Science and Religion

[savedbygrace]

so i'm not a very active member here. i just sort of like to sit back and read what everyone else is saying but these days i really havent had a lot of time to look at threads. (i've never really been "good" with forum sites) :blush:

but i'm taking european history right now and we're on the scientific revolution and the enlightenment. i've been wondering for some while now, much of what church doctrine believed to be true according to the Bible (a geocentric universe, etc.) proved to be wrong. reason threatened religion and it was through secular viewpoints that many scientific advances were made. ultimately, this allows us today to have medicine and technology that saves lives.

basically, science vs. religion.

i believe it was galileo that said "the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens work."

do you think relgion does bias people so that they cant make clear scientific discoveries? or do you think they should go hand in hand?
would it have been impossible to get to the advances of today if science did not secularize?
and should the Bible be taken more literally or figuratively?


:eek: ok, i'm running away now.

[Stevewalker]

so i'm not a very active member here. i just sort of like to sit back and read what everyone else is saying but these days i really havent had a lot of time to look at threads. (i've never really been "good" with forum sites) :blush:

but i'm taking european history right now and we're on the scientific revolution and the enlightenment. i've been wondering for some while now, much of what church doctrine believed to be true according to the Bible (a geocentric universe, etc.) proved to be wrong. reason threatened religion and it was through secular viewpoints that many scientific advances were made. ultimately, this allows us today to have medicine and technology that saves lives.

basically, science vs. religion.

i believe it was galileo that said "the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens work."

do you think relgion does bias people so that they cant make clear scientific discoveries? or do you think they should go hand in hand?
would it have been impossible to get to the advances of today if science did not secularize?
and should the Bible be taken more literally or figuratively?


:eek: ok, i'm running away now.


Hi,
Yep that was a correct quoting of Galileo Galilei, and his a very topical character to quote on this one. Firstly he was a scientist prior to the 'enlightenment' and secondly he was a devout Catholic. Interestingly he didnt seem to feel that there was a problem there, however some of his writing caused much concern for the Catholic church, especially those in which he challenged the geocentrism (earth immobile w sun rotating it) of the Catholic church, thus there was an controversy as theologians and scientist alike challenged Galileo's heliocentric solar system suggesting it went against both science and theology. Its very important to note that the church was siding with many scientists advice in disagreeing with Galileo.

Well that story was to introduce my response to your question as it showed how religion influenced science to the loss of scientific discovery. However Galileo was not an anomaly amongst Scientist of his day and now in that he held religion had its place. And I guess that its an important balance. In my opinion to put it simply religion tells us why things are while science can tell us what things are. This is a simple seperation but these two interelate obviously and this is where the battle of religion vs science lies. I guess an important distinction to draw is that science can never tell you what you should do, it tells you how things work and helps you decide in many cases, but its not a moral code.

Should science have secularized? There is no need for scientists to hold a materialist worldview, illustrated quite well by the great multitude of thiests of famous scientists (Micheal Faraday, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, James Clark Maxwell, Theodosius Dobzhansky, etc etc) who have made monumental discoveries in all areas of science. Secularization came at the end of Christendom and the end of the feudal systems of the middle ages, I'd contend a lot more of the period of scientific enlightenment is thanks to the freedom that democracy and the breaking of the old systems brought than that people were now secular. This freedom from the old system allowed for a critical philosophy of held presuppositions (ie of geocentrism or flat world or many false anatomy presuppositions) and although many of these presuppositions were caused by category error of scientists who read there Bible and inferred all sorts of things there was also a great deal which were caused by poor scientific method. So there needs be no 'secularization' of scientist, of course scientist must be naturalists in their methodology (they can't explain the chemicals doing there stuff, as God and leave it at that) but they needn't be naturalistic in their philosophy, and sciences great leap forward has been thanks to this, which doesn't run contrary to any religion/philosophy (however science does bring with it the ability to challenge stories in all religions with its critical method).

