Christian anti-Science

monosharp

Its been a recurring theme here but unless I'm mistaken there hasn't been a thread entirely devoted to the subject.

I'd like to start by talking about one of the most famous instances, namely the persecution of Galileo Galilei by the Catholic Church. I've seen it stated here and elsewhere that this is a commonly held view but it is in fact incorrect, that it wasn't Christianity itself which disagreed with Galileo but rather Church officials with views outside of the religion which disagreed with him.

Like the nonsense here on this christian apologetic site. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html

This is a good yarn commonly quoted by some Christians today. Of course its entirely fictional and was created to help the church and Christianity itself save face.

The churches problem with Galileo was due to verses in the Bible, it had nothing to do with the ancient greeks except that the gencentric model held by the Greeks, where the sun orbits the Earth, was seen as not in conflict with biblical verses.

The verses in question are; Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place".

Galileo was found guilty by the inquisition;

Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.

So no, the persecution of Galileo had nothing to do with the view of ancient greeks on astronomy anymore then it had to do with the ancient greeks views on philosophy. The persecution of Galileo was entirely caused by his theories apparent contradiction to verses in the christian bible.

Even today you still have people who support the geocentric model because they hold to a literal interpretation of the christian bible and other religious texts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism

Modern geocentrists subscribe to the view that a literal reading of the Bible contains an accurate account of the manner in which the universe was created and requires a geocentric worldview

In fact all of the supporters of geocentricism today are religious, the majority been Christian or Jewish.

The Association for Biblical Astronomy is the major organisation promoting a geocentric view. Robert Sungenis, the president of Catholic Apologetics International, wrote a book in 2006 entitled Galileo Was Wrong.

Another commonly stated view by christians is that even though the church did persecute Galileo, Galileo himself was a christian and his 'christianity' led him to study astronomy in the first place. They also like to state how Galileo preceded by Copernicus, were the first guys to come up with the heliocentric model.

The first person to come up with such ideas was Aristarchus, a Greek astronomer and mathematician. Galileo studied astronomy out of curiousity, his religious beliefs played a part in that curiosity but it was nothing unique to Christianity itself.

Eppur si muove.

JimiTime

I blame the Korean evangelicals meself.

Zombrex

Already discussed to death here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055497912

My view is that religion is anti-science but not anti-curiosity, and science is not simply curiosity, which is where a lot of the disagreement arises from.

philologos

^^ A blanket statement don't you think? It really depends on what organisation is involved. Many Christians, are actively involved in scientific fields, and actively support finding out more about the world we live in.

Hardly anti-science.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Its been a recurring theme here but unless I'm mistaken there hasn't been a thread entirely devoted to the subject.

I'd like to start by talking about one of the most famous instances, namely the persecution of Galileo Galilei by the Catholic Church. I've seen it stated here and elsewhere that this is a commonly held view but it is in fact incorrect, that it wasn't Christianity itself which disagreed with Galileo but rather Church officials with views outside of the religion which disagreed with him.

I think you're probably referring to me, since I have alluded to this on a number of occasions. If so then you are misrepresenting my position by oversimplifying it (not unusual, I must say).

However, it is true to say that it was not Christianity itself that disagreed with Galileo. It was the Catholic Church. In fact Galileo's works were able to be published in the Netherlands due to the freer intellectual attitude that prevailed there due to the Protestant reformation.

Its been a recurring theme here but unless I'm mistaken there hasn't been a thread entirely devoted to the subject.

I'd like to start by talking about one of the most famous instances, namely the persecution of Galileo Galilei by the Catholic Church. I've seen it stated here and elsewhere that this is a commonly held view but it is in fact incorrect, that it wasn't Christianity itself which disagreed with Galileo but rather Church officials with views outside of the religion which disagreed with him.

Like the nonsense here on this christian apologetic site. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html

This is a good yarn commonly quoted by some Christians today. Of course its entirely fictional and was created to help the church and Christianity itself save face.

It certainly isn't 'entirely' fictional, but if you think your historical knowledge is superior then you are free to point out which quotations or facts cited on that website you believe to be fictional.

The churches problem with Galileo was due to verses in the Bible, it had nothing to do with the ancient greeks except that the gencentric model held by the Greeks, where the sun orbits the Earth, was seen as not in conflict with biblical verses.

Oh dear, you've not made a very good start there, have you? As any student of medieval History knows, Thomas Aquinas adopted Aristotle's ideas to such a degree that it became hopelessly entangled with the way the Bible was interpreted:

"Aristotle's Natural Philosophy was embodied in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and became the foundation of Church doctrine and University instruction in medieval times." Where does that quote come from? A fictional yarn invented to help the church save face? No - it's from the University of California's Center for Astrophysics & Space Sciences: http://casswww.ucsd.edu/public/tutorial/History.html

Aquinas' version of Aristotleanism was so influential that his books were frequently placed on medieval church altars alongside the Bible. This meant that Biible verses tended to be interpreted through the perspective of Aristotle - the scientific orthodoxy of the day.

Galileo was found guilty by the inquisition;

Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy," namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.

