How many centuries has religion held back scientific progress?

Seachmall

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Allow me to correct you with a cornerstone tenet of science - correlation is not causation unless proven so. I await your proof.

Proof of what?

You want me to prove something I never claimed to be true?

Are you insane?

If you believe it and are incapable of providing supporting evidence it is an article of faith, no more.

I am capable of defending my position using reason and logic.

WoollyRedHat

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=How+many+threads+are+started+in+here+that+could%27ve+been+prevented+by+a+bit+of+pre-emptive+googling%3F

Talk about pre-emptive.

Cavehill Red

Seachmall wrote: »

Proof of what?

You want me to prove something I never claimed to be true?

Are you retracting your claim about stem cell research now?

Seachmall

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Are you retracting your claim about stem cell research now?

My claim that I believe it to be true based on reason and logic or the claim you're ascribing to me that I'm asserting it to be true without evidence?

Claims of factuality require evidence.

Beliefs, at the very least, require sound reason and logic.


Beliefs are the necessary precursors to knowledge. We're entitled to hold them without evidence as long they are of sound reason and logic (and therefore lend themselves to the possibility of being true). When we collect evidence they become knowledge and then we can assert them.

You seem to be assuming I'm skipping a step. Your crusade to identify a hypocrisy in my position fails with this assumption.

Duggys Housemate

To go back to the original points.

1) the scientific revolution occurred once and once only, in Christian Europe and largely amongst believers.
2) it didn't happen in China, Japan etc. neither Confucianism or Buddihism are religions in the Abrahamic sense, more or less they are just philosophical systems.
3) The collapse of the Roman Empire ended literacy. Without the church literacy would have never have been resurrected in the late middle ages nor would Latin become the lingus Franca.
4) all universities in Europe started as theological universities, founded by the Catholic Church. You needed mathematics to graduate. Priests were the only mathematicans of their day.
5) roger Bacon, a fransciscan, is considered the First Scientist, other priests at the time advanced optics etc. Occam was a contemporary. These guys were rationalists ( not all priests were so rational of course)
6) priests, vicars, catholic apologists, & parsons who have contributed major theories include Bayes, Boole, Faraday, George le Maitre, Maxwell, Dalton, Descartes, Pascal and many more.

Quite simply we wouldn't have the modern world without the Western Christian church.

opinion guy

Airitech wrote: »

That's more an ethical issue than just a religious one. Religion is bound to come down on one side of that argument but they are not alone in that.

The ethial concerns about stem cell have largely been resolved by progress - they no longer need to harvest them from aborted fetuses - which is what set the religious types against it the first place. IF it had not been for that element the religious types would not have even notice the subject. However now that it has been labelled "evil" the regliious types maintain their opposition

opinion guy

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

To go back to the original points.

1) the scientific revolution occurred once and once only, in Christian Europe and largely amongst believers.
2) it didn't happen in China, Japan etc. neither Confucianism or Buddihism are religions in the Abrahamic sense, more or less they are just philosophical systems.
3) The collapse of the Roman Empire ended literacy. Without the church literacy would have never have been resurrected in the late middle ages nor would Latin become the lingus Franca.
4) all universities in Europe started as theological universities, founded by the Catholic Church. You needed mathematics to graduate. Priests were the only mathematicans of their day.
5) roger Bacon, a fransciscan, is considered the First Scientist, other priests at the time advanced optics etc. Occam was a contemporary. These guys were rationalists ( not all priests were so rational of course)
6) priests, vicars, catholic apologists, & parsons who have contributed major theories include Bayes, Boole, Faraday, George le Maitre, Maxwell, Dalton, Descartes, Pascal and many more.

Quite simply we wouldn't have the modern world without the Western Christian church.

You forgot Newton - he was big into deciphering the Bible for th esecrets of alchemy

Duggys Housemate

opinion guy wrote: »

You forgot Newton - he was big into deciphering the Bible for th esecrets of alchemy

He may not have been a Christian. Seems he was a deist, which is a belief in a non interfering God. Also Darwin was a mild believer. I listed just priests or Christian apologists ie Descartes and Pascal offered ontological proofs for the existance of God. We would include everybody if we included believers before the 20th century, I am including the most Christian of philosopher scientists or actual priests. And I missed a few.

opinion guy

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

He may not have been a Christian. Seems he was a deist, which is a belief in a non interfering God. Also Darwin was a mild believer. I listed just priests or Christian apologists ie Descartes and Pascal offered ontological proofs for the existance of God. We would include everybody if we included believers before the 20th century, I am including the most Christian of philosopher scientists or actual priests. And I missed a few.

Well one wonders did they actually believe or were they just towing the line so as not to bring trouble on themselves ?

Seachmall

I think with the history of the Church promoting science from Christian scientists and mathematicians while trying to suppress science from other religions (and their own religion when it contradicted them) it's fairly clear that science was not pursued entirely for intellectual achievement and advancement but instead was used more as a form of propaganda.

Something to boast about when it's on our side, something to demonize when it's not.

It was a great platform for science while simultaneously being a fierce enemy.

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Also Darwin was a mild believer.

He was a firm believer at the start of his travels but as he got older his faith faded. He died an agnostic with no religious inclinations as far as I'm aware.

Duggys Housemate

opinion guy wrote: »

Well one wonders did they actually believe or were they just towing the line so as not to bring trouble on themselves ?

The very reason I included strong believers and priests was to exclude people who were going along with the line. Descartes and pascal would not have been persecuted if they hadnt written their pro Christian philosophies, but just stayed with the maths; nor did Maxwell need to become a Presbyterian minister - He choose to.