The final question of how to read The Holy Bible (figuratively vs. literally) is such a large topic. I would firstly contend that the bible cannot be read completely of either and therefore there must be comprise between literal and figurative, firstly lets grasp what allows us to read parts of the Bible and say "its being figurative", sometimes it tells us (Jesus and the parables), sometimes its cause the analogies are obvious (I don't think that the Song of Solomans is very literal for example) and thirdly sometimes its because we know more of how the world works than those who wrote the books (in Psalms we hear of how the sun orbits the world (geocentrism)). So of these figurative approaches the third causes the most controversy with debates on things such as Genesis being contentious for theistic evolutionists and 6-day creationists today, while in the past we have already mentioned geocentrism and other topics arise. Personally I feel that this is dangerous ground, for if we take the Christian God seriously we should treat his Word with a little more respect than we treat our high school texts and be slow to throw it away. However if we come back to the idea that science can only tell us what is, surely that won't restrict religion to tell us how to act (its a bit more complex but I will wait for more specific questions). But in summary I feel that the authors of the Bible are inspired by God and all of their words are pertinent to our faith but remember they are writing from within there worldview which probably doesnt include things such as evolution, psychoanalysis and all the complex aspects of modern society so we shouldn't be trying to ascertain a groundwork understanding of these things.

Okay well thats lots of words, heehee I dont really post much here either but your post caught my fancy and I was the first to post to it! Wooo Hooo, hope this is helpful, and don't shy away from these questions, its important to be consistent in your worldview (especially for Christians who wish to share their worldview with others).

In Christ,
-Steve

[furay]

Some people still hold to Geocentrism. :smile:

[Abigail]

Its very important to note that the church was siding with many scientists advice in disagreeing with Galileo.

excellent point Steve

[jason]

so i'm not a very active member here. i just sort of like to sit back and read what everyone else is saying but these days i really havent had a lot of time to look at threads. (i've never really been "good" with forum sites) :blush:

but i'm taking european history right now and we're on the scientific revolution and the enlightenment. i've been wondering for some while now, much of what church doctrine believed to be true according to the Bible (a geocentric universe, etc.) proved to be wrong. reason threatened religion and it was through secular viewpoints that many scientific advances were made. ultimately, this allows us today to have medicine and technology that saves lives.

basically, science vs. religion.
Your being sold a false bill of goods if that is how it is being portrayed to you.

Science arose in a strongly christian culture and flourished under a strongly christian worldview based on christian assumptions about the nature of the universe.

Science was still born everywhere else in the world.

And frankly I think the highly secularised "science" (more exactly pseudo-philosophy) we see being marketed as science today is impeding progress rather than helping it.

Witness the current round of anti-ID witch hunts going on. This is stifling to progress and smacks of the inquisition all over again.

Jason

[FlimFlamboyant]

i believe it was galileo that said "the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens work."
If only every scientist were that smart. Call me crazy, but I don't think God gives a rat's hiney if we understand how the cosmos works or not. I'm pretty sure he has much larger issues that he would have us concern ourselves with. Not that I'm slamming the pursuit of the sciences, but not at the expense of our God-given duties as his ambassadors.

do you think relgion does bias people so that they cant make clear scientific discoveries? or do you think they should go hand in hand?
I think the bias has far more to do with superstition than it does "religion". For instance, the whole geo-centric universe concept is not something that they could have gleaned from the scriptures; at least not honestly. As I'm sure you're well aware, people have a tendency to believe what they want to believe, then attempt to conjure up support from a few verses ripped from their context.

would it have been impossible to get to the advances of today if science did not secularize?
Just have a look at many of the "fathers" of modern science; besides the obvious (Galileo), we have the likes of Newton, Pascal, Fresnel, and many others. Secularization has only very recently (within the last century or so) begun to rapidly grow. Many would like to make a connection between this and the giant scientific leaps that we've made recently, but these advances actually have far more to do with the harnessing of electricity than man's world-view.

and should the Bible be taken more literally or figuratively?
More literally or more figuratively than what? :smile: That's a highly subjective question. I don't know how to answer that directly, but I'll do my best. I believe it should be taken literally, unless there is strong indication within the text itself that it is allegory.

