Does Modern Science Owe Its Existence to Religion?

[Shell B]

Seriously?

Yep.

I feel like you are just playing games now

Nope.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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*

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.

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? hock:

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.