|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Catholics are making it up. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Here is a partial list of Muslim scientists of note.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There isn't enough information about any of those on your list to compare them to the western scientists as to method or achievement. There aren't even any dates given for many of them. Perhaps I could follow out the links but that's a lot to ask of a reader.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
What the scientists you named most enjoyed was a lack of suppression from religious authority. I believe I saw Galileo on that list of names. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3988 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Most, sir, most.
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Omnivorous writes:
Yes, I agree.
kbertsche writes:
More to the point, it can be argued that there would not be modern science without Christianity. Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Maxwell, Faraday, etc. were motivated by their Christian convictions to develop modern science. Without Christianity we would arguably still be stuck with Greek science. They stood on the shoulders of Greek giants, and the Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers who rescued those thinkers from the church, as well as the contributions of Islamic scholars. Omnivorous writes:
This grossly understates the situation. As I said, these pioneers of modern science were motivated by their Christian convictions to develop modern science. It's not just that they had a conducive environment to pursue science (which they did); they also had strong personal Christian convictions which motivated them to do science.
What the scientists you named most enjoyed was a lack of suppression from religious authority. As Ian Barbour wrote (Ian G. Barbour, Issues in Science and Religion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966), 48):
quote:(note: "virtuosi" was the term used for "scientists" in the seventeenth century) Edited by kbertsche, : Added Barbour quote"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3988 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
kbertsche writes: This grossly understates the situation. Any sentence-length summary does. But that begs the question of whether "strong Christian convictions" uniquely motivate great science. Scientists of many faiths do brilliant work, and I'm sure many of them will describe their passion for knowledge in spiritual or near-spiritual terms; members of your list, as men of their time and place, would have spoken in Christian terms. Now, more than ever, science is international and cosmopolitan. I see no reason to believe that Christian scientists out-achieve those of other faiths or atheists.
As I said, these pioneers of modern science were motivated by their Christian convictions to develop modern science. It's not just that they had a conducive environment to pursue science (which they did); they also had strong personal Christian convictions which motivated them to do science. All successful scientists have strong convictions which motivate them to do science. Even if you demonstrate the scientists on your list had strong Christian convictions, you won't have demonstrated that those motivations were the sine qua non of their achievements. Of course, atheists have their lists, too. This is the first one I found on Google:
quote: This is a silly game, played out of parochial pride, and unworthy of the labors and sacrifices of all great thinkers, Christians or not. I'll not play it further. Edited by Omnivorous, : too many "sentence"s"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
Omnivorous writes:
But these early scientists were not simply products of their environment. They tended to be MORE devout that their contemporaries, as Barbour's quote shows. Newton, for example, wrote more on theology than he did on science. He did not just use Christian terminology; he spent considerable time and effort to do theology.
Scientists of many faiths do brilliant work, and I'm sure many of them will describe their passion for knowledge in spiritual or near-spiritual terms; members of your list, as men of their time and place, would have spoken in Christian terms. Omnivorous writes:
Agreed.
Now, more than ever, science is international and cosmopolitan. I see no reason to believe that Christian scientists out-achieve those of other faiths or atheists. All successful scientists have strong convictions which motivate them to do science. Even if you demonstrate the scientists on your list had strong Christian convictions, you won't have demonstrated that those motivations were the sine qua non of their achievements. Omnivorous writes:
I'm not playing a "game". I am reminding folks of the history of modern science. It is a historical fact that modern science arose based in part on the convictions of devout Christians.
This is a silly game, played out of parochial pride, and unworthy of the labors and sacrifices of all great thinkers, Christians or not. I'll not play it further. We can't say for sure what science would look had Christianity not arisen. This is hypothetical and speculative. But what we CAN say for sure is that modern science DID arise from Christianity. The history of modern science clearly counters AZPaul3's claim that "the history of religion, all religion, is one of poisoning relationships between individuals, communities and nations, stifling intellect and advancement and enslaving the mind, the spirit and the soul of all humanity.""Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Too funny.
But the very existence of the names proves that once again your assertion that science is solely the product of Christianity is simply wrong, inane and absurd.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But that begs the question of whether "strong Christian convictions" uniquely motivate great science. Scientists of many faiths do brilliant work, and I'm sure many of them will describe their passion for knowledge in spiritual or near-spiritual terms; members of your list, as men of their time and place, would have spoken in Christian terms. As I've always understood it, the biblical framework, which presents a law-giving God and a basically RATIONAL understanding of nature, history and reality, contrary to popular prejudice today, was both a motivator and the catalyst to the DEVELOPMENT of the empirical and experimental approach to scientific questions. Once the perspective and the method were established others could also do it and do it well. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: As I've always understood it, the biblical framework, which presents a law-giving God and a basically RATIONAL understanding of nature, history and reality, contrary to popular prejudice today, was both a motivator and the catalyst to the DEVELOPMENT of the empirical and experimental approach to scientific questions. Once the perspective and the method were established others could also do it and do it well. However the bible stories do not offer rational explanations of reality and in fact presents just the opposite, a universe that runs not rationally based on rules and laws but irrationally at the whim of the supernatural; a would where the earth can stand still, snakes talk, a demonic god decide to create floods to wipe out some or parts of what was created.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1419 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined:
|
AZPaul3 writes:
Wow. Like I said, if you're trying to make it seem like you're no more perceptive or open-minded than a fundie, you're doing a great job. The Eden myth was just about a talking snake and knowledge-is-bad, huh? What nuanced meanings does one give to a talking snake? The facts the snake spoke not withstanding Knowledge is bad? Theologians might say that the symbolism of the Eden myth is meant to suggest that once one has knowledge of good and evil, i.e. has developed a moral understanding, one can no longer live in bliss. Ethical awareness means responsibility, and that's where anxiety and dread enter the human condition. I'm not saying this is what the average Christian believes, but there's nothing Christlike about walking across the surface of a metaphor.
