Vanilla: "So I'm afraid you haven't QEDed me with that explanation."

Vanilla, meet mjpb, one of OLO's cleverer Christian sophists. I'm sure s/he's delighting in reeling in another humanist to engage in endless textual games. Don't get him/her on to the subject of homosexuality, whatever you do ;)

Personally, I wouldn't waste my time.

A (very) brief history of science

Around 3500 BC, in Sumer (now Iraq) the Mesopotamians began attempts to record observations of the world with extremely thorough quantitative and numerical data. A concrete instance of Pythagoras' law was recorded, as early as the 18th century BC: the Mesopotamian cuneiform tablet. Both early example of writing and maths. Even today, astronomical periods identified by Mesopotamian scientists are still widely used in Western calendars: the solar year, the lunar month, the seven-day week.

Significant advances in Ancient Egypt include astronomy, mathematics and medicine.

Scientific thought from the 6th century BC in pre-Socratic philosophy (Pythagoras). In circa 385 BC, Plato founded the Academy. Plato's student Aristotle begins the "scientific revolution" of the Hellenistic period

Linguistics (along with phonology, morphology, etc.) first arose among Indian grammarians studying the Sanskrit language developing a high level of linguistic insight and analysis; circa 1500 BC.

Indian mathematicians contributed to the development of the decimal number system, zero, negative numbers, arithmetic, and algebra. In addition, trigonometry, having evolved in the Hellenistic world and having been introduced into ancient India through the translation of Greek works, was further advanced in India. These mathematical concepts were discovered by travellers from the Middle East, China, and Europe and led to further developments that now form the foundations of many areas of mathematics.

Clearly there was much learning, research and discovery long before Christianity.

If anything Christianity has impeded scientific discovery; the agony of years before Darwin published his theory of evolution was due to the fact the he knew he would be received with disparagement and disbelief. Darwin had reason to fear just look at Galileo.

Contd.

Galileo (1564-1642) has been called the "father of science", his championing of Copernicanism (the idea that the earth revolved around the sun) was controversial within his lifetime.

The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle, and the controversy engendered by Galileo's opposition to this view resulted in the Catholic Church's prohibiting the advocacy of Heliocentrism as potentially factual, because the theory had no decisive proof (this being before space ships) and was contrary to the literal meaning of Scripture.

Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition.

Christian biblical reference: Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."

Yes folks, they were quoting the bible and taking it literally, hence Galileo was persecuted and his theory wasn’t accepted by the church for many years. Fortunately other scientists had more sense than to take the church so literally and we have the knowledge of the universe that we do today. And the really good thing is that religion has no such power over scientific endeavour as it did in the past.

Therefore, humanity will continue to learn and create. And hip hip hooray for that.

I’m not saying that there weren’t significant Christian scientists, Newton comes immediately to mind and his contribution to Einstein’s work can not be disputed.

However, the conclusion is that science evolved in spite of Christianity – not because of it.

Mjpb – I am becoming increasingly saddened by your lack of knowledge, ability to reason and your inability to value other beliefs, philosophies and ideas that are not a part of the Christian doctrine. You are illustrating my point that religion stifles human development rather than enhances it.

Cheers bro

Vanilla,

If that is a chip on your shoulder (cf. disingenuousness) then please remove it would stop wasted time. I may have a dig at the pop culture but there’s no reason to jump to the other conclusions. For the record I have no reason to think you are dense and I assumed you were reasonably clever.

” Are you suggesting …”

No I’m asserting the obvious rather than brainstorming irrelevant alternatives.

”All you seem to do here is define god to fit neatly into the definition of science you’re about to give.”

That was the whole purpose but the definition is valid. Would you like evidence eg. early Christian comments?

“Clearly, as an atheist, I believe that the universe is observable because it exists, ... Empiricism … reasoning is a human …”

Certainly, and Christianity (like science) brings it together. Observable without order gives no reason to start science. Empiricism alone is no reason to start science. Hence my mentioning of the relevant attributes of our religion.

““Next you need to understand what science is.”
Lordy be, how you love to patronise. Anyway, I agree with your definition.”

No I like to spell things out so they are clear to anyone who reads these forums. There is a big difference.

” Science sits with other “belief systems” because, while it certainly did arise in Christian Europe, and while the ideas and culture of Christian Europe helped shape and form it, it was not “born out” of Christianity.”

I believe that is an artificial distinction but we are clearly looking at the same fact in different ways. If you were mistaken about the underlying facts I’d dispute it but I can’t do anything about how you choose to view them.

“In fact, … But Science can sit with belief systems….”

In a sense it does these days but how do you explain that so many civilizations were so close but didn’t get it off the ground? Do you want me to have a bash at comparing other religions at the time with the thinking required for science?

"If that is a chip on your shoulder (cf. disingenuousness)"

It really isn't. Don't be so quick to assume I'm clever, because I do have a problem understanding the way you phrase things sometimes. Even in the above quote, I spent about a minute trying to work out why you are asking me to compare the theoretical chip on my shoulder with disingenuousness, and still don't get it. (Are you asking if it is one or the other, or are you further defining a chip by comparing it to disingenuousness?) Anyway, I was being neither, for the record - I was genuinely taken aback by your tone, and I honestly did think your sentence about pop culture was serious.

Thank you for replying, I was sincerely interested in your idea, but from here on in I anticipate that this could quickly turn in to a long but ultimately fruitless corrospondence. Let's quit while we're ahead. Again, thanks for explaining.

Fractelle, thank you for that excellent precis. I must say it immediately rings true.

mjpb says: "Indeed 16th Century scientific genius Rene Descartes explained his search for natural laws on the basis of God's perfection thus meaning that God "acts in a manner as constant and immutable as possible" subject to rare miracles."

mjpb. To my knowledge, Descartes never received any awards or honours. While he is often revered for his mathematical genius, some historians claim he had a disposition which was cold and selfish. One thing's for certain, your Christian hero was a sadist.

Descartes (clearly a sycophant to the Catholic church) once described nonhuman animals as dumb machines which, when they no longer prove useful, can be killed with no more feeling than should attend the disposal of a broken clock.

He expanded on the Christian humanist philosophy, asserting that as animals did not have a language this was evidence that they were not capable of rational thought. They therefore possessed neither minds nor souls and were no more that machines that could not think or feel but merely reacted in a mechanical manner to external stimuli.

Descartes argued that the cries of pain and writhing of animals undergoing vivisection were no more than mechanical reactions and the squeaking of un-oiled cogs of robots. This 'Beast Machine' was a convenient if implausible concept for vivisectionists.

In addition, sicko Descartes was too sadistic to consider that animals have a marvellous sixth sense which humans appear to have lost or perhaps never had.

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means." (George Bernard Shaw)

I'll drink to that George!