My experience has been more that those with religious beliefs seem to think science is in conflict with their beliefs. I started a GQ thread on this just a week or so ago. A friend of mine, despite having an interest in science and technology, buys into the “debate” about evolution and thinks this type of science is “evil”. This only seems to be the case if one takes an extremely narrow and literal interpretation of the bible.
But interpretations of the bible aside, the scientists I have known (who were often religious) are just baffled at the idea that some people think science is “at odds” with religious belief. Science uses instruments - extensions of human senses - to make observations. When they observe that the sky is blue, that may occasionally conflict with someone’s ultra-literal reading of their holy book. Well that’s too bad because the sky still appears to be blue, and they did not go out to make that observation with the intention of bringing down someone’s dogma.
No, it does not, which would have been self-evident if you had read the article closely. It does NOT deny the contributions of non-Christian nations. What it says is that modern science had its ORIGINS in Christian thought, which explains why it emerged in Christian cultures as opposed to non-Christian ones.
Again, completely incorrect. The article in question does NOT say that we should attribute scientific advancements to religion. What it does say is that science had its origins in Christian thought, which is an entirely different proposition.
Yes, it’s becoming quite obvious that you don’t.
Again, a severe misrepresentation of what I’ve said. Religion and science have been at odds, but they are not INHERENTLY at odds, as I have emphasized previously. Your entire response betrays the position of someone who is adamantly convinced that science and religion are inharmonious, regardless of what the actual facts may be.
There are indeed people like that. To be more precise though, they believe that certain scientific beliefs are at odds with certain religious beliefs. The more sophisticated people in these groups – the ones who tend to expound on their beliefs more precisely, as opposed to your typical layperson – believe that in situations like this, scientists have arrived at the wrong consensus, not that science itself is inherently wrong.
Moreover, as I have had to emphasize repeatedly, this objection does not demonstrate that science and religion are inherently at odds. Nor does it disprove the notion, amply demonstrated by history, that science had its origins in Christian thought.
“But wait!” certain people here are bound to object (as one person tacitly did). “There are plenty of scientists who don’t believe in God. How can you possibly think that only Christians can make a contribution to science?” That is not the claim in question, though. Of course, non-Christians and non-theists can make stupendous contributions to science. The point is that historically, science had its origins in a Christian milieu. That is, in fact, why people such as Sir Isaac Newton pursued science with a passion – because in science, he saw the marvels and majesty of his God.
I can accept that Science may have origins in a Christian milieu, but it is precisely because those seeking answers could not find them in that milieu that other more scientific methods were developed. Claiming that Religion has value because some religionists developed scientific methods to find answers they were denied before is the equivalent of saying Astrology has value because the more intelligent astrologers found that astronomy gave them the answers they were seeking.
Not according to historian Stanley Jaki. Quite the contrary; it was belief in God that motivated Christians in Western Europe to explore the majesties of the physical universe.
Your answer is the kind of response that one would expect from someone who starts with a premise in mind (e.g. religion is dumb and science is superior) and strives to dream up ways to explain away any evidence to the contrary.
As I said before, your argument applies just as well for Astrology. Should we respect modern Astronomy because it inspired early astrologers to expand their horizons and become astronomers?
Yes, but it offers fallacious reasoning for this assertion:
In short, this statement (by Haffner interpreting Jaki) says “We can see that science had its origins in Christian thought because Christian thought is required for science.” A nice bit of begging the question.
And still incorrect.
I’m not convinced you do either. By the argument it presents, we could equally say that Christians have a predisposition to become pantheists because several prominent Enlightenment thinkers were Deists.
Religion is a unifying force- if only to unify US against THEM. As such, it’s been a big influence on the initial formation of societies.
I certainly think we could do without religion at this point in our development… but I do believe it had its uses when we were first starting to form civilizations.
“Wrong” would make it a fundamental characteristic of the action, “inconvenient” would be subjective.
It is not evident that “inconvenient” is justification for (severe) punishment, it’s arbitrary.
The problem is that we have no control groups that developed social rules in the complete absence of religion/spirituality. “They would’ve worked it out” is a belief, not a scientifically provable thesis.
This statement (in common with everything else you have posted on the topic of religion) is pretty obviously worthless crap, since officially atheist societies are just as likely to divide into “us” vs. “them” as any others.
And if I had said anything about “respect,” your objection might have some merit. You are shifting the goalposts, though. Rather, I was addressing the specific claim that “religion has giving us nothing.” I was also affirming what Zoe said about religion and its contributions to science.
NOWHERE did I say that this was, in and of itself, sufficient grounds to prostrate one’s self before religion. (I myself an a devout believer, but not for this reason alone.) Unfortunately, certain people here are unable to approach these discussions in a focused manner, instead choosing to take potshots against religion whenever they can.
You are correct, Gyrate. In my haste, I missed that statement of yours, and for that I apologize. I am big enough to admit such errors.
With all due respect though, I jumped the gun because of your statement that “Religion and science frequently are at odds in many ways” – something which I never contested. Such an objection truly has no place unless you thought that I the existence of any possible conflict between the two, and I said no such thing whatsoever.
My points about your earlier posting remain, though. Neither Jaki nor I claimed that non-Christian societies have not contributed massively to science. We did not deny “the signficant developments in science and mathematics by non-Christian countries” nor did we ignore “incidences of Christian opposition to scientific developments.” None of that is relevant to Jaki’s amply documented claim that science owed its origins to the Christian milieu of Western Europe.
Another irrelevant objection. If somebody here had claimed that science was useless, or that we should replace religion with science, your objection would be helpful and profound. Nobody said such a thing, though. Rather, we have been talking about the contributions of religion to science, not their relative merits.
As I said, some people here are simply unable to discuss these matters without taking petty potshots against religion – even if it means erecting an army of strawmen.