The bit you bold-faced would be more impressive if it hadn't already been cited in the website that you yourself dismissed as "entirely fictional".

Galileo himself, being the devout Christian that he was, was at pains to point out that his views were consistent with Scripture (which, of course, they were). The problem was the Inquisition's insistence on interpreting Scripture through the prism of Aristotle.

So no, the persecution of Galileo had nothing to do with the view of ancient greeks on astronomy anymore then it had to do with the ancient greeks views on philosophy. The persecution of Galileo was entirely caused by his theories apparent contradiction to verses in the christian bible.

We're not talking about the ancient Greeks in general so much as we are talking about Aristotle in particular. His philosophy and his astronomy were intertwined - and their malignant influence upon the Church.

Galileo was persecuted because his views contradicted the scientific orthodoxy of the day, and the Catholic Church cited Scripture to justify their actions just as they did so to support other unbiblical actions such as the persecution of Protestants.

Even today you still have people who support the geocentric model because they hold to a literal interpretation of the christian bible and other religious texts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism

Irrelevant claptrap. The ideological motives of a group of modern nutcases hasnothing todowith the historical reasons why Galileo endured his persecution.

Another commonly stated view by christians is that even though the church did persecute Galileo, Galileo himself was a christian and his 'christianity' led him to study astronomy in the first place.

Not just Christians. I first heard this from Dava Sobel, the author of the excellent book "Galileo's Daughter".

However, I am happy to look at any evidence you have that Galileo was not a Christian, or that his Christianity did not motivate his studies. What is that evidence?

They also like to state how Galileo preceded by Copernicus, were the first guys to come up with the heliocentric model.

Really? Now that would be an interesting position to take.

Please provide any evidence you have of Christians stating that Copernicus or Galileo were the first guys to come up with the heliocentric model. I am all ears.

The first person to come up with such ideas was Aristarchus, a Greek astronomer and mathematician.

Yes, we know that. Nobody here AFAIK has ever suggested anything different.

Galileo studied astronomy out of curiousity, his religious beliefs played a part in that curiosity but it was nothing unique to Christianity itself.

OK, so now you're agreeing that Galileo's religious beliefs did contribute to his studies. But the next phrase is worded somehat confusedly. What other religious beliefs are you suggesting contributed to his curiosity if not Christianity? Hinduism? Buddhism? Islam?

Manach

PDN wrote: »

However, it is true to say that it was not Christianity itself that disagreed with Galileo. It was the Catholic Church. In fact Galileo's works were able to be published in the Netherlands due to the freer intellectual attitude that prevailed there due to the Protestant reformation.

AFAIR from an OU course, I believe it was Luther, the doyen of Protestanism, had some fairly uncomplementary words to say against Copernicus' model of the solar system. Hardly a good start for Reformation intellectual freedom.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ A blanket statement don't you think? It really depends on what organisation is involved. Many Christians, are actively involved in scientific fields, and actively support finding out more about the world we live in.

Hardly anti-science.

I didn't say religious people are anti-science, I said religion is anti-science. I once knew a person who worked for an oil company in Alaska and was a member of Greenpeace, a persons own person conflicts isn't the actual issue, it doesn't mean that Greepeace is pro-oil.

Most, if not all, religions make claims about reality where the nature of the claim runs counter to scientific standards. They are, therefore, anti-science. If you make a claim about something which science says you can't know or that you haven't demonstrated to a scientific standard yet continue to make this claim you are basically ignoring why science has this standard in the first place and thus are ignoring scientific standards, which is being anti-science.

It would be the same as saying I don't think sin exists therefore I don't think there is anything wrong with pre-marital sex runs counter to Christian principles. Someone can say that and still they "but I'm still a Christian" but that doesn't stop the concept being anti-Christian.

The only response to this I've ever heard is that religions don't claim to make scientific statements and thus can't be anti-science.

Such a view actually misrepresents what science does (science does not divide the world up into scientific stuff and non-scientific stuff) and is therefore also anti-science by misrepresenting science. Religions make claims about what humans think is real, science studies what humans think is real, therefore there is no separation.

I explained all this before in that other thread. If anyone has some genuine questions feel free but lets try to avoid just rehashing out the old stuff.

PDN

Manach wrote: »

AFAIR from an OU course, I believe it was Luther, the doyen of Protestanism, had some fairly uncomplementary words to say against Copernicus' model of the solar system. Hardly a good start for Reformation intellectual freedom.

So, let me get this straight. Luther having one view rather than another is an infringement of intellectual freedom?

I think you are confusing two very separate issues. For example, I think that there are a lot of stupid ideas that people propagate. But I will defend to the death their right to believe and to publish those ideas.

Btw, I should also point out that most Protestants acknowledge Luther's historical role in the Reformation, but that does not mean that he represents the entire Reformation, or that everything he said was sensible. Luther, in my opinion, took some important steps in the right direction, but he was still a nasty anti-semite who still held to far too many of the Catholic Church's ideas and ways of doing things.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So, let me get this straight. Luther having one view rather than another is an infringement of intellectual freedom?

