SteelHead wrote:This world view, and its associated conclusions are based on what?
Can you point to any actual evidence on which to support the assertion that we are eternal beings? The parts that compose our bodies us will be here for the duration, but will not constitute our bodies as we start to decay at death. Can you point to any thing on which to support the assertion that our consciousness, identity, whatever is eternal?
No, I can not. But I can describe how I came to this conclusion. I have done so many times but I will do so again if you wish.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
The CCC wrote:In that case they have been spectacular failures. Some 40% of all American scientists are Theists. Including Dr. Francis Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project; Dr. Kenneth Miller, who wrote the book on cell evolution; Dr. Robert T. Bakker, Paleontologist.
Most of the scientists back in the 1800's who were discovering the earth was millions of years old or older were Christian.
The CCC wrote:In that case they have been spectacular failures. Some 40% of all American scientists are Theists. Including Dr. Francis Collins, Head of the Human Genome Project; Dr. Kenneth Miller, who wrote the book on cell evolution; Dr. Robert T. Bakker, Paleontologist.
Most of the scientists back in the 1800's who were discovering the earth was millions of years old or older were Christian.
Yep. Their religion didn't get in the way of their science.
Themis wrote: Most of the scientists back in the 1800's who were discovering the earth was millions of years old or older were Christian.
Yep. Their religion didn't get in the way of their science.
But it challenged the authority of the Bible colleges, and so you got the reaction of fundamentalism, Billy Sunday, the Morrises, the Gish Gallop and the sneaky efforts to redefine creationism into Intelligent Design.
The CCC wrote:Yep. Their religion didn't get in the way of their science.
I wouldn't go that far. Certainly Christianity was a major hindrance to the sciences and still is hindering it a little today. It just wasn't able to stop it. Scientific discovery could have moved faster if not for this hindrance coming even from the scientists.
The CCC wrote:Yep. Their religion didn't get in the way of their science.
I wouldn't go that far. Certainly Christianity was a major hindrance to the sciences and still is hindering it a little today. It just wasn't able to stop it. Scientific discovery could have moved faster if not for this hindrance coming even from the scientists.
D&C 88:118 118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.
I think it has more to do with the obsession to make money.
The CCC wrote:I think it has more to do with the obsession to make money.
Certainly an important factor, but there are others, and some had no desire to make money. Religion, especially Christianity, has had a negative influence on scientific learning and discovery. You can include Mormonism as well. Some have been able to separate the two.
The CCC wrote:Yep. Their religion didn't get in the way of their science.
I wouldn't go that far. Certainly Christianity was a major hindrance to the sciences and still is hindering it a little today. It just wasn't able to stop it. Scientific discovery could have moved faster if not for this hindrance coming even from the scientists.
I think we need to distinguish between Christianities here. Some are hostile to science, others are not. We also have to take into account the antiscientific views of Muslims, conservative Judaism, New Age practitioners, Hare Krishnas and others. I consider Oprah and Oz greater forces for antiscientific thinking than the Biblethumpers at this point.
Maksutov wrote:I think we need to distinguish between Christianities here. Some are hostile to science, others are not. We also have to take into account the antiscientific views of Muslims, conservative Judaism, New Age practitioners, Hare Krishnas and others. I consider Oprah and Oz greater forces for antiscientific thinking than the Biblethumpers at this point.
I agree that certain religions have had different impacts then others, and that there are non-religious ideas that are having a negative impact.