[savedbygrace]

Hi,
Yep that was a correct quoting of Galileo Galilei, and his a very topical character to quote on this one. Firstly he was a scientist prior to the 'enlightenment' and secondly he was a devout Catholic. Interestingly he didnt seem to feel that there was a problem there, however some of his writing caused much concern for the Catholic church, especially those in which he challenged the geocentrism (earth immobile w sun rotating it) of the Catholic church, thus there was an controversy as theologians and scientist alike challenged Galileo's heliocentric solar system suggesting it went against both science and theology. Its very important to note that the church was siding with many scientists advice in disagreeing with Galileo.

Well that story was to introduce my response to your question as it showed how religion influenced science to the loss of scientific discovery. However Galileo was not an anomaly amongst Scientist of his day and now in that he held religion had its place. And I guess that its an important balance. In my opinion to put it simply religion tells us why things are while science can tell us what things are. This is a simple seperation but these two interelate obviously and this is where the battle of religion vs science lies. I guess an important distinction to draw is that science can never tell you what you should do, it tells you how things work and helps you decide in many cases, but its not a moral code.

Should science have secularized? There is no need for scientists to hold a materialist worldview, illustrated quite well by the great multitude of thiests of famous scientists (Micheal Faraday, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, James Clark Maxwell, Theodosius Dobzhansky, etc etc) who have made monumental discoveries in all areas of science. Secularization came at the end of Christendom and the end of the feudal systems of the middle ages, I'd contend a lot more of the period of scientific enlightenment is thanks to the freedom that democracy and the breaking of the old systems brought than that people were now secular. This freedom from the old system allowed for a critical philosophy of held presuppositions (ie of geocentrism or flat world or many false anatomy presuppositions) and although many of these presuppositions were caused by category error of scientists who read there Bible and inferred all sorts of things there was also a great deal which were caused by poor scientific method. So there needs be no 'secularization' of scientist, of course scientist must be naturalists in their methodology (they can't explain the chemicals doing there stuff, as God and leave it at that) but they needn't be naturalistic in their philosophy, and sciences great leap forward has been thanks to this, which doesn't run contrary to any religion/philosophy (however science does bring with it the ability to challenge stories in all religions with its critical method).

The final question of how to read The Holy Bible (figuratively vs. literally) is such a large topic. I would firstly contend that the bible cannot be read completely of either and therefore there must be comprise between literal and figurative, firstly lets grasp what allows us to read parts of the Bible and say "its being figurative", sometimes it tells us (Jesus and the parables), sometimes its cause the analogies are obvious (I don't think that the Song of Solomans is very literal for example) and thirdly sometimes its because we know more of how the world works than those who wrote the books (in Psalms we hear of how the sun orbits the world (geocentrism)). So of these figurative approaches the third causes the most controversy with debates on things such as Genesis being contentious for theistic evolutionists and 6-day creationists today, while in the past we have already mentioned geocentrism and other topics arise. Personally I feel that this is dangerous ground, for if we take the Christian God seriously we should treat his Word with a little more respect than we treat our high school texts and be slow to throw it away. However if we come back to the idea that science can only tell us what is, surely that won't restrict religion to tell us how to act (its a bit more complex but I will wait for more specific questions). But in summary I feel that the authors of the Bible are inspired by God and all of their words are pertinent to our faith but remember they are writing from within there worldview which probably doesnt include things such as evolution, psychoanalysis and all the complex aspects of modern society so we shouldn't be trying to ascertain a groundwork understanding of these things.