It is when Luther's theological views had strong reach, such as in Wittenberg university where lectures years after Luthers death still had to keep heliocentric theory out of the class room or face reprisals from the heads of the university.

As Andrew Dickson White put it

"Doubtless many will exclaim against the Roman Catholic Church for this; but the simple truth is that Protestantism was no less zealous against the new scientific doctrine. All branches of the Protestant Church - Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican - vied with each other in denouncing the Copernican doctrine as contrary to Scripture; and, at a later period, the Puritans showed the same tendency."

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

iUseVi

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you are talking about scientists of that era, then yes overall you would be right in that most were religious. But then most of those scientists also believed in astrology, and Newton and lots from that time would have been young earth creationists. All you are really doing is hi-lighting popular belief at the time. So what? Many scientists today are non-religious. Does this prove that Christianity is anti-science? Of course not.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Fremen

You picked a slightly unfortunate example with Galileo. The thing that everyone glosses over is that with the information available at the time, the geocentric model was perfectly reasonable.

Nowadays, people like to think of supporters of geocentrism back in Galileo's day as unscientific bible-bashers. In fact, the model had reasonably good predictive power, and could be used to forecast eclipses. On the other hand, it couldn't cope well with the observed retrograde motion of planets (this is where a planet appears to reverse direction in the sky over the course of a few days).

The heliocentric model explained retrograde motion perfectly, but it also made predictions which were not observed at the time. If you move your head from side to side, you'll notice things closer to you appear to move more. This is known as parallax. The same principle should have applied to the planets and stars, but was not observed. The telescopes available at the time weren't powerful enough to detect parallax between planets and stars, throwing doubt on the heliocentric theory.

It really wasn't as clear-cut as the popular myth would have you believe. Modern-day geocentrists are, of course, nutjobs.

iUseVi

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe I worded it badly. My point is the fact that most scientists used to be religious proves nothing, just as when some atheists say a lot of scientists are now irreligious proves nothing. Christianity was the society norm at the time.

PDN

iUseVi wrote: »

Christianity was the society norm at the time.

Or, to be more pedantic, Christianity was the norm at the time in those societies where science developed.

In other societies, where science did not develop to anything like the same degree, Christianity was not the norm at all. But that, as the OP has consistently stated in previous threads, is simply a huge coincidence.

Fremen

PDN wrote: »

Or, to be more pedantic, Christianity was the norm at the time in those societies where science developed.

In other societies, where science did not develop to anything like the same degree, Christianity was not the norm at all. But that, as the OP has consistently stated in previous threads, is simply a huge coincidence.

Just gonna have to stop you there again. China had quite a sophisticated scientific culture. Algebra is more or less an arabic invention.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Zombrex

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Modern scientific principles were largely unknown in Newtons time, and Newtons work was in an area largely devoid of the possibility of scriptural conflict.

He approached natural philosophy (the science of his day) with the view to uncovering the workings of God, and rejected philosophies that limited God's role or that he believed would lead to atheists conclusions.

Interestingly enough Newton had come to the theology position that the Trinity was wrong, but had to keep such a view semi-private yet risk punishment. Not scientific repression, but repression none the less.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

I think you're probably referring to me, since I have alluded to this on a number of occasions.

Not just you, several websites which promote this nonsense alongside creationism.

If so then you are misrepresenting my position by oversimplifying it (not unusual, I must say).

You're quite adept at oversimplifying things yourself.

However, it is true to say that it was not Christianity itself that disagreed with Galileo.

Of course. It was the majority of Christians interpretation of the Bible at the time which disagreed with Galileo, as I pointed out.

It was the Catholic Church.

It was Christians holding to a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible who disagreed with Galileo.

In fact Galileo's works were able to be published in the Netherlands due to the freer intellectual attitude that prevailed there due to the Protestant reformation.

I hope everyone reads this and is paying attention.

PDN are you trying to suggest that the Protestants of the time accepted Galileo's theories and were in fact not opposed to him ?

I like how you are trying to connect publication of his writings with the protestant reformation when in actuality the protestants of the time were equally or even more opposed to Galileo then the Catholics were. And the main opposition to reality in this matter and other scientific matters even today come from the Protestants, not from the Catholic Church.

And I'm not even going to comment on your suggestion that the Netherlands had a freer intellectual attitude because of the protestant reformation because its off-topic.

It certainly isn't 'entirely' fictional, but if you think your historical knowledge is superior then you are free to point out which quotations or facts cited on that website you believe to be fictional.

On just the page I referenced or on the whole website ?

You should check out their dinosaur section.
http://christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-where1.html

Or their explanation for a 6000 year old Earth.
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html

But I'll presume you mean the article I linked to.

Well lets look at the first paragraph.

Rather it was a conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition.

It was the view of the church because of biblical verses, not because of any kind of love for ancient Greek culture or Aristotle. Would you like me to point out all of Aristotles views that the Church didn't agree with ?

