Charlie

BioBeing hitting home runs.. I'm with you all the way!

As an atheists I simply have no belief. I may theorize something until science offers proof one way or the other. But this is not a belief. Having nonbelief removes any bias no matter how small or large such bias might be. Therefore a true atheist has no bias! An atheist is ready to accept any scientific outcome that shows proof and forwhich the outcome of proof can be tested.

On the other hand, having a belief creates bias even if it is the smallest bit of bias, it is still bias which can have an effect. I don't see how a human can compartmentalize his bias and thus remove it completely when required. It goes against our very nature as a human.

Sure, some christians have probably contributed nicely to science. And I'm sure there are also some so called atheists that go overboard with their nonbelief! However, by having a definite belief, a religious person cannot avoid having bias. And it is only natural that this bias will have an effect on average and over time.

It seems logical that science would have in the past, and would today, progress faster without religion.
Charlie

gcameron

To the original post...

Obviously many of the great scientists have been Christians, so it is a complex issue. Newton, a Christian, advanced science; Hovind, a Christian, hinders it. Galileo, presumably a Christian (?), advanced science; certain Catholic authorities of the time hindered him and therefore it. Whether Christianity is a net hindrance or net boon to science is hard to determine. When it comes to the larger questions (i.e. origin of life, or the universe), an adherence to design might muddy the waters. But then some would argue that this is less science than metaphysics anyway. I suspect the deeper science tries to plumb questions of biological and universal origins, the more harshly it may clash with religious worldviews, not merely on the fundamentalist fringe but in the mainstream as well. Time will tell I suppose.

livius drusus

Atheists have a myriad beliefs. They just don't have a god-belief. Do a search in S&S on accupuncture or circumcision to see prime examples of the many and varied biases that color atheist perception of proof and scientific outcome.

I disagree that there is such a thing as human nature. I would like to see your evidence that such a thing exists, and once that is established, I would like to see further evidence that being unable to compartmentalize bias is an element of said nature.

I dispute that atheists avoid bias. As for your unsupported assertion on what is "natural", please see above paragraph.

It does not seem logical to me, and many in this thread have effectively proven how this conclusion is not supported by the facts. You will have to do more than present your assumptions as premises for your foregone conclusion. Evidence, please.

lpetrich

Galileo, presumably a Christian (?), advanced science; certain Catholic authorities of the time hindered him and therefore it.

Galileo had considered himself a good Catholic; he argued that the Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go. Though views like that are nowadays commonplace, his theological opponents believed that the Bible would not be completely true if it was in error about how the heavens go.

In effect, Galileo anticipated Stephen Jay Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria by nearly four centuries.

Radorth

Really? Give some examples of what was lost and how said loss set us back "many, many years." You must know from other sources, or you wouldn't make the assertion.

Rad

lpetrich

Simple. There are numerous books written in antiquity that have not survived. And it's very possible that some of them have featured discoveries that would later have to be re-made.

And I'm not sure that various episodes of destruction of the Alexandria Library can account for all this loss -- many of them were either forgotten about, destroyed as heretical, or even recycled (!) Yes, some books had their original writing erased so that they could be reused. Thus, some treatise on history or law or mathematics or science could be turned into a hymnal or a saint biography or whatever.

Radorth

"Very possible"? So we don't know what was lost? And so the assertions about some great blow to science are then based on mere presumption?

Are you sure the day of the "intolerant witch-hunt" is over?

We don't know for sure the Christians burned the library.

We don't know what was in it.

We don't know there were no copies elsewhere of what was in it.

We do know that Christians helped preserved many ancient scientific writings.

We know that Christians like Bacon, Newton, Kepler, Pascal and Faraday made some of the most important and advanced discoveries of all time, and COULD just as easily leap-frogged science and technology by several hundred years.

But we somehow still rationally assert that Christianity was a hindrance to science.

I'm afraid the Christians are, on balance, are the worthier skeptics here.

Of course I'm not saying Bede is a Christian, although he's obviously bright.



Rad

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Radorth
I'm afraid the Christians are, on balance, ... the worthier skeptics here.

Yeah but it's what they're skeptical about that's problematic.

lpetrich

(On the Library of Alexandria and its destruction...)
Radorth:
We don't know what was in it.

That's an ignorant remark -- I wonder what Radorth thinks a library would contain.

We do know that Christians helped preserved many ancient scientific writings.

Except that Radorth has elsewhere called them legalistic idolators -- those were Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxers.

And pagan Greco-Roman writings were not a very high priority with them as compared to the Bible or some Church Fathers or some hymnals or some saint biographies.

We know that Christians like Bacon, Newton, Kepler, Pascal and Faraday made some of the most important and advanced discoveries of all time, and COULD just as easily leap-frogged science and technology by several hundred years.

Except:

Most of Radorth's science heroes would have to have professed belief in some Xtian sect to get anywhere. Why was Galileo a Catholic? Why were Bacon and Newton Anglicans? Could it be a matter of geography?

I note in passing that Bacon's statements about religion have a less-than-sincere quality about them, as if he was trying to cover his rear end about religion.

Also, most of Radorth's science heroes had believed in sects other than Radorthianity, sects like Catholicism, which he has slammed as legalistic and idolatrous.

It would be interesting to see how Radorth would have fared during most of the centuries of Xtianity. Seems to me that he would have been hauled before a committee of theologians, who would then seriously discuss the possibility that a demon is making Radorth speak in tongues -- and what to do about that demon.

Gurdur

I don't know, Livius, if you ever followed closely the history of the Great Cultural Revolution in China.

At its peak, cadres would gather to argue vociferously with each other as to the Correct Interpretation of The Little Red Book (Sayings Of Chairman Mao). And then would enforce it upon each other.

Whenever I see one of these things going on, for me it's always like a very nasty betrayal of my atheism, and reminds me of the Party Faithful working out the Party Line.
I became an atheist out of a strong desire to free myself from all sorts of magical beliefs, and yet when I see people declaring portenteously what it is to be an atheist, what an atheist is, why An Atheist Is Magically Free Of All Superstition And Magical Thinking But Must Adhere Faithfully To The Party Line, I just want to up-chuck.