Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
06-01-2003, 02:24 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Posts: 503
|
Religion DOES hinder science, and it will always be that way. Religion tells us the answer without making us look at the evidence. It rewards people on their "faith" of supposed events that took place. This sounds like the kind of thing that would hinder science, doesen't it? I mean, everyone was convinced the world was flat, and to believe otherwise was heresy. The earth HAD to be the center of the universe right? If anyone opposes this belief then they should surely be punished accordingly right? Evolution can't possibly be a viable theory right? The earth has to be less than 10,000 years old right? Hopefully you get my point. Oh, and as far as brilliant men and their religion go, Einstein is kind of smart, and he had no religion.
Jake |
06-01-2003, 02:56 PM | #22 | ||||
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 69
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
With respect, Tenspace |
||||
06-01-2003, 03:18 PM | #23 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 1,392
|
One of the events which allowed science to rise was the split between Catholicism and Protestantism. Once the "absolute truth" of the Catholic Church was forever toppled by the equal ''absolute truth" of the reformation, the other-worldly perspective was shattered among thinkers.
As to this topic's question, I say that Christianity was and is a hinderance to science, but by being such a powerful hinderance it has strengthened the resolve of science. The worthy enemy concept. I think that creationists have actually helped evolution by sharpening arguments and deepening thoughts. That many scientists claimed belief in christianity, only means that they were good liars or that they managed to separate the two. |
06-01-2003, 03:19 PM | #24 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,872
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Rad |
||||
06-01-2003, 03:25 PM | #25 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Self-banned in 2005
Posts: 1,344
|
Firstly, i should like to clear up some common misconceptions. The question of who was responsible for the destruction of the Great Library is hardly as clear-cut as some here would have it; the problem seems to be an excess of suspects and polemical accounts of their responsibility on all sides. Our own Bede has a nice essay on the subject. We can no more use incomplete and inconclusive scholarship to support this argument than we can make ontological declarations on the basis of interpretations of QM.
A recent thread in BC&A went over the Galileo incident from a philosophy of science point-of-view. Anyone interested in it may also refer to Kuhn's account in his The Copernican Revolution, de Santillana's in his The Crime Of Galileo, Shea's paper Galileo and the Church, along with some dozen other references i could offer; what is clear is that the simplistic account of a conflict between Galileo as some kind of martyr for science and the dogmatism of the Church is no longer held by any historians of science. Perhaps de Santillana summed the matter up best (although much work has been done since further supporting him) when he remarked: Quote:
To move on to the general topic at hand, i'll repeat some comments i made in the philosophy forum recently. The thesis that science and religion are in conflict resulted from the work of Draper and White in the 19th century. It was popular for a time but only because both had written polemics and viewed the available evidence from with their battleground hermeneutic. From Whitehead onwards, though Gillespie, Westfall, de Santillana (again), Dillenberger, not to mention today's experts such as Grant, Lindberg, Numbers and Shapin, the idea of a conflict could no longer be sustained. 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. According to Shapin: Quote:
In any event, it is no longer considered tenable to maintain that an intrinsic conflict exists between science and religion, even on methodological grounds (as Shapin explained and Boyle's own comments so nicely exemplify). I don't suppose for a moment that this account will be satisfactory to those who want to believe in a necessary and eternal conflict, but there it is all the same. |
||
06-01-2003, 03:34 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: limbo
Posts: 986
|
Quote:
An excellent and authoritative contribution. Well done. :-) |
|
06-01-2003, 03:39 PM | #27 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Self-banned in 2005
Posts: 1,344
|
Off-topic: thought i was in the dog-house...
Quote:
Thanks for your kind words. |
|
06-01-2003, 03:44 PM | #28 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: limbo
Posts: 986
|
No, I thought I was in the dog-house...
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
06-01-2003, 04:03 PM | #29 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 5,393
|
Is Christianity a hindrance to Radorth?
Quote:
That a person can overcome an obstruction doesn't mean that there is no obstruction. Quote:
Quote:
Here's an example: Notice the authors faulty use of the word proved and the faulty reasoning in his arguments: Quote:
|
||||
06-01-2003, 04:15 PM | #30 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sunnyvale,CA
Posts: 371
|
Newton spent a LOT of time trying to prove biblical prophecy.
A loss to science or just poor time management? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|