Religion retards scientific disovery?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Re: Religion retards scientific disovery?

So many questions. I can only focus on one at a time.

Typical of a myopic.

Here is another question: what is an Evangelical? And how do they differ from a non-Evangelical?

Attempts to thwart teaching of evolution or to present creation or intelligent design as competing "theories"; attempts to restrict or ban stem cell research; attempts to limit sexual education and HIV prevention in secondary schools.

Let me first say that I could have posted your reply it is so predictable. I this the Daily Hoosier?

1. We already went over this one at length. Neither should be taught as the origin of the universe in government schools.

2. Should we do experiments on old people with dementia? This is where my book recommendation would of use to you.

3. Science (the measurement of data) shows that since sex education has been introduced, problems in society with their origins in sex have multiplied. Disease, unwed parents, age of single mothers, etc. Why do you impede science?

1. Ridiculous. Evolution/big bang fits under science. Science should be taught. If either of those are "improved" upon..then the teaching changes.

2. He gave you an example. Now, you want to discuss ethics/morality.

3. Please provide proof. It is doubtful that any science was done on this...seeing as the "control" would be impossible.

In the end, you can not dispute the fact that religion tries to impede science. What you seem to want to argue is whether doing so is actually beneficial.

[texaspackerbacker]

The original poster here is playing kind of fast and loose with the facts. While the ARABS indeed did translate and preserve many Greek concepts of math, as well as astronomy and other science in a time period when Europe considered that sort of thing heretical, it was NOT the Muslims. Furthermore, a lot of the reason for this was that they--the Arabs--had access to the great library of Alexandria in Egypt. If I'm not mistaken, when Islam began to infest the Arabs, they sacked and destroyed that library in 642 A.D. The Muslim general who did it was reported to have said concerning the items in the library, "They will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous."

The rotten anti-Christian sentiment of the original post notwithstanding, there is a lot of merit to the idea that the Christian Church for much of the 2,000 or so years of its existence, really did--some would say still does--stifle science.

How can a true Bible believing Christian correlate the Church's attitude toward science with goodness and truth? Well, Christian churches/denominations--Catholic and Protestant are a far cry from representing true Biblical teachings--and that has been true almost since the beginning. In addition, there is a great difference between provable measurable science and theoretical science--although that differentiation may or may not be relevant to this discussion.

True believers--the Christian variety, at least, have nothing to fear from anything science can measure or prove.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

1. The earth moves

Johannes Kepler said, "We see how God, like a human architect, approached the founding of the world according to order and rule and measured everything in such a manner."

I bet he wasn't an Evangelical.

If the earth dies before accepting jesus will it's soul go to hell?

Oh, those wacky Lutherans.

[HowardRoark]

Re: Religion retards scientific disovery?

1. Ridiculous. Evolution/big bang fits under science. Science should be taught. If either of those are "improved" upon..then the teaching changes.

2. He gave you an example. Now, you want to discuss ethics/morality.

3. Please provide proof. It is doubtful that any science was done on this...seeing as the "control" would be impossible.

In the end, you can not dispute the fact that religion tries to impede science. What you seem to want to argue is whether doing so is actually beneficial.

The Big Bang? You mean the science that measured that out of nothingness, in an instant, the universe began, and it is heading toward an end time? Hmmmm…sounds familiar. I don’t dispute the Big Bang.

One of these days I will show the scientific data that proves that with Sex Education come societal problems. Too tired right now (to quote Hoosier).

His examples were elementary; therefore easy to dispute. If science is not beneficial; why pursue it? Should we allow the likes of Josef Mengele to pursue whatever science he deems appropriate?

What you and Hoosier fail to understand is that Christians have the capacity to understand that science and religion can and do coexist. We/I don’t have a childish belief in some kind of pie in the sky made up character, as much as you might think we do. If there is a God and it is truth, then it is nothing more than discovering what God has created. You can look up quotes from just about any of the scientists on your list above, and they will have said things much more articulate than I can on the subject.

When there is no limit on what science can potentially do, do we as humans have to put some limits on it?

[HowardRoark]

1. The earth moves

Johannes Kepler said, "We see how God, like a human architect, approached the founding of the world according to order and rule and measured everything in such a manner."

I bet he wasn't an Evangelical.

