No Shit Sherlock

[ironhorse]

 

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.

 

 

"The weather had an influence on the rise of Western science, if you cast your net wide enough."

 

So this is your comment on the article I posted?

 

I don't understand why you keep asking about Copernicus?

 

He was a Christian like most Western scientists of the time.

 

I agree he did not use the Bible as part of his scientific study.

I agree with you on this.

 

But as the article mentions (and other articles I have posted in this thread)

Christian thought did help in creating a positive environment for the

development of Western science.

[Thought2Much]

Christian thought did help in creating a positive environment for the development of Western science.

 

AH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

 

Oh wait... you were being serious.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

"The weather had an influence on the rise of Western science, if you cast your net wide enough."

 

So this is your comment on the article I posted?

 

Yes, because you promised to deal with unfinished business and then you post new stuff, like the above.

If you make a promise to do something, then as a Christian, you should hold to that promise.  Stop adding new stuff and deal with the outstanding issues between us.  So I won't be answering any new stuff from until the old stuff is dealt with.  You should thank me, Ironhorse.  I'm keeping you honest.

 

I don't understand why you keep asking about Copernicus?

 

Because I'm still in the process of grinding those five agreements out of you, that's why.  

That's the five agreements I highlighted in red for your attention on July 15 and that I've bumped back up for your attention today, in post # 522.

 

He was a Christian like most Western scientists of the time.

 

I agree he did not use the Bible as part of his scientific study.

I agree with you on this.

 

Then do the right thing and make those five agreements - so that we can move on.

 

But as the article mentions (and other articles I have posted in this thread)

Christian thought did help in creating a positive environment for the

development of Western science.

 

 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

Matthew 7:16King James Version (KJV)

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits.

 

[bornagainathiest]

Galatians 5 : 22 & 23, NIV.

 

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

 

Where is your faithfulness, Ironhorse?

 

Keep your promises!

[♦ ficino ♦]

I think this has been said before. I believe that Ironhorse is picking up on a claim made by various apologists, that you have to presuppose a rational, predictable universe in order to carry out scientific investigation. So only the assumption that a rational God created the universe can, on this view, provide the "world view" necessary for science.

 

The above view only gets us as far as theism, really. Protestant apologists have further reasons for their argument that only Christianity (maybe they'll allow Judaism) can provide the presuppositions necessary for science. I had thought the further reasons have to do with nature and grace, but I forget the details.

 

Anyway, I think the apologists' view is unsupportable. Theism is so ill-defined that it doesn't get a scientist anywhere.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

A good article on why Christianity did have an influence on the

rise of Western science.

 

(snip)

 

 

"The weather had an influence on the rise of Western science, if you cast your net wide enough."

 

So this is your comment on the article I posted?

 

I don't understand why you keep asking about Copernicus?

 

He was a Christian like most Western scientists of the time.

 

I agree he did not use the Bible as part of his scientific study.

I agree with you on this.

 

But as the article mentions (and other articles I have posted in this thread)

Christian thought did help in creating a positive environment for the

development of Western science.

 

 

Very well, Ironhorse.

Since you've clearly failed to understand the point that I've made (many times) in this thread... I'll make it again.

Since you've clearly failed to understand what I've proven with evidence (many times)...I'll just have to prove it again.

Since you still believe that Christianity had some kind of positive influence on the development of science, I'll just have to correct you... again.

 

Eventually you will come to understand this.

.

.

.

Science can be done by anyone, anywhere, without the need for any special social conditions or specific religious beliefs.  Science is done by observing the natural world, analyzing it's behavior, making predictions about it and testing those predictions.  That's all there is to science.

.

.

.

Your belief that Christianity helped in the rise of science is... wrong.

 

It doesn't need any input from any supernatural belief system to function.

It doesn't need any input from any religion to work properly.  It doesn't need to underpinned, founded upon or to rely upon any religiously-inspired philosophy or world-view.  It doesn't need any special political, religious or intellectual climate to flourish.  It doesn't need anything except the basic abilities every human being has endowed with by evolution.  The ability to observe, to analyze, and to think logically.  Everyone has these (to a lesser or greater extent) but many choose not to exercise or develop these abilities.

