Catholics and the Big Bang.

[chimx]

It's interesting today that with the surge in christian fundamentalism we overlook periods of harmony between the scienctific and religious communities. Much of the time here we try to overemphasize religion's purposeful disharmony with the scientific community. I thought it would be fun to remind everyone that the current basis for most astrophysicists is derived from the vatican.

A Catholic priest by the name of Georges Lemaitre was the founder of the Big Bang Theory, originally calling it the "hypothesis of the primevil atom". He observed the movement of galaxies and hypothesized that matter came from a singularity.

What is interesting is that many scientists, especially Einstein, thought the universe to be boundless and rejected the Big Bang because it sounded too religious. It came from the Catholics after all--but it also emphasized a moment of creation, something that the science community was very reluctant to accept.

While I generally agree that religious institutions, as defenders of tradition and culture, have a tendency towards conservatism, it should be rememered that this is not exclussively true. That these institutions not only have the potential for adaptation and growth as we continue to discover more and more about our world around us, but also are capable of initiating paradigm shifts that greatly effects the way the secular community understands science.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The founder of the Big Bang theory may have been a Catholic, but that doesn't mean that his Catholicism had anything to do with his discovery. The modern Big Bang theory bears no resemblance to the biblical account of Genesis.

The point is that religious individuals may contribute to scientific knowledge, but that the net effect of religion's influence is not in science's favour.

Encouraging blind faith as a good thing is actively harmful to the development of scientific habits of mind.

[chimx]

The founder of the Big Bang theory may have been a Catholic, but that doesn't mean that his Catholicism had anything to do with his discovery.

BZZT. You would think an advocate of scientific inquiry, such as yourself, would at least examine facts before falling back on unfounded stereotypes. Lemaître was a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, a Catholic organization for the advancement of mathematics and sciences.

Remember, it was the Catholics that were pushing the theory discovered by their priest, while the secular scientist community were condemning it for being too similar to theistic thought.


The modern Big Bang theory bears no resemblance to the biblical account of Genesis.

Modern religious thought bears no resemblance to the biblical account of Genesis, except perhaps for a number of Christian fundamentalists! Your blatant ignorance of theistic beliefs is astounding! Nobody believes that God actually came down and pulled a rib out of Adam to make Eve. Places like the Vatican are more busy working on evolutionary biology and astrophysics to deal with such anachronistic and banal topics.


The point is that religious individuals may contribute to scientific knowledge, but that the net effect of religion's influence is not in science's favour.

Prove it, without referencing an 18th century papacy. I dare you.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

BZZT. You would think an advocate of scientific inquiry, such as yourself, would at least examine facts before falling back on unfounded stereotypes. Lemaître was a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, a Catholic organization for the advancement of mathematics and sciences.

What stereotype, you dishonest hatfucker? And pointing out that Lemaître was a member of a Catholic organisation proves nothing, it still does not mean his Catholicism had anything to do with his hypothesis. There is nothing inherently Catholic or Christian about the Big Bang theory, it could just as easily have been hypothesised by an atheist scientist in a secular organisation.


Remember, it was the Catholics that were pushing the theory discovered by their priest, while the secular scientist community were condemning it for being too similar to theistic thought.

That's an overly simplistic statement about the History of the Big Bang theory. Just because Einstein may have had a personal problem with the Big Bang theory does not mean the larger secular scientist community had a problem with it.


Modern religious thought bears no resemblance to the biblical account of Genesis, except perhaps for a number of Christian fundamentalists! Your blatant ignorance of theistic beliefs is astounding! Nobody believes that God actually came down and pulled a rib out of Adam to make Eve.

All that proves is that most people are too smart to accept to more egregious aspects of the Bible, Koran etc. The usual dodge of "it's allegorical/symbolic!". But who determines what's symbolic and what's literal?

The fact is that fundamentalists are more honest than moderates.


Places like the Vatican are more busy working on evolutionary biology and astrophysics to deal with such anachronistic and banal topics.

Puh-leeeeze. The Vatican is not some kind of research centre, they simply use theological gymnastics and subject the Bible to extremely fanciful interpretation (if they pay the Bible any heed at all in the first place) in an attempt to fit it in with modern scientific theory so that they don't look like the outdated medieval institution that they are.

The days of the Jesuits are over; advances in scientific knowledge are made in secular institutions nowadays.


Prove it, without referencing an 18th century papacy. I dare you.

How about this:


Originally posted by [email protected] in a previous post
Encouraging blind faith as a good thing is actively harmful to the development of scientific habits of mind.

[chimx]

What stereotype, you dishonest hatfucker?

Confusing anti-science fundamentalism with mainstream religious thought.


And pointing out that Lemaître was a member of a Catholic organisation proves nothing, it still does not mean his Catholicism had anything to do with his hypothesis.

The Catholic community promotes the advancement of scientific knowledge, and that is all I am saying. In contradicts most of the Lefts misunderstandings of Christian attitudes and values, and I would say shines some light on how hopelessly uninformed a great deal of the anti-religious zealots really are.


That's an overly simplistic statement about the History of the Big Bang theory. Just because Einstein may have had a personal problem with the Big Bang theory does not mean the larger secular scientist community had a problem with it.

Mainstream scientific thought was generally opposed to the Big Bang theory initially because the current paradigm was that the universe was infinite and not finite. The term "big bang" was actually just a common pejorative used against the theory suggested by Catholics. The larger secular scientific community did have a problem with it. I only use Einstein as an example as he is probably the only individual of this period most of this board would recognize by name.


Puh-leeeeze. The Vatican is not some kind of research centre, they simply use theological gymnastics and subject the Bible to extremely fanciful interpretation (if they pay the Bible any heed at all in the first place) in an attempt to fit it in with modern scientific theory so that they don't look like the outdated medieval institution that they are.

Wrong again, though I would be very interested to hear why you would think this. I presume you have physical evidence? No?

I suspect it is because you don't understand the purpose of religion. You remind me more of Christian fundamentalists in your assumption that biblical work is meant to replace scientific inquiry. It is a very pedestrian and uninformed opinion. It is both comical and quite pathetic how willing you are to prove your correctness in matters of theology, while remaining completely oblivious to theological thought. I don't doubt you have a firm grasp of scientific knowledge, but when was the last time you even read a theological work? You speak of theology as if you know about it, but the content of your arguments suggests something all together different.

In all actuality the bible exists to deal with issues of morality and purpose, not explain how the natural world works. This is the job of science, and it is something that the Vatican is very interested in. That is why they invest millions upon millions of dollars in scientific research, not to mention training people to teach evolutionary biology, chemistry, astrophysics, etc.


Encouraging blind faith as a good thing is actively harmful to the development of scientific habits of mind.

Not proof. Not even an example. Simply an uninformed stance.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Prove it, without referencing an 18th century papacy. I dare you.

Creationism and anti-evolution, which is winning the war for public minds.

Faith schools, teaching a bastardised form of science that fits scripture, E.G. Young-earth, flood geology.

