Does Modern Science Owe Its Existence to Religion?

[Statler Waldorf]

No, they are not.

Proof?

The little snippet you provided did not suggest the author's intent.

He is talking about a “paradox” and says “as strange as it may sound”, so it is obvious he is talking about science, which today is very anti-religious, arising from religion. This is why he uses such terms. Everyone else I have shown that quote to understands it immediately, even other atheists; you are just purposely dragging your feet on it.

Are those his words or your interpretation of them?

I guess it doesn’t matter if you don’t consider Dawkins a reliable source.

That's bullshit. You are simultaneously replying to my replies whilst accusing me of ignoring your "proof." Do not make baseless accusations against me, Statler. I am one of the rare few here who have the patience to actually reply to you point by point. When enough people lose their patience, you will have to bring your horse and pony show somewhere else to get the negative attention you crave. If you are going to accuse me of ignoring your posts whilst I am replying to them, I am going to lose my patience fast. Then, who will you throw out other people's thoughts and ideas too while avoiding having any of your own?

I never said you were ignoring my posts, I said you were ignoring the evidence I provided in them, which you have. Trust me, you are hardly the pillar of patience on this board, there numerous posters on here with more patience.

Wow yourself, Stat. You can add the spontaneous change from modern science to science to the list of terms you have changed in this argument. Go back and read your posts, Stat. Furthermore, modern science has its origins in science that is not so modern. You are talking about the origins of modern science, yes? Well, that predates the reformation and the ideology that you cited.

You see, this is what bothers me about you. You are just being dishonest, when I actually did go back and look at my original post; this is what I found…

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).

So you can accuse me of moving the goalposts all you want, the facts don’t lie though.

As to your second point, modern science’s roots are more in religion than they are the science of the Greeks. The modern scientists (Kepler, Newton, Bacon, and Galileo) viewed nature completely different than the Greeks and put an emphasis on empirical methodology that was absent from the Greek science movement (and all other early science movements). This is why the science/modern science distinction is made, they are very dissimilar.

Is he the father of all science? Can you prove that he would not have sought answers were it not for his being Christian? No, you obviously cannot.

Yes he is, modern science is based upon the scientific method. You are just committing the arguing from ignorance fallacy when you make those speculative arguments. No, I cannot prove he would not have been motivated by something other than religion, but I did just prove with his own words he was motivated by his religion which is the whole point we are discussing.

Suggesting that I am stupid makes you no better than those you are consistently complaining about. Apparently, it is okay to imply stupidity, but if someone comes right out and says it, but isn't immediately banned, I'm biased. You should take the plural out of your standards.

I didn’t ever call you stupid; you implied it when you called a very clear quote I posted “ambiguous”. I think it is more of a pretended ignorance than actual stupidity, you don’t want to own up to what the quote was saying so you pretended to not understand it. So I just said I will find a simpler one next time so you can’t do this. If I thought you were actually stupid I would not waste my time with this discussion, apologies if you took it that way. I have never asked for anyone to be banned for calling me stupid, so that's just a red herring.

You have yet to provide the proof that I said would convince me.

You have never said what proof would convince you, quotes from historians and the very scientists themselves have not convinced you, it appears nothing will. Now is your chance to tell me exactly what you require though.

You literally want me to post one thousand quotes when you are the one making a claim which requires proof? I'm surprised this thread can contain your hubris. Tell you what, you give me what I asked for, without gaps leaving out pre-modern thinkers whose work obviously laid stepping stones to "modern science." Don't forget that it must support your outrageous claim. Then, I will give you a thousand links to quotes that refute your claim.

That’s ok, I was just calling your bluff; I knew you didn’t actually have the quotes.

Oh, is that was he is referring to?

Yes, several of the quotes were quite clear there was a change in exegetical style at the time of the Reformation.

I did ignore it, because it was contradictory to his first statements. Thus, he is a contradictory retard, which is why I am not surprised you admire him enough to quote him

You are misusing the term contradiction (A and not A in the same time and in the same relationship); something can play both a positive and a vital role, so it is not a contradiction at all. At least you admitted you are ignoring evidence though.