 

So, your belief that Christianity helped in the rise of science is... wrong.

 

Science has been independently developed from nothing, many times over in the world's history.

It's been developed by polytheists (the Greeks, the Romans, the Mayans, the Aztecs, etc.) and by monotheists (the Arabs) alike, centuries and millennia BEFORE the spread of Christianity across the world.  It's been developed from nothing by monarchy's, dictatorships and loose confederations of tribal peoples.  It's been developed from nothing by desert-dwelling societies, coastal peoples and city-states.  Science is a-political and a-cultural.  Anyone, anywhere can do it.

 

Therefore, your belief that Christianity helped in the rise of science is... wrong.

.

.

.

Ironhorse, you are viewing history (and science) thru the lens of your Christian indoctrination.

You may not think you've been indoctrinated, but we can see that you have been and this thread bears witness to that.  You've been so indoctrinated to think that history revolves around Christ and Christianity that you believe science owes something to Christian thought and Christian beliefs.  It doesn't.  If you were to put your beliefs aside for one minute and take a cold, hard look at the history of science, you'd see that science owes nothing to Christianity.

 

What you believe isn't important here.

Put your beliefs aside and look at the historical facts that I've presented in this thread.  The facts decide what is true, not your beliefs.

It is a historically-proven fact that science owes nothing to Christianity.

.

.

.

So please indicate your agreement with this fact.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Here is a review, posted today in Notre Dame Philosophical Review, of a book about Christianity and science in the 17th century. The book is by Craig Martin, Subverting Aristotle: Religion, History, and Philosophy in Early Modern Science, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014. The reviewer is David Clemenson 

 

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/49714-subverting-aristotle-religion-history-and-philosophy-in-early-modern-science/

 

Clemenson begins his review with this:

 

"This book's main thesis seems well summarized by the following passage:

A)  The motivations of seventeenth-century innovators in natural philosophy, whether Protestant or Catholic, were deeply religious. Their abandonment of Peripatetic philosophy arose, at least in part, from the conviction that the best historical studies of the day demonstrated that Aristotle deviated from Christianity giving permission to seek more pious alternatives. (p. 177)

A) seems to entail

B  Most seventeenth-century innovators in natural philosophy, or the most important and influential ones, were motivated mainly by Christian faith.

The book offers no convincing argument for B. It does not attempt to adjudicate the long-standing debate on the relationship of seventeenth century science to religion, and it presents no evidence that Christianity played an important role in motivating the scientific work either of such luminaries as Galileo and Newton or of the majority of seventeenth-century scientists. The only support offered for B is a series of quotations from seventeenth-century authors charging Aristotle or some of his doctrines with impiety. Except for Robert Boyle, the quoted authors are not famous as scientists; Francis Bacon, for example, is known less for his natural philosophy than for his inductive logic and philosophy of science. But even if all these authors had been scientists of Newton's stature, the quoted texts would not establish B.

Passage A) also seems to assert that part of the reason for seventeenth-century innovators' abandonment of Aristotelianism was their knowledge of historical studies demonstrating Aristotle's deviation from Christianity on questions such as the contingency of the existence of the heavens. But since, as Martin himself notes, these deviations had been common knowledge during the Middle Ages, when Aristotle's authority was at its height, there seems little reason to think that such historical demonstrations help explain seventeenth-century innovators' rejection of Aristotelian natural philosophy.

Boyle is Martin's best example of a major seventeenth-century natural philosopher whose opposition to some of Aristotle's doctrines was, at least in part, religiously motivated. But it is not evident that the charges of religious error Boyle leveled against Aristotle in his early work Essay of the Holy Scriptures had any effect on his assessment of Aristotelian natural philosophy. "

 

David Clemenson, unfortunately, does not state his own view about whether Christianity as a system of thought supplies presuppositions that are necessary for the development of modern science.

[Ravenstar]

I'm confused.. how can Aristotle deviate from christianity? He lived over 300 years before the common era, over 600 before the establishment of the Church.

 

Naturalism was originated in Greece… long before christianity, and renewed during the Renassiances. They wouldn't even have known about it if they hadn't begun reading the Greek classical literature.

