Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SecularFuture · 06-05-2003, 09:59 AM

Quote:

"Is Christianity a hindrance to science or intellectual accomplishment?"

Yes. Any philosophy that promotes the use of magical thinking over the use of critical thinking is a hindrance to scientific and intellectual accomplishment. Progress toward objective solutions can not be made through the promotion of subjective thinking alone.

:boohoo:

Biff the unclean · 06-05-2003, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede

PS: Mods, is there any way a thread can be classed as a bit more serious? SecularFuture's effort can only be classed as trolling after all that has gone before.

Mods-Is there anyway that Christian Apologists who attempt to pass themselves off as amateur historians can have a warning label affixed to them? There are 'truth in packaging' laws after all.

hezekiah jones · 06-05-2003, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
There are 'truth in packaging' laws after all.

Yes but the courts have always acknowledged a certain amount of allowable sales puffery.

See Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

lpetrich · 06-05-2003, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Mods-Is there anyway that Christian Apologists who attempt to pass themselves off as amateur historians can have a warning label affixed to them? There are 'truth in packaging' laws after all.

In fairness to Bede, he may be correct in pointing to the presence of pro-science theologies in the late Middle Ages and early modern times in western and central Europe.

However, to label such theologies "Christianity" is, IMO, just plain going too far, because contrary theologies have been very common.

Biff the unclean · 06-05-2003, 12:07 PM

That's true Ipetrich but to cast SecularFuture as a troll is nonsense. I have several friends who are Profs over at Santa Clara U who are, as you would expect, Jesuit priests. They completely concur with him--although they put it in terms more flattering to themselves--that it is impossible for them to 'do science' and maintain a religious pattern of thought at the same time.

Dr Rick · 06-05-2003, 01:13 PM

...or that nothing Christians do is really all that bad:

"The Inquisitions did not have an objection to torture in principle but rather insisted it was a last resort when there was plenty of evidence already. Even then, the proceedures had to be followed to prevent lasting injury or prolonged suffering. Effectively, a utilitarian ethic."

Hugo Holbling · 06-05-2003, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Mods-Is there anyway that Christian Apologists who attempt to pass themselves off as amateur historians can have a warning label affixed to them? There are 'truth in packaging' laws after all.

I'm neither Christian nor Apologist, although i may be an amateur historian (but not for long). Is there anyone here who actually wants to discuss the history and philosophy of science? Bandwidth is being wasted.

:banghead:

[BioBeing: that goes for you too, without the headbanging. None of your "Christians do such and such" comments apply to me. Nevetheless, i still look forward to your comments, especially if you can get around to discussing the necessary conditions for the birth of science.

]

livius drusus · 06-05-2003, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
PS: Mods, is there any way a thread can be classed as a bit more serious? SecularFuture's effort can only be classed as trolling after all that has gone before.

There is no way that I know of to classify a thread as more or less serious. Even if there were, I'm afraid there would always be people posting in reply to the OP without considering the multiple pages of discussion since then. Repetition is a pet peeve of mine and I hate to see it, but it is in no way against the rules.

Goliath · 06-05-2003, 02:21 PM

livius drusus,

Quote:

Originally posted by livius drusus
If I have read you correctly, your sole sources are overview textbooks on the history of mathematics. Textbooks can easily fall into the trap of propagating urban legends because the editors rely heavily on secondary sources and very rarely do any primary research of their own.

Furthermore, textbook publishers seek to sell a large volume of books, and therefore have a vested interest in providing what is expected. The fact that the story of the destruction of the library is "common knowledge" might explain why it was repeated in your texts, but that in no way guarantees that it is not simply a legend told so often it has become an accepted truth.

Yes, my sources are textbooks. However, they appear to be at least as legitimate as Bede's article. Regardless, I'm not interested in discussing history, merely because I have better things to do than to get into a "You're wrong because this guy who wrote this stuff in this book says so! So there! Nah-nah-nah-boo-boo!" kind of pissing match.

Sincerely,

Goliath

livius drusus · 06-05-2003, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Mods-Is there anyway that Christian Apologists who attempt to pass themselves off as amateur historians can have a warning label affixed to them? There are 'truth in packaging' laws after all.

That is a gratuitous ad hominem snipe and like all its ilk, detracts from the discussion. Address Bede's arguments or do not. It's as simple as that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2003, 11:43 AM	#183
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Originally posted by Biff the unclean There are 'truth in packaging' laws after all. Yes but the courts have always acknowledged a certain amount of allowable sales puffery. See Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

06-05-2003, 12:07 PM	#185
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	That's true Ipetrich but to cast SecularFuture as a troll is nonsense. I have several friends who are Profs over at Santa Clara U who are, as you would expect, Jesuit priests. They completely concur with him--although they put it in terms more flattering to themselves--that it is impossible for them to 'do science' and maintain a religious pattern of thought at the same time.

06-05-2003, 01:13 PM	#186
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	...or that nothing Christians do is really all that bad: "The Inquisitions did not have an objection to torture in principle but rather insisted it was a last resort when there was plenty of evidence already. Even then, the proceedures had to be followed to prevent lasting injury or prolonged suffering. Effectively, a utilitarian ethic."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.