You keep dodging the important questions Dan S de Merengue. I'm starting to wonder why.

And you love twisting things, don't you.

>>We're not speculating. We're looking at history<<

The speculation was not about history. It was about what might have happened, if...

"We can only speculate... whether life would have developed differently, or identically, in [Christianity's] absence"

>>To your question about Christian lines of thought and their impact on the West, this was dealt with to some extent in much of Berg's article.<<

Really? Berg doesn't describe "Christian lines of thought".

Nor does he make any association between these lines of thought, and "their impact on the West"?

He merely asserts that Christianity's impact is self-evident...

"It is a historical truism that the development of liberal democracy, modern political philosophies, notions of human rights and equality, and our social institutions all owe much to Christian thought."

I personally don't find it a "historical truism", and was asking for some evidence.

That you are as equally unable to substantiate the claim as Berg, I take leave to wonder what else you take for granted, without applying any thought to it at all.

>>Christianity was the dominant religion in the West. Its impact on our culture was clear and conspicuous<<

I have no problem with either of those statements. Why do you keep pretending that I have?

We are discussing your claim that:

>>At it's heart, our scientific pioneers had the confidence to search for the physical laws inherent in the universe as a reflection of the mind of the universe's law giving creator.<<

Which I dispute.

I am also querying "the particular aspects which charicterise Western society [that are] specified by its dominant religion"

That you ignore.

>>To say it's as ineffectual as some background radiation...<<

There you go again. Who said that background radiation is "ineffectual"? Pervasive, yes. But not ineffectual.

>>...a rare and probably extreme opinion that I would say could only come from someone strongly prejudiced by atheism<<

Just as you are "strongly prejudiced" by Christianity.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

History is not complete without mentioning disease either.

We can never know of the artists and thinkers killed before they thrived.

Do we allow disease a role in governing? I think not!

Had Newton not been "christian" he might not have searched for "god's" order in the universe. Or he might. All indications were that he was a bright boy, probably intensely interested in "how" and "why" questions and, being intelligent, unsatisfied with glib and pat answers. Being such, I cannot see him as less than he was, whether "christian" or any other. Such "background noise" does not dull such an intellect. It is clear he did not adhere strictly to trinitarian doctrine and was unmoved by suggestions he should.

Of course, his "faith" was in a time when even aristocrats could be imprisoned, tortured or executed for lack of adherence to trivial doctrine. We all *do* know valid an assertion made under duress can be, don't we?

So much for the contribution of "christianity". Barbarism, ignorance and torture. Unmitigated by the oft-claimed virtues, shown only when the church itself might lose it's grip.

Take it away, it's rubbish.

Rusty.