[RipVanWinkle]

I get frustrated with intentional stupidity. Ironhorse, You can't come to your conclusions about religion and science without using only apologist or those working for them as your sources. It is dishonest to say the least. Nobody in legitimate academia concurs with yur conclusions, ony those with not so hidden agendas.  bill

[♦ ficino ♦]

I'm confused.. how can Aristotle deviate from christianity? He lived over 300 years before the common era, over 600 before the establishment of the Church.

 

Naturalism was originated in Greece… long before christianity, and renewed during the Renassiances. They wouldn't even have known about it if they hadn't begun reading the Greek classical literature.

I haven't read Martin's book, only Clemenson's review of it. I assume that by "Aristotle deviated from Christianity," Martin means that Aristotle held positions that Christianity had come to view as false, e.g. that the universe and species are eternal. Martin can't be so stupid as to think that Aristotle postdated Christianity. He may be quoting Christians who spoke as if Christian truth were always the default position, from which anything else is a deviation, i.e. Christians who simply were ignoring chronology.

[Ravenstar]

Oh  okay. It just didn't make sense to me the way it was written.

 

thx!

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

A good article on why Christianity did have an influence on the

rise of Western science.

 

(snip)

 

 

"The weather had an influence on the rise of Western science, if you cast your net wide enough."

 

So this is your comment on the article I posted?

 

I don't understand why you keep asking about Copernicus?

 

He was a Christian like most Western scientists of the time.

 

I agree he did not use the Bible as part of his scientific study.

I agree with you on this.

 

But as the article mentions (and other articles I have posted in this thread)

Christian thought did help in creating a positive environment for the

development of Western science.

 

 

Very well, Ironhorse.

Since you've clearly failed to understand the point that I've made (many times) in this thread... I'll make it again.

Since you've clearly failed to understand what I've proven with evidence (many times)...I'll just have to prove it again.

Since you still believe that Christianity had some kind of positive influence on the development of science, I'll just have to correct you... again.

 

Eventually you will come to understand this.

.

.

.

Science can be done by anyone, anywhere, without the need for any special social conditions or specific religious beliefs.  Science is done by observing the natural world, analyzing it's behavior, making predictions about it and testing those predictions.  That's all there is to science.

.

.

.

Your belief that Christianity helped in the rise of science is... wrong.

 

It doesn't need any input from any supernatural belief system to function.

It doesn't need any input from any religion to work properly.  It doesn't need to underpinned, founded upon or to rely upon any religiously-inspired philosophy or world-view.  It doesn't need any special political, religious or intellectual climate to flourish.  It doesn't need anything except the basic abilities every human being has endowed with by evolution.  The ability to observe, to analyze, and to think logically.  Everyone has these (to a lesser or greater extent) but many choose not to exercise or develop these abilities.

 

So, your belief that Christianity helped in the rise of science is... wrong.

 

Science has been independently developed from nothing, many times over in the world's history.

It's been developed by polytheists (the Greeks, the Romans, the Mayans, the Aztecs, etc.) and by monotheists (the Arabs) alike, centuries and millennia BEFORE the spread of Christianity across the world.  It's been developed from nothing by monarchy's, dictatorships and loose confederations of tribal peoples.  It's been developed from nothing by desert-dwelling societies, coastal peoples and city-states.  Science is a-political and a-cultural.  Anyone, anywhere can do it.

 

Therefore, your belief that Christianity helped in the rise of science is... wrong.

.

.

.

Ironhorse, you are viewing history (and science) thru the lens of your Christian indoctrination.

You may not think you've been indoctrinated, but we can see that you have been and this thread bears witness to that.  You've been so indoctrinated to think that history revolves around Christ and Christianity that you believe science owes something to Christian thought and Christian beliefs.  It doesn't.  If you were to put your beliefs aside for one minute and take a cold, hard look at the history of science, you'd see that science owes nothing to Christianity.

 

What you believe isn't important here.

Put your beliefs aside and look at the historical facts that I've presented in this thread.  The facts decide what is true, not your beliefs.

It is a historically-proven fact that science owes nothing to Christianity.

.

.

.

So please indicate your agreement with this fact.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Still waiting for you to indicate your agreement, Ironhorse.

[ironhorse]

 

 

 

 

A good article on why Christianity did have an influence on the

rise of Western science.

 

(snip)

 

 

"The weather had an influence on the rise of Western science, if you cast your net wide enough."

 

So this is your comment on the article I posted?

 

I don't understand why you keep asking about Copernicus?

 

He was a Christian like most Western scientists of the time.

 

I agree he did not use the Bible as part of his scientific study.

I agree with you on this.

 

But as the article mentions (and other articles I have posted in this thread)

Christian thought did help in creating a positive environment for the

development of Western science.

 

 

Very well, Ironhorse.

Since you've clearly failed to understand the point that I've made (many times) in this thread... I'll make it again.

Since you've clearly failed to understand what I've proven with evidence (many times)...I'll just have to prove it again.

Since you still believe that Christianity had some kind of positive influence on the development of science, I'll just have to correct you... again.

 

Eventually you will come to understand this.

.

.

.

Science can be done by anyone, anywhere, without the need for any special social conditions or specific religious beliefs.  Science is done by observing the natural world, analyzing it's behavior, making predictions about it and testing those predictions.  That's all there is to science.

.

.

.

Your belief that Christianity helped in the rise of science is... wrong.

 

It doesn't need any input from any supernatural belief system to function.

It doesn't need any input from any religion to work properly.  It doesn't need to underpinned, founded upon or to rely upon any religiously-inspired philosophy or world-view.  It doesn't need any special political, religious or intellectual climate to flourish.  It doesn't need anything except the basic abilities every human being has endowed with by evolution.  The ability to observe, to analyze, and to think logically.  Everyone has these (to a lesser or greater extent) but many choose not to exercise or develop these abilities.

 

So, your belief that Christianity helped in the rise of science is... wrong.

 

Science has been independently developed from nothing, many times over in the world's history.

It's been developed by polytheists (the Greeks, the Romans, the Mayans, the Aztecs, etc.) and by monotheists (the Arabs) alike, centuries and millennia BEFORE the spread of Christianity across the world.  It's been developed from nothing by monarchy's, dictatorships and loose confederations of tribal peoples.  It's been developed from nothing by desert-dwelling societies, coastal peoples and city-states.  Science is a-political and a-cultural.  Anyone, anywhere can do it.

 

Therefore, your belief that Christianity helped in the rise of science is... wrong.

.

.

.

Ironhorse, you are viewing history (and science) thru the lens of your Christian indoctrination.

You may not think you've been indoctrinated, but we can see that you have been and this thread bears witness to that.  You've been so indoctrinated to think that history revolves around Christ and Christianity that you believe science owes something to Christian thought and Christian beliefs.  It doesn't.  If you were to put your beliefs aside for one minute and take a cold, hard look at the history of science, you'd see that science owes nothing to Christianity.

 

What you believe isn't important here.

Put your beliefs aside and look at the historical facts that I've presented in this thread.  The facts decide what is true, not your beliefs.

It is a historically-proven fact that science owes nothing to Christianity.

.

.

.

So please indicate your agreement with this fact.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Still waiting for you to indicate your agreement, Ironhorse.

 

 

 

Your statement that Christianity had zero effect on the development of Western science is in error.

I will post a few quotes below and the link. 

 

I have never denied that other cultures have contributed to scientific advancements.

I have never said that scientific advancements cannot occur outside of a religion.

 

 

"Despite these advances, it is safe to say that the centuries immediately after the fall of Rome, from the 5th Century until the 9th Century, saw little progress in what we come to regard as the scientific method. Classical thought and philosophy were lost to the west and became the preserve of Islam and Byzantium, as an increasingly rural and dispossessed population began to rebuild after the collapse of Rome.

 

However, monastic study kept some of the scientific processes alive and, while most of their scholastic endeavors concerned the Bible, the monks of Western Europe also studied medicine, to care for the sick, and astronomy, to observe the stars and set the date for the all-important Easter. Their astronomy kept alive mathematics and geometry, although their methods were but an echo of the intricate mathematical functions of the Romans and the Greeks."