Genetic basis of homosexuality widely dismissed, on scriptual grounds.

Prayer-healing as an alternative to medicine.

Massively over-estimating the 'life' of a foetus.

In fact, the only way that the old differences have been resolved has been for religion to cave in to science. The earth is round, and revolves around the sun. Lightning and thunder are not caused by Satan. Etc, etc etc. Only when science absolutely overwhelms scripture do they become compatible, and that is always via the surrender of religion.

-Alex

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:44 am

Prove it, without referencing an 18th century papacy. I dare you.

Creationism and anti-evolution, which is winning the war for public minds.


He is talking about the Catholic Church. By all means argue against religion, but at least get your facts right. The Catholic Church believes in the theory of evolution.
Devrim

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Well actually, the discussion digressed to religion in general, since Chimx was referring to Noxion's statement that the net effect of religion is detrimental to science. And it is.

-Alex

[wtfm8lol]

interestingly, while the catholic church accepts the big bang, it does not support research into the cause of the big bang, as that is God's territory.

[chimx]

Creationism and anti-evolution, which is winning the war for public minds.

Those are not positions held by any mainstream religious denominations today. Catholics teach evolution and train priests to teach evolution. They have denounced intelligent design as being unscientific and unfounded. They reject creationism and have instead put forth the 'big bang' model.

But if you are talking about religon generally, especially in the united states, than you should be talking about Catholicism, as it is the most popular denomintion by far. Roughly 25% of the US is Catholic. 16% is Baptist, while Methodists and lutherans make up 7% and 5% respectively.

What is on the rise in the US is non-denominational christianity, in which there is a very decentralized church that has no centralized theological basis or understanding like other denominations. The result of non-denominational growth is a turn towards fundamentalism within these groups. However, even though non-denominaltional churchs are on the rise in the US, they still only accout for 7% of christians in the US.

Here is what Episcopalians say about creationism officially:


Originally posted by Episcopalians+--> (Episcopalians)Whereas, ... several states have recently passed so-called "balanced treatment" laws requiring the teaching of "Creation-science" whenever evolutionary models are taught; and ...

Whereas, the terms "Creationism" and "Creation-science" ... in these laws do not refer simply to the affirmation that God created the Earth and Heavens and everything in them, but specify certain methods and timing of the creative acts, and impose limits on these acts which are neither scriptural nor accepted by many Christians; and

Whereas, the dogma of "Creationism" and "Creation-science" ... has been discredited by scientific and theologic studies and rejected in the statements of many church leaders; ...

[T]he ... Convention affirms the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, whether men understand it or not, and in this affirmation reject the limited insight and rigid dogmatism of the "Creationist" movement... [/b]

Here is what the Vatican said about evolution back in the 1960s:


Pope John Paul II
Today, almost half a century after the publication of [Pius XII's] Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

It depends on how you define a religion's stance. If it is in the form of official announcements from particular denominations, you have a valid point.

But the fact of the matter is, 55% of the U.S. public belive that God created all life in it's present form less than 10,000 years ago. I would trust that more than official announcements, personally.


And you haven't addressed my other points.

-Alex

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by BurnTheOliveTree+--> (BurnTheOliveTree)Creationism and anti-evolution, which is winning the war for public minds.

Faith schools, teaching a bastardised form of science that fits scripture, E.G. Young-earth, flood geology.

Genetic basis of homosexuality widely dismissed, on scriptual grounds.

Prayer-healing as an alternative to medicine.

Massively over-estimating the 'life' of a foetus.[/b]
These things are almost exclusively American Protestant phenomena. Very few Christians outside the United States are creationists. The Catholic Church officially endorses the Big Bang theory and evolutionary biology. Some Churches in the Episcopal Communion are not only non-homophobic, but they have openly ordained gay priests. And so on and so forth.

Stop equating American Baptists with the entire Christian faith.


Originally posted by BurnTheOliveTree+--> (BurnTheOliveTree)In fact, the only way that the old differences have been resolved has been for religion to cave in to science. The earth is round, and revolves around the sun. Lightning and thunder are not caused by Satan. Etc, etc etc. Only when science absolutely overwhelms scripture do they become compatible, and that is always via the surrender of religion.[/b]
Nonsense. First of all, the round shape of the Earth was established as fact since ancient times and was never questioned by any institution in the Middle Ages, least of all the Church. What the Catholic Church opposed was the heliocentric model of the universe - the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun. They did this not because of any Biblical considerations, but because the late medieval Church offically upheld Aristotelian philosophy and the view of the universe established in Hellenistic and Roman times. If you think the geocentric model of the universe was stupid, take it up with Ptolemy, not the Church.

The idea that the Church opposed scientific development for religious reasons is mostly myth. The only scientific theory that ever ran into trouble for religious reasons was the theory of evolution.


[email protected]
interestingly, while the catholic church accepts the big bang, it does not support research into the cause of the big bang, as that is God's territory.
Cause of the Big Bang? By definition, the Big Bang had no cause. The Big Bang was the moment when the universe - including time, space and causality - came into existence. There was no "before" the Big Bang, and thus the Big Bang could not have had a cause in the usual sense of the word.


BurnTheOliveTree
But the fact of the matter is, 55% of the U.S. public belive that God created all life in it's present form less than 10,000 years ago. I would trust that more than official announcements, personally.
Frankly, that seems like a highly exaggerated percentage and I would like to see the methodology used by whoever came up with it.

Secondly, as I said above, creationism is almost exclusively an American Protestant phenomenon. It is not taken seriously by Christians anywhere else in the world.

Finally, if religious institutions officially favour evolution but grassroots believers refuse to pay attention, that seriously undermines the hypothesis that prejudice and reactionary attitudes are the fault of the Church. If the Church was truly at fault, one would expect reactionary ideas to come from the top down, not the other way around.

[chimx]

Originally posted by Edric O+--> (Edric O)They did this not because of any Biblical considerations, but because the late medieval Church offically upheld Aristotelian philosophy and the view of the universe established in Hellenistic and Roman times. If you think the geocentric model of the universe was stupid, take it up with Ptolemy, not the Church.[/b]

That is quite true! I would argue that it is the conservatism of religious institutions that made change so difficult though. Still, as has been shown, this conservatism is by no means a rule.


Burn
But the fact of the matter is, 55% of the U.S. public belive that God created all life in it's present form less than 10,000 years ago. I would trust that more than official announcements, personally.

If that is true, and I would like to see the poll where this is shown, than all it proves is that 55% of the US are fucking idiots, despite the best intentions of the Church to steer them in a more informed direction.

[freakazoid]

than all it proves is that 55% of the US are fucking idiots,

lol, :( ouch man.

[chimx]

I'm sorry freak, but all mainstream religious denominations reject creationist thought.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

If that is true, and I would like to see the poll where this is shown, than all it proves is that 55% of the US are fucking idiots, despite the best intentions of the Church to steer them in a more informed direction.

