ironhorse Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 "Do you also deny that the Islamic Golden Age of Science pre-dated the Protestant Reformation?"No,I do not deny their contributions.Nor can you dismiss this:"Christians (particularly Nestorian Christians) contributed to the Arab Islamic Civilization during the Ummayad and the Abbasid periods by translating works of Greek philosophers to Syriac and afterwards to Arabic." ~Wikipedia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 "Do you also deny that the Islamic Golden Age of Science pre-dated the Protestant Reformation?" No,I do not deny their contributions. Nor can you dismiss this: "Christians (particularly Nestorian Christians) contributed to the Arab Islamic Civilization during the Ummayad and the Abbasid periods by translating works of Greek philosophers to Syriac and afterwards to Arabic." ~Wikipedia This sounds as though the important thing for science was that the works of ancient Greek thinkers were translated. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverlandrut Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 What a pissing contest! In a nut shell: IH- Christianity lead to science and the modern age. Everyone else- No it didn't. The scientist's religion had nothing to do with it. Muslims contributed to science too. IH- Well Christians contributed more! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereisnoperfect Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 What a pissing contest! In a nut shell: IH- Christianity lead to science and the modern age. Everyone else- No it didn't. The scientist's religion had nothing to do with it. Muslims contributed to science too. IH- Well Christians contributed more! IH - or at least, they contributed something. And that's more important! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted July 14, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted July 14, 2014 What has Ironhorse personally contributed toward the advancement of science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 It's been since the 70s that I was into Francis Schaefer. From what I remember, they'd say that by common grace, God allows fallen and depraved humans to piece out a few things that are true. They'd also say that a rational God created a rational universe, so its lawlikeness can be observed. But they do, as far as I recall, deny that modern science was able to begin before Protestantism. They say that earlier attempts at explaining the world could never achieve complex, theoretical understanding because they were vitiated by faulty presuppositions. It's all a word game with these guys (I say "guys" because I've never come across an exponent of TAG who is a woman.) "But they do, as far as I recall, deny that modern science was able to begin before Protestantism" ~ficino I agree with that. The Papacy trashed any questioning or deviation from official views of the church in Rome. The rebellion ( by the Protestants) opened the door to questioning and learning. So how was Erastothenes able to calculate the circumference of the Earth to within 1% of it's true value? Questioning and learning, perhaps? Observing, analyzing and understanding nature, perhaps? Obtaining true knowledge about the universe by the scientific method, perhaps? . . . Do you also deny that the Islamic Golden Age of Science pre-dated the Protestant Reformation? And what about the existence of the content in posts # 489, 491 and 492? Not real either? And what about me? Seeing as you haven't addressed anything I've posted in the last 72 hours, Ironhorse... maybe I don't exist either? . . . Since you seem to be limited to answering questions ONE AT A TIME, please pick just one example that I've posted and we can go from there! "Do you also deny that the Islamic Golden Age of Science pre-dated the Protestant Reformation?" No,I do not deny their contributions. Nor can you dismiss this: "Christians (particularly Nestorian Christians) contributed to the Arab Islamic Civilization during the Ummayad and the Abbasid periods by translating works of Greek philosophers to Syriac and afterwards to Arabic." ~Wikipedia You did not answer my question, Ironhorse. My question was this. "Do you also deny that the Islamic Golden Age of Science pre-dated the Protestant Reformation?" What I'm asking you is if you deny that Islamic science of their Golden Age PRE-DATED the Protestant Reformation. Pre-dated. As in came before. . . . Well...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Greek science most certainly did. So did Egyptian and Sumerian/Persian/Mesopotamian astronomy, medicine, math and engineering. WAAAAYYYY before. Just saying… ;p WAIT!!! What about Phoenician navigation? Have to have a good grasp of astronomy and math for that. Hittite metalworking comes to mind too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Greek science most certainly did. So did Egyptian and Sumerian/Persian/Mesopotamian astronomy, medicine, math and engineering. WAAAAYYYY before. Just saying… ;p WAIT!!! What about Phoenician navigation? Have to have a good grasp of astronomy and math for that. Hittite metalworking comes to mind too. Doesn't count because all those civilizations were evil and in rebellion against God. All that matters is that Christianity contributed to scientific learning in countries where Christianity used genocide to eliminate all the competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 oh, well I guess we should stop using greek/latin bases for scientific language the, especially medicine and biology and geology and.. oh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted July 15, 2014 Share Posted July 15, 2014 Just for the record Ironhorse... If I have to slowly grind each answer out of you, one by one, word by word and even letter by letter... so be it. If it takes weeks or months, that's fine by me too. So, here's how things stand between us right now. There's this... Do you also deny that the Islamic Golden Age of Science pre-dated the Protestant Reformation?" Please answer exactly this question.. . . . There's this... 1. I did not say it was a driving force, but that Copernicus was a Christian. You wrote this Ironhorse... "I'm not talking papacy. I'm talking Christians who pioneered the rise of science." You made a direct connection between Copernicus' Christian faith and his pioneering scientific work. So, even if you didn't openly say that his Christian faith was a driving force in his science, you implied it. I've demonstrated that there was no need for anyone, Christian or Muslim, to involve any aspect of any religious beliefs in a scientific investigation of the natural universe. All that's needed is observation, analysis and logic. So Copernicus' faith was incidental to his science. Please indicate your agreement. 