 

"In England, a monk named Alcuin of York instigated a system of education in art and theology, and also in arithmetic, geometry and astronomy. Like the Carolingians, he began promoting the establishment of schools, usually attached to monasteries or noble courts."

 

"However, trade and the sharing of ideas were common, and merchants and mercenaries brought back ideas from Moorish Spain, the Holy Land, and Byzantium. The Muslims translated many of the Ancient Greek texts into Arabic and, in the middle of the 11th Century, scholars from all around Europe flocked to Spain to translate these books from Arabic into Latin. This provided a conduit for the knowledge of the Greeks to pass into Europe, where the schools set up by Charlemagne were now blossoming into universities. Many of these scholars, such as Gerard of Cremona (c. 1114-1187), learned Arabic so that they might complete their task."

 

"This period may not have seen the great technological advances of the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Persians, or Muslims, but the contribution of great thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas, Grosseteste, Francis Bacon, and William of Ockham to the creation of the Scientific Method cannot be underestimated."

 

 

By the 12th Century, centers of learning, known as the Studium Generale, sprang up across Western Europe, drawing scholars from far afield and mixing the knowledge of the Ancient Greeks with the new discoveries of the great Muslim philosophers and scientists. This blend of ideas formed the basis of Christian scholasticism and, whilst much of the scholastic school of thought turned towards theology, it also began to integrate scientific empiricism with religion'

 

 

"Roger Bacon is a name that belongs alongside Aristotle, Avicenna, Galileo, and Newton as one of the great minds behind the formation of the scientific method. He took the work of Grosseteste, Aristotle, and the Islamic alchemists, and used it to propose the idea of induction as the cornerstone of empiricism. He described the method of observation, prediction (hypothesis), and experimentation, also adding that results should be independently verified, documenting his results in fine detail so that others might repeat the experiment

 

With a nod towards the Islamic scholars, such as Ibn Sina ands Al-Battani, any student writing an experimental paper is following the tradition laid down by Bacon. Both Bacon and Grosseteste studied optics, and Bacon devised a plan for creating a telescope, although there is no evidence to suggest that he actually built one, leaving the honor to Galileo. Bacon also petitioned the Pope to promote the teaching of natural science, a lost discipline in medieval Europe."

 

To read entire article: https://explorable.com/middle-ages-science

[mymistake]

You can lead Ironhorse to the truth but you can't make him think.

[midniterider]

I know in the Pentecostal church that most of the sermons were about biology, astronomy, and physics. We sang songs about the periodic table of elements and performed experiments and drew our conclusions based on the observations we made. Then the pastor would submit our findings to the regional Pentecostal church director and all the pastors of our sister churches would review our research and then changes to our bibles would then be made. 

 

No, wait. That's not right. All we did was listen to a pastor talk about bronze age and iron age characters, which took place way before science took a foothold. And then the pastor and other church people would expect each other to believe what the pastor and this old book said. Without question. Really, in 10 years I never learned anything about science from going to church sometimes a couple times a week. Nobody mentioned science at all.

 

I went to a Catholic mass and they never said anything about science during their service. I went to an Episcopal church once and they never taught us any science. It was mostly Jesus this and Jesus that and please put some money in this plate.

 

Christianity has been so darned influential in science which is why you hear nothing about science in a church service.

[sdelsolray]

Tin Pony still does not understand the differences between and among coincidence, correlation and causation.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'm having a hard time understanding something, and maybe you could explain it to me, Tin Pony.  christianity has been around for 2000 years now, right?  And christianity, according to you, paved the way for scientific exploration and discovery.  So, essentially, according to you, for the past 2000 years christianity has been encouraging scientists to go out and explore nature, the stars, the environment, etc.

 

With that in mind, my question is this:  Why were antibiotics not invented until the 1940's, if the medical community had 2000 years worth of christian supported science at its disposal?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your statement that Christianity had zero effect on the development of Western science is in error.

 

Science existed outside of the West and before both the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation, Ironhorse.

Therefore, whatever social, religious or political conditions that enabled it to exist outside of and before these parameters have nothing to do with either Christianity or the West.  That is the salient point you keep on missing.

 

Science's origin owes nothing to either Christianity, nor to the West.

