Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Geoff Hudson · 10-29-2002, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO:

So, I have two questions
was Christianity a necessary prerequisite for modern science?
and why did modern science appear in Europe first?

Should this be on a different forum?

Geoff

Janaya · 10-29-2002, 05:31 AM

I think that science has succeeded in spite of religious thinking. Damn. I can't locate the two books I was going to quote from. Oh well, I'm sure ya'll will correct me if I'm wrong. (though someone may have already touched on these points)

Regarding Kepler: Didn't he expect the orbits of the planets to be perfectly circular because circles are perfect? He believed God would not use anything less than perfect for the orbits of His created planets. It was only after many observations of the eccentric orbit of Mars and, from my understanding, many years later that he conceded that circular orbits simply did not fit the data. Did not this, along with the five solids idea, waste many years and many brain calories of a brilliant mind? How much more would he have accomplished if he had left his religious presuppositions at the door?

(I was going to quote, or at least check my facts, from Sagan's Cosmos about this but I can't find my book.)

Regarding religious thought and science: I read that when Stephen Hawking met the Pope that the Pope told him that his scientific theories were acceptable as long as God as the Creator was not questioned. I think Hawking said something like this, "I'm glad He (the Pope) didn't know the subject of the paper I was presenting."

(Again was going to quote from Hawking's book but can't find it. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> )

I'm sure my input is fairly light weight, but does it help the discussion at all?

Peace,
Janaya

NOGO · 10-29-2002, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Bede
The Polish parson ~Nicolaus Copernicus first published his idea of a heliocentric model during 1543 in ~The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres in which he suggested that the earth orbited the sun. Exactly why he thought this remains a mystery ...

Tell us why this is a mystery.
I assume that you mean it is a mystery to many people and not just to you.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

NOGO · 10-29-2002, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Bede
Sadly, your work shows all the signs of being written from White, Draper and other sources you can find on the internet.

Actually the only thing that comes from the internet is your text.

MortalWombat · 10-29-2002, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:

And at least one of his cures was just plain sorcery (Mark 7:33-35 - NIV):

After he took him aside, away from the crowd, Jesus put his fingers into the man's ears. Then he spit and touched the man's tongue. He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, "Ephphatha!" (which means, "Be opened!" ). At this, the man's ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly.

What's with the use of saliva in his cures? See also John Chap. 9:

Quote:

1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life. 4As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."
6Having said this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes. 7"Go," he told him, "wash in the Pool of Siloam" (this word means Sent). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

lpetrich · 10-29-2002, 07:28 AM

Bede on Nogo:
You are wrong about the flat earth (see "Inventing the Flat Earth" JB Russell), wrong to say Copernicus's model gave better results than the geocentric alternative (see any book on early modern cosmology),

It would be easy to test such assertions by writing some programs to implement them. Has anyone done so and published the source code?

wrong to say that moving the earth from the centre was not exalting it (see "The Scientific Revolution" by Steven Shapen),

However, Bertrand Russell has pointed out that some of the theology of sin is essentially self-centeredness -- that all these Bad Things are sent to punish us for our sins.

wrong about science not being seen as a sacred duty (see bios of Kepler, Boyle and many others),

However, appearance of piety was a great way of covering one's rear end back then, so one has to be careful when studying such assertions.

wrong that everyone in that period were observant Christians (see "Religion and the Decline of Magic" by Keith Thomas).

An absurd rewrite of history. Where were these big communities of infidels???

Everybody back then had to profess allegiance to some church, usually that of the current ruler. People would get burned at the stake for heresy back in Bede's Good Old Days. And the Wars of Religion...

Let's try a thought experiment. Bede goes back in time in a time machine and expresses his views to a committee of theologians, without trying to tell them what he thinks they want to hear. What happens next? Is he made a great hero? Or do they lecture him on his gross heresies?

In fact, you mention not a single source in your work, a part from a totally discredited nineteenth century mythmaker. ...

I wonder if Bede has ever read Andrew Dickson White's work. ADW is actually somewhat closer to Bede's viewpoints than Bede would be willing to admit. ADW is a liberal/modernist Christian, but a relatively honest one. And he distinguishes between "theology" and "religion" -- it is a war with "theology" that he talks about, not "religion", which he appreciates.

But your biggest problem is you are a fundie in atheist clothing.

This from someone with a remarkable aversion to direct criticism of fundamentalism.

You assume that Christianity means and must always mean a literal reading of the Bible and nothing else.

The alternative apparently being extremely dishonest cafeteria theology, when "Christianity" becomes anything that one happens to like.

So, I actually agree with what you are saying. That the historically rare beast, ultra biblically literalist, fundamentalist Christianity has done nothing for science at all.

Except that that had often been officially supported. Both Catholic and Protestant clergymen agreed that the Earth is cosmically stationary and that the Sun moves around it, because they had chosen to follow what the Bible clearly states. I'm judging from the statements of the clergy, because these are supposed to be the big religion experts.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]

lpetrich · 10-29-2002, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Bede:
... lightening conductors as other anti-Christian myths of science.

