Schadenfreude wrote:I suppose what's ironic about my position is that I'm an atheist.

And an assclown.

Schadenfreude wrote:edit: IF NOTHING ELSE....they're position IN THE CHURCH enabled them to make the scientific accomplishments they've been recognized for. AT THE VERY WORST, you CANNOT CLAIM the Chruch was a "roadblock" for progress, since virtually all "progress" we've laid claimed to was due to Christian inspiration?

That's a laughable claim, considering that the great inspiration for the scientists of the Renaissance and Enlightenment was Greek thought.

bassdriver wrote:

Earwicker wrote:Aren't you just saying you behave like you do cause it feels right to you?

yep. is that wrong?

No, that's what I'm saying everyone does. But what I think is that there is no universal moral code that should apply to everyone.

*sighs*

Antero wrote:

Schadenfreude wrote:edit: IF NOTHING ELSE....they're position IN THE CHURCH enabled them to make the scientific accomplishments they've been recognized for. AT THE VERY WORST, you CANNOT CLAIM the Chruch was a "roadblock" for progress, since virtually all "progress" we've laid claimed to was due to Christian inspiration?

That's a laughable claim, considering that the great inspiration for the scientists of the Renaissance and Enlightenment was Greek thought.

Though Greek thought obviously influenced the Renaissance and Enlightenment (after being protected by those other dastardly religiosos the Muslims) I don't see how you can dispute the list of Scientists involved in and inspired by and helped by the church that Schadenfreude posted earlier.
Maybe he's overstating a little but no more than those who are saying that Christianity has always acted as a blockade to scientific progress - as his post proved well enough I think.

Earwicker wrote:Though Greek thought obviously influenced the Renaissance and Enlightenment (after being protected by those other dastardly religiosos the Muslims) I don't see how you can dispute the list of Scientists involved in and inspired by and helped by the church that Schadenfreude posted earlier.
Maybe he's overstating a little but no more than those who are saying that Christianity has always acted as a blockade to scientific progress - as his post proved well enough I think.

Well, right, the problem is he's overreaching far enough that any logical basis for his argument collapses.

Historically speaking, the church was very big on certain kinds of science and against others, based more on results than actual scientific subject. They were fine with astronomy when it was being used to more accurately calculate holidays, or when it was a largely theoretical construct that existed more as a philosophical boost for man's position of central importance, but they freaked out when it went against that centrality. Geology pissed them off to no end, ever since a fellow in Edinburgh realized the world was far older than the Church's narrative claimed.

Also historically speaking, it gets completely pointless to discuss the religiousness of scientists several hundred years ago, because science and philosophy had not yet disengaged, everyone was religious, and the terminology was entirely religious (i.e. there wasn't a physical universe to explore other than "God's creation" - a scientist now might talking about the glorious wonder of "nature" instead, because that's terminology he now has access to).

Antero wrote:

Earwicker wrote:Though Greek thought obviously influenced the Renaissance and Enlightenment (after being protected by those other dastardly religiosos the Muslims) I don't see how you can dispute the list of Scientists involved in and inspired by and helped by the church that Schadenfreude posted earlier.
Maybe he's overstating a little but no more than those who are saying that Christianity has always acted as a blockade to scientific progress - as his post proved well enough I think.

Well, right, the problem is he's overreaching far enough that any logical basis for his argument collapses.

Now you're overstating. I wouldn't say his argument completely collapses. He has some relevant points to make about the subject that are often ignored not easily dismissed (in fact I've not yet heard anyone dismiss them) and are pertinent to a discussion about Christianity.

Antero wrote:Also historically speaking, it gets completely pointless to discuss the religiousness of scientists several hundred years ago, because science and philosophy had not yet disengaged, everyone was religious,

I think this is wrapped in Schadenfreude's point. But it is a fact that is again often ignored in the rush to condemn anything Christian. Why is it okay for someone to talk about the obstructions Christianity has placed in the way of 'progress' but not okay to talk about the assistance it has given to 'progress'?
It is a type of bigotry I think.

It is equally as pointless to talk about the 'progress' we might have made had there not been Christianity as we had and still have it.

Well, yes, it is. That's the point. If you're trying to evaluate the relation between the Church and science, you pull out a couple different things.

-These things are sciences and scientific discoveries that the Church encouraged/funded

-These things are sciences and scientific discoveries that the Church discouraged/persecuted

-Lots of people were Christian.

The last of these isn't actually useful, as far an actual historical discussion is concerned; if a scientist had direct patronage or persecution, or if a specific science was promoted or suppressed, then that's important.

For example, scholars of anatomy in Europe were vastly Christian, which conforms with the population as a whole. Their belief in the Christian god is of little importance to the history of anatomy; what is important is that its development was impeded by the Church and religion-derived laws that limited the ability of scholars to perform dissections of the human body. One would thereby conclude that the Church impeded the development of anatomical science, and might suggest that without a powerful church the acceptance of dissection and the understanding of human physiology would have developed more swiftly.

Talking about what would happen with or without Christianity as a whole, though, is nothing more than idle speculation with no more truth to it than a Harry Turtledove novel.

Antero wrote:Well, yes, it is. That's the point. If you're trying to evaluate the relation between the Church and science, you pull out a couple different things.

I think we're basically agreeing but I wouldn't dismiss Christianity's influence on an individuals inspiration for investigating nature. Regardless of the Church's stance at a given time.
If they say their own (perceived) relationship with God was important to them in their investigations I think someone would have to be extraordinarily arrogant to say they were wrong.

(by that I don't mean there is a God I mean those people felt as though there was and that was important to them. Why did I feel the need to qualify that statement?)

On another note I reckon Schadenfreude was lying out of his arse when he said he wrote it all off the top of his heed.

And I don't know why he (she?) would lie so.

I saw Brecht's The Life of Galileo recently, which is a striking and thoughtful play centred around the interaction between the Catholic church and science.

I liked the way the play paints the opposition to his work: by the end, it is not stating, you are wrong, but rather, we cannot be seen to accept that you might be right. The truth is immaterial in this argument.

One question:

Does anyone here, apart from Matt, actually believe in God according to the Christian faith?

A simple yes or no.