Source (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm)

It's taken from the most recent (2006) poll done by CBS, a little way down the page. Admittedly, previous polls have been a little less frightening. Perhaps I selectively remembered the most sensational figure. :blush: Still, it's true.

They are biblically-based idiots though, aren't they?


These things are almost exclusively American Protestant phenomena.

No, they aren't Edric.

The Catholic church officially and at grassroots level absolutely condems all forms of abortion whatsoever. Recently, as I'm sure you'll know, they have stopped working with Amnesty International for their perceived support of abortion. They are hardline anti-choice!

The Catholics again - Homosexual orientation is "objectively disordered and often constitutes a trial". They openly view sodomy and other same sex acts as intrinsically immoral grave sins. The Church of England is heavily divided, mainly thanks to Rowan Williams, who is relatively progressive. By and large, they seem to be heavily against same-sex marriage.

Christian Scientists and Jehova's witnesses each officially renoucne medicine in favour of prayer/faith healing. A myriad of other small denominations also take this line.

Faith schools are across the board, almost. Every large denomination.

And I could continue. Stem Cell research is opposed by the majority of pro-life organisations. The Catholic church is against it "because it involves the destruction of human embryos.


I fail to see how you could be ignorant of all that.


First of all, the round shape of the Earth was established as fact since ancient times and was never questioned by any institution in the Middle Ages, least of all the Church.

I concede this and apologise for suggesting otherwise.


They did this not because of any Biblical considerations, but because the late medieval Church offically upheld Aristotelian philosophy and the view of the universe established in Hellenistic and Roman times. If you think the geocentric model of the universe was stupid, take it up with Ptolemy, not the Church.

It does not matter whether they did this because of biblical considerations or not - The church used it's religious power to uphold nonsense. Galileo was directly ordered by the inquisition not to defend or hold heliocentrism, and was then of course imprisoned, and his book was banned.

They resisted progress, in the face of evidence, and favoured dogma. They did the same with Galen and Hippocrates - Nonsensical ideas about anatomy were held as infallible by the church until the rennaisance, where they were utterly disproved.


The idea that the Church opposed scientific development for religious reasons is mostly myth. The only scientific theory that ever ran into trouble for religious reasons was the theory of evolution.

You can't be serious. One example:

Vesalius's discovery that men and women had equal number of ribs provoked a storm of religious controversy. After all, one of Adam's ribs was used to create Eve.

There are plenty more. The Pentecostal church's resistance to the scientific conclusion that "tongues" is not a language but is, of course, meaningless gibberish is a modern example.

C'mon man, be fair here.


if religious institutions officially favour evolution but grassroots believers refuse to pay attention, that seriously undermines the hypothesis that prejudice and reactionary attitudes are the fault of the Church.

Again depends on what you define as the church. If you mean the very top, say, the pope represents catholicism, then you're right. I'd still define a religion as mainly it's scripture and the sum of it's rank and file. Possibly the clergy.

-Alex

[RevMARKSman]

The Catholics again - Homosexual orientation is "objectively disordered and often constitutes a trial". They openly view sodomy and other same sex acts as intrinsically immoral grave sins. The Church of England is heavily divided, mainly thanks to Rowan Williams, who is relatively progressive. By and large, they seem to be heavily against same-sex marriage.


Side note: I picked up a pamphlet (the last one, no more anti-gay pamphlets, yay!) at my church on homosexuality and it listed some of the "causes" (all of them were environmental and would imply it's a disorder) including these gems:

absent or abusive same-sex parent (...)
lack of skill at team sports (WTF?)

It was sickening and hilarious at the same time.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Sporting incompetence? :lol: Man.

What denomination was the church?

-Alex

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:11 am
Sporting incompetence? :lol: Man.

What denomination was the church?

-Alex
Roman Catholic.

I know, it's hilarious.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by chimx
Confusing anti-science fundamentalism with mainstream religious thought.

Advocating belief without evidence (which all religions do - it's called faith) is antithetical to science at the most basic level.

It's not a stereotype. It's one of the defining characteristics of religious belief.


The Catholic community promotes the advancement of scientific knowledge, and that is all I am saying.

Is that why the Catholic church spreads propaganda in Africa about condoms being "ineffective" against AIDS? :rolleyes:


In contradicts most of the Lefts misunderstandings of Christian attitudes and values, and I would say shines some light on how hopelessly uninformed a great deal of the anti-religious zealots really are.

No, it just means you have no idea that religions accept or reject scientific evidence as a matter of expediency with no regard for the scientific truth of matters.


Mainstream scientific thought was generally opposed to the Big Bang theory initially because the current paradigm was that the universe was infinite and not finite.

You know that's not true, because scientists back then were smart enough to realise that an infinite universe is impossible. And even if it were true, it wasn't long before the Big Bang was accepted, which had nothing to do with it's discoverer's religious inclinations and everything to do with it fitting the available evidence.


Wrong again, though I would be very interested to hear why you would think this. I presume you have physical evidence? No?

I laugh at the idea of providing physical evidence on the Internet of all places :lol:

Use your fucking brain. Do you think as many people would take the Catholic Church seriously if they interpreted the biblical account of Genesis as anything other than allegory? No, they just use some inventive theology to paper over the cracks and bank on religious indoctrination to make sure that as few meaningful questions are asked as possible.

It's what you have to do if you use a book of lies as the basis for your worldview.


I suspect it is because you don't understand the purpose of religion. You remind me more of Christian fundamentalists in your assumption that biblical work is meant to replace scientific inquiry. It is a very pedestrian and uninformed opinion. It is both comical and quite pathetic how willing you are to prove your correctness in matters of theology, while remaining completely oblivious to theological thought. I don't doubt you have a firm grasp of scientific knowledge, but when was the last time you even read a theological work? You speak of theology as if you know about it, but the content of your arguments suggests something all together different.

Just because I don't play by the theologists (most of whom are god-botherers anyway) silly little rules does not mean I am ignorant. Your bluster proves nothing except that you are willing to devote long paragraphs to the defense of an area of study that is, to put it mildly, on very shaky scientific ground.

And if the Bible is not a scientific work, then why does it make claims that fall within the boundaries of science?

Does Pi equal 3?


In all actuality the bible exists to deal with issues of morality and purpose, not explain how the natural world works.

Sure. That's why, according to the Bible, insects have four legs :lol:

Also, if you actually read the Bible you'll realise the morality contained within is utterly bankrupt, and our purpose as human beings is to constantly appease a genocidal, intolerant and maliciously cruel cosmic bastard.


This is the job of science, and it is something that the Vatican is very interested in. That is why they invest millions upon millions of dollars in scientific research, not to mention training people to teach evolutionary biology, chemistry, astrophysics, etc.

So what? Plenty of secular organisations devote time and resources to scientific research. All you're proving is that the Catholic Church has a lot of money to throw around, something that we know already. Mainly because they've also been using it fund missionaries whose job it is to create more Catholics. :hack-spit:


Not proof. Not even an example. Simply an uninformed stance.