Okay well thats lots of words, heehee I dont really post much here either but your post caught my fancy and I was the first to post to it! Wooo Hooo, hope this is helpful, and don't shy away from these questions, its important to be consistent in your worldview (especially for Christians who wish to share their worldview with others).

In Christ,
-Steve

so then with what you're saying about how science tells us what is and religion tells us how to act, then science is like explainingto someone what fire is and religion is telling him how to use it.

ok... with this talk of God and science, what is [Christian] Scientology?

Witness the current round of anti-ID witch hunts going on. This is stifling to progress and smacks of the inquisition all over again.


by ID, do you mean intellegent design?

Some people still hold to Geocentrism. :smile:

...
seriously? what kind of people?



all so very interesting. :hehe:

is there any place where i can read up more about this?

[furay]

seriously? what kind of people?

http://catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/geochallenge.htm

[savedbygrace]

http://catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/geochallenge.htm

wow... :nc:
i guess no one has truly and physically proven heliocentrism when its put that way... O.@

[furay]

wow... :nc:
i guess no one has truly and physically proven heliocentrism when its put that way... O.@
Yeah. But I don't know a lick about science so I tend to just keep my mouth shut. In the end it doesn't really matter that much to me personally. :smile:

[magus]

This is somewhat of a strawman. Geocentrism vs Heliocentrism, I mean.

It all depends on your perspective. If you are on earth, you have an earth-bound perspective. Thus, your viewset is that of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Obviously, the movements of sun and earth would be different if you were on the moon, say. The fact that the passages in the Bible were written in a geocentric perspective doesn't invalidate heliocentrism in general. OTOH, heliocentrism perspective applies if you were on the Sun (good luck there!) Moreover, if you were out of the Solar System, you may very well observe something else entirely!

The issue comes about from calculations and observations. Having the earth revolve around the sun is no big problem to the fundamental issues of faith within Christian doctrine. But I put it to you... the Chinese (and others) have had solar and lunar calendars that are amazingly accurate without any so-called 'modern' scientific knowledge.

As for the question of science vs religion, might I put it this way. Operational science is science that deals with everyday life. Electricity, gravity, radiation, Boyle's Law, thermodynamics, etc. Where does religion (or faith relationships, really, when talking about Christianity) contradict any of these concepts or innovations?

The major issue comes when dealing with origins science or ethics within operational science. Remember, science comes from the Greek Scientia, meaning knowledge. God doesn't condemn such; after all, 'the heavens declare His glory'. What happens when God is taken out of the picture in either circumstance? We see the effects every day!

Every scientist operates on the fundamental assumption that given the same set of circumstances (ceteris paribus), a particular cause will have a particular effect (or plural). Why? Christians say this is God's doing; i.e. His sustaining power in keeping physical laws and constants... well, constant. Consistent.

All scientists also operate on the fundamental assumption that it is possible to formulate theories/laws about how matter/energy interacts with space/time. Why? Christians say it's God who put those laws there in the first place.

It's not science vs religion. It's science AND religion working hand in hand. Consider the logical outcome when one excludes the other...

Love in Christ,
Magus

[savedbygrace]

This is somewhat of a strawman. Geocentrism vs Heliocentrism, I mean.

It all depends on your perspective. If you are on earth, you have an earth-bound perspective. Thus, your viewset is that of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west. Obviously, the movements of sun and earth would be different if you were on the moon, say. The fact that the passages in the Bible were written in a geocentric perspective doesn't invalidate heliocentrism in general. OTOH, heliocentrism perspective applies if you were on the Sun (good luck there!) Moreover, if you were out of the Solar System, you may very well observe something else entirely!

The issue comes about from calculations and observations. Having the earth revolve around the sun is no big problem to the fundamental issues of faith within Christian doctrine. But I put it to you... the Chinese (and others) have had solar and lunar calendars that are amazingly accurate without any so-called 'modern' scientific knowledge.

