Bede

1) I am not trolling because I am here defending myself.

2) I am not being disingenuous and implication that I make a habit of it must be removed at once.

3) The amount of discussion on this thread has clearly shown my OP was a good one.

4) Sauron, I note your source does not say human disection took place in Islam. However, even if it did this further undermines the claim that religion hindered science. We already know Christianity did not prevent disssections. This was my original point and stands unrefuted. However, you have presented evidence that Islam didn't hinder medical science in this way either! Thanks for taking the theist side for once.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Wiploc

You've got me curious. It's obvious that religion doesn't have to contradict science, but it's also obvious that it often does. What is this dead "conflict hypothesis?"



So, for those of us who missed those threads, what was he?
crc

TollHouse

What does it mean to have a 'good' OP? Do you really suggest we measure such 'goodness' by the number of replies?

Family Man

Where? You've not made a single substansive reponse to any of the posts I've made. You're not a hit-and-run poster, but I don't see much of a "defense" other than to say you're right and I'm wrong.

Generally, I'd say no, you're not in the habit of being disingenous. But on this thread you've taken a number of difficult issues and portrayed them in awfully broad strokes. Moreover, I've been finding quite a bit of material from the Lindberg and Numbers book that directly contradicts your so-called myths. For example, I'm finding repeated references to how the Church insisted on interpreting passages literally. I'm finding it more difficult to take that point as a myth.

As someone else pointed out, there is a difference between quality and quantity.

[QUOTE]

Ted Hoffman

Amos, your ignorance in the dynamic of evolution is dizzying.
The first thing a little child in a science class learns is that:

Nature does not care. Nature has no intention.

Ted Hoffman

You only need to see a crocodile kill 20 bufalloes as they cross the river in Masai Mara, or see a python kill a rattlesnake for food.

premjan

I think you're not talking about nature in general, you're talking about the part of it that we call "life" and "living systems".

Life and living systems do operate according a principle: preservation and replication of biological entities. Some biological entities persist, and others perish, for reasons of survivability.

Ted Hoffman

Is an earthquake natural (i.e. part of nature?)

Bede

Family Man,

I thought you were going to read up and get back to me. I certainly will reply to any informed posts. On the literalism business, I have put up with Ipetirch calling any non fundamentalist version of Christianity 'Bedeianty' and insisting that non-literalists are not proper Christians. He has done this many times. As he has hardly ever been contradicted by atheists here I was perfectly justified in using that as a myth.

Atheists complaining that they don't all believe the myths in question have point. But they would be on much stronger ground if they had previously corrected other atheists who do believe them much more often. In fact this rarely happens (although there are honourable exceptions). Sojourner on the dark ages, Dr Rick on millions (corrected only by Sojourner IIRC), Ipetrich on Bedeianty, Toto on Eusebius are just a few off the top of my head.

As for my points being too broad brush - I plead guilty but believe that as an opening gambit in a discussion that is allowed. You will find exceptions to everything - history was a long time and plenty of people were involved. The question,say, is one of whether in general, science and religion have been in conflict. The answer is no. We find that there have been episodes that go both ways and involve lots of subtle distinctions. We also find many of the favourite examples of conflict fall apart on closer examination. Likewise, there were plenty of literal minded Christains. But the mainline of intellectual development was much more nuanced than this - truth could be figurative. Just because you can pull Cosmas out the hat as a Christian who really did believe the earth was flat doesn't refute the claim that, in general, Christians did not believe this.

And do you really expect me to bother reply to the likes of Koy? As you say, you've been here even longer than I so must know a discussion with him is a waste of time. Refusal to engage with him (and Amos and Copernicus and Sauron) does not make me a troll.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan

LOL. Maybe you better do one myth at a time next time around, Bede....