Atheists: "Thank you for Christianity"

[_Doctor Steuss]

You got that right, but I have a Q for you;
You're a Mod, right?
How come those MAD&D mods wanna look like "Fat & mean Judges"?
And you a "Trim James Bond"?
What's the catch?

Dude, move on. You got banned; so what... Get a puppy or something.

As usual, very well said beastie.
I totally agree.

Word.

[_John Larsen]

As an Atheist, I appreciate the cultural and philosophical contributions of Christianity.

There you go dartagnan, you win.

[_antishock8]

As an Atheist, I appreciate the cultural and philosophical contributions of Christianity.

There you go dartagnan, you win.

I collect crosses and display them. So I appreciate Christianity's influence on cross designery.

[_AmazingDisgrace]

I don't think the acts of religious governments are as relevant here as the scriptures and teachings of the religions themselves. Almost all religions make claims about the physical world. They assert ideas about its nature and origin, and claim that these ideas came from an omniscient being. If people believe that their religion is true, they have no reason to test the hypotheses that are stated by their scriptures. Their religion, in claiming that their concepts of the physical world come from an infallible deity, discourages scientific thinking, which requires looking for evidence that could disprove their hypothesis.

I agree that Christianity has been a less hostile environment to science than Islam would have been, but to give Christianity credit for science would require demonstrating that the Bible encourages the systematic reduction of our natural biases, and promotes coming to tenative conclusions when warranted by sufficient evidence. What it does promote, is accepting arguments from authority, and the exercise of faith, which means making definite conclusions in the absense of evidence. Even with aspects of the physical world where the Bible is silent, there isn't any admonition given to discovering the natural laws by which they operate, or any hint that this kind of knowledge could be useful.

If we imagine all the possible religions that could have become dominant instead, there are plenty that could have been more anti-science than Christianity, but many that could have been better. If there were, for example, a hypothetical religion that made no claims about the physical origin of the Earth, and had scriptures that said things like, "Behold, we know not when our first parents came to be, nor the origin of the Earth and heavens, but thou shalt go forth and think of some ideas. And lo, when thou has thought of an answer, thou shalt devise a multitude of ways by which thou canst test thy answer. Yea, thou shalt confer with others and criticize their ideas, that thy ideas may be criticized in turn, that all may be edified. And when thou hast found an answer that hath withstood the fiery darts of rigorous testing and the fierce winds of peer review, that shalt declare, 'Behold, our best theory so far!'"

[_antishock8]

I agree that Christianity has been a less hostile environment to science than Islam would have been...

I would be interested in some contrasting examples. I'm not being adversarial.

[_dartagnan]

Have you read Guns, Germs, and Steel? I think that makes a pretty good case for technological progress vis a vis Europe and Asia. I'm not sure Christianity had anything to do with it.

Well you're right. Christianity wouldn't have much to do with gunpowder. I'm speaking more of the "scientific" revoilution, not so much technological. The scientific leaps and bounds that took place under Christian supervision flies in the face of so many claims that Christianity and science are at odds with one another.

I think trade and interaction (violent and otherwise) had more to do with progress than anything else.

But Europe was blocked from trade for many centuries. That is why Columbus sailed to the New World. To find new trade routes to the east that had been blocked by Islamic forces.

marg,

Kevin having a book to read does not make it a science quide.

Exactly my point. So why are you bring it up in the context of scientific progress?

Please answer my question.

Marg, what question? The issue was whether or not Christainity fostered or stunted "scientific" progress. I said it did. I said modern science emerged from Christian civilization. You then bring up this anecdote about Tyndale and the English Bible and interpret it to mean something it doesn't. What has the Bible to do with "scientific" progress?

This sounds a lot like how JAK just scrolls weird websites, finds something negative in Christian history, and then just throws it out on the tabel whether it makes any sense to the topic or not.

I collect crosses and display them. So I appreciate Christianity's influence on cross designery.

(Rolles eyes)

Beastie, you're saying what I have been saying for quite some time, so I think youa nd I are on the same page. I only wish others, including Dawkins, would accept religion as a social construct and analyze it in that context. To say religion is dangerous because of certain sociological events, is just stupid. One might as well say human nature is dangerous. So let's prevent it by killing all humans! If religion wasn't here, we'd still be in a world of misery and oppression. I would actually argue that it would be much worse without it.

[_dartagnan]

I would be interested in some contrasting examples. I'm not being adversarial.

Well Islam doesn't except that God is limited to natural laws. He can make a round square, a married bachelor, etc. He is not bound by logic. So with that mindset, there is little incentive for a Muslim to study the natural world because ultimately it is just an illusion.

Another example would be in medical science. Islam is accredited with the first Hospital, but medical science hit a brick wall under Islam because Islam didn't allow the drawing of pictures of the human body. That was considered idolatry. This is why you see no sculptures in the Arab world, only wild art consisting of geometric designs. Drawing the human form was not permitted. So how were medical doctors supposed to diagram the human body in medical books? They couldn't.

[_antishock8]

Well you're right. Christianity wouldn't have much to do with gunpowder. I'm speaking more of the "scientific" revoilution, not so much technological. The scientific leaps and bounds that took place under Christian supervision flies in the face of so many claims that Christianity and science are at odds with one another.

At what point do you think Christianity, or Christian society, became pro-science? From what I see Christianity is very hostile to anything that might undermine it scientifically. From Galileo to Darwin I don't see Christianity embracing science, but rather it seems to reluctantly accommodate it if it can't jail or kill scientific heretics.

I sense an awakening to the sciences, much like what happened in the Christian world, in the Islamic world to some degree, too. For example, aound half the Supertalls that are being built in the world are located in the Islamic world:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=902

I don't think Christianity is any more disposed to accept sound science than Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism. I think it's been more of an impediment than a helpmate to those that want to progress and seek enlightenment. I think the more we see a separation between religion and the state the more we'll enjoy advances in science, technology, and an overall quality of life never before known to mankind. If history has anything to show us on the matter it's just that.

[_AmazingDisgrace]

I would be interested in some contrasting examples. I'm not being adversarial.

I admit I don't know a lot about it, so I may have to backtrack on that. My understanding is that Islam became more literalist over time and Christianity became less so, though I think Christianity went that way in response to science that was already causing problems for it. Since scientific progress has required ignoring the falsifiable claims of religion, recasting them as figurative, a culture that has broader definitions and harsher penalties for blasphemy would be a more hostile climate for science. But we're talking about counterfactual history, anyway, so questions of what would have happened if Islam had been more politically dominant need to be accompanied by questions of whether Al-Ghazali's ideas would have still become intellectually dominant. There are just so many factors involved in religious cultures becoming more or less fundamentalist. I guess we may as well ask what would have happened if Paul had said, "come on guys, everyone knows the flood story isn't literal" instead of affirming that only eight people had lived through it.

[_marg]

marg: Kevin having a book to read does not make it a science quide.

Kevin: "Exactly my point. So why are you bring it up in the context of scientific progress?"

Response:To the extent that mankind has developed tools for research and thinking, it has enabled man to progress in studying the world. Reading and writing are tools, tools of communication which has aided the advancement of science.

marg:Please answer my question.

Kevin: "Marg, what question?

response: the one I quoted in the post you are addressing... aprox 10 posts back .."Why didn't the church itself help to finance and get the Bible into the hands of the masses and into the language of the masses?"


Kevin: "The issue was whether or not Christainity fostered or stunted "scientific" progress. I said it did. I said modern science emerged from Christian civilization. You then bring up this anecdote about Tyndale and the English Bible and interpret it to mean something it doesn't. What has the Bible to do with "scientific" progress?"

Please see my remark above..but since you are likely to play dumb and ask "what remark?".this one. " The extent that mankind has developed tools for research and thinking, it has enabled man to progress in studying the world. Reading and writing are tools, tools of communication which has aided the advancement of science." Church by disallowing printing of the Bible, disallowing a printed version in the common language of people it aided in stunting the progress of education...education being a factor which favors scientific advancement.


Kevin: "This sounds a lot like how JAK just scrolls weird websites, finds something negative in Christian history, and then just throws it out on the tabel whether it makes any sense to the topic or not."

What is weird Kevin is your downplaying of the Church burning Tyndale at the stake. I believe the King James version used that Bible and didn't change it much. The real purpose why the church didn't want an English version circulating is they only wanted priests and bishops to be educated, they'd rather the people be ignorant, be in awe of church authority and accept blindly church dogma.