You are a fucking idiot, aren't you? You're too braindead to realise that religious belief by it's very nature discourages scientific modes of thought.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by BurnTheOliveTree+July 03, 2007 11:53 am--> (BurnTheOliveTree @ July 03, 2007 11:53 am)
These things are almost exclusively American Protestant phenomena.

No, they aren't Edric.

The Catholic church officially and at grassroots level absolutely condems all forms of abortion whatsoever. Recently, as I'm sure you'll know, they have stopped working with Amnesty International for their perceived support of abortion. They are hardline anti-choice!

The Catholics again - Homosexual orientation is "objectively disordered and often constitutes a trial". They openly view sodomy and other same sex acts as intrinsically immoral grave sins. The Church of England is heavily divided, mainly thanks to Rowan Williams, who is relatively progressive. By and large, they seem to be heavily against same-sex marriage.

Christian Scientists and Jehova's witnesses each officially renoucne medicine in favour of prayer/faith healing. A myriad of other small denominations also take this line.

Faith schools are across the board, almost. Every large denomination.

And I could continue. Stem Cell research is opposed by the majority of pro-life organisations. The Catholic church is against it "because it involves the destruction of human embryos.

I fail to see how you could be ignorant of all that. [/b]
I thought we were talking about creationism... And that is indeed an almost exclusively American Protestant phenomenon (note: I use the term "Protestant" quite loosely to include all new Christian denominations created since the Reformation).

Granted, you did mention opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage before, in the same breath as creationism, and I did make the sweeping generalisation that they were all "almost exclusively American Protestant phenomena". That was an exaggeration and I apologise.

Note, however, that although opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage do indeed constitute reactionary opinions, and the Catholic Church does indeed promote them quite strongly, they are not questions of scientific inquiry. They are ethical and political issues. Opposing abortion and same-sex marriage is reactionary, but it does not inherently delay or impede the progress of science. Opposition to stem cell research - which is an off-shoot of the pro-life stance in most cases, though there are perfectly good secular reasons to be skeptical that capitalist medical corporations have the best interests of humanity in mind - can indeed delay the progress of science, I will grant you that. But with the discovery of non-embryonic stem cells, it will hopefully become a moot point soon.

Nevertheless, there are also large numbers of Christians who are pro-choice and support same-sex marriage - as I pointed out in my previous post, there are entire Churches who take those stances.

The point is, progressive Christians do exist, and they are not few. A related point is that atheists are doing a lot of harm by promoting the view that fundamentalists are the only "true Christians".


Originally posted by BurnTheOliveTree+--> (BurnTheOliveTree)
They did this not because of any Biblical considerations, but because the late medieval Church offically upheld Aristotelian philosophy and the view of the universe established in Hellenistic and Roman times. If you think the geocentric model of the universe was stupid, take it up with Ptolemy, not the Church.

It does not matter whether they did this because of biblical considerations or not - The church used it's religious power to uphold nonsense. Galileo was directly ordered by the inquisition not to defend or hold heliocentrism, and was then of course imprisoned, and his book was banned.

They resisted progress, in the face of evidence, and favoured dogma. They did the same with Galen and Hippocrates - Nonsensical ideas about anatomy were held as infallible by the church until the rennaisance, where they were utterly disproved.[/b]
It does matter why they did it, if we are trying to establish the source of reactionary attitudes within religious circles. Is it Christian religion itself that is the source, is it the Church as an institution, or is it perhaps neither of them? I think the blame rests partially with the Church as an institution and partially with society as a whole. Yes, there is a strong correlation between religion and reactionary attitudes. Most atheists seem to believe that this implies causation in the sense that religion causes reactionary attitudes. I believe you have things the wrong way around. In reality, the causal arrow points the other way. It's not that religion causes reaction, it's that reactionary people tend to be religious. Fundamentalism does not cause reaction; reaction causes fundamentalism.

In any case, if the Church did not resist a specific kind of scientific progress for religious reasons, then Christianity is not to blame for that specific event. Christianity is not to blame for what happened to Galileo or Giordano Bruno.


[email protected]

The idea that the Church opposed scientific development for religious reasons is mostly myth. The only scientific theory that ever ran into trouble for religious reasons was the theory of evolution.

You can't be serious. One example:

Vesalius's discovery that men and women had equal number of ribs provoked a storm of religious controversy. After all, one of Adam's ribs was used to create Eve.

There are plenty more. The Pentecostal church's resistance to the scientific conclusion that "tongues" is not a language but is, of course, meaningless gibberish is a modern example.

C'mon man, be fair here.
Alright, I will be fair and concede that the Church (or rather, some Church) opposed scientific development for religious reasons in those two instances as well, besides in the instance of the theory of evolution. I was simply not aware of them.

Though it does seem strange to suggest that women should have one less rib than men, even based on a literal reading of Genesis... surely if you remove a rib from a woman's body, her daughters will not be born with one less rib! You don't need to know genetics to be aware of that. Cut off a person's limb and his or her children will not be born missing the same limb.


BurnTheOliveTree
Again depends on what you define as the church. If you mean the very top, say, the pope represents catholicism, then you're right. I'd still define a religion as mainly it's scripture and the sum of it's rank and file. Possibly the clergy.
If you accept that religious attitudes and opinions are dictated by the rank and file though, to what extent can religion be said to be authoritarian, hierarchical or oppressive?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by NoXion+July 03, 2007 11:08 pm--> (NoXion @ July 03, 2007 11:08 pm)
chimx
Confusing anti-science fundamentalism with mainstream religious thought.

Advocating belief without evidence (which all religions do - it's called faith) is antithetical to science at the most basic level.

It's not a stereotype. It's one of the defining characteristics of religious belief. [/b]
Advocating belief without evidence in one particular case - that of the existence of God - does not logically imply that all evidence should be disregarded in all cases, and we should just randomly believe whatever strikes our fancy. You are reducing religion to a straw man, which is precisely what chimx said you should stop doing.

In fact, my position is that belief without evidence is required in the case of God's existence only because God is logically unprovable (see the topic Can you test for God? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=68173)). In other words, Christianity requires belief without evidence in the case of one thing that is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. That is all.

[chimx]

Advocating belief without evidence (which all religions do - it's called faith) is antithetical to science at the most basic level.

It's not a stereotype. It's one of the defining characteristics of religious belief.

I will go a step farther than Edric O, and argue that it is not antithetical because it is not comparable. As I have already said, theology is not about discovering or describing the mechanical workings of the physical world. It is about creating meaning and perspective on human experiences and human understanding of the world.


Is that why the Catholic church spreads propaganda in Africa about condoms being "ineffective" against AIDS?

Catholics tell people not to use condoms because it is against their moral understanding of sex, that sex shouldn't exist outside of marriage and that it shouldn't be done other than for the creation of life.

For a while some members of the church were saying that condoms had holes in them that allowed HIV to get through, which is obviously incorrect, but this wasn't an official Vatican position as far as I know.