If the earth dies before accepting jesus will it's soul go to hell?

Oh, those wacky Lutherans.

Does the Earth have a soul?

[texaspackerbacker]

Precisely.

The Big Bang is simply the way God did it.

There is nothing involving fossils, dinosaurs, geologic time, "little" i.e observable evolution, physics, biology, or anything else in PROVABLE science that contradicts Biblical teachings

[crosbiegrad]

Texas, although my facts may not be thorough to the extreme, it was definetely the banner of Islam that united the Arab tribes in such a way that they could get to the great library. Furthermore, prior to the unification of the Arabs in Islam, many, possibly even most Arabs were Illiterate, relying almost oral record keeping. Modern Mathematics found its way in the world with a heavy hand from Islamic scholars.
Also, remember Darwin himself was a devout chrisitian untill his death. In fact, there are many religious figures at the forefront of scientific discovery.
I do agree that christian opposition to stem cell research is completely illogical. However, as a scientific 'fact' the big bang theory is just that, a flawed theory.
I stand by my original point, mathematics= mankinds greatest scientific tool. In your list Tyrone, which of those can follow the sceintific theory without the use of math?

[HowardRoark]

mathematics= mankinds greatest scientific tool. In your list Tyler, which of those can follow the sceintific theory without the use of math?

I agree with this.....physics a close second.

[texaspackerbacker]

Texas, although my facts may not be thorough to the extreme, it was definetely the banner of Islam that united the Arab tribes in such a way that they could get to the great library. Furthermore, prior to the unification of the Arabs in Islam, many, possibly even most Arabs were Illiterate, relying almost oral record keeping. Modern Mathematics found its way in the world with a heavy hand from Islamic scholars.
Also, remember Darwin himself was a devout chrisitian untill his death. In fact, there are many religious figures at the forefront of scientific discovery.
I do agree that christian opposition to stem cell research is completely illogical. However, as a scientific 'fact' the big bang theory is just that, a flawed theory.
I stand by my original point, mathematics= mankinds greatest scientific tool. In your list Tyrone, which of those can follow the sceintific theory without the use of math?

cbg, Alexander's empire was divided shortly after his death, and virtually non-existence in the sense of Greek dominance not long after that, the Egypt portion in the hands of Arabs--more than two centuries before Islam came along in the early 600s. Less than two decades after that, the great repository of Greek knowledge in Alexandria was reduced to rubble.

I did NOT state or imply that I had any problem with the Big Bang Theory. In fact, I praised Howard's post pointing out that the BB Theory was consistent with true Christian teachings. A lot of theoretical science IS flawed, but some are not. There seems to be observable evidence of the BB Theory--red shift, etc.

[crosbiegrad]

Hate to turn this into some kind of argument but the great strides in mathematics taken during the Abbassid dynasty were not only due to greek translation but information obtained from India. At any rate, I think It's unfair to say that religion is the enemy of scienctific progress. Sure, 'religious' men and women have sought to stifle some scientific progress but there are many scientists who have stifled religious progress, consider Tesla and Edison.

[Tarlam!]

...Furthermore, a lot of the reason for this was that they--the Arabs--had access to the great library of Alexandria in Egypt. If I'm not mistaken, when Islam began to infest the Arabs, they sacked and destroyed that library in 642 A.D. The Muslim general who did it was reported to have said concerning the items in the library, "They will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous."

From Wikipedia:

"Amr ibn al 'Aas conquest in 642

Several historians told varying accounts of an Arab army led by Amr ibn al 'Aas sacking the city in 642 after the Byzantine army was defeated at the Battle of Heliopolis, and that the commander asked the caliph Umar what to do with the library. He gave the famous answer: "They will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." It is said that the Arabs subsequently burned the books to heat bathwater for the soldiers. It was also said that the Library's collection was still substantial enough at this late date to provide six months' worth of fuel for the baths.