Why should we continue to make excuses and accommodations for the demonstrable evil that is religion?
You're just assuming what's supposed to be proven: that religion is bad, based on your generalizations and vapid sloganeering. You aren't engaging with religion, or philosophy, or history. You're just telling us how credulous you are for the scaremongering screeds of Dawkins, Harris, and all the other celebrity authors you mentioned. Anyone who's just as skeptical of the New Atheists as he is of religious fundamentalism has no reason to be convinced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8552 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
The talking snake isn't a myth. It represents Satan, which we are told in the Book of Revelation. It talks because Satan talks and Satan had taken on its form for the seduction of Adam and Eve. This should pose you a bit of a problem. A few books later in the chronology, in Job, we get to see Satan again. He is a member in good standing of the Devine Council sitting with god. He can only do what god (easily jaw-boned into destroying one of his favorites btw) commands him to do. This is well after the events in Eden, isn’t it. So by your interpretation of the Eden myth Satan is chatting up the naked girl while god, who commanded this part, hangs in the wings chuckling as the scene unfolds. You realize, of course, that The Revelation wasn’t written until some (supposedly) 4000 years after the Eden events, yes? In the intervening time the priests re-wrote large parts of their books to absolve god of the evil part of the good-evil dichotomy they learned about in Babylon. The evil part of god was bad for business and Satan was a ready-made actor already in the cast. Handy. So the mythical talking snake could, and was, recast in Revelations as Satan doing is his evil thing alone and apart from god at the same time Job has the two of them as council buddies. These types of illogical disconnects between myths is one of the telltale evidences you get when shit is made up, fabricated, pulled from one’s butt.
I know sin is a meaningless concept to people these days. Murder, stealing, adultery, lying, you know, was it Dr. A who just wrote a post pretty much saying we think all those things are OK these days? You know better. Murder and theft have always been punishable offenses by tribes, villages, states and nations then, yesterday and today. A plethora of adultery, lying, homosexuality, greed, etc., is an abominable reason for wholesale slaughter. Your version of this god myth makes him into a blood thirsty monster.
Also, sin is inherited, according to the Bible. Even babies inherit it and grow up to be evil people if their family line was evil. Ahh, yes, the sins of the father. The foundation for the coming franchise. This means modern western society is more moral than your ancient myth.
If you are talking about the Canaanites, I understand that you have a soft spot for idolators and other sinners, but the whole point of eliminating them from the land was that their sin had accumulated to the point that God was going to judge them one way or another. A people minding their own business with centuries of their own ways, which now you say your god didn’t like because it didn’t include him, are set upon by a nomadic desert tribe of religious zealots and are slaughtered. How nice. A half a world away the Chinese had rather open reasons of power and property to make war without any knowledge of your god. Why didn’t your god have any name or influence there? Because his myth wasn’t invented there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8552 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Theologians might say that the symbolism of the Eden myth is meant to suggest that once one has knowledge of good and evil, i.e. has developed a moral understanding, one can no longer live in bliss. Ethical awareness means responsibility, and that's where anxiety and dread enter the human condition. In other words, it's bad. Bad enough to condemn every human ever conceived from then forward. One could, if it weren't for the evil god myth doing his evil god thing, say that having a moral understanding, an ethical awareness and its attendant responsibility, is a good thing to have in a species of human. I guess you disagree.
...there's nothing Christlike about walking across the surface of a metaphor. I like that. Well, done. I'll save that and use it on some fundy loonies later. Thank you.
You're just assuming what's supposed to be proven: that religion is bad, based on your generalizations and vapid sloganeering. No, based upon the history. Well known, well documented, open to everyone not looking for an excuse to perpetuate the crimes against conscience, crimes against humanity. What you sneer at as generalizations and vapid sloganeering are backed by a compelling body of demonstrable fact. You cannot accommodate those away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1419 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Again you've completely missed the point. The development of ethical awareness means the end of a childish state of blissful ignorance. It's not a good thing or a bad thing, it's just the human condition.
In other words, it's bad. Bad enough to condemn every human ever conceived from then forward. One could, if it weren't for the evil god myth doing his evil god thing, say that having a moral understanding, an ethical awareness and its attendant responsibility, is a good thing to have in a species of human. I guess you disagree. No, based upon the history. Well known, well documented, open to everyone not looking for an excuse to perpetuate the crimes against conscience, crimes against humanity. What you sneer at as generalizations and vapid sloganeering are backed by a compelling body of demonstrable fact. You cannot accommodate those away.
"Demonstrable fact" You give your cheesy rhetoric far too much credit. You simply blame "religion" for all the bad things in the world and call it " the greatest evil on the world stage today," then pretend that your sloganeering validates itself. Sorry, I'm not that credulous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8552 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
"Demonstrable fact" You give your cheesy rhetoric far too much credit. You simply blame "religion" for all the bad things in the world and call it " the greatest evil on the world stage today," then pretend that your sloganeering validates itself. Sorry, I'm not that credulous. Just like the YEC and the fludists, if you don't want to see/hear the facts, which are all around and available with some but not too laborious a research effort, you don't have to. You still cannot accommodate them away. They will stay there forever waiting for you if you decide to find out.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024