As for the question of science vs religion, might I put it this way. Operational science is science that deals with everyday life. Electricity, gravity, radiation, Boyle's Law, thermodynamics, etc. Where does religion (or faith relationships, really, when talking about Christianity) contradict any of these concepts or innovations?

The major issue comes when dealing with origins science or ethics within operational science. Remember, science comes from the Greek Scientia, meaning knowledge. God doesn't condemn such; after all, 'the heavens declare His glory'. What happens when God is taken out of the picture in either circumstance? We see the effects every day!

Every scientist operates on the fundamental assumption that given the same set of circumstances (ceteris paribus), a particular cause will have a particular effect (or plural). Why? Christians say this is God's doing; i.e. His sustaining power in keeping physical laws and constants... well, constant. Consistent.

All scientists also operate on the fundamental assumption that it is possible to formulate theories/laws about how matter/energy interacts with space/time. Why? Christians say it's God who put those laws there in the first place.

It's not science vs religion. It's science AND religion working hand in hand. Consider the logical outcome when one excludes the other...

Love in Christ,
Magus

not sure what a strawman is but i get what you're saying. i agree totally. everything we discover about the tiniest detail of the world just glorifies God more.

just wondering why others dont see that either...:huh:

[magus]

A strawman is defined as a false position (or a false statement of a position, usually a gross distortion or a massive oversimplification of the position in question) which can then be knocked down or otherwise dismantled, thus 'proving' that all other positions based on it cannot stand.

Well, it's close enough to that, anyways.

[NeilUnreal]

The idea of geocentricism vs. heliocentricism is very pertinent to the core of what science is and what it can teach us.

You can dissect science into two major realms: 1) observation and method, and 2) theory. Observation and method can allow you to collect and lot of facts about the world, notice sophisticated patterns, and even make amazingly accurate predictions. However, unless you use those observations to develop and refine theories, all you really have in the end is a disconnected drawer of facts: pragmatically useful, perhaps, but not really saying much about the search for knowledge.

Pre-modern “science” has a strong tendency towards the collection of facts from nature and experiment, yet imposition of theories ad-hoc from external authority. Of course, the ancients did a certain amount of what we would call theory development from the data, but it generally grew weaker and weaker in the West until it reached a low point in medieval scholasticism. The enlightenment was in many ways a revolution in the way theory was treated – a movement away from theory derived from authority, to theory derived from facts and prior theory.

In the view of science in which theory is weak or based on external authority, geocentricism is every bit as valid a scientific conclusion as is heliocentricism. All that is important in a scientific sense is that the one describe (not explain) the facts as well as does the other. Explanation and choice of theory are left up to external authority: the ancient philosophers, religious dogma, appeal to common sense, etc.

However, this makes for little progress in science and the quest for knowledge. Science only really progresses when theoretical development is strong and integrative.

Many Christians were instrumental in the development of modern science, and they were important primarily because they made a choice. They chose to believe that God would not lie to them, personally, about what was being said in nature and the theories that was suggesting. They also chose to believe that what had been accepted as authority might indeed be wrong, or at least misinterpreted.

These scientists chose to reject the authoritarian, scholastic view of science, and they are not the cause of the split between science and religion. The split comes between those religious scientists who chose (and choose) to continue within the scholastic authoritarian paradigm, and those non-religious scientists who take this as typical of religion and an implication that religion is not of any use to science or scientists.

However, between Christians, other theists, and non-theists who hold to a modern theoretical view of science, there is generally agreement. Unfortunately, these folks rarely get the public attention that the combatants attract. Nor do they generally seek it; science is an absorbing pursuit, it takes a lot of time, and there is only so much time and energy in a day.

-Neil

[Barry Desborough]

Your being sold a false bill of goods if that is how it is being portrayed to you.

Science arose in a strongly christian culture and flourished under a strongly christian worldview based on christian assumptions about the nature of the universe.

Science was still born everywhere else in the world.