This is pure dishonesty on the writers part. Aristotle held a geocentric view of the solar system/Universe yes. But Christians position was due to the biblical verses I quoted, not any love for Aristotle. If Aristotle had held a heliocentric view like his countryman Philolaus or Aristarchus then the Churchs position would still have been geocentricism because it was based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

...Thomas Aquinas adopted Aristotle's ideas to such a degree that it became hopelessly entangled with the way the Bible was interpreted:

Because these ideas didn't contradict the Bible.

Aquinas' version of Aristotleanism was so influential that his books were frequently placed on medieval church altars alongside the Bible. This meant that Biible verses tended to be interpreted through the perspective of Aristotle - the scientific orthodoxy of the day.

Where Aristotles perspectives didn't contradict the Bible. Really is it that hard to understand ?

The Bible states;

#1 "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."
#2 "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
#3 "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place"

People interpreted this literally as meaning the Earth didn't move and the sun went around the Earth.

Aristotle didn't contradict this so was accepted.

The Bible states;

#1 There is only one God.

People interpreted this as meaning there is only one god.

Aristotle didn't contradict this (technically) so it was accepted.

This wasn't accepted because it was Aristotle's view, its using Aristotle to try to put some authority behind a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The bit you bold-faced would be more impressive if it hadn't already been cited in the website that you yourself dismissed as "entirely fictional".

Thats from wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

But of course your not a wikipedia fan. Heres some other links with the same information.

http://www.datatorch.com/Science/Scientists_Stories.aspx?id=51
http://www.rcadena.com/ensayos/galileo1.htm
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

Galileo himself, being the devout Christian that he was, was at pains to point out that his views were consistent with Scripture (which, of course, they were). The problem was the Inquisition's insistence on interpreting Scripture through the prism of Aristotle.

Their problem was insisting on interpreting the bible literally. Aristotle is not to blame for this anymore then the ancient Greeks are to blame for the Christian/churches stances against evolution.

Galileo was persecuted because his views contradicted the scientific orthodoxy of the day, and the Catholic Church cited Scripture to justify their actions just as they did so to support other unbiblical actions such as the persecution of Protestants.

Yes, the Church cited scripture to justify their actions because a literal interpretation was contradicted by science.

Again, Aristotle is not to blame.

Irrelevant claptrap. The ideological motives of a group of modern nutcases hasnothing todowith the historical reasons why Galileo endured his persecution.

Yes it does. These 'modern nutcases' are saying the exact same things against Galileo today that the Christians in the past used against him then.

OK, so now you're agreeing that Galileo's religious beliefs did contribute to his studies. But the next phrase is worded somehat confusedly. What other religious beliefs are you suggesting contributed to his curiosity if not Christianity? Hinduism? Buddhism? Islam?

My meaning is that his curiosity was concerned with wanting to understand something greater then himself. I don't believe it was anything specifically unique to the Christian faith.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

Or, to be more pedantic, Christianity was the norm at the time in those societies where science developed.

In other societies, where science did not develop to anything like the same degree, Christianity was not the norm at all. But that, as the OP has consistently stated in previous threads, is simply a huge coincidence.

Christianity was but one of many attributes of the European culture where most science was taking place during the period in question. You have yet to demonstrate that it is the important one. Another attribute for example is that this culture was made up mainly of white people. Is this a coincidence or are white people better at science? (please note I'm using this to demonstrate the absurdness of the argument, I'm not racist.)

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Or, to be more pedantic, Christianity was the norm at the time in those societies where science developed.

In other societies, where science did not develop to anything like the same degree, Christianity was not the norm at all. But that, as the OP has consistently stated in previous threads, is simply a huge coincidence.

How many times does this have to be correct? :rolleyes:

Science developed in countries, European and Arabic, that had access to Greek writings, because all western science and natural philosophy can be traced back to these.

Any major western natural philosopher in the renaissance or enlightenment had access to, and build upon, Greek writings. Newton for example spend most of his early life studying Greek natural philosophy and frequently appealed to it when forming his own ideas.

Science developed primarily in Europe because natural philosophy developed primarily in Europe. Natural philosophy developed primarily in Europe because of the Greeks. It also developed in the Arabic countries because they too had access to Greek natural philosophy and mathematics.

Natural philosophy developed independently in Asia but was not as dominant as in Euroasia because, for various historical reasons, it was slower in advancing to the stage the Greeks brought us.

Christianity, as distinct from any other religion, had very little to do with it. It was Greece. Who weren't Christian, in case anyone needs this clarified.

And before anyone goes that is just atheist anti-theism, you will all remember the Greeks were a theistic society. The only bias here is people trying to make out that their religion, Christianity, is super cool! :rolleyes:

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

iUseVi

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think he is suggesting something like that, but he has yet to demonstrate that hypothesis.

Zombrex

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I know what he is suggesting, the problem is what he is suggesting is just biased silliness.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Not just you, several websites which promote this nonsense alongside creationism.

If you want to bang on about Creationism then we have a thread for you to do that.

I hope everyone reads this and is paying attention.

PDN are you trying to suggest that the Protestants of the time accepted Galileo's theories and were in fact not opposed to him ?

