NOGO

Thank you and I do appreciate your input as well.

In my opinion Bede plays these little games which I will describe below.

He once complained that he had offered to meet me half way and I turned him down. This of course makes me look rather unreasonable. But if the question discussed is "Is Christianity a prerequisite to science?" then what is half way between "yes" and "no"?

Was he talking about the fact at least Christianity did not hinder science?

I don't know but if he did I would still not go along with this "meet me half way" tactic. To me this is an entirely different discussion.

First I want to establish the fact that Christianity did not help nor was it in any way a requirement for science.

Second the above discussion does not in any way have any impact on the discussion about whether Christianity actually hindered, and to what degree, the progress of science. This subject will stand or fall on its own merits.

I will certainly not concede anything on the second discussion based on the first. To me the first is an absurd and untenable position. The second is certainly arguable. I have no problem with what you state above but then again you need to look at individual groups and specific ideas.

[ December 01, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Butters

I'm bumping this for Bede. After reading the thread about "early Christianity", I remembered that I never got a reply to my post rebutting Bede's conclusions of The history of Christianity and science. Care to do so now?