Some may be interested in the following.... and checking your facts.

http://strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/

Well most early scientists were Christian. The world has both science and religion in most counties. So yes. However, in order for progress to occur, religions must either change in light of scientific findings, ignore the findings, or change the scope of religion. This much of Christianity has been doing for a long time. What there isn't room for is both dogmatic theology regarding the physicalities of the world and science.

(June 7, 2017 at 3:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Some may be interested in the following.... and checking your facts.

http://strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/

I wondered when someone would post that.
Thirty years after Benjamin Franklin's lightening conductor was universally adopted by the smart folk, church bell ringers throughout Europe were still being electrocuted. What does Tim O'Neill have to say?
Could it be that:
a) The lightening conductor didn't work in Germany?
b) The catholic church said lightening was the work of demons?

Answers via E-Mail: parchment only.

(June 7, 2017 at 6:05 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Well most early scientists were Christian.  The world has both science and religion in most counties. So yes. However, in order for progress to occur, religions must either change in light of scientific findings, ignore the findings, or change the scope of religion.  This much of Christianity has been doing for a long time.  What there isn't room for is both dogmatic theology regarding the physicalities of the world and science.

Don't you think the most early scientists were pagan? Many ancient Greeks and Romans embraced rationalism and scientific inquiry as a way to understand the world. Think of the accomplishments of people like Aristotle, Ptolemy, Pythagoras, Democritus, Archimedes, Pliny the Elder, Theophrastus, Galen, and Euclid. If any faith should get credit for science, it would be paganism.

When Christianity took hold in Europe about 500 CE, science didn't come into its own until much later. The authoritarianism of the church suppressed the kind of freethinking that really did produce modern European science. Heresies like Arianism (the notion of God not as a trinity but a single being) and Manichaeism (the belief that God is benevolent but not omnipotent) were brutally suppressed. Indeed, the notion of "heresy" itself is explicitly anti scientific. If science and Christianity co-exist so nicely why that thousand-year delay? Why, if science and Christianity co-existed nicely and Christianity promoted scientific innovation during the Middle Ages, did Europe show no economic growth for a millennium?

(June 7, 2017 at 3:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Some may be interested in the following.... and checking your facts.

http://strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/

Sure, let me check THE FACTS: I and rest of the atheists acknowledge biological evolution; you don't. Biological evolution is a scientific fact; 6 day creation is not. You were taught against scientific facts; you are against science and reason. You lose this argument.

(June 8, 2017 at 4:21 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(June 7, 2017 at 6:05 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Well most early scientists were Christian.  The world has both science and religion in most counties. So yes. However, in order for progress to occur, religions must either change in light of scientific findings, ignore the findings, or change the scope of religion.  This much of Christianity has been doing for a long time.  What there isn't room for is both dogmatic theology regarding the physicalities of the world and science.

Don't you think the most early scientists were pagan? Many ancient Greeks and Romans embraced rationalism and scientific inquiry as a way to understand the world. Think of the accomplishments of people like Aristotle, Ptolemy, Pythagoras, Democritus, Archimedes, Pliny the Elder, Theophrastus, Galen, and Euclid. If any faith should get credit for science, it would be paganism.

When Christianity took hold in Europe about 500 CE, science didn't come into its own until much later. The authoritarianism of the church suppressed the kind of freethinking that really did produce modern European science. Heresies like Arianism (the notion of God not as a trinity but a single being) and Manichaeism (the belief that God is benevolent but not omnipotent) were brutally suppressed. Indeed, the notion of "heresy" itself is explicitly anti scientific. If science and Christianity co-exist so nicely why that thousand-year delay? Why, if science and Christianity co-existed nicely and Christianity promoted scientific innovation during the Middle Ages, did Europe show no economic growth for a millennium?

Pagan is just a word for other people's none top five relegions.

Mostly the Greeks you are you are citing were mathematicians, philosophers, and engineers though some real science was done. And their inquiries led to religious like philosophy. Pythagoras was convinced that relationship between pleasing harmonies and the ratios of the harp string used to produce the notes proved that god was math. Ptolemy was as certain for mystical reasons that the earth was the center of the world as any bishop fighting Galolao. He invented much complex math in doing so. Nother to denigrate the great strides these men made, but while a scientific revolution of sorts happened in the golden age of Greece mostly it was a mathematical and philosophical one. And it occurred alongside religion.

The Roman Empire rose and preformed rather amazing engineering feats in a very religious world. Christianity didn't bring that to a sudden halt either. The final fall of Rome did. Nor did enquiry stop in Middle Ages. Agricultural and craft improvements continued. What did stop almost all together was scientific enquiry for its own sake. That returned with the Renessance. And the men who brought it back were Christian. Galileo was not only persecuted by the church, but also part of it. Newton and Libnitz were Christian. Heck, Newton wasted much time contemplating how many angels can stand on a pin.

Modern scientists may be largely atheist, but the world is still largely religious. The Chinese are currently making great strides while becoming more and more religious. My guess is that is because they are becoming more open and that entails allowing religious as well as economic freedom.

(June 3, 2017 at 2:31 pm)Aliza Wrote: This question is like asking "Can baseball coexist with quilting?"

Even if you read the bible in English and you take literal meanings as translated in English, you can still compartmentalize and keep your science in your science world and your religion in your religion world.

You don't need to hit the ball and run to the bases with quilting needles in your hands just to validate other activities.

Religion DOES butt into on science, especially the science classroom.

---

(June 7, 2017 at 6:05 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Well most early scientists were Christian.  The world has both science and religion in most counties. So yes. However, in order for progress to occur, religions must either change in light of scientific findings, ignore the findings, or change the scope of religion.  This much of Christianity has been doing for a long time.  What there isn't room for is both dogmatic theology regarding the physicalities of the world and science.

