"a couple of points;

1) you still haven't clearly outlined where the previous contributions to science do not fit your definition. It does not matter whether I have committed to it or not, you clearly have. If you show clearly where this is the case (i.e. the previous contributions to science don't fit or partially fit the def.), then I can understand that you have a legitimate point using that definition (ie the logic is internally consistent), regardless of whether I agree with it (the definition) or not. If you cannot, then your argument (that the previous contributions to knowledge aren't science) isn't even internally valid."

It seemed like quite a project proving all those negatives. Excuse the delay. I considered it prudent to hold it in abeyance due to the word count. I'll start with Sumerians. They were big on observation but light on theory. I'd submit that without a link to testable theories, the observations remain facts rather than science. Again I'll use the term modern science in lieu of science if you become confident enough to commit yourself to that label. Otherwise I'll plod along with your interest in the internal consistency and hopefully some day relate Christianity to the European "something".

"2) Galileo found himself at odds with the Church, yes, not necessarily science in that case, point conceded. Science, however, has found itself at odds with prevailing Christian thought a number of times since. Eg, evolution, stem cell research etc."

Evolution probably. This forum demonstrates it is still the bugbear of some Christians. However I dispute the fairness in characterising criticism of certain types of stem cell research as science being at odds with Christian thought in any comparable manner. Stem cell research per se is not the issue it is stem cell research considered unethical that is criticised. It is appropriate for Christians to comment on the ethics of anything from relevant types of stem cell research to cosmetic testing on animals to the former oppression in communist Poland. They are rejecting poor ethics not a scientific theory.

Can I cheat with China? I notice in these forums atheists consider any atheist assertion in relation to religion as dogma irrespective of how implausible it might be. Would you be willing to accept as authoritative a plausible portion of a comment of famed atheist Bertrand Russell? He opined "Although Chinese civilization has hitherto been deficient in science, it never contained anything hostile to science..." It is understandable that Russell was surprised by China in this regard. China had a magnificent civilization.

Ancient Greeks spent centuries a hairbreath from achieving science. Some made systematic observations of the natural world. Others engaged in speculative philosophy. The example of Aristotle has been used including the suggestion that if Aristotle had gone to a Greek cliff and dropped rocks he would have quickly dropped his theory that objects fall at a speed proportionate to their size. In the other direction science is not Euclid merely describing portions of reality with geometry.

Ancient Romans absorbed Greece including its knowledge and scholars without moving it forward. Likewise Greek knowledge was carefully preserved and studied in Islam with clever advances in mathematics but without getting science off the ground.

I believe that lore, skills, wisdom, techniques, crafts, technologies, engineering, learning and knowledge perse are not science. I acknowledge the benefit and achievement inherent in much of this in the ancient world.

What I believe those cultures lacked that explained Christian Europe's achievement in relation to getting science off the ground was Christianity and Christian thought.

Sumerian astronomers/astrologers not scientists- check. No argument here. Except of course they had theories, just not very good ones or 'scientific' ones as it turns out.

Evolution- check (lots of subsets here too).
Stem cell research- check, I agree. It's more an ethical issue rather than paradigm change, point taken.
Although it hasn't happened yet, physics and cosmology may yet find itself at odds with religious thought (again?)- but thats a wait and see.

Please, continue. I don't suppose there is an easy summary of common ways the pre-modern contributions don't fit your definition of science? Are they all failing in different ways?

Bugsy,

You recently pointed out something I hadn't addressed. There is something else.

"However, if you think that science will not change your religion eventually and irrevocably, you are wrong. It cannot replace religion, but it will change it. A lot."

I wasn't completely clear on how to take that but that wasn't why I hesitated. I don't want to say that science will or won't change religion but it could even though they generally operate in different spheres. Now Having thought about it the best way to respond is probably just to acknowledge that. I guess that is a little like my own cautious check.

Good to see all the meetings of mind. You did arouse my curiousity with one comment though. When you mentioned cosmology did you have in mind the Catholic priest cosmologist who recently won the Templeton Award?

Bugsy,

Just for the record I have adopted the following criterion:

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
The minimum criterion for material life is THE ABILITY TO REPLICATE.
x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

I google searched a bit to learn about the simplest life-form; whether scientific studies have been undertaken to determine how such life-form might have come from non-life. It's all futility and frankly I don't know where to look at present.

Even simple viral life-form appears to be so complex in replication.

If it is a matter of time scientists will artificially create a simple life-form, it would be hell of a long time too.

Now back from the “sin-bin”, I can address this august thread,

Do I believe in God
Yes. I have faith in the concept of a supreme, divine entity. Who I talk to (but he don’t necessarily answer back).

Do I believe in the teachings of the church, theology and all that
Not at all.

All the theologians and bishops, priest, curates, vicars and Imams have done is give God a bad name.

The organized religions have pretended each to be the exclusive conduit for any relationship between man and God.

This exclusivity has been defended and enforced by use of torture, murder and along the way has re-written, censored and corrupted the word of God to suit their own political agenda and defend their sense of self importance, at the expense of the innocent.


Hope that answers the question.
It is nice to be back (and having fun).