3. I will agree with that statement. I also think this was a driving force in science when many of them realized that God was rational and many things in creation could be understood through science. If you agree with the statement then what you 'also think' is wrong. You cannot hold to to two mutually-exclusive positions. As I've already demonstrated, no belief in a God is necessary to scientifically investigate the universe. Science doesn't require any input from religion to work properly. Please indicate your agreement. 4. Up to a point I agree, but the method cannot explain the origin of life. I've checked and nowhere in this thread is the origin of life mentioned or even hinted at. Therefore, your agreement shouldn't be 'up to a point', your agreement should be total and unequivocal. Please indicate such agreement. 5. If you mean by remit that science cannot prove the existence of God I agree. (???) Since you agree, there was no need for you to imply any doubt on point # 5 by adding those question marks. Please indicate your full and unequivocal agreement. 6. I disagree. All here can Google and search. Christian thought did help in rise of science in the Western world. You cannot disagree with 6, if you also agree with 3. That would mean you are holding to two mutually-exclusive positions. That Christianity thought didn't help the rise of science in the Western world. That Christianity thought did help the rise of science in the Western world. Science does not require any input from any religious belief system to function properly. Therefore, Christian thought is not necessary to help, assist, pioneer or be the driving force behind science. The fact that many Western scientists were also Christians was incidental to their scientific work. If Christian thought was necessary in any way for science to work, then the Golden Age of Islamic science (which pre-dated the Renaissance) would have required the input of Christian thought to flourish. Clearly it didn't. So please indicate your agreement with point # 6, Ironhorse! There are now five (5) points that you need to indicate your agreement of, Ironhorse. . . . ...and there's any of the examples of pre-Reformation science I've cited in posts # 489, 491 and 492. Please feel free to respond about any of these. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Ironhorse, do you deny that the Islamic Golden Age of Science pre-dated the Protestant Reformation? Please answer exactly this question. Thanks, BAA (I'll be PMing this to you, after it appears in the Den, so you won't miss it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 No. Islamic age is from mid 7th century to mid 13th century. Protestant Reformation 1517. They did have some help: "Arguably, many of the achievements of the Islamic-Arabic Golden Age were based on previous initiatives taken by the ancient Egyptians, Hebrews, Persians, Greeks, and Romans (1⇓ , 2⇓ , 4)⇓ . Hence, translators were invited to Baghdad, where scientists and researchers studied the past and created the future. The result of their work was impressive progress in all sectors of science. The rulers of Islamic Spain, in an attempt to surpass Baghdad, recruited scholars who made contributions of paramount importance to science, medicine, technology, philosophy, and art." http://www.fasebj.org/content/20/10/1581.full Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 For the love of Jesus Raptor, all advancements are built upon the previous discoveries. A long time ago primitive humans discovered how to make fire and how to help grain spread. We would never have gotten anywhere else if we have not mastered those steps and the people who did it never heard of Jesus or Yahweh. Around the time Yahweh was suppose to be planting the Garden of Eden the real Sumer civilization was brewing beer and inventing glue. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 As well as making a law code, inventing astronomy and... writing! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 So I am wrong in saying that Christians contributed to the rise of modern science but Muslims should be praised for their golden age of advancements in science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 So I am wrong in saying that Christians contributed to the rise of modern science but Muslims should be praised for their golden age of advancements in science? We don't praise Muslims. We merely recognize the advancements they made in astronomy, algebra, arithmetic and so on. You don't seem to get that this doesn't make their god valid. It didn't make the Christian god valid either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 So I am wrong in saying that Christians contributed to the rise of modern science but Muslims should be praised for their golden age of advancements in science? IH, you're still not getting the distinction between a person who is a Christian or Muslim and a feature of an ideology (Christianity, Islam, whatever). The point of the claim that Christianity contributed in a significant way to the rise of modern science is the assertion that some proposition/s propounded by Christianity is/are necessary within the set of assumptions that ground the scientific method. It doesn't matter whether scientist Joe Schmoe was a Christian or a Muslim; that's only an accident of biography. As I understand it, the people whom you follow want to claim that propositions unique to theism are necessary assumptions for any attempt to provide a justification for the scientific method. This claim is what we are rejecting. It is up to you to argue THAT CLAIM, not the claim that a given number of scientists were Christians (by your definition) at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Logical thought, reasoning, the scientific method… these are products of humans, and human ingenuity.. not gods - we see these things manifest in every civilization that gets to the point where they have the leisure time to investigate. (Including the Maya on the other side of the world) Western reasoning comes mainly from Greek thought… before christianity ever existed… and it wasn't coming from the Hebrews (bwahahahaha… no), who were little more than chieftain kings at the time of the great Greek philosophers and scientists - though they must have picked up some reasoning and culture from their time in Babylon. The revival of the classics (Greek and Roman) in the middle ages were the main influence for the naturalism that heralded the renaissances. Not christianity. We have the evidence for this. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Doing translation is not doing science. Science is observation and experimentation--religion plays no role in that process. </CaptainObvious> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 So I am wrong in saying that Christians contributed to the rise of modern science but Muslims should be praised for their golden age of advancements in science? Ironhorse, It's exactly as Ravenstar has stated. All cultures and societies, no matter where and no matter at what period in history, owe their scientific achievements to the usage of observation, analysis and logical deduction about the natural world. That is all. Religious beliefs are irrelevant to science. So, it doesn't matter if neolithic people, the ancient Chinese or anyone else was performing this science for religious reasons. That is incidental to the science. Just as Copernicus' Christian beliefs were incidental to the science he performed. Just as the religious beliefs (or lack of them) of the three Nobel prize winners I cited here... http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=search&fromMainBar=1#.U8pCnvldVzM Lastly Ironhorse, here is a modern-day worked example that proves my case. http://en.wikipedia....ak_interaction Abdus Salaam was a devout Muslim. Glashow was raised in an orthodox Russian Jewish home but is now a Humanist. Weinberg is an atheist. These scientists put aside their personal beliefs and didn't let them inform their work at all. Instead they employed the scientific method (observation, analysis and the logical testing of hypotheses) to achieve a brilliant understanding of the natural universe. ...were incidental to their scientific work. Ficino covers this too. A person's religion has nothing to do with the science they perform. If some scientists were also Christians, that, as he says, is an accident of biography. Lastly, there's the simple logic of the word, 'Renaissance'. If something is re-born or undergoes a re-birth, it therefore must have existed... before. So the Renaissance scientists were re-discovering much that had discovered earlier, by the ancients. Therefore, science MUST have existed before the Renaissance and the Protestant reformation, so that it could be re-born in the time of Copernicus, Da Vinci, Galilieo and Kepler. So, your claim about Christianity being a key element in the rise of science is shown to be totally false, Ironhorse. Science existed long, long before the 1500's and was re-discovered by scientists and scholars living then. So, once more I ask you to concede this point and agree that your claim has been squarely refuted. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Excellently put, BAA. I vote for no more re-re-re-stating of this position to IH, only cross-referencing. He is not worth the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 Just for the record Ironhorse... If I have to slowly grind each answer out of you, one by one, word by word and even letter by letter... so be it. If it takes weeks or months, that's fine by me too. So, here's how things stand between us right now. There's this... Do you also deny that the Islamic Golden Age of Science pre-dated the Protestant Reformation?" Please answer exactly this question.. . . . There's this... 1. I did not say it was a driving force, but that Copernicus was a Christian. You wrote this Ironhorse... "I'm not talking papacy. I'm talking Christians who pioneered the rise of science." You made a direct connection between Copernicus' Christian faith and his pioneering scientific work. So, even if you didn't openly say that his Christian faith was a driving force in his science, you implied it. I've demonstrated that there was no need for anyone, Christian or Muslim, to involve any aspect of any religious beliefs in a scientific investigation of the natural universe. All that's needed is observation, analysis and logic. So Copernicus' faith was incidental to his science. Please indicate your agreement. 3. I will agree with that statement. I also think this was a driving force in science when many of them realized that God was rational and many things in creation could be understood through science. If you agree with the statement then what you 'also think' is wrong. You cannot hold to to two mutually-exclusive positions. As I've already demonstrated, no belief in a God is necessary to scientifically investigate the universe. Science doesn't require any input from religion to work properly. Please indicate your agreement. 4. Up to a point I agree, but the method cannot explain the origin of life. I've checked and nowhere in this thread is the origin of life mentioned or even hinted at. Therefore, your agreement shouldn't be 'up to a point', your agreement should be total and unequivocal. Please indicate such agreement. 5. If you mean by remit that science cannot prove the existence of God I agree. (???) Since you agree, there was no need for you to imply any doubt on point # 5 by adding those question marks. Please indicate your full and unequivocal agreement. 