::watches bemusedly as Alan falls out of his first-story window onto a rosebush & limps back indoors to dig thorns out of his shins::
That would never have happened if you’d majored in Chemical Engineering like i told you too. Or even Economics.
It’s hard to understand why Galileo did some of the things he did unless he was religious, which is what makes his story all the more tragic. He could have saved himself considerable trouble if he weren’t so perplexed by the notion of the Church continuing to promote the geocentrist position on (among other things) scriptural grounds. He should have shrugged it off and stuck to what mattered, which was debating other scientists, but he was too upset over the idea of the Church, the defender of Truth, teaching something about the Solar System that was false. it was crazy.
Regarding Der Trihs’s study, I find it surprising that tomndeb’s comment in Post #19 requires defense. Surely we all know that correlation does not equal causation. As for why “religious” America might differ from “secular” Europe, several possibilities come to mind, without straining to be complete. One is that it has a self-selected gene pool of people willing to take risks. Another is that it’s a large, heterogenous country. A third is that it has a different “take” on the problem of individual responsibility (and opportunity), affecting among other things outlooks on welfare and criminal responsibility. A fourth is our rather wobbly notions of individual freedom and autonomy, which affect our collective views (which which I sometimes disagree) on issues such as gun control, mental illness, drug use and the right of parents to raise their children by lights which differ from the social norm.
IOW, Americans differ from Europeans in many ways - just as they differ in many ways from, say, Africans and Asians - which probably has much more to do with the observed differences in such matters as violence and promiscuity than the rather superficial correlation with religiosity. All of which spoken, BTW, by a born-again atheist (or, depending on how one defines terms, strong agnostic) with no religious agenda to advance.
Well, I do not recall saying that logic came from the church, either. On the other hand, while the Greeks messed around with codifying rules for logical discussion, so did the peoples of the Indian subcontinent (who tended to have a number of religious views) and the logic that was being manipulated in late medieval/early Renaissance Europe was the Greek logic that had been sharpened by the (pretty thoroughly religious) Muslims of their Golden Age and then brought back into Europe by the scholars of the Church. However, to the extent that the scientific method exists, it seems to have been developed by devout Christians, even if they borrowed logic that had been articulated by Greeks (for whom we have no significant evidence that they were non-believers), sharpened by Muslims, and perfected by Christians.
Der Trihs, even though I can buy into the premise that religious zealotry can result in many, many problems there are problems with your source. Your link is to an article that reports on the study, not the study itself. And the study is not from a particularly reputable source – but from an online journal. Members of the editorial board do not list their credentials even though it is affiliated with a university.
Wording in the study itself is quite vague and non-academic:
Overall, I understand the point that you are making, but you usually make it better yourself.
I see a lot of good things come from believers and non-believers alike. Most non-believers don’t seem to be obsessed with their non-belief. The people who have hurt me the most have been believers who were judgmental or unforgiving or vengeful. I know that they know better. But that’s my fault for expecting a different outcome. I can understand getting in a snit, but not enduring and relentless cruelty.
lowers bucket
cranks handle
draws up bucket
bangs skull’n’crossbones sign into ground
takes specimen off to laboratory
Indeed. Which if you trace back that particular thread of discussion, is what Miller did say, and which I corrected, and you further corrected. But neither you nor he has made it particularly clear that logic was developed for religion, as opposed to being developed in spite of it. I would personally guess that a large chunk of logic came about due to the sophists, arguing legal cases. Similarly, under the Catholic church, probably a lot of it was developed due to church politics rather than to offer something impressive up to God.
Well that’s rather the point isn’t it? If you don’t feel that religion is even the primary factor in determining scientific development, then we’re fairly well agreed that it is sufficiently likely that in a world where no one had ever thought to make up gods that we might have advanced faster, at which point it’s not reasonable to say that atheists should thank religion for what technology we do have.
I do agree that it is entirely possible that it could go either way–that we really do have religion to thank for a lot of stuff–I just don’t think that there’s enough evidence to show that even probablistically that’s true. Most probably, the banning of usury was one of the greater brakes on development in the last 2000 years for Europe–and that’s entirely based on religion. Probably the second greater break was the loss of all the ancient works. Had it not been for the Byzantine Empire being willing to maintain heathenous works, we could have lost it all–at which point, the Rennaisance would have had a lot more stuff to figure out all over again.
For the record, you didn’t correct shit.
False dilemma.
What’s the distinction you’re trying to make here? Even if logic was used for church politics more than theology (which, incidentally, is not true) it’s still something that was developed by the church, which would not have happened if there were no religion.
No, we’re not agreed on that at all. This is another false dilemma: just because religion was not the primary motivating force behind technological development does not mean that it must instead have hindered it. Further, it does not logically follow that, absent the church, we’d still have all the same specific technological innovations. The influence of religion on thought and science is not constant through all periods of human history. Currently, it is as much a hindrance as anything else, what with the rising popularity of creationism in the US. A thousand years ago, though, the Church was the only game in town when it came to education and philosophy. If it weren’t for the Catholic church, the dark ages would have represented an almost complete reset of technological progress in Europe. But Catholic monastaries kept the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans alive until the political and economic situation in Europe had settled enough to make that knowledge useful again.