In any case if Christianity were so anti-science their contributions couldn't exist with their faith.

opinion guy

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

The very reason I included strong believers and priests was to exclude people who were going along with the line. Descartes and pascal would not have been persecuted if they hadnt written their pro Christian philosophies, but just stayed with the maths; nor did Maxwell need to become a Presbyterian minister - He choose to.

In any case if Christianity were so anti-science their contributions couldn't exist with their faith.

Yes but wasn't Descartes for example obliged to write his Philosophical stuff in order for the Church to let him work on anatomy ?? There was a political deal behind the so called Cartesian split. Descartes wanted to study anatomy - the Church would only let him do it if he backed up the Church belief in certain regards i.e. saying the body and the mind/soul were completely separate. This had all kinds of negative influence on medicine/neurology/psychiatry and the precursors until very modern times. (Disclaimer - this is a story I've heard numerous times - however I've yet to find a source so if wrong correct me)

Cavehill Red

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Quite simply we wouldn't have the modern world without the Western Christian church.

Or Islam.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2002/sep/05/research.science2

opinion guy

So Gabriel Byrne is not a fan of the Church it seems
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/byrne-describes-catholic-church-as-force-for-evil-1.1344551

steddyeddy

How has religion held back science? There's an argument to be made for it in this century but in centuries past religion has benefited science. Monasteries used to be akin to universities back in the day. The father of genetics was himself a monk.

Sarky

In before philolo- Oh, yeah. Carry on folks, nobody can predict where this thread will go any more.

opinion guy

Sarky wrote: »

In before philolo- Oh, yeah. Carry on folks, nobody can predict where this thread will go any more.

Is phil gone ?

Seachmall

opinion guy wrote: »

Is phil gone ?

Closed his account a while back.

I'm anticipating a second third coming though.

opinion guy

Seachmall wrote: »

Closed his account a while back.

I'm anticipating a second third coming though.

He never should have changed his name from Jakkass

Colonialboy

sxt wrote: »

How many anti scientific centuries were there?

You have your answer.
Its located deep in the Amazonian forest.
A undiscovered tribe, or perhaps a newly discovered tribe, with no religious ties at all for centuries.
Check out their technology man, they had jungle sat nav centuries before the rest of us, the were using CocuntBook for keeping in touch with the cannibals up the basin 100 years before Zuckerberg was born and have a health system that the US is modelling Medicaid on...

there were no anti-scientific centuries only anti religous posters in this century.

ejmaztec

Seachmall wrote: »

Closed his account a while back.

I'm anticipating a second third coming though.

Things in After Hours must be even worse than I thought if even he got bored sh1tless with the usual suspects' total obsession with starting religion themed threads here. :eek:

Logical_Bear

Seachmall wrote: »

Closed his account a while back.

I'm anticipating a second third coming though.

just keep an eye out for a god-botherer on a thread with nothing to do with religion:pac:

Seachmall

ejmaztec wrote: »

Things in After Hours must be even worse than I thought if even he got bored sh1tless with the usual suspects' total obsession with starting religion themed threads here. :eek:

I suspect the only reason he closed his account is that he has been catapulted into theological doubt and will soon rejoin with the username "DawkinsFan01".

It's was inevitable from day one.

crockholm

Seachmall wrote: »

I suspect the only reason he closed his account is that he has been catapulted into theological doubt and will soon rejoin with the username "DawkinsFan01".

It's was inevitable from day one.

I didn' agree with the man always,but there's no need to be kicking his effigy, just seems childish and pointless.


Anyhow, found out recently that the bulletproof vest was created by a polish catholic priest.

Seachmall

crockholm wrote: »

I didn' agree with the man always,but there's no need to be kicking his effigy, just seems childish and pointless.

He knows I've no problems with him, and I've told him more than once that I've respect for him despite our disagreements.

Just a bit of banter.

ejmaztec

Seachmall wrote: »

I suspect the only reason he closed his account is that he has been catapulted into theological doubt and will soon rejoin with the username "DawkinsFan01".

It's was inevitable from day one.

I think "bored sh1tless" is more accurate.

Chop Chop

ejmaztec wrote: »

Things in After Hours must be even worse than I thought if even he got bored sh1tless with the usual suspects' total obsession with starting religion themed threads here. :eek:

Every thread in here is is anti religion. There is absolutely no respect for anyone that has beliefs of any kind.

ejmaztec

Chop Chop wrote: »

Every thread in here is is anti religion. There is absolutely no respect for anyone that has beliefs of any kind.

Ssssshhh, you'll start them off again.:P




runs away screaming

Cavehill Red

Chop Chop wrote: »

Every thread in here is is anti religion. There is absolutely no respect for anyone that has beliefs of any kind.

I think how this thread has developed indicates that people here are more than happy to acknowledge those areas where religions have contributed to humanity.

Sarky

Nonsense, they're more persecuted now than they've ever been. Look at all those militant atheists ganging up on the poor souls and forcing them not to believe whatever they like as long as it doesn't impact others.

ejmaztec

Sarky wrote: »

Nonsense, they're more persecuted now than they've ever been. Look at all those militant atheists boring the tits off people in after hours

fyp

Cavehill Red

ejmaztec wrote: »

fyp

Have you considered praying to God to relieve your paranoia?

Sergeant

Ewww.

I don't like how the secularisation of society, which I tend to be in favour of, also seems to involve not acknowledging the extraordinary influence the various Christian faiths have had on the development of society, especially in Western Europe. It's so short-sighted. And - dare I say it - puritanical. Or the flippant dismissal of spiritualism as a concept in general.