I hope everybody is paying attention, because you obviously are not.

I didn't say that the Protestants of the time accepted Galileo's theories. I said that the Reformation in the Netherlands resulted in a environment where diverse ideas, in many areas of thought, were able to be published.

I'm really getting rather tired of stating things in plain English only for you to respond by saying "PDN, are you really suggesting that ......" and then going on to make some claim that is nowhere near anything that I've ever said. Why do you do it? It pretty well stymies any discussion as in the end everyone gets fed up of engaging in discussion with you.

Do you feel that annoying people so much that they no longer bother answering you leaves you as the winner of the thread? Last man standing and all that?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Or, to be more pedantic, Christianity was the norm at the time in those societies where science developed.

Complete nonsensical connection made for the sole purpose of trying to staple real human achievement to religion. Something which every religious person tries to do in some way or another to try to validate their beliefs.

In other societies, where science did not develop to anything like the same degree, Christianity was not the norm at all.

The contrary has been pointed out many times only to be ignored.

Science prospered in many ancient civilisations, the Chinese were the most advanced civilisation in the world when Europeans were still running around, practically in loincloths. The Japanese, the Arabs and the Indians all had advanced science in the past.

Science, modern science, developed in Europe on the foundation of the science of the Greeks, the Arabs and to a lesser extent the Indians.

The Chinese used to consider themselves so much more advanced then the west because of their philosophies, the Japanese, Greeks and Romans et cetera all did the same.

Trying to connect these dots is nothing more then desperation, a vain attempt to tack something concrete onto religious superstitions.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

The contrary has been pointed out many times only to be ignored.

The contrary would be that the scientific method advanced to the same degree in non-Christian cultures as it did in Europe and North America.

Do you really want to make that claim? And if so, what evidence will you advance for it?

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

If you want to bang on about Creationism then we have a thread for you to do that.

I made a one sentence reference to it in my entire post and you pick this line out to try and infer I'm going off-topic ?

I didn't say that the Protestants of the time accepted Galileo's theories. I said that the Reformation in the Netherlands resulted in a environment where diverse ideas, in many areas of thought, were able to be published.

And again you are unjustifiably trying to connect Christianity to anything and everything you consider to be good.

What possible evidence can you present that the reformation resulted in a freer society ?

Do you feel that annoying people so much that they no longer bother answering you leaves you as the winner of the thread? Last man standing and all that?

I notice your not responding to the points in my post.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

The contrary would be that the scientific method advanced to the same degree in non-Christian cultures as it did in Europe and North America.

And what is your measure of the 'same degree' ? How do we measure the advancement of science in Europe ? Do we credit the Greeks or Arabs ? Or just consider any science in Europe built on their foundations to be purely a European achievement ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_medieval_Islam#Scientific_method

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

And again you are unjustifiably trying to connect Christianity to anything and everything you consider to be good.

That is blatantly untrue.

I connect Christianity to what can be historically demonstrated, both good and bad.

You are the one who, due to ideological motivation, paints yourself into contradictory corners. Thus we have Christianity being painted as anti-science while simultaneously extolling the Chinese. Have you any idea how Chinese xenophobia hindered scientific development?

And again you are unjustifiably trying to connect Christianity to anything and everything you consider to be good.

What possible evidence can you present that the reformation resulted in a freer society ?

Serious question. Have you ever read any history books?

It is generally accepted by historians that new ideas can be disseminated easier in a society that tolerates a diversity of opinions rather than where only one opinion is permitted. The diversity of doctrines and ideas in post-Reformation Europe, combined with the greater use of the printing press which was directly linked with the translation and printing of bibles, facilitated the growth of many new ideas.

I notice your not responding to the points in my post.

I'm about to go out to a meeting and then on to lunch with my family. To be honest, each time you deliberately misrepresent what I say it makes me less inclined to waste my time responding to every line of every post you make.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

You are the one who, due to ideological motivation, paints yourself into contradictory corners. Thus we have Christianity being painted as anti-science while simultaneously extolling the Chinese. Have you any idea how Chinese xenophobia hindered scientific development?

Yes, probably equal to or more then how much christianity hindered scientific development.

Your now comparing christianity (a religion) to China (a country/civilisation) whereas I was comparing Europe (civilisation) and China (civilisation) in respect of the belief systems.

It is generally accepted by historians that new ideas can be disseminated easier in a society that tolerates a diversity of opinions rather than where only one opinion is permitted.

Right.

The diversity of doctrines and ideas in post-Reformation Europe,

I think your confusing the Renaissance with the Reformation.

So your claiming the diversity of religious doctrines and ideas after the reformation is connected to a freer society and it was a very good thing ?

So you'd have to agree that a much greater diversity of religious doctrines and ideas would make an even freer society and that would be a good thing ?

So you'd be supportive of a vast array of diverse religious beliefs ?

I wonder what Wikipedia says about the conclusion of the reformation.

The Reformation led to a series of religious wars that culminated in the Thirty Years' War, which devastated much of Germany, killing between 25 and 40% of its population.

Wow, 40% ? Thats quite an achievement. I wonder if Hitler did that well.

combined with the greater use of the printing press which was directly linked with the translation and printing of bibles, facilitated the growth of many new ideas.

Which was well underway due to the Renaissance. The Reformation itself owing itself to the Renaissance as well.

I'm about to go out to a meeting and then on to lunch with my family. To be honest, each time you deliberately misrepresent what I say it makes me less inclined to waste my time responding to every line of every post you make.

Likewise.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The contrary would be that the scientific method advanced to the same degree in non-Christian cultures as it did in Europe and North America.

By Dawkins beard.

That only works if you had an identical culture with Christian and without Christianity. Then you would have an argument for singling out Christianity.

But we clearly don't have this. You have never been able to show a direct influence between Christian doctrine or faith and advancements in natural philosophy. All you have a correlation and the fuzzy idea that Christians are curious about the world and want to understand it but then so are all members of every other religion. There is no difference between saying I want to understand the glorious creation of God as there is saying I want to understand the glorious creation of Zeus.

What we do have is direct causality between the ideas of the ancient Greeks and the natural philosophers and early scientists in Europe and Arabia.

Greece is the major reason why Europe developed quicker than other areas in terms of natural philosophy.

You can get into plenty of reasons why Greece developed so quickly in this area, but needless to say it definitely wasn't because of Christianity.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Yes, probably equal to or more then how much christianity hindered scientific development.

Your now comparing christianity (a religion) to China (a country/civilisation) whereas I was comparing Europe (civilisation) and China (civilisation) in respect of the belief systems.

My apologies. I thought you would have known enough about China (since you had referred to it) to understand the religious basis for their historic xenophobia.

I think your confusing the Renaissance with the Reformation.

And quite how you think that is beyond me.

So your claiming the diversity of religious doctrines and ideas after the reformation is connected to a freer society and it was a very good thing ?

Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying. You had many competing philosophies and theologies being promoted. Some of them were undoubtedly crazy, but the diversity was a good thing.

So you'd have to agree that a much greater diversity of religious doctrines and ideas would make an even freer society and that would be a good thing ?

Yes. The more intellectual freedom, the merrier I am.

So you'd be supportive of a vast array of diverse religious beliefs ?

It's not that I 'would be' - I am! I am a fervent believer in multiculturalism and increased diversity in a secular society. That's why I am a committed advocate for increased immigration into Ireland - even to the extent of receiving death threats for my activities.

Wow, 40% ? Thats quite an achievement. I wonder if Hitler did that well.

And what, apart from pathetic trolling on your part, have those wars got to do with whether the reformation increased intellectual freedom and diversity of opinions? You see, here's the difference between you and me. I'm perfectly ready to acknowledge that good and bad stuff happened as a result of Christianity, and as a result of the Reformation. I don't feel the ideological need to take a one-eyed view of history.

I don't think, however, that I have ever heard you acknowledge any good coming from Christianity. Heck, you've even berated the Church for not tolerating paedophilia and the rape of slaves as much as did the Ancient Greeks.

The Catholic Church was never going to let the Reformation occur without an attempt to stamp it out, and there were plenty of German princes who were glad of any excuse to advance their cause politically. The Reformation gave them a very handy excuse to do that by waging war. There were also great atrocities committed by some of the Reformers - such as Luther's support of ant-semitism and the murder of the anabaptists.

Which was well underway due to the Renaissance. The Reformation itself owing itself to the Renaissance as well.

Yes, no-one is arguing that the Reformation occurred in a vacuum. Figures like Erasmus served as a bridge between the Renaissance and the Reformation. One effect of the Reformation, however, encouraged by the idea that ordinary believers could interpret divine revelation themselves without relying on a priesthood, was the widespread dissemination and democratisation of knowledge.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Greece is the major reason why Europe developed quicker than other areas in terms of natural philosophy.

You can get into plenty of reasons why Greece developed so quickly in this area, but needless to say it definitely wasn't because of Christianity.

Which would make sense if Greece had been part of the Western Empire - but of course it wasn't. Greece was part of the Byzantine Empire, and then the Ottoman Empire.

In fact Greece did not become part of what we think of as 'Europe' until 1821. Which might help explain why there was so little scientific advance produced by Greeks for 1500 years.

So the question still remains. Why did people in France, Germany, Italy, Britain, Poland etc. build such a body of scientific research upon the foundation of knowledge they inherited from the Greeks, while those in Greece, Turkey, Syria, Armenia etc. inherited just as much but failed to build upon it?

marco_polo

PDN wrote: »

Which would make sense if Greece had been part of the Western Empire - but of course it wasn't. Greece was part of the Byzantine Empire, and then the Ottoman Empire.

In fact Greece did not become part of what we think of as 'Europe' until 1821. Which might help explain why there was so little scientific advance produced by Greeks for 1500 years.

So the question still remains. Why did people in France, Germany, Italy, Britain, Poland etc. build such a body of scientific research upon the foundation of knowledge they inherited from the Greeks, while those in Greece, Turkey, Syria, Armenia etc. inherited just as much but failed to build upon it?