It can and did arise independently in other cultures before either the West or Christianity existed.   Therefore, trying to use Christianity as an influencing factor in the development of science in the West is wrong.

 

Science could have and would have developed in the West if the West had been exclusively Muslim and not Christian.

Or if the West had been polytheistic or Buddhist.  Since science arises independently (as proven by my cited sources) of religious, political or cultural background, trying to tie it's development to one specific religion (Christianity) is wrong.

 

I will post a few quotes below and the link. 

 

I have never denied that other cultures have contributed to scientific advancements.

I have never said that scientific advancements cannot occur outside of a religion.

 

 

I've snipped out the irrelevant information you posted.

 

 

Please pay attention to sdelsolray's repeated point about coincidence, correlation and causation.

 

The causation of science is NOT tied to religion, politics or culture.

Therefore you are in error to attribute any causation to Christianity in science's origin or development.  As has been pointed out to you several times in this thread, Christianity was incidental (not causal) in the development of science in the West.

 

Please accept and acknowledge this.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[ironhorse]

I'm having a hard time understanding something, and maybe you could explain it to me, Tin Pony.  christianity has been around for 2000 years now, right?  And christianity, according to you, paved the way for scientific exploration and discovery.  So, essentially, according to you, for the past 2000 years christianity has been encouraging scientists to go out and explore nature, the stars, the environment, etc.

 

With that in mind, my question is this:  Why were antibiotics not invented until the 1940's, if the medical community had 2000 years worth of christian supported science at its disposal?

 

"And christianity, according to you, paved the way for scientific exploration and discovery.  So, essentially, according to you, for the past 2000 years christianity has been encouraging scientists to go out and explore nature, the stars, the environment, etc."

 

Your statement misrepresents my view. My view is that during the middle ages Christian thought and aid helped

in the rise of science in the Western world. 

 

I have agreed with you several times on this topic

but you seem intent on not agreeing with me on any part of this topic.

 

I will post my last comments from a previous post for you and others to consider:

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Your statement that Christianity had zero effect on the development of Western science is in error.

I will post a few quotes below and the link.

 

I have never denied that other cultures have contributed to scientific advancements.

I have never said that scientific advancements cannot occur outside of a religion.

 

"Despite these advances, it is safe to say that the centuries immediately after the fall of Rome, from the 5th Century until the 9th Century, saw little progress in what we come to regard as the scientific method. Classical thought and philosophy were lost to the west and became the preserve of Islam and Byzantium, as an increasingly rural and dispossessed population began to rebuild after the collapse of Rome.

 

However, monastic study kept some of the scientific processes alive and, while most of their scholastic endeavors concerned the Bible, the monks of Western Europe also studied medicine, to care for the sick, and astronomy, to observe the stars and set the date for the all-important Easter. Their astronomy kept alive mathematics and geometry, although their methods were but an echo of the intricate mathematical functions of the Romans and the Greeks."

 

"In England, a monk named Alcuin of York instigated a system of education in art and theology, and also in arithmetic, geometry and astronomy. Like the Carolingians, he began promoting the establishment of schools, usually attached to monasteries or noble courts."

 

"However, trade and the sharing of ideas were common, and merchants and mercenaries brought back ideas from Moorish Spain, the Holy Land, and Byzantium. The Muslims translated many of the Ancient Greek texts into Arabic and, in the middle of the 11th Century, scholars from all around Europe flocked to Spain to translate these books from Arabic into Latin. This provided a conduit for the knowledge of the Greeks to pass into Europe, where the schools set up by Charlemagne were now blossoming into universities. Many of these scholars, such as Gerard of Cremona (c. 1114-1187), learned Arabic so that they might complete their task."

 

"This period may not have seen the great technological advances of the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Persians, or Muslims, but the contribution of great thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas, Grosseteste, Francis Bacon, and William of Ockham to the creation of the Scientific Method cannot be underestimated."

