Does Modern Science Owe Its Existence to Religion?

[Statler Waldorf]

(30th July 2011 13:29)Rhythm Wrote:  Add up all the atrocities of say WW2, lets go ahead and call them the costs of modern scientific discovery, now add all the lives saved as a direct result. Try and do the same for religion. If you wish to absolve religion of the atrocities committed in it's name, past and present, then you must also absolve science of responsibility for WW2. Thing is, scientific progress towers over religious thought in the area of improving human quality of life and indeed preservation of human life itself. There is simply no argument to the contrary.

That's a completely speculative argument, you don't have any idea how many lives WW2 ended up saving, or how many Religion has saved either. Anyways, I was talking about atheism, not modern science (which of course owes its very existence to religion).

[Shell B]

(1st August 2011 23:54)Statler Waldorf Wrote:  That's a completely speculative argument, you don't have any idea how many lives WW2 ended up saving, or how many Religion has saved either.

Wait, what?

(1st August 2011 23:54)Statler Waldorf Wrote:  Anyways, I was talking about atheism, not modern science (which of course owes its very existence to religion).

Statler, seriously? Modern science owes its existence to religion? Prove that point. You're making an audacious claim here. Personally, I won't give it any credence unless you give me an outline from religion to modern science that shows precisely how religion led to modern science.

Fucking bonkers. I'm sorry. I just can't help it. That is the most ridiculous thing I have seen from you to date.

[Statler Waldorf]

(30th July 2011 18:29)downbeatplumb Wrote:  

---

(29th July 2011 23:50)Statler Waldorf Wrote:  If Christians all hate one another so much, how are inter-denominational schools possible? Please answer that.

Well it might be all rosey where you are but there are many areas of the world where christians are segregated.

Northern ireland is the obvious example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation...n_Ireland.

Scotland is another where the violence takes place at football matches.

Quote:Scotland suffers from a spill-over of Northern Irish sectarianism due to the many people with links to both communities living in the country, particularly in the West. The Old Firm of Celtic and Rangers football clubs have provided a focus for this, with Rangers being the Protestant and Celtic the Catholic icon.

Both teams subscribe to government initiatives, and charities like the Nil by Mouth campaign are working in this area, but there are still some fans on both sides who sing sectarian songs and display slogans and images related to the conflict in Northern Ireland. Celtic recently wrote to every season ticket holder banning sectarian behaviour at Celtic Park.[citation needed] Rangers' equivalent anti-sectarian policy is called Follow With Pride.[21]

Even in recent years, deaths and serious injuries have taken place after Old Firm matches

---

Those places hold such an insignificant representation of Christians that it can hardly be used as an example to make a blanket statement about all of Christianity, and Catholicism and Protestantism are actually different branches of Christianity, not denominations. Your point is taken though.

---

(1st August 2011 23:58)Shell B Wrote:  Statler, seriously? Modern science owes its existence to religion? Prove that point. You're making an audacious claim here. Personally, I won't give it any credence unless you give me an outline from religion to modern science that shows precisely how religion led to modern science.

It's called Whitehead's hypothesis, it's a point well accepted, even by Richard Dawkins.

“Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed. It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists. “

- Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology,
University of King’s College

“The philosophy of experimental science began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.”

- Evolutionary anthropologist and science writer Loren Eiseley in Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It

[Rhythm]

LOL, Stat bringing the Crazyback?

[Shell B]

Stat, firstly, I am not quoting your post because you need to fix your quote. Please do so.

Your post, which my agreement with or lack thereof is irrelevant at this point, mentions a "relationship with religion" and origins in faith, but makes no mention of origins in religion or religious faith. Neither a relationship with religion or seeking knowledge out of faith that it is there demonstrate that science owes its very existence to religion. You will have to do better than that, Waldorf.

[Statler Waldorf]

(2nd August 2011 00:25)Shell B Wrote:  Stat, firstly, I am not quoting your post because you need to fix your quote. Please do so.

Your post, which my agreement with or lack thereof is irrelevant at this point, mentions a "relationship with religion" and origins in faith, but makes no mention of origins in religion or religious faith. Neither a relationship with religion or seeking knowledge out of faith that it is there demonstrate that science owes its very existence to religion. You will have to do better than that, Waldorf.

Seriously? I feel like you are just playing games now, if science's existenece did not depend on Religion then why did one of the quotes say, "As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists"? Why be in debt to someone you didn't depend on? Like I said, it's Whitehead's hypothesis, it's a widely accepted fact that even Richard Dawkins concedes, if you are more biased on this matter than even he is then there is not much I can do to convince you.

More evidence I am sure you will just ignore…

Historian Robert G. Frank - "The predominant forms of scientific activity can be shown to be a direct outgrowth of a Puritan ideology."

Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method- "There are two books laid before us to study; to prevent us falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power."

Science Historian R. Hooykaas: A New Responsibility in a Scientific Age - “Modern science arose when the consequences of the biblical conception
of reality were fully accepted. In the 16th and 17th centuries science was
led out of the blind alley into which it had got through the philosophy of
Antiquity and the Middle Ages. New horizons were opened. The picture
of the world as an organism was replaced by that of the world as a mechanism. It is not generated but made; it is not self-supporting, but it
needs maintenance.”

Dr. Jack L. Arnold-
“In the realm of science, it is generally granted by modern historians that there never would have been modern science were it not for the Reformation. All scientific investigation and endeavor prior to that had been controlled by the church. Only through sheer ignorance of history do many modern scientists believe that Protestantism, the true evangelical faith, opposes true science.”

Sociologist and author Rodney Stark :
“Science was not the work of western secularists or even deists; it was entirely the work of devout believers in an active, conscious, creator God.”

Peter Harrison, Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford-
“It is commonly supposed that when in the early modern period individuals began to look at the world in a different way, they could no longer believe what they read in the Bible. In this book I shall suggest that the reverse is the case: that when in the sixteenth century people began to read the Bible in a different way, they found themselves forced to jettison traditional conceptions of the world.”
Peter Harrison – “Strange as it may seem, the Bible played a positive role in the development of science. Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”

[emphasis added]

Wow, played a vital role? That pretty much is exactly what I said; science would not exist if it had not been for the Christian Reformation.

---

(2nd August 2011 00:16)Rhythm Wrote:  LOL, Stat bringing the Crazyback?

Nah, just trying to cure yours.

---

(2nd August 2011 16:54)Rhythm Wrote:  Throw in the synagogues and temples, and "religious technology centers" and then I'll raise my hand.

Trying to stop terrorism by committing terror? That must only make sense in your mind. .

[Rhythm]

Yeah, I can see it now

"Science owes it's existence to christianity"

Statler: "So what, doesn't mean Christianity is true."



Dr. Jack L. Arnold-
“In the realm of science, it is generally granted by modern historians that there never would have been modern science were it not for the Reformation. All scientific investigation and endeavor prior to that had been controlled by the church. Only through sheer ignorance of history do many modern scientists believe that Protestantism, the true evangelical faith, opposes true science.”

I wonder if "Dr. Jack" is speaking from his expertise when he calls Protestantism the "true evangelical faith", or when he makes the statement "true science".

[Statler Waldorf]

(2nd August 2011 21:25)Rhythm Wrote:  Yeah, I can see it now

"Science owes it's existence to christianity"

Statler: "So what, doesn't mean Christianity is true."



Dr. Jack L. Arnold-
“In the realm of science, it is generally granted by modern historians that there never would have been modern science were it not for the Reformation. All scientific investigation and endeavor prior to that had been controlled by the church. Only through sheer ignorance of history do many modern scientists believe that Protestantism, the true evangelical faith, opposes true science.”

I wonder if "Dr. Jack" is speaking from his expertise when he calls Protestantism the "true evangelical faith", or when he makes the statement "true science".

So I never made the argument you claimed I did? Didn't think so, you know for ignoring people for being "dishonest" you sure have a bit of disingenuous streak in you. Not surprised though, you advocate violence and terrorism against those who supposedly advocate violence and terrorism.

Dr. Arnold is a church historian; I used experts from all angles (historians, church historians, and science historians) to support my position, something you must not understand.

[Shell B]

(2nd August 2011 21:11)Statler Waldorf Wrote:  Seriously?

Yep.

(2nd August 2011 21:11)Statler Waldorf Wrote:  I feel like you are just playing games now

Nope.

(2nd August 2011 21:11)Statler Waldorf Wrote:  if science's existenece did not depend on Religion

Stop the train, Waldorf, you just said depends on religion. First, you said "owes its existence to religion." The two are different. I agree with neither, but find it difficult to converse with you because of inconsistencies such as these that mutate the conversation periodically.

(2nd August 2011 21:11)Statler Waldorf Wrote:  then why did one of the quotes say, "As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists"?

Dude, if superpowers included leaps in understanding, you would kick Spiderman's ass. They could be referring to the fact that these doofuses make scientists look even more intelligent.

(2nd August 2011 21:11)Statler Waldorf Wrote:  Why be in debt to someone you didn't depend on?

I'm just going to go with your initial asinine claim and pretend you asked me why I would be in debt to someone whom I did not "owe my existence to." Otherwise, we would be taking the discussion in a different direction, which is annoying and unproductive. I could be in debt to someone who cut my hair. Did I need them? Not really. Would I cease to exist without them? Certainly not.

(2nd August 2011 21:11)Statler Waldorf Wrote:  Like I said, it's Whitehead's hypothesis, it's a widely accepted fact that even Richard Dawkins concedes, if you are more biased on this matter than even he is then there is not much I can do to convince you.

I have told you before, Statler, I have never read a fucking word by Richard Dawkins. What he thinks matters nothing to me. Like I said, give me a fucking chart that links the origins of modern science conclusively to religion. Stop giving me some bullshit about someone else's theory and think for your fucking self.

(2nd August 2011 21:11)Statler Waldorf Wrote:  More evidence I am sure you will just ignore…

Ignoring and refuting are different. Please stop with the drama. It does not convince anyone that I am just an obtuse asshole who refuses to listen to your mountains of proof.

(2nd August 2011 21:11)Statler Waldorf Wrote:  Historian Robert G. Frank - "The predominant forms of scientific activity can be shown to be a direct outgrowth of a Puritan ideology."

Excellent, how does he explain science that predates Puritan ideology? I might add that he sounds kind of like a dipshit, given that Puritanism is not that old and science clearly predates it.

(2nd August 2011 21:11)Statler Waldorf Wrote:  Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method- "There are two books laid before us to study; to prevent us falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power."

You really don't see that this quote is irrelevant, do you? This only demonstrates that Bacon believed in god. I knew that. Tell me something I don't know.

(2nd August 2011 21:11)Statler Waldorf Wrote:  Science Historian R. Hooykaas: A New Responsibility in a Scientific Age - “Modern science arose when the consequences of the biblical conception
of reality were fully accepted. In the 16th and 17th centuries science was
led out of the blind alley into which it had got through the philosophy of
Antiquity and the Middle Ages. New horizons were opened. The picture
of the world as an organism was replaced by that of the world as a mechanism. It is not generated but made; it is not self-supporting, but it
needs maintenance.”

Hardly surprising that you chose an ambiguous and hokey sounding quote to prove your point. Still, nothing. Your idea of proof is looser than Jenna Jameson.

(2nd August 2011 21:11)Statler Waldorf Wrote:  Dr. Jack L. Arnold-
“In the realm of science, it is generally granted by modern historians that there never would have been modern science were it not for the Reformation. All scientific investigation and endeavor prior to that had been controlled by the church. Only through sheer ignorance of history do many modern scientists believe that Protestantism, the true evangelical faith, opposes true science.”

Church is tyrannical, claims responsibility for something it despises in order to take credit for things religious followers are beginning to believe. *yawn*

(2nd August 2011 21:11)Statler Waldorf Wrote:  Sociologist and author Rodney Stark :
“Science was not the work of western secularists or even deists; it was entirely the work of devout believers in an active, conscious, creator God.”

Alright, Stat, can you at least give me his proof? If, of course, you aren't going to produce any of your own. So, one dude in the multitude you have quoted actually said what you are trying to say -- though he is entirely incorrect. You really think that a quote is proof of anything? I could give you a thousand quotes contrary to this. Would you believe me then? Remember, I have not stated my position on this completely. However, I really wish you would prove your fucking points once in a while.

