Radorth

So what? The issue was whether Christianity is unfriendly to science, and his thoughts seemed relevant. His not being a Christian only supports my case I'm afraid. But as has been pointed out, he limited his statement to exclude much of Christianity. Give it a rest.

BTW, do you suppose the raving fundy Whitefield chided his friend Franklin for spending too much time doing science? I'm surprised they weren't getting in fist fights from what I've read here.

I only have one, which I have given before- one which most Chrsitians agree on. I'm afraid you are scraping bottom in any case, because my argument is not dependent on Galileo or Bacon being Christians, IS IT?

It is dependent on whether their heads were filled with magical thinking, and whether they were under the thumb of Christian authority. Let me know if you want to argue these points rationally.

Rad

Stephen T-B

It's just not true, Charlie.

The majority of early scientists, including Darwin, considered themselves to be Christian, and to this day many of our finest scientists are professing Christians.

This is made possible by their ability to compartmentalise disparate parts of their lives so that one does not impinge upon another.

Bede

Stephen T-B,

I'm not sure that compartmentalisation works in the way you suggest. I have certainly never experienced this. I think a direct conflict between a particular religious belief and a particular scientific theory must be really rare. I suppose YECs make bad cosmologists but they would make perfectly good mathematicians and, as most of them accept micro-evolution, research biochemists. Also, religious belief is often a lot more subtle and nuanced than atheists sometimes give it credit for. A university educated religious scientist will usually adopt views of a more complex form than many lay people simply by virtue of having a better trained mind. The headbanging atheist might try to paint this religious scientist as 'less religious' but intelligent people can ignore such idiocy.

So, a conflict is possible between a religious belief and scientific hypothesis but it is, in fact, very rare. Clearly, the big bang represented an occasion when it was atheistic beliefs that led to a rejection of a theory. So it works both ways. Any belief system will sometimes conflict with other belief systems as the extreme dogmatism of many atheists here illustrates.

A minor historical point: Darwin was an agnostic for much of his life - one of the first great scientists not to have a strong religious motivation.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Radorth

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Speaking of magical thinking. So, they never believed they would find what Darwin said they would find. They never believed a pig's tooth was human or Piltdown man was one of the links Darwin predicted. They would never believe Paul was referring to some unknown person when he used the phrase "James, the Lord's brother."

Well most might acknowledge his existence, but claim he was a worthless do-nothing soon after, voiding any possible benefit to his revealing himself to them.

I'm afraid an atheist scientist here has all but declared this notion "magical thinking." Well OK, we found one who has maintained contact with reality, I must admit.

My irony meter just shorted out.

Rad

Stephen T-B

I think that hits the nail on the head.

lpetrich

"Which is absolutely absurd revisionism. Galileo ultimately WON."

Bede:
<flame deleted - liv> At the time he lost the argument. You now know this so stop the childish anachronism.

I'm not sure what Bede would consider a victory for heliocentrism -- Galileo had provided some very suggestive evidence, even if not what might be considered absolute proof.

And even if Galileo had "lost" in his day, does that mean that the Church was right in trying to suppress heliocentrism? Or even that Galileo deserved to have been burned at the stake?

Soul Invictus

Goliath,

Got any info/background on the Library of Alexandria? I've been looking for information surrounding it's ravaging. Anything on its contents,etc?

Tyler Durden

Wow, your reading ability is as bad as John Page's.

Bede

"Particularly Bede: What do you make of verses like 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 (seems a huge methodological misstep if actually applied)?"

Well, Joel, we are interested in Christians through history applied their teaching, not how modern atheists or fundies think they ought to have.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

PS: Soul Invictus: On that Library - read this. I hope it will answer a lot of your questions but feel free to email me. Goliath knows nothing about the subject whatsoever beyond some errors he read in some books.

livius drusus

For a little more light reading, check out these threads, Soul Invictus.

• For Bill - the Great Library
• The fate of the Daughter Library of the Royal Library of Alexandria

Awww, brings me back to my assiduous lurking days. Oh wait, I still lurk assiduously.