I will tell you that my girlfriend just worked with Catholic nuns in Africa, and nuns were giving condoms to the men and women in their villages when they were available.


No, it just means you have no idea that religions accept or reject scientific evidence as a matter of expediency with no regard for the scientific truth of matters.

Though the Vatican is interested in scientific inquiry and dedicates organizations to its advancement, it is not the job of the church to get behind scientific "truths" before they are determined theories. The church has always got behind major paradigm shifts in science after they have become fully accepted by the scientific community--evolution, heliocentricism, big bang, etc.


You know that's not true, because scientists back then were smart enough to realise that an infinite universe is impossible. And even if it were true, it wasn't long before the Big Bang was accepted, which had nothing to do with it's discoverer's religious inclinations and everything to do with it fitting the available evidence.

It is true, look it up if you don't believe it. Scientists came around later after there was a stockpile of evidence, but the original work done by catholics was based on observation--specifically the red light left behind moving stars originating from a single location.


I laugh at the idea of providing physical evidence on the Internet of all places laugh.gif

Use your fucking brain. Do you think as many people would take the Catholic Church seriously if they interpreted the biblical account of Genesis as anything other than allegory? No, they just use some inventive theology to paper over the cracks and bank on religious indoctrination to make sure that as few meaningful questions are asked as possible.

It's what you have to do if you use a book of lies as the basis for your worldview.

Over the last couple hundred years, biblical work has shifted to a metaphorical work, but the overall meaning and perspective that I mentioned earlier remains the same and the focal point of the church's teaching. See earlier comments.


And if the Bible is not a scientific work, then why does it make claims that fall within the boundaries of science?

Does Pi equal 3?

Name some of these claims?


Also, if you actually read the Bible you'll realise the morality contained within is utterly bankrupt, and our purpose as human beings is to constantly appease a genocidal, intolerant and maliciously cruel cosmic bastard.

Christianity is the most dominant religion in the world and has been the moral basis for nation states for the past few thousand years. It does surprisingly well being so bankrupt..


So what? Plenty of secular organisations devote time and resources to scientific research. All you're proving is that the Catholic Church has a lot of money to throw around, something that we know already. Mainly because they've also been using it fund missionaries whose job it is to create more Catholics. :hack-spit:

Yup, they do love to keep membership numbers up. What's your point?


You are a fucking idiot, aren't you? You're too braindead to realise that religious belief by it's very nature discourages scientific modes of thought.

You can say it with italics and bolds but you have yet to offer up any proof.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I thought we were talking about creationism... And that is indeed an almost exclusively American Protestant phenomenon

Well, if you mean that creationism is at it's most powerful there, then I wholeheartedly agree. Still, it's not quite exclusively American. From an article (http://education.independent.co.uk/schools/article485814.ece) in the independent:

Despite this, a recent Mori poll for the BBC found that only 48 per cent of the British population accept the theory of evolution; 39 per cent of people surveyed preferred to put their faith in creationism or ID.

And from The Guardian (http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1957858,00.html):

Dozens of schools are using creationist teaching materials condemned by the government as "not appropriate to support the science curriculum", the Guardian has learned.
The packs promote the creationist alternative to Darwinian evolution called intelligent design and the group behind them said 59 schools are using the information as "a useful classroom resource".


although opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage do indeed constitute reactionary opinions, and the Catholic Church does indeed promote them quite strongly, they are not questions of scientific inquiry.

They nearly always overlap, though. The Church often spreads outright lies masquerading as science when it tackles these issues. The foetus is a full, individual life from conception, for example. Sorry to keep quoting, but it's better to show this stuff directly rather than I simply assert it. From the catholic enclyopedia: (Italics added for emphasis)

St. Gregory of Nyssa had advocated the view which modern science has confirmed almost to a certainty, namely, that the same life principle quickens the organism from the first moment of its individual existence until its death (Eschbach, Disp. Phys., Disp., iii). Now it is at the very time of conception, or fecundation, that the embryo begins to live a distinct individual life. For life does not result from an organism when it has been built up, but the vital principle builds up the organism of its own body.

The same holds true of same-sex marriage, i.e. Homosexuality is a behaviour and not an orientation, and a conscious decision at that. Heterosexuality is 'natural'. This flies in the face of science.

An example that NoXion brought up was the official lies about condoms and AIDS. The Church's ethical position that artificial contraception is wrong leads to distortion of science, i.e. HIV can fit through 'holes' in the condoms, or even that that condoms are laced with the virus.


The point is, progressive Christians do exist, and they are not few. A related point is that atheists are doing a lot of harm by promoting the view that fundamentalists are the only "true Christians".


Oh sure, there are a heck of a lot of progressive christians, I'm not denying that. However, I tend to think that christians are progressive despite their christianity, and certainly not due to it. Fundamentalists could be called "true christians" in the sense that they actually believe what their scripture tells them to believe, without compromising to be socially acceptable. Progressive christians only exist because fundamentalist christianity, or rather the old christianity, is no longer considered tenable.


we are trying to establish the source of reactionary attitudes within religious circles. Is it Christian religion itself that is the source, is it the Church as an institution, or is it perhaps neither of them?

I'd stand by what I said previously - It is in the church's nature, whether by scripture or not, to uphold dogmatisms, and to reject change and progress. That is why they clung to geocentrism; It was an established dogma, promoted by the church. Of course there is also the fact that earth being directly at the centre of the universe would make for a very compelling teleological argument. This preference for absolute truths is right at the heart of science and religion's conflict. Science will never sit back and say it has a final answer on anything, whereas religion completely craves that.

"For faith, fanatic faith, once wedded fast
To some dear falsehood, hugs it to the last"!


It's not that religion causes reaction, it's that reactionary people tend to be religious.

I understand what you're saying here, and I admit that I hadn't thought of it like that before. What's your evidence for this? And why is it that reactionary people tend towards religion? If that's so, surely it follows that there is something inherently reactionary in the nature of religion, attracting reactionaries to it?


the Church (or rather, some Church) opposed scientific development for religious reasons in those two instances as well, besides in the instance of the theory of evolution.

Yeah, but it's not just those two instances. The Church has a long history of it. Off the top of my head, following the collapse of the roman empire, no anatomical dissections were allowed on human corpses, which once again lead to a ridiculous and primitive idea of anatomy being elevated to the church to a status of inerrancy.

It has always happened. Thankfully the church's power has greatly diminished since the middle ages and rennaisance, but there still remains that edge. Where ever possible, it will distort science to fit in with their religious beliefs and scripture, because to the church, science is secondary to faith.


it does seem strange to suggest that women should have one less rib than men, even based on a literal reading of Genesis... surely if you remove a rib from a woman's body, her daughters will not be born with one less rib!

:lol: Never underestimate historical stupidity.


If you accept that religious attitudes and opinions are dictated by the rank and file though, to what extent can religion be said to be authoritarian, hierarchical or oppressive?

It is authoritarian in the sense that it makes people believe, with certainty, that unless they live their lives for jesus, they will burn forever in hell. It is hierarchical in the sense that it makes people constantly submit to an imagined entity, sometimes physically. Flagellants, for example, or kneeling in prayer. It is oppressive in the sense that it encourages it&#39;s followers to oppress. No marriage for gays, no abortions for raped women, no physician assisted suicide, no nothin&#39;. <_<

And remember I said scripture as well as rank and file. Religion is ultimately an expression of scripture, is it not?

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Chimx:


For a while some members of the church were saying that condoms had holes in them that allowed HIV to get through, which is obviously incorrect, but this wasn&#39;t an official Vatican position as far as I know.

Vatican&#39;s position on condoms (http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html)

It was their official position.


Name some of these claims?

Pi equals 3, according to Kings 7:23.


And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.

-Alex

[chimx]

They church official saying that was the Vatican&#39;s Pontifical Council for the Family, not a scientist. This was also 5 years ago, and plenty Catholic folk have since acknowledged the effectiveness of condoms, but don&#39;t get behind them for moral reasons.

A cubit is barely a unit of measurement. It is the length of your elbow to the end of your middle finger. What the fuck does that have to do with the scientific basis of pi though? You people are fucking grasping at nothing. Do Christians today think that Pi is 3? Of course not, you are reading the bible like a fucking fundamentalist, and then condemning non-fundamentalist christians for reading the bible for an alternative reason than yourself. You are a step away from being a teleevangelist.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

They church official saying that was the Vatican&#39;s Pontifical Council for the Family, not a scientist

That hardly exonerates them. In any case, they were backed up by some cardinals as well, and there was never any contrary response from within the church at all, despite it being a malicious lie.


plenty Catholic folk have since acknowledged the effectiveness of condoms

They caved in, as that article points out, due to a lot of pressure from the World Health Organization and the US national institutes of health. They had little choice, no one can blatantly lie about something so important for that long.


What the fuck does that have to do with the scientific basis of pi though?

Well, assuming the cubit remains uniform, that would mean Pi has to equal 3.


You people are fucking grasping at nothing

I&#39;m not really that bothered about the Pi thing, it&#39;s just one example, and I thought that since NoXion mentioned it, I&#39;d follow that one up.

How about man&#39;s instant creation from dust? That contradicts evolution, surely?

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


Do Christians today think that Pi is 3?

No, because they would be laughed at, but that passage doesn&#39;t disappear, and it is supposed to be the inerrant word of God. It&#39;s actually inconsistent for them to believe otherwise, though I wouldn&#39;t want them to be biblically consistent at all, and once again I don&#39;t regard this as an especially important issue


you are reading the bible like a fucking fundamentalist

Well, if that means reading the bible and taking what it says as what it means, then yes, I am. Fundamentalists, awful people as they are, read the bible honestly most of the time. Most of the time, the bible has far too much specificity and build up to realistically be a metaphor.


You are a step away from being a teleevangelist.

:lol: Okay man.

-Alex

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by chimx
I will go a step farther than Edric O, and argue that it is not antithetical because it is not comparable. As I have already said, theology is not about discovering or describing the mechanical workings of the physical world. It is about creating meaning and perspective on human experiences and human understanding of the world.

The Bible disagrees. It makes claims that are unarguably within the realms of science. See here (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html) for details.


Catholics tell people not to use condoms because it is against their moral understanding of sex, that sex shouldn&#39;t exist outside of marriage and that it shouldn&#39;t be done other than for the creation of life.

And they have absolutely no right whatsoever to be forcing their outdated morality on everyone else.


I will tell you that my girlfriend just worked with Catholic nuns in Africa, and nuns were giving condoms to the men and women in their villages when they were available.

Then they are doing against Catholic doctrine, since as far I know all forms of contraception are still condemned by the Vatican. This is more likely than before with the new pontiff, who happens to be more conservative than the last one.


Though the Vatican is interested in scientific inquiry and dedicates organizations to its advancement, it is not the job of the church to get behind scientific "truths" before they are determined theories.

And that is why the Vatican and similar organisations have no place in a modern society, which owes it&#39;s existance to scientific advancement.


The church has always got behind major paradigm shifts in science after they have become fully accepted by the scientific community--evolution, heliocentricism, big bang, etc.

That&#39;s probably because they don&#39;t want their less braindead followers from jumping the good ship Superstition, because that would leave them with the dumb ones and make them look more ridiculous than they already are.


It is true, look it up if you don&#39;t believe it. Scientists came around later after there was a stockpile of evidence, but the original work done by catholics was based on observation--specifically the red light left behind moving stars originating from a single location.

Vesto Slipher, Carl Wilhelm Wirtz and Edwin Hubble were Catholics? Vesto and Carl observed the redshift itself, while Hubble deduced universal expansion from those observations. I can find no mention of them being Catholic.

But in any case, it wouldn&#39;t have taken a Catholic to come up with the Big Bang theory - all it would have taken was someone smart enough to run observed unversal expansion backwards to it&#39;s logical conclusion.


Over the last couple hundred years, biblical work has shifted to a metaphorical work, but the overall meaning and perspective that I mentioned earlier remains the same and the focal point of the church&#39;s teaching. See earlier comments.

If it&#39;s all metaphorical, why take it with any seriousness at all?


Name some of these claims?

See the link above.


Christianity is the most dominant religion in the world and has been the moral basis for nation states for the past few thousand years. It does surprisingly well being so bankrupt..

Christianity may be the dominant religion in the West, but by no means is it the West&#39;s moral foundation; that&#39;s Christian propaganda. THIS (http://creationtheory.org/BiblicalMorality/TenCommandments.shtml) page demonstrates that typical Western values are not represented in the Bible.


Yup, they do love to keep membership numbers up. What&#39;s your point?

And you think that it&#39;s a good thing for one of the most reactionary institutions in the world to increase it&#39;s membership no matter the cost? For fuck&#39;s sake, any Catholic can create more Catholics in the eyes of the Vatican simply by splashing water on some poor unsuspecting person&#39;s head and mumbling some words. Look up the case of Edgardo Mortara to see the consequences of this.


You can say it with italics and bolds but you have yet to offer up any proof.

I&#39;ll make it stupidly simple for your benefit. Religion requires faith. Faith is belief without proof. Belief without proof has disasterous consequences.


A cubit is barely a unit of measurement. It is the length of your elbow to the end of your middle finger. What the fuck does that have to do with the scientific basis of pi though?

No matter the length of the measurement, Pi always equals 3.14159, which is the ratio of a circle&#39;s circumference to its diameter in Euclidean geometry.

The Bible is wrong, like it is on many other subjects.


You people are fucking grasping at nothing. Do Christians today think that Pi is 3? Of course not, you are reading the bible like a fucking fundamentalist, and then condemning non-fundamentalist christians for reading the bible for an alternative reason than yourself.

