Dr Rick

True, but that's not the topic here. That one is not in intrinsic conflict with the other does not mean that in practice one has not hindered the other.

lpetrich

You have parroted creationist arguments.

Radorth:
Again, quote me if you can.

Here and here
How are these quotes any different from what creationists say?

In fact I've said that neither creation nor evolution can be proved,

I am not impressed with this pose of dogmatic agnosticism.

and that I have a complex theory which includes both, but that is all it is- another theory.

A theory that has a suspicious resemblance to mainstream creationism, judging from the few hints I've seen.

... I'm afraid scientists even today (from my cite) think there is a clue in the "kinds" of Genesis, just as Augustine proposed. And the latter's proposal stands as well as any, 1500+ years later.

Whatever it was.

lpetrich

Radorth:
Meanwhile, ironically, Rad has recently returned from "worshipping the Lamb in the temple" (Newton's words), to finish writing a patent, hoping his intellectual powers, such as they are, were not mysteriously lost.

I wonder if Radorth is willing to include some of his glossolalia in that patent application.

And as to religion and intellectual powers, there has been too much of a tradition of (metaphorically) leaving one's brains at the church door, of being completely irrational when it comes to religion while being relatively rational about everything else. In fact, Unitarians sometimes brag about how you don't have to do that in a Unitarian church.

And in fairness, some religions have intellectual traditions, even if they often seem rather off-the-wall. But it would be hard to say that about American fundamentalism, for example, given how many fundies seem as if they picked up the Bible only yesterday.

But on the other side, in past centuries, it would have been hard to get anywhere in European society without professing to believe in some sect of Xtianity. Consider Thomas Hobbes, who lived in 17th-cy. England. He was suspected of being an atheist, even though he'd make statements like how pagan deities were created by human fear, but that our God is the Prime Mover.

Biff the unclean

Newton spent a LOT of time trying to prove biblical prophecy.
A loss to science or just poor time management?

It should be noted with Sir Isaac Newton that despite the wonderful advances he made with his laws of motion and inventing calculus that his main interest in life was alchemy. He spent the majority of his time attempting to turn base metals into gold through the use of "quick silver." Because of these experiments he suffered from mercury poisoning. Mercury poisoning causes a type of dementia. In his case the dementia lead to mysticism, biblical fortune telling, and personality shifts which lost him most of his friends. Eventually it killed him.
It wasn't science that caused his death but a belief in the supernatural combined with greed. Nor was it his religion that motivated his scientific research.
Since his religiosity was mostly the result of accidental poisoning it can hardly be held against him.

Tenspace

When did the topic change? I thought we were discussing whether Christianity hinders science and intellect. In which case my point would be on-topic.

Careful with the scissors, Rad. That last quote wasn't from my post. But, I would like to continue discussing the following that I did post (which I hope is true to the original topic):

1.Christianity will not accept as fact any scientific evidence unless it fits the worldview model described by the Bible. In Galileo's day, his discoveries challenged the infallibility of Genesis. Newton's discoveries regarding force and motion offered no challenge to the Bible. You can't accurately compare persecutions between the two

2. would say that you are wrong. Current religious views are interfering with genetic research, specifically stem cell and cloning research. Heck, it's been said many times, by many leading geneticists, that molecular biology makes no sense without the framework of Darwinian evolution. Yet Christianity still believes that all living things are descended from a bunch of animals loaded into a boat five thousand years ago.


Thanks...

Tenspace

lpetrich

Hugo Holbling:
Perhaps de Santillana summed the matter up best (although much work has been done since further supporting him) when he remarked:

Quote:

It has been known for a long time that a major part of the Church intellectuals were on the side of Galileo, while the clearest opposition to him came from secular ideas

Sorry, but I smell a rat. Who was waving the Bible in support of heliocentrism? Who was saying:

"The Bible clearly says that the Earth moves around the Sun and that's that."

?

And in the 19th century, who was waving the Bible in favor of the old earth and the evolution of life? Who was saying:

"The Bible clearly says that we are descended from monkeys and that's that."

?

(the question of the existence of a conflict between science and religion...)

Indeed, today in the history of science scholarly attention has shifted to trying to understand the complex and multidimensional interaction of the two and fathoming their mutual influences.

Whatever that is supposed to prove.

That every word of the Bible is literally true and thus that the Earth is flat and stationary and 6000 years old with the Sun moving around it?

That's the sort of thing that many fundies believe. And if you don't believe me, then tune into your favorite TV-evangelist program or go to some fundie website.

And I mention this because absolute literalism completely avoids cafeteria theology, the theology that "it's literal when I like it, and allegorical otherwise."

In fairness, the influence of medieval Catholic philosophy on the practice of science is a very interesting question. But that's hardly all of Xtianity, let alone every religion there ever was.

joedad

Quite true. And "Christianity" is hardly all the same religion. Perhaps Rad could define his terms better. If it's axiomatic within "his" christianity that there is no conflict with free inquiry, what's to argue?

Radorth

I'm not making an argument for creation there. My stand has never changed. WE DON'T KNOW IN ANY PROVABLE WAY JUST HOW WE CAME TO BE. Creationists say they do know.

Well let's summarize the "answers" to my questions so far, as I read them.

"A poll says half of Christians believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted."

"Newton was interested in alchemy"

(Because he was a Christian apparently)

"I think Rad has a lot of pride."

"The Catholics suppressed Galileo about 500 years ago."

"The Christians burned our library. We have no proof of that, but we know they did things like that because they hate science."

"True, the greatest geniuses for centuries were Christians, but I assert they were still hindered by their beliefs."

(Even though they surpassed everybody else in the world until around 1930 apparently)

"A lot of fundies believe in the 7 day creation, therefore they are hindering science."

(So Pat Robertson is somehow hindering Stephan Hawking's work. Details to follow apparently).

You fellas were a little off today I'd say.

Except for Hugo anyway, whose comments are appreciated.

Rad

Tenspace

Pardon me, Moderator, but... Typical Christian response. Completely ignore the real answers, and just post a small chunk of supporting evidence completely out of context.

I did answer your question. Here:

Question. Answer. Plain and simple. Why don't you respond to this... wait, this is the third time I've asked. Must be because you don't have a decent answer, so all you can do is parlay a weak attempt at derailing the topic through transparent manipulation of what others say. <self-control> <deep breath> <better>

Everyone would appreciate a reasonable attempt at answering questions much more than a weak attempt at making non-christians look like idiots.

Tenspace

Yellum Notnef

Well that's not exactly what I think,but I suppose it will have to do on this public forum.