(2nd August 2011 21:11)Statler Waldorf Wrote:  Peter Harrison, Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford-
“It is commonly supposed that when in the early modern period individuals began to look at the world in a different way, they could no longer believe what they read in the Bible. In this book I shall suggest that the reverse is the case: that when in the sixteenth century people began to read the Bible in a different way, they found themselves forced to jettison traditional conceptions of the world.”

So, in other words, atheists are responsible for modern science?

(2nd August 2011 21:11)Statler Waldorf Wrote:  Peter Harrison – “Strange as it may seem, the Bible played a positive role in the development of science. Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”

[emphasis added]

Wow, played a vital role? That pretty much is exactly what I said; science would not exist if it had not been for the Christian Reformation.

Holy fuck, that isn't even close to what you said. "played a positive role," "may not have arisen." Science existed well before the Reformation. Smokey ass you've got there, Stat.

[Statler Waldorf]

(3rd August 2011 00:36)Shell B Wrote:  Stop the train, Waldorf, you just said depends on religion. First, you said "owes its existence to religion." The two are different. I agree with neither, but find it difficult to converse with you because of inconsistencies such as these that mutate the conversation periodically

Red herring. The two are synonymous. I owe my very existence to my parents and my existence depended on my parents. No difference. If you want you can change depends to the past tense, but you really were just grasping at straws here.

(3rd August 2011 00:36)Shell B Wrote:  Dude, if superpowers included leaps in understanding, you would kick Spiderman's ass. They could be referring to the fact that these doofuses make scientists look even more intelligent

This is obviously not the author’s intent. Just shows how biased you really are on such matters though if you really believe that.

(3rd August 2011 00:36)Shell B Wrote:  I have told you before, Statler, I have never read a fucking word by Richard Dawkins. What he thinks matters nothing to me. Like I said, give me a fucking chart that links the origins of modern science conclusively to religion. Stop giving me some bullshit about someone else's theory and think for your fucking self

He is pulling for the same horse in this race as you, but admits the evidence is overwhelming that science owes its existence to religion.

(3rd August 2011 00:36)Shell B Wrote:  Ignoring and refuting are different

Indeed, unfortunately you have only been engaging in the former.

(3rd August 2011 00:36)Shell B Wrote:  Excellent, how does he explain science that predates Puritan ideology? I might add that he sounds kind of like a dipshit, given that Puritanism is not that old and science clearly predates it.

Hence why I used the term modern science….wow.

(3rd August 2011 00:36)Shell B Wrote:  You really don't see that this quote is irrelevant, do you? This only demonstrates that Bacon believed in god. I knew that. Tell me something I don't know.

Bacon is the father of the empirical method, hence why I quoted him. It’s obvious that his pursuit of knowledge through observation (the foundation of modern science) was a direct result of his Christian faith.

(3rd August 2011 00:36)Shell B Wrote:  Hardly surprising that you chose an ambiguous and hokey sounding quote to prove your point

I will try and find a really simple one for you next time, forgive me but I thought it was clear.

(3rd August 2011 00:36)Shell B Wrote:  So, one dude in the multitude you have quoted actually said what you are trying to say -- though he is entirely incorrect. You really think that a quote is proof of anything?

Quoting an appropriate authority on the subject is completely appropriate.

(3rd August 2011 00:36)Shell B Wrote:  I could give you a thousand quotes contrary to this

Please do. Or is this just talk?

Shell B datel
ine='1312328199' Wrote:  So, in other words, atheists are responsible for modern science?

*face palm* No he is referring to the literal exegetical styles developed by the Christian Reformers in the 16th and 17th centuries. I assure you, they were not atheists.

(3rd August 2011 00:36)Shell B Wrote:  Holy fuck, that isn't even close to what you said. "played a positive role," "may not have arisen."

He goes on to say that not only was it a positive role but also a “vital role”, which of course you ignored. Truth of the matter is, if you required such proof to believe everything in life you would believe nothing, you are simply engaging in special pleading because this is an inconvenient truth for you as an atheist who admires science.