The fundamentalists are actually more honest in their interpetation of the Bible than the moderates. Liberal Christians break biblical laws that still apply to them.


You are a step away from being a teleevangelist.

Are you serious? Are you honestly comparing some anonymous atheist on the internet to a rich old white man who makes a living off the backs of the terminally indoctrinated?

[wtfm8lol]

This is more likely than before with the new pontiff, who happens to be more conservative than the last one.

it seems that if all popes are just doing gods will, each should act just as conservatively as the rest.

[Eleutherios]

Attributing the Big Bang theory to Catholicism is, well, ridiculous. Okay, so Catholics predicted there would be a moment of creation for the universe, because the Bible describes such an event, and they turned out to be right in a vague sense. Does that mean that Catholicism discovered the Big Bang before science did? No. Catholics didn&#39;t find out that the universe had a beginning by looking at the evidence and coming to the right conclusion; they just guessed long before science had any evidence to look at. If the universe turned out to follow a steady-state model, would you then credit Hinduism with discovering that the universe is eternal? No, not even if the theory was proved by the most devout Hindu on the planet. That kind of knowledge can only come from science.

Religion teaches us nothing but blind speculation and barbaric mythology. Yeah, it sometimes coincides with reality, but when you&#39;re choosing between (1) the universe had a beginning and (2) the universe has been around forever, you&#39;ve got a 50/50 chance of being right in the absence of evidence.

If the Catholic Church really cares about science, they&#39;ll start doing scientific double-blind studies on things like the efficacy of Catholic prayers, and they&#39;ll be willing to throw out centuries-old ideas if they contradict the scientific evidence.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

More scientific claims in the bible:

The population in Egypt goes from seventy (Exodus 1:5) to several million(Exodus 12:37 + 38:26) in a few hundred years.

The Israelites took 40 years to get from Egypt to Canaan, which evenby walking would take ten days. (Deuteronomy 2:7 + 8:2)

The Earth rests on pillars. (Psalm 75:3) There are many, many verses that back up the pillars idea, but unless anyone is desperate for more, I&#39;ll leave them.

-Alex

[venderm]

I have a response to a few of these issues being raised.

The modern world seems to have a hard time believing that science and religion could have ever existed in harmony, but the imagery of "war" between Christianity and science did not come into being until the twentieth century. It cannot be denied that there has been a definite decline in modern Christian thought, but these contemporary failures do not reflect the rich role of intellect and reason within historical Christianity and its followers.

The following list is of religious people who contributed to science:

Roger Bacon (1214-1294) – Christian and English philosopher that emphasized empiricism and was one of the earliest proponents of the modern scientific method

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) – introduced heliocentric model

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) –

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) –

René Descartes (1596–1650) – author of “Meditations on First Philosophy.”

Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) –

Robert Boyle (1627–1691) – Scientist and theologian who argued that the study of science could improve glorification of God.

Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716) –

Isaac Newton (1643–1727) –

Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778) – considered ‘father of modern taxonomy’

Michael Faraday (1791–1867) –

Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) – considered ‘father of modern genetics’

Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) –

and by no means is this an exhaustive list. these are just the most readily recognizable names.

Staunch atheists tend to strongly resist admitting it, but it is acknowledged by many that it was the Christian worldview, coupled with greek thought, that led to the rise of ‘modern’ science. For example, Robert J. Oppenheimer (a non-christian scientist) stated very plainly that not only did science begin within the consensus and setting of Christianity, but that Christianity was actually necessary in order to give rise to modern science. (From “On Science and Culture.” Encounter, 1962.) Alfred North Whitehead stated very much the same thing.

The reason that Christian thought provided the proper intellectual climate for scientific thinking was due to the believers’ understanding of their God and his creation of the world and of humanity. First of all, according to their view God had created an objective reality that existed independent of human thought that could be observed, dealt with, thought about, and investigated objectively. It gave rise to a certainty of the validity of phenomenon such as cause and effect and inductive reasoning. They believed in both the special revelation of the bible, and the general revelation of creation, and saw it fitting to study both.

Second, they believed that God had created man with a rational mind and reliable senses that were capable of valid discernment regarding the world around them, and that it was their duty as a servant of God to do so. For instance, Francis Bacon wrote the following: “Man by the Fall fell at the same time from his state of innocence and from his dominion over nature. Both of these losses, however, can even in this life be in some part repaired; the former by religion and faith, the latter by the arts and sciences.” By these pioneers of scientific thought, science was seen as a way to know creation, and thereby the creator, more intimately. It was a form of worship for them. In short, they believed that a reasonable God had created a reasonable universe, and thus man could use his faculty of reason to accurately explore it.

Furthermore, there are plenty of scientists today (even in the midst of such modern, skeptical times) that are actually finding religion as a result of their scientific studies.



Also, i wish to respond to the constant assertion that faith == blind faith. this is not the case. (certainly, it is the case for some, and possibly even the majority - but they are in the wrong.)

Throughout church history, theologians have expressed three distinct aspects of biblical faith: notitia, fiducia, and assensus. Notitia refers to the content or doctrine Christian thought. Assensus refers to the intellectual assent to the truth of that content. And fiducia denotes a trust in and personal application of those truths. Faith requires a careful exercise of the intellect in understanding the content, and there is a careful application of reason in determining whether or not that content is true. This is why true faith and understanding in any religion can only come out of a careful period of study and personal reflection.

The bible also seems to prefer reason to blind authority (unlike the modern church). Paul did not respond to questions by saying, “just have faith.” Rather he responded with “words of truth and rationality” (Acts 26:25) in support of Christ, or asked them to do whatever was necessary to satisfy their minds (for instance, he states that there are still over 500 living witnesses and that they should go seek their testimony rather than just take his word for it). Paul also asks that followers be able to give rational justification to anyone that might ask why they believe what they do (Peter 3:15). And if you look to the writings of Augustine and Aquinas (despite their flaws) you will see that they rely primarily on extra-biblical sources and rational argumentation to make their points (not a demand for blind submission to authority).

[Publius]

I have a response to a few of these issues being raised.

The modern world seems to have a hard time believing that science and religion could have ever existed in harmony, but the imagery of "war" between Christianity and science did not come into being until the twentieth century.

Maybe the imagery didn&#39;t, but faith and superstition have always opposed to scientific inquiry.


It cannot be denied that there has been a definite decline in modern Christian thought, but these contemporary failures do not reflect the rich role of intellect and reason within historical Christianity and its followers.

There have some been sharp Christians, that&#39;s without doubt. Augustine probably had an intellect that would make even my own look minuscule in comparison. But that doesn&#39;t make him right.

Newton is another good example of this.



The following list is of religious people who contributed to science:

Roger Bacon (1214-1294) – Christian and English philosopher that emphasized empiricism and was one of the earliest proponents of the modern scientific method

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) – introduced heliocentric model

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) –

Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) –

René Descartes (1596–1650) – author of “Meditations on First Philosophy.”

Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) –

Robert Boyle (1627–1691) – Scientist and theologian who argued that the study of science could improve glorification of God.

Gottfried Leibniz (1646–1716) –

Isaac Newton (1643–1727) –

Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778) – considered ‘father of modern taxonomy’

Michael Faraday (1791–1867) –

Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) – considered ‘father of modern genetics’

Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) –

and by no means is this an exhaustive list. these are just the most readily recognizable names.

That&#39;s all true.

But all somewhat beside the point. Just because they were religious and scientists doesn&#39;t mean there is no conflict between religion and science, it just means they were able to work around it or ignore it. I think all of them clearly did not fully employ their scientific talents, because they believed quite a few things on suspect evidence.

I don&#39;t see how that&#39;s any astonishing fact, though, everyone believes in some things that are unreasonable.



Staunch atheists tend to strongly resist admitting it, but it is acknowledged by many that it was the Christian worldview, coupled with greek thought, that led to the rise of ‘modern’ science.

Total nonsense.

One, I would it&#39;s almost entirely that Greek influence, which just happened to be inserted into the Christian worldview by people such as Augustine.

The Old Testament God is not a scientific God. Jesus is not a good researcher. The Bible itself is a not a good basis for your scientific tests. It&#39;s only to the extent that Greek thought can be juxtaposed with Christianity that the tradition is open to science.


For example, Robert J. Oppenheimer (a non-christian scientist) stated very plainly that not only did science begin within the consensus and setting of Christianity, but that Christianity was actually necessary in order to give rise to modern science. (From “On Science and Culture.” Encounter, 1962.) Alfred North Whitehead stated very much the same thing.

I think that&#39;s ridiculous. You need only look at the pre-Christian science, the Islamic science, and the Eastern science to know that this is simply nonsense.

Yes, most of our culture, including our science, is based on Christianity. But that doesn&#39;t mean that Christianity itself is the cause of that science. That&#39;s simply fallacious reasoning.

Just because you can find some people who can reconcile (sometimes convincingly) faith and reason doesn&#39;t mean that the ideas are themselves compatible. I find it impossible to believe that the specific brand of superstition practiced by one Abrahamic tribe is the sufficient condition for rational scientific inquiry. That&#39;s just obviously wrong. And once we aknowledge that, we see that, at best, Christianity has just co-existed with science.



The reason that Christian thought provided the proper intellectual climate for scientific thinking was due to the believers’ understanding of their God and his creation of the world and of humanity. First of all, according to their view God had created an objective reality that existed independent of human thought that could be observed, dealt with, thought about, and investigated objectively.

Tell that to the Gnostics.


It gave rise to a certainty of the validity of phenomenon such as cause and effect and inductive reasoning.

Tell that to Hume.



They believed in both the special revelation of the bible, and the general revelation of creation, and saw it fitting to study both.

Yes, and the Muslims had no problem doing the same. I could dig up some passages of the Koran that are very pro-science (arguably more so than anything in the Bible). But that wouldn&#39;t demonstrate that the Muslim religion is the basis of all Arabic scientific thought, now would it?



Second, they believed that God had created man with a rational mind and reliable senses that were capable of valid discernment regarding the world around them, and that it was their duty as a servant of God to do so. For instance, Francis Bacon wrote the following: “Man by the Fall fell at the same time from his state of innocence and from his dominion over nature. Both of these losses, however, can even in this life be in some part repaired; the former by religion and faith, the latter by the arts and sciences.” By these pioneers of scientific thought, science was seen as a way to know creation, and thereby the creator, more intimately. It was a form of worship for them. In short, they believed that a reasonable God had created a reasonable universe, and thus man could use his faculty of reason to accurately explore it.

If only. Newton himself was bested by the idea of "irreducible complexity", "the God of the gaps." When calculating the planets orbits, he encountered a problem: as the math got more complex, the objects would start to shift out of their orbits. The laws Newton originally thought up only gave an approximation of the planet&#39;s movement, and they required that every so often the planets orbits be righted, so as not the break down and destroy the math. So Newton just tossed in the idea, to his theory, that God re-aligns the planets now and then. I dont&#39; think I need to tell you that this idea turned out to be false. It took about a hundred years or so, but eventually someone figured out the math, (I think it became the basis for complexity theory, but I could be wrong), and demonstrated that with just a few very minor modifications, Newton&#39;s formulae would work. Now what&#39;s most interesting about this is the math that solved this problem wasn&#39;t that complex. Newton could have easily discovered it himself. But he didn&#39;t. Because he gave up, and just said "God did it." So we waited a hundred years to figure out this problem because Newton thought God solved his math problems. And in an interesting sidenote, this is from where we derive the story of Napoleon asking about where God fits into the Universe, and the scientist who figured this out replying to him "I have no need of that hypothesis." Anyway, I stole that entire story from a Neil DeGrasse Tyson speech, but it&#39;s a very good story. I could link it to you if you&#39;d want me to.



Furthermore, there are plenty of scientists today (even in the midst of such modern, skeptical times) that are actually finding religion as a result of their scientific studies.


I think about 7% of the National Academy of Sciences are theistically inclined.



Also, i wish to respond to the constant assertion that faith == blind faith. this is not the case. (certainly, it is the case for some, and possibly even the majority - but they are in the wrong.)

Not Biblically they aren&#39;t.



Throughout church history, theologians have expressed three distinct aspects of biblical faith: notitia, fiducia, and assensus. Notitia refers to the content or doctrine Christian thought. Assensus refers to the intellectual assent to the truth of that content. And fiducia denotes a trust in and personal application of those truths. Faith requires a careful exercise of the intellect in understanding the content, and there is a careful application of reason in determining whether or not that content is true. This is why true faith and understanding in any religion can only come out of a careful period of study and personal reflection.

You don&#39;t need a telescope to be a Christian. You don&#39;t need a biology book. You don&#39;t to know math, or psychology, or history, or anything.

Doesn&#39;t the Bible say that a smart man the Gospel would appear foolish? I&#39;m pretty sure it says something to that effect.



The bible also seems to prefer reason to blind authority (unlike the modern church). Paul did not respond to questions by saying, “just have faith.” Rather he responded with “words of truth and rationality” (Acts 26:25) in support of Christ, or asked them to do whatever was necessary to satisfy their minds (for instance, he states that there are still over 500 living witnesses and that they should go seek their testimony rather than just take his word for it).

There are probably 10 times as many living witness for Satya Sai Baba.


Paul also asks that followers be able to give rational justification to anyone that might ask why they believe what they do (Peter 3:15). And if you look to the writings of Augustine and Aquinas (despite their flaws) you will see that they rely primarily on extra-biblical sources and rational argumentation to make their points (not a demand for blind submission to authority).

It&#39;s unsurprising that the works of high genius philosophers would be based on logic. But the problem is, all of their logic is flawed, all of their reasoning insufficient to demonstrate that God exists.

Surely admit that you cannot logically demonstrate the existence of God?