Except that Bede has constructed only very poor counterarguments. He does not attempt to provide an alternate chronology of the acceptance of lightning rods in which ADW's is shown to be a result of selecting some unflattering cases or whatever.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]

atrahasis · 10-29-2002, 08:13 AM

If Vork can nit-pick, so can I:

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede:
...proclavities...

I am sorry NOGO spent so much time on this: Bede is arguing that christianity is a necessary prerequisite for atheism, satanism, coprophagy and any other practice or idea that can reasonably be said to have been absent in the first century but is practiced/ present today.

Christianity itself borrowed from extant religions then - and now it wants to grab all the credit?

No one thing can be credited with the development of science - its a product of collective human experience, trial and error and the human quest for accurate understanding of the world.
Christianity is not about understanding the world: its about worshiping God - and trusting God to provide all the answers.

What a bunch of crock!

NOGO · 10-29-2002, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Bede
Christianity is much bigger than that and quite capable of bringing in outside thought and traditions as it has done through out history.

Well, well ... we agree on something. In case you missed it, I was trying to make that very same point. Just replace Christianity with "people" and we are in perfect agreement.

Some of the thoughts that were brought in, particularly from the Greeks, led to science.

Rusting Car Bumper · 10-29-2002, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede:
I just got fed up with bashing my head against a brick wall.

So that explains it.

DC

10-29-2002, 07:28 AM	#16
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Bede on Nogo: You are wrong about the flat earth (see "Inventing the Flat Earth" JB Russell), wrong to say Copernicus's model gave better results than the geocentric alternative (see any book on early modern cosmology), It would be easy to test such assertions by writing some programs to implement them. Has anyone done so and published the source code? wrong to say that moving the earth from the centre was not exalting it (see "The Scientific Revolution" by Steven Shapen), However, Bertrand Russell has pointed out that some of the theology of sin is essentially self-centeredness -- that all these Bad Things are sent to punish us for our sins. wrong about science not being seen as a sacred duty (see bios of Kepler, Boyle and many others), However, appearance of piety was a great way of covering one's rear end back then, so one has to be careful when studying such assertions. wrong that everyone in that period were observant Christians (see "Religion and the Decline of Magic" by Keith Thomas). An absurd rewrite of history. Where were these big communities of infidels??? Everybody back then had to profess allegiance to some church, usually that of the current ruler. People would get burned at the stake for heresy back in Bede's Good Old Days. And the Wars of Religion... Let's try a thought experiment. Bede goes back in time in a time machine and expresses his views to a committee of theologians, without trying to tell them what he thinks they want to hear. What happens next? Is he made a great hero? Or do they lecture him on his gross heresies? In fact, you mention not a single source in your work, a part from a totally discredited nineteenth century mythmaker. ... I wonder if Bede has ever read Andrew Dickson White's work. ADW is actually somewhat closer to Bede's viewpoints than Bede would be willing to admit. ADW is a liberal/modernist Christian, but a relatively honest one. And he distinguishes between "theology" and "religion" -- it is a war with "theology" that he talks about, not "religion", which he appreciates. But your biggest problem is you are a fundie in atheist clothing. This from someone with a remarkable aversion to direct criticism of fundamentalism. You assume that Christianity means and must always mean a literal reading of the Bible and nothing else. The alternative apparently being extremely dishonest cafeteria theology, when "Christianity" becomes anything that one happens to like. So, I actually agree with what you are saying. That the historically rare beast, ultra biblically literalist, fundamentalist Christianity has done nothing for science at all. Except that that had often been officially supported. Both Catholic and Protestant clergymen agreed that the Earth is cosmically stationary and that the Sun moves around it, because they had chosen to follow what the Bible clearly states. I'm judging from the statements of the clergy, because these are supposed to be the big religion experts. [ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-29-2002, 05:31 AM	#12
Janaya Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 226	I think that science has succeeded in spite of religious thinking. Damn. I can't locate the two books I was going to quote from. Oh well, I'm sure ya'll will correct me if I'm wrong. (though someone may have already touched on these points) Regarding Kepler: Didn't he expect the orbits of the planets to be perfectly circular because circles are perfect? He believed God would not use anything less than perfect for the orbits of His created planets. It was only after many observations of the eccentric orbit of Mars and, from my understanding, many years later that he conceded that circular orbits simply did not fit the data. Did not this, along with the five solids idea, waste many years and many brain calories of a brilliant mind? How much more would he have accomplished if he had left his religious presuppositions at the door? (I was going to quote, or at least check my facts, from Sagan's Cosmos about this but I can't find my book.) Regarding religious thought and science: I read that when Stephen Hawking met the Pope that the Pope told him that his scientific theories were acceptable as long as God as the Creator was not questioned. I think Hawking said something like this, "I'm glad He (the Pope) didn't know the subject of the paper I was presenting." (Again was going to quote from Hawking's book but can't find it. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> ) I'm sure my input is fairly light weight, but does it help the discussion at all? Peace, Janaya

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.