They built upon knowledge inherited from the Greeks only because it was largely preserved and build upon in turn by the Byzantian, Islamic and other eastern cultures, while Western Europe was a scientific backwater.

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with increased political stability, the Renaissance and massive population growth in Western Europe from the 14th 15th century onwards, while at the same time as a there was a signifigant decline in influence to the east?

PDN

marco_polo wrote: »

They built upon knowledge inherited from the Greeks only because it was largely preserved and build upon in turn by the Byzantian, Islamic and other eastern cultures, while Western Europe was a scientific backwater.

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with increased political stability, the Renaissance and massive population growth in Western Europe from the 14th 15th century onwards, while at the same time as a there was a signifigant decline in influence to the east?

And why was there increased political stability? Why did the Renaissance occur in the west rather the east? Who funded the renaissance men and established the universities that produced them? Why was there massive population growth in the west and a decline in the east?

Answering these questions as objectively as possible will not always produce the answer of Christianity. But they will demonstrate that Christianity was an important factor.

iUseVi

PDN wrote: »

And why was there increased political stability? Why did the Renaissance occur in the west rather the east? Who funded the renaissance men and established the universities that produced them? Why was there massive population growth in the west and a decline in the east?

Answering these questions as objectively as possible will not always produce the answer of Christianity. But they will demonstrate that Christianity was an important factor.

Seriously could you be any more biased. You keep repeating this over and over but you have yet to provide any evidence for it. Repeating things is not evidence, although it may convince some of the more weak minded around here. You have yet to prove that Christianity was anything more than a passive observer to these events, and that Islam would not have done just as good a job.

marco_polo

PDN wrote: »

And why was there increased political stability? Why did the Renaissance occur in the west rather the east? Who funded the renaissance men and established the universities that produced them? Why was there massive population growth in the west and a decline in the east?

Answering these questions as objectively as possible will not always produce the answer of Christianity. But they will demonstrate that Christianity was an important factor.

At 11.46 pm I will skip the questions in the first paragraph if that is ok

All I would say I wouldn't personally the view of Christainity as being particularily pro or anti science over the course of history, however I would certainly be skeptical of any views that such scientific advancement couldn't have developed in other cultures had the accidents of history take a couple different turns (I am infering this would be your position from only a few posts on this thread, if that not the case then apologies in advance).

PDN

marco_polo wrote: »

I would certainly be skeptical of any views that such scientific advancement couldn't have developed in other cultures had the accidents of history take a couple different turns (I am infering this would be your position from only a few posts on this thread, if that not the case then apologies in advance).

No, that is not my position. I confine myself to what actually did happen rather than going down the hall of mirrors that is counterfactual history.

Certain historical events and processes occurred in some places rather than others, and most historians have agreed that Christianity (and specifically certain forms of Christianity) were contributing factors.

Johannes Kepler said, "Here we are concerned with the book of nature, so greatly celebrated in sacred writings. It is in this that Paul proposes to the Gentiles that they should contemplate God like the Sun in water or in a mirror. Why then as Christians should we take any less delight in its contemplation, since it is for us with true worship to honor God, to venerate him, to wonder at him? The more rightly we understand the nature and scope of what our God has founded, the more devoted the spirit in which that is done."

The philosopher AN Whitehead, certainly no Bible-bashing Christian, wrote: that Christianity is the mother of science because of "the medieval insistence on the rationality of God". Because of the confidence of the early scientists in this rationality, they had an "inexpungable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope."

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Which would make sense if Greece had been part of the Western Empire - but of course it wasn't. Greece was part of the Byzantine Empire, and then the Ottoman Empire.

In fact Greece did not become part of what we think of as 'Europe' until 1821. Which might help explain why there was so little scientific advance produced by Greeks for 1500 years.

So the question still remains. Why did people in France, Germany, Italy, Britain, Poland etc. build such a body of scientific research upon the foundation of knowledge they inherited from the Greeks, while those in Greece, Turkey, Syria, Armenia etc. inherited just as much but failed to build upon it?

What?

The Ottomans had a long history of natural philosophy, many notable natural philosophers and mathematicians that developed upon the Greek concepts they inherited which influenced Europe ad vice versa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_in_the_Ottoman_Empire

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

My apologies. I thought you would have known enough about China (since you had referred to it) to understand the religious basis for their historic xenophobia.

And what religious basis would that be ? Is today 'Confucianism is a religion day' on the Christianity forum ? I only ask because every time we have these particular kinds of discussion your opinion about what is and is not a religion changes depending on how it suits your argument.

As for their historic xenophobia, that had much more to do with geography then any philosophical or religious beliefs. Its a common misconception that the ancient Chinese were highly xenophobic, most people will refer to evidence such as the great wall and the Chinese opinion of themselves and the rest of the world, and ignore the reasoning behind them.

The great wall was not built to keep foreign cultures out, it was built for military defence.
The Chinese believed themselves to be 'the centre of the world' and still largely do. The world for China in Chinese as well as many other languages means "Centre of the world". In the past because they were such an advanced civilisation when everyone else was running around in loincloths.

Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying. You had many competing philosophies and theologies being promoted. Some of them were undoubtedly crazy, but the diversity was a good thing.

So basically the same as the ancient world before monotheism started taking over ?

And what, apart from pathetic trolling on your part, have those wars got to do with whether the reformation increased intellectual freedom and diversity of opinions?

Nothing, I just expected to read about this increase of 'intellectual freedom and diversity of opinions'. Funny enough it's not there. Wikipedia seems to think the greatest conclusion and legacy of the reformation was war in Europe and the political decline of the power of the Pope.

It's not that I 'would be' - I am! I am a fervent believer in multiculturalism and increased diversity in a secular society. That's why I am a committed advocate for increased immigration into Ireland - even to the extent of receiving death threats for my activities.

We had a discussion before where you expressed the opinion that a Christian world, to the exclusion of other cultures and traditions, would be a good thing.

You see, here's the difference between you and me. I'm perfectly ready to acknowledge that good and bad stuff happened as a result of Christianity, and as a result of the Reformation.

I never said nothing good happened. I'd agree many good things happened because of Christianity and because of the reformation.
We differ on two points;

- That the good outweighs the bad
- That it was some kind of unique attribute of Christianity causing this good.

For example, the printing presses, although clearly already on the way and had its foundations in as far flung places as ancient China, was invented to print the Bible.

You see this fact and you connect the dots between Science, Christianity and advancement.
I see this fact and see Science built on the foundations of other people and other cultures, inspired by a personal belief, religious or otherwise makes no difference.

I don't think, however, that I have ever heard you acknowledge any good coming from Christianity. Heck, you've even berated the Church for not tolerating paedophilia and the rape of slaves as much as did the Ancient Greeks.

Oh words, how they twist and turn and change. :rolleyes:

One effect of the Reformation, however, encouraged by the idea that ordinary believers could interpret divine revelation themselves without relying on a priesthood, was the widespread dissemination and democratisation of knowledge.

Two points again.

- It was the Church/Christianity which had originally caused the system where the commoners relied on the priesthood for divine revelation. And you applaud Christianity for fixing a mess that Christianity caused ?

- The widespread dissemination and democratisation of knowledge was caused by the Renaissance. The reformation is a result of the Renaissance.

"The Renaissance (French for "rebirth"; Italian: Rinascimento, from ri- "again" and nascere "be born") <snip> As a cultural movement, it encompassed a resurgence of learning based on classical sources, the development of linear perspective in painting, and gradual but widespread educational reform."

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Which would make sense if Greece had been part of the Western Empire - but of course it wasn't. Greece was part of the Byzantine Empire, and then the Ottoman Empire.

What has politics got to due to educational influence ?

And regardless you are still wrong. The Byzantine Empire and Ottoman Empire have a long scientific history, a lot of which laid the foundations for later Europeans.

fedor.2

oh PDN, that didnt really go well for ya did it. God doesnt like pseudo intellectuals like you,ye talk too much. What if you are all wrong? What if God isnt good and doesnt like us. If i gave someone everything they needed to live good lives with enough for everyone and they wasted it,id be pretty pissed off and to see religion hijacked by lunatics cant be going down well,it has been used as a vehicle for greed,abuse and the pursuit of power. I find the blind belief in the literal word of the bible worrying and christian rock festivals are just weird but hey what would jesus do?

Fanny Cradock

fedor.2 wrote: »

oh PDN, that didnt really go well for ya did it. God doesnt like pseudo intellectuals like you,ye talk too much. What if you are all wrong? What if God isnt good and doesnt like us. If i gave someone everything they needed to live good lives with enough for everyone and they wasted it,id be pretty pissed off and to see religion hijacked by lunatics cant be going down well,it has been used as a vehicle for greed,abuse and the pursuit of power. I find the blind belief in the literal word of the bible worrying and christian rock festivals are just weird but hey what would jesus do?

What? I do believe you have just used up your only free pass. Read the charter and behave.

JimiTime

fedor.2 wrote: »

oh PDN, that didnt really go well for ya did it. God doesnt like pseudo intellectuals like you,ye talk too much. What if you are all wrong? What if God isnt good and doesnt like us. If i gave someone everything they needed to live good lives with enough for everyone and they wasted it,id be pretty pissed off and to see religion hijacked by lunatics cant be going down well,it has been used as a vehicle for greed,abuse and the pursuit of power. I find the blind belief in the literal word of the bible worrying and christian rock festivals are just weird but hey what would jesus do?

Man o' man, there is some amount of trolls around here at the mo. Have there been alot of bridges torn down recently?

Fanny Cradock

There sure has. I think I need a holiday.

fedor.2

fanny if i ever catch you you're going to need ressurecting

Fanny Cradock

Oh dear!

JimiTime

fedor.2 wrote: »

fanny if i ever catch you you're going to need ressurecting

Though I hope it was just a poor attempt at humour.

fedor.2

you're just lucky im tired now or id wage armageddon on your ass

fedor.2

hey how did you get that picture