.

Did Adam have a Navel?

But, how much detail can we go into concerning this man? Did he have a navel (belly button) for instance? This is something I have often been asked. Actually, I believe we can have a definite answer here. Your navel is really a scar formed from the attachment via the umbilical cord to your mother. After birth, the cord was cut, and where it was attached to your body it shrivelled up and formed a scar known as your belly button.

Adam was the First Man

Now think about Adam. Was he born in the same way you or I were? He certainly was not. He was made directly by God from the dust of the earth. In Genesis 2:7 we read, ‘And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the Continue reading “What was Adam like? – Ken Ham”