6. I disagree. All here can Google and search. Christian thought did help in rise of science in the Western world. You cannot disagree with 6, if you also agree with 3. That would mean you are holding to two mutually-exclusive positions. That Christianity thought didn't help the rise of science in the Western world. That Christianity thought did help the rise of science in the Western world. Science does not require any input from any religious belief system to function properly. Therefore, Christian thought is not necessary to help, assist, pioneer or be the driving force behind science. The fact that many Western scientists were also Christians was incidental to their scientific work. If Christian thought was necessary in any way for science to work, then the Golden Age of Islamic science (which pre-dated the Renaissance) would have required the input of Christian thought to flourish. Clearly it didn't. So please indicate your agreement with point # 6, Ironhorse! There are now five (5) points that you need to indicate your agreement of, Ironhorse. . . . ...and there's any of the examples of pre-Reformation science I've cited in posts # 489, 491 and 492. Please feel free to respond about any of these. Thanks, BAA. (Bump!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 A good article on why Christianity did have an influence on the rise of Western science. http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/08/3498202.htm The first few paragraphs... "It is often assumed that the relationship between Christianity and science has been a long and troubled one. Such assumptions draw support from a variety of sources." There are contemporary controversies about evolution and creation, for example, which are thought to typify past relations between science and religion. This view is reinforced by popular accounts of such historical episodes as the Condemnation of Galileo, which saw the Catholic Church censure Galileo for teaching that the earth revolved around the sun. Adding further credence to this view of history are a few recent outspoken critics of religion who vociferously contend that religious faith is incompatible with a scientific outlook, and that this has always been the case. In spite of this widespread view on the historical relations between science and religion, historians of science have long known that religious factors played a significantly positive role in the emergence and persistence of modern science in the West. Not only were many of the key figures in the rise of science individuals with sincere religious commitments, but the new approaches to nature that they pioneered were underpinned in various ways by religious assumptions. The idea, first proposed in the seventeenth century, that nature was governed by mathematical laws, was directly informed by theological considerations. The move towards offering mechanical explanations in physics also owed much to a particular religious perspective. The adoption of more literal approaches to the interpretation of the bible, usually assumed to have been an impediment to science, also had an important, in indirect, role in these deveolopments, promoting a non-symbolic and utilitarian understanding of the natural world which was conducive to the scientific approach. Finally, religion also provided social sanctions for the pursuit of science, ensuring that it would become a permanent and central feature of the culture of the modern West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted August 5, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted August 5, 2014 I recommend that none of us respond to the recent post from Ironhorse until Ironhorse responds to BAA's post directly. Let's show BAA some solidarity. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 A good article on why Christianity did have an influence on the rise of Western science. http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/08/3498202.htm The first few paragraphs... "It is often assumed that the relationship between Christianity and science has been a long and troubled one. Such assumptions draw support from a variety of sources." There are contemporary controversies about evolution and creation, for example, which are thought to typify past relations between science and religion. This view is reinforced by popular accounts of such historical episodes as the Condemnation of Galileo, which saw the Catholic Church censure Galileo for teaching that the earth revolved around the sun. Adding further credence to this view of history are a few recent outspoken critics of religion who vociferously contend that religious faith is incompatible with a scientific outlook, and that this has always been the case. In spite of this widespread view on the historical relations between science and religion, historians of science have long known that religious factors played a significantly positive role in the emergence and persistence of modern science in the West. Not only were many of the key figures in the rise of science individuals with sincere religious commitments, but the new approaches to nature that they pioneered were underpinned in various ways by religious assumptions. The idea, first proposed in the seventeenth century, that nature was governed by mathematical laws, was directly informed by theological considerations. The move towards offering mechanical explanations in physics also owed much to a particular religious perspective. The adoption of more literal approaches to the interpretation of the bible, usually assumed to have been an impediment to science, also had an important, in indirect, role in these deveolopments, promoting a non-symbolic and utilitarian understanding of the natural world which was conducive to the scientific approach. Finally, religion also provided social sanctions for the pursuit of science, ensuring that it would become a permanent and central feature of the culture of the modern West. The weather had an influence on the rise of Western science, if you cast your net wide enough. But you and I need to settle the issue of Copernicus first Ironhorse, before I will examine any new input from you. That's how keeping your promises (to answer outstanding questions and issues) works. You deal with the first things... first. So, please indicate your agreement on the five points I highlighted in red and bumped up for your attention. This thread is going nowhere till you do respond and clear your backlog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts