Dr Rick

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

thebeave

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy to Dr. Rick!

thebeave

I personally find the whole notion of noting that "such and such ancient scientist was a Christian and he was really great, so there!" to be somewhat non-sequitor when you think about it. Geez, I'm an atheist now, but if I was around back then too with the limited amount of scientific knowledge that was available, I'd no doubt be some sort of believer (a deist, as a minimum). Keep in mind there was little or no such concept of abiogenesis, evolution, etc. back then. How else would you be able to explain our origins except with magical thinking and saying, "God-did-it?". The amount of knowledge we have now about how the universe works compared to back then is astronomically greater. Can we agree that the religious affiliation of these ancient, great scientists is kind of irrelevant, one way or another?

Don't forget also that Islam was the religion of choice for many of the great scientific contributors back in Islam's glory days. Or how about the contributions of the Mayans, with their own religious beliefs?

Bill Snedden

In direct answer to the question posed by the OP: "Is Christianity a hindrance to science or intellectual accomplishment?", I would say, "It certainly could be, as could any dogmatic ideology."

Communism (viz. Lysenko) certainly comes to mind as a parallel non-Christian example. It is the dogmatic aspect, not the spiritual/religious aspect that is crucial to the question.

As to the question, "Has Christianity been a hindrance to science or intellectual accomplishment?", if one is to construe the question generally (Has Christianity been an overall hindrance...), I would incline toward agreement with Bede & Hugo: the historical record actually shows that the common characterization of science and Christianity as mortal enemies is highly suspect. Moreover, I find the thesis that the pre-enlightenment Christian worldview actually supported the rise of science to be ultimately compelling.

However, if we're going to narrowly construe the question and ask "Have Christians ever been a hindrance...", then the answer must be an unequivocal "yes", to the extent that even a minor act such as delaying Galileo's publication by even one moment must be interpreted as a "hindrance." The overall impact of such an action to the general progress of science may have been negligible, but that doesn't make it any less real.

One must be careful, however, to distinguish between "Christianity" as a metaphysical construct and "Christianity" as an institution. "Christianity" as a metaphysical construct does not, generally speaking, contain any "hindering" elements. "Christianity" as an institution, on the other hand, is comprised of people; people with their own agendas, and here we're back to dogmatism.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Luiseach

Are you talking about the study of history here?

Hugo Holbling

Nice to see you weighing in, Bill; you must have known i couldn't resist responding.

You are quite right in pointing this difference out, but what would be the point of debate on these terms? I'm sure you see the obvious reductio ad absurdum that can me made from your comments, not to mention that they appear to be based on a (dare i say naive) form of realism. Nevertheless, i appreciate your attempt to bring the thread back on-topic.

Tyler Durden

An argument from authority is not necessarily a fallacious one, unless the cited authority is not sufficiently informed by, trained in and educated on the relevant subject at hand.

Luiseach

Excellent point.

Tyler Durden

I'm glad you think so, because the lil spat between Golaith and Bede reminded me of the underhanded efforts of another debator who thought all arguments from authority were in essence, fallacious.

Bill Snedden

Well, as you well know, I am a rather naïve realist...

Actually, the "point of the debate" was really my point. If there's nothing inherently inimical to science in Christianity as a metaphysical construct, then the answer to the OP is a resounding "no" (IMO). But is that what everyone on this thread understands the question to be? What exactly is being debated here? Many of the posters seem to be talking past one another.

Unless I seriously misunderstand him, Bede doesn't intend to defend the thesis that no Christian has ever hindered science or intellectual accomplishment (you can correct me if I'm wrong, Bede, but I don't think I am). What would be the point? It would be as pointless as defending the thesis that no X (where X is a member of any organized/semi-organized body of individuals) has ever hindered science or intellectual accomplishment. One can probably find a positive example for just about every X. The point is why? If there's nothing inherent in orthodox or creedal Christianity, then that cannot be the answer. Certainly not in a simplistic, single-cause sense.

So, everyone should stop talking about history! It doesn't address the OP!

Regards,

Bill Snedden