Most early scientists in Christian countries were Christian, it was dangerous to be otherwise. But Arabic, Chinese, and others, all had scientists.

(June 8, 2017 at 10:28 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(June 3, 2017 at 2:31 pm)Aliza Wrote: This question is like asking "Can baseball coexist with quilting?"

Even if you read the bible in English and you take literal meanings as translated in English, you can still compartmentalize and keep your science in your science world and your religion in your religion world.

You don't need to hit the ball and run to the bases with quilting needles in your hands just to validate other activities.

Religion DOES butt into on science, especially the science classroom.

Only some religions, and only some people within those religions. It's not a hard rule that all religions must contradict science and must interfere in the science classroom.

Religion, even Christianity (which I see as the religion at the forefront of the anti-science campaign), can coexist if they choose to.

(June 8, 2017 at 12:22 am)Succubus Wrote:

(June 7, 2017 at 3:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Some may be interested in the following.... and checking your facts.

http://strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/

I wondered when someone would post that.
Thirty years after Benjamin Franklin's lightening conductor was universally adopted by the smart folk, church bell ringers throughout Europe were still being electrocuted. What does Tim O'Neill have to say?
Could it be that:
a) The lightening conductor didn't work in Germany?
b) The catholic church said lightening was the work of demons?

Answers via E-Mail: parchment only.

While I'm not very familiar with this particular issue, after the time of Ben Franklin.  Customs and even ill conceived ideas can be difficult to get rid of (I would point out, that this one is extra biblical.  Also, I don't think that by cherry picking a few instances or by ignoring the history and facts surrounding the issues, that you can extrapolate to the idea that religion is against science.  As the author of the article states, it is a myth, and seems to be embarrassed by those who put it forth.  I have seen commentary, that stated the belief, that the Galileo affair was more about politics, then it was about the science.  That if it had happened 100 years sooner or later (because of the reformation) that things likely would have been different.  They also tend to point out, that Galileo's case while shown to be correct in hindsight, wasn't strong enough to go against the scientific consensus at the time.

And some may try to isolate certain instances, to try and say that the Church was against science, but they also largely ignore, a lot of history in facts, which says quite the opposite.

Edit:   by the way, I am a big believer in lightning rods on tall metal things.

---

(June 8, 2017 at 4:21 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(June 7, 2017 at 6:05 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Well most early scientists were Christian.  The world has both science and religion in most counties. So yes. However, in order for progress to occur, religions must either change in light of scientific findings, ignore the findings, or change the scope of religion.  This much of Christianity has been doing for a long time.  What there isn't room for is both dogmatic theology regarding the physicalities of the world and science.

Don't you think the most early scientists were pagan? Many ancient Greeks and Romans embraced rationalism and scientific inquiry as a way to understand the world. Think of the accomplishments of people like Aristotle, Ptolemy, Pythagoras, Democritus, Archimedes, Pliny the Elder, Theophrastus, Galen, and Euclid. If any faith should get credit for science, it would be paganism.

When Christianity took hold in Europe about 500 CE, science didn't come into its own until much later. The authoritarianism of the church suppressed the kind of freethinking that really did produce modern European science. Heresies like Arianism (the notion of God not as a trinity but a single being) and Manichaeism (the belief that God is benevolent but not omnipotent) were brutally suppressed. Indeed, the notion of "heresy" itself is explicitly anti scientific. If science and Christianity co-exist so nicely why that thousand-year delay? Why, if science and Christianity co-existed nicely and Christianity promoted scientific innovation during the Middle Ages, did Europe show no economic growth for a millennium?

Care to give some facts to back up these claims.  You may want to read the article I posted

Quote:

(June 7, 2017 at 3:57 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Some may be interested in the following.... and checking your facts.

http://strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/

Sure, let me check THE FACTS: I and rest of the atheists acknowledge biological evolution; you don't. Biological evolution is a scientific fact; 6 day creation is not. You were taught against scientific facts; you are against science and reason. You lose this argument.

There's a whole lot wrong here!
You may want to know what you are talking about, before you start making claims like this.  Or is there something particular that I have said, which leads you to this conclusion?

(June 8, 2017 at 11:47 am)Aliza Wrote:

(June 8, 2017 at 10:28 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Religion DOES butt into on science, especially the science classroom.

Only some religions, and only some people within those religions. It's not a hard rule that all religions  must contradict science and must interfere in the science classroom.

Religion, even Christianity (which I see as the religion at the forefront of the anti-science campaign), can coexist if they choose to.

Religion DOES contradict science, religion requires magic.

(June 8, 2017 at 11:57 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Care to give some facts to back up these claims.  You may want to read the article I posted

Quote:Sure, let me check THE FACTS: I and rest of the atheists acknowledge biological evolution; you don't. Biological evolution is a scientific fact; 6 day creation is not. You were taught against scientific facts; you are against science and reason. You lose this argument.

There's a whole lot wrong here!
You may want to know what you are talking about, before you start making claims like this.  Or is there something particular that I have said, which leads you to this conclusion?

You can reconcile theism with biological evolution, because you can reconcile theism with anything, but does such make sense?  Consider the K-T event -- did God steer and/or cause a 8 to 10 diameter asteroid to impact the Earth in the location of the now Yucatan Peninsula releasing the equivalent of 2 million hydrogen bombs?  You can believe this, if you wish; I don't.  Either God caused the event to happen (which means that he is perverse) or he allowed it to happen (which either means that he is perverse, or not powerful, which means that he is not God).