…apparently so.
And you somehow fail to mention that I offered to join you in a new thread on the topic-A failure that doesn’t shock me in the least.
As do I. I would like to think that any beliefs I have, however, are based on past experience and do not sink to the level of blind faith. Any belief I have is subject to change pending further evidence.
You keep coming back. Like a moth to a flame, haven’t you been burnt enough?
I also failed to mention that Lake Victoria is full of water.
You somehow failed to mention that I couldn’t give fewer fucks about your offer without Riemann’s ghost affecting my REM time.
Or is this another “hijack” which you will promptly inform us your desire to disengage from? (yeah, I end sentences with preposition, that’s how metal I am)
If it was fun, during Sunday service, then this would be a different conversation with (perhaps) different conclusions. But having been to quite a few different services from quite a few different religions/sects, the word “fun” isn’t how I would describe the vast majority of them-thus, I don’t think that it serves as a major reason to come to church rather than stay at home, whether you spend that part of the day in scientific exploration or not.
Because most of them derive some sort of personal satisfaction and benefit from doing so, and nobody is aguing that. What the OP suggests, however, is that the world would be a better place if that time was spent learning about and contributing to science.
Our friend,Ají de Gallina, claims that the OP implies that non-believers are already doing so with their church time and tithe. I don’t see where the OP makes that claim. Ají de Gallina appears to be taking issue with an argument he himself manufactured.
Now, would the entire world population benefit from a little “sunday science time”? I believe so. Is it fair to single out just the church goers? Perhaps not.
Never play chess with a pigeon.
no matter how good you are at Chess, the Pigeon will knock the pieces over, crap all over the board and strut around like it’s victorious.
This, I agree with.
Can anyone think of a great scientist before Darwin who was a skeptic? And here are three who took holy orders:
Copernicus (Bishop)
Mendel (Abbott)
George Lemaitre (Priest)
On the other hand, it is fair to reply that Copernicus and Mendel at least might have made even more contributions if they had not had to devote so much time to their religious duties, and it is fair to observe that for others, such as Newton, religion was a tremendous diversion from science and math (Newton was secretly anti-Trinitarian and went so far as to teach himself Hebrew in the course of extensive theological study).
It therefore seem reasonable to take the position that the pace of modern scientific discovery would probably have been faster without various religious impediments. How much faster strikes me as difficult to pin down.
Back then, sure. But now? Can anyone make the compelling argument that religion is holding back scientific progress?
Stem cell research?
It may be holding back progress in some countries, but that doesn’t mean it’s holding back progress for the globe as a whole, right?
http://www.eurostemcell.org/stem-cell-regulations
http://www.mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap.html
http://www.mbbnet.umn.edu/scmap/scresearchmap.html
Note that many countries have laws far stricter than the US. Germany, for one.
I meant in my first sentence to draw a before-Darwin after-Darwin distinction. I doubt modern scientists have suffered much loss of productivity due to their own personal religious convictions.
I think the science part of it is moving right along. No?
There’s a timeline at the bottom of this article that summarizes the progress (accurately, I hope). Though I do acknowledge, as a matter of public policy, religion has been a hindrance in this case. At least in the US. Progress in research seems to have continued despite it.
But, in the case of Mendel for example, it’s safer to say the if he hadn’t had all the time to observe the colours of bean plants due to his religious duties he wouldn’t have had the chance of noticing stuff
Of course, being a priest may not be the ideal day job for unravelling string theory in your free time.
Newton, great guy that he was, could’ve laid down alchemy a bit.
Many priest/scientists, even if I’m contradicting myself a bit, find that the lack f “wordly” cares frees the mind for deeper studies.
Many christians object to using fetal cell from aborted fetuses. I know of no christians who object to stem cell research per se.
Adult stem cell research is progressin abundantly and it’s sure to ar least equal if not surpass aborted-fetus stem cell
Heck, even sweat glands are now being use for stem cells.
Isn’t it a bit “excluded middle” stuff, like there is no other choice.
If the OP says “stop going to church, study science” and “stop tithing, give money to science” isn’t it the logical conclusion that it means “non-churchgoers study science on Sunday and give money to science?”.
Because, if not, it’s like he’s singling out chruchgoers for no reason other than not liking religion.
[/QUOTE]
Now, would the entire world population benefit from a little “sunday science time”? I believe so. Is it fair to single out just the church goers? Perhaps not.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed on both counts. That’s my take on the OP.
If you mean he had more spare time than he would have had in a non-academic secular profession I do not see why that should be so.
It does occur to me, though, that Mendel made his great discoveries before he was appointed Abbot, and it was only after then that he had to discontinue scientific work. I also seem to recall that Mendel’s student application for scientific study was rejected, so the secular realm may be said to have in Mendel’s case to have done more to get in the way of progress than the religious realm.
I think the Jesuits allow their members to pursue full-time academic careers; LeMaitre was a Jesuit.
Newton may have devoted more time to both alchemy and theology than to math and science.
If all he had wanted was to study science, then I agree that being a priest took time away (of course 99% of scientists do not go on to be renowned for anything) from experiments. Of course, the non-priest Mendel may have done other stuff and no peas.
His famous pea experiments, were done in the abbey.
He was a highschool teacher, also a profession with little extra time.
We could get, in a reduction ad absurdum kind of way, that anything that takes time away from a scientist’s time is detrimental to science (like Sheldon Cooper’s “Science demands nothing less than the fervent and unconditional dedication of our entire lives.”)
Darwin thought Mendel was wrong.
The dean of Peru’s most important Economics school is a Jesuit
Of course, his non-boning lifestyle gave him some extra hours.
Double check this- Mendel published his work in an obscure minor journal, and it was overlooked by the scientific profession until well after both he and Darwin were dead. Darwin might have objected to someone else’s ideas, though.