However, this account has been dismissed by some as a legend.
While the first Western account of the supposed event was in Edward Pococke's 1663 translation of History of the Dynasties, it was dismissed as a hoax or propaganda as early as 1713 by Fr. Eusèbe Renaudot. Over the centuries, numerous succeeding scholars have agreed with Fr. Renaudot's conclusion, including Alfred J. Butler, Victor Chauvin, Paul Casanova and Eugenio Griffini. More recently, in 1990, Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis argued that the original account is not true, but that it survived over time because it was a useful myth for the great twelfth century Muslim leader Saladin, who found it necessary to break up the Fatimid caliphate's collection of heretical Isma'ili texts in Cairo following his restoration of Sunnism to Egypt. Lewis proposes that the story of the caliph Umar's support of a library's destruction may have made Saladin's actions seem more acceptable to his people.

Recent underwater excavations in the harbor of modern Alexandria have also lent credence to the idea that several catastrophic earthquakes between the third and fifth centuries AD may have played a role in the decline and/or destruction of the library (as well as the city itself)."

[Tarlam!]

Furthermore, prior to the unification of the Arabs in Islam, many, possibly even most Arabs were Illiterate, relying almost oral record keeping.

Frankly, the literacy levels in todays Muslim world are pretty low. Ignorance is bliss.

http://islamoscope.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/holy-islam-holy-illiteracy-holy-poverty-holy-backwardness/

[texaspackerbacker]

Hate to turn this into some kind of argument but the great strides in mathematics taken during the Abbassid dynasty were not only due to greek translation but information obtained from India. At any rate, I think It's unfair to say that religion is the enemy of scienctific progress. Sure, 'religious' men and women have sought to stifle some scientific progress but there are many scientists who have stifled religious progress, consider Tesla and Edison.

Tarlam, I read that exact Wikipedia entry--the reason I said, "It was reported ....." instead of "The general definitely stated .......".

Crosbie, I hate to fall back on somebody else's argument that math isn't exactly science, but there is a clear differentiation here. Yes, Hindu scholars--from India--did also contribute to the basics of modern math along with Arabs translating from the Greek--generally in the pre-Muslim time period. However, the foundations of science back then did NOT require much of any math. More recent science, of course, uses a lot of applied mathematics--but that's a whole other level and a whole other area of discussion than the development of Arabic numbers, algebra, geometry, etc.

I thought from the tone of your original post that YOU were the one who was a detractor of religion for stifling scientific advances. The thread title certainly seems to say so--depending on how you interpret the question mark. Yes, Darwin, Tesla, Edison, and others were reputed to be religious. In those days, anybody who wasn't was ostracized and demonized--as opposed to now, when those who ARE religious get that treatment. It's difficult to know what their beliefs really were.

In any case, I'm not talking about true Biblical teachings when I acknowledge that Christian and other religious organizations stifled science. Rather, I'm talking about the bureaucracy of those religions and the human additions and editions to those religions that science was in conflict with, NOT real Biblical teachings--which is sort of the same thing as you said at the end of your post.

[hoosier]

Re: Religion retards scientific disovery?

Attempts to thwart teaching of evolution or to present creation or intelligent design as competing "theories"; attempts to restrict or ban stem cell research; attempts to limit sexual education and HIV prevention in secondary schools.

Let me first say that I could have posted your reply it is so predictable. I this the Daily Hoosier?

My answers reflect the quality of the original questions.

1. We already went over this one at length. Neither should be taught as the origin of the universe in government schools.

I must have missed that day. Evolution doesn't make claims about the origins of the universe; it talks about the origin and evolution of species. Why shouldn't it be taught? Do you want to do away with physics and astronomy too because they were once seen as making controversial claims about the movement of celestial objects?

2. Should we do experiments on old people with dementia? This is where my book recommendation would be of use to you.

Your inability to see the difference between fetuses and the elderly makes it perfectly clear why you take the positions you do. But don't expect me to follow you in your refusal to see the difference.

3. Science (the measurement of data) shows that since sex education has been introduced, problems in society with their origins in sex have multiplied. Disease, unwed parents, age of single mothers, etc. Why do you impede science?

I'm struggling to follow your logic and your syntax, Howie. I assume your point is that correlation doesn't prove causality, but I'm making a bit of an interpretive leap here. Could you please be a little more specific and less cryptic with your statements and questions?

[crosbiegrad]

Sorry, I can see how my title was misleading, I am a practising christian and a geology major, a soft science but a science all the same. I do not feel like my beliefs are in any way detrimental to my learning. I hate to sound like a cry baby but it just bugs me how often religion in general comes under attack in a college setting.