 

 

By the 12th Century, centers of learning, known as the Studium Generale, sprang up across Western Europe, drawing scholars from far afield and mixing the knowledge of the Ancient Greeks with the new discoveries of the great Muslim philosophers and scientists. This blend of ideas formed the basis of Christian scholasticism and, whilst much of the scholastic school of thought turned towards theology, it also began to integrate scientific empiricism with religion'

 

 

"Roger Bacon is a name that belongs alongside Aristotle, Avicenna, Galileo, and Newton as one of the great minds behind the formation of the scientific method. He took the work of Grosseteste, Aristotle, and the Islamic alchemists, and used it to propose the idea of induction as the cornerstone of empiricism. He described the method of observation, prediction (hypothesis), and experimentation, also adding that results should be independently verified, documenting his results in fine detail so that others might repeat the experiment

 

With a nod towards the Islamic scholars, such as Ibn Sina ands Al-Battani, any student writing an experimental paper is following the tradition laid down by Bacon. Both Bacon and Grosseteste studied optics, and Bacon devised a plan for creating a telescope, although there is no evidence to suggest that he actually built one, leaving the honor to Galileo. Bacon also petitioned the Pope to promote the teaching of natural science, a lost discipline in medieval Europe."

 

To read entire article: https://explorable.c...le-ages-science

[bornagainathiest]

Please accept and acknowledge that you are in error, Ironhorse.

[bornagainathiest]

 

I'm having a hard time understanding something, and maybe you could explain it to me, Tin Pony.  christianity has been around for 2000 years now, right?  And christianity, according to you, paved the way for scientific exploration and discovery.  So, essentially, according to you, for the past 2000 years christianity has been encouraging scientists to go out and explore nature, the stars, the environment, etc.

 

With that in mind, my question is this:  Why were antibiotics not invented until the 1940's, if the medical community had 2000 years worth of christian supported science at its disposal?

 

"And christianity, according to you, paved the way for scientific exploration and discovery.  So, essentially, according to you, for the past 2000 years christianity has been encouraging scientists to go out and explore nature, the stars, the environment, etc."

 

Your statement misrepresents my view. My view is that during the middle ages Christian thought and aid helped

in the rise of science in the Western world. 

 

I have agreed with you several times on this topic

but you seem intent on not agreeing with me on any part of this topic.

 

I will post my last comments from a previous post for you and others to consider:

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Your statement that Christianity had zero effect on the development of Western science is in error.

I will post a few quotes below and the link.

 

I have never denied that other cultures have contributed to scientific advancements.

I have never said that scientific advancements cannot occur outside of a religion.

(Snip!)

 

 

What is the cause of science's origin and development, Ironhorse?

 

Please factor the following indisputable historical facts into your answer.

Science originated outside of the West and outside of the influence of Christianity, before either one existed.  Therefore, neither of these factors was involved in it's origin or it's development.  They are incidental, not causal.

 

Identify the cause, Ironhorse.

[mymistake]

Please accept and acknowledge that you are in error, Ironhorse.

 

 

Good luck with that.  You are not a pastor or a Bible character.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

I'm having a hard time understanding something, and maybe you could explain it to me, Tin Pony.  christianity has been around for 2000 years now, right?  And christianity, according to you, paved the way for scientific exploration and discovery.  So, essentially, according to you, for the past 2000 years christianity has been encouraging scientists to go out and explore nature, the stars, the environment, etc.

 

With that in mind, my question is this:  Why were antibiotics not invented until the 1940's, if the medical community had 2000 years worth of christian supported science at its disposal?

 

"And christianity, according to you, paved the way for scientific exploration and discovery.  So, essentially, according to you, for the past 2000 years christianity has been encouraging scientists to go out and explore nature, the stars, the environment, etc."

 

Your statement misrepresents my view. My view is that during the middle ages Christian thought and aid helped

in the rise of science in the Western world. 

 

I have agreed with you several times on this topic

but you seem intent on not agreeing with me on any part of this topic.

 

You're right.  The way I phrased that statement was a misrepresentation.  I see that now and apologize for it.

 

Question withdrawn.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Please accept and acknowledge that you are in error, Ironhorse.

 

 

Good luck with that.  You are not a pastor or a Bible character.

 

 

Luck isn't a factor, MM.

 

I'm not writing these things in the hope of changing the unchangeable.  

I'm persisting in asking so that the lurkers will see Ironhorse for what he truly is.