And frankly I think the highly secularised "science" (more exactly pseudo-philosophy) we see being marketed as science today is impeding progress rather than helping it.

Witness the current round of anti-ID witch hunts going on. This is stifling to progress and smacks of the inquisition all over again.

Jason

I watched a fascinating prog on the British Channel 4 recently.



WHEN THE MOORS RULED IN EUROPE: 7pm
As part of the Channel 4's Hidden Civilisation season exploring Islam's rich and significant contribution to western art and culture, historian Bettany Hughes traces the story of the mysterious and misunderstood Moors, the Islamic society that ruled in Spain for 700 years, but whose legacy was virtually erased from Western history. In 711 AD, a tribe of newly converted Muslims from North Africa crossed the straits of Gibraltar and invaded Spain. Known as The Moors, they went on to build a rich and powerful society. Its capital, Cordoba, was the largest and most civilised city in Europe, with hospitals, libraries and a public infrastructure light years ahead of anything in England at the time. Amongst the many things that were introduced to Europe by Muslims at this time were: a huge body of classical Greek texts that had been lost to the rest of Europe for centuries (kick-starting the Renaissance); mathematics and the numbers we use today; advanced astronomy and medical practices; fine dining; the concept of romantic love; paper; deodorant; and even erection creams. This wasn't the rigid, fundamentalist Islam of some people's imaginations, but a progressive, sensuous and intellectually curious culture. But when the society collapsed, Spain was fanatically re-Christianised; almost every trace of seven centuries of Islamic rule was ruthlessly removed. It is only now, six centuries later, that The Moors' influences on European life and culture are finally beginning to be fully understood.

© Copyright source where applicable

[savedbygrace]

oooo...

wow. :read:

*not exactly sure how to reply to all of it*

but thank you everyone. it was very helpful :D

[Duder]

Your being sold a false bill of goods if that is how it is being portrayed to you.

Science arose in a strongly christian culture and flourished under a strongly christian worldview based on christian assumptions about the nature of the universe.

Science was still born everywhere else in the world.

And frankly I think the highly secularised "science" (more exactly pseudo-philosophy) we see being marketed as science today is impeding progress rather than helping it.

Witness the current round of anti-ID witch hunts going on. This is stifling to progress and smacks of the inquisition all over again.

Jason


Preposterous!

Official Christendom embraced Aristotle's cosmology to bolster some obscure doctrines about everything in the heavens above being perfect and Jerusalem being located at the exact center of the universe (never mind the earth at the center of the solar system).

As a result, science and religion found themselves fiercely opposed to each other for a century or two. Some churchmen wished the greatest harm upon scientists, and some scientists cast the churchmen in a very unflattering light.

I am afraid that science and Christianity both survived in spite of each other.

Balderdash!

Science isn't science if it isn't secularized. Nothing prevents the scientist from believing that God is ultimately responsible for everything he observes - but the scientist must not terminate his explainations with the hypothesis "God does it" and leave the matter there. If he does that, his mind may be closed to deeper mysteries about precisely how God does it.

Poppycock!

Show me a parallel between caution against ID in public schools and the medieval Inquisitions.

Why don't you give what Savedbygrace is doing a try, and attend the college or university of your choice?

_________________________

And, Savedbygrace, welcome to the fora, and you go right on posting your interesting thoughts here.

[The Unassumed]

do you think relgion does bias people so that they cant make clear scientific discoveries? or do you think they should go hand in hand?
would it have been impossible to get to the advances of today if science did not secularize?
and should the Bible be taken more literally or figuratively?


Despite lingering myths about a ‘conflict’ between faith and science, leading sociologist Rodney Stark has demonstrated that the flowering of science since the Enlightenment was the direct result of Christianity itself. The uniquely Christian conception of the divine as rational, dependable and omnipotent, together with the belief that the universe was God’s personal creation, resulted in the belief that the universe had a rational, lawful, stable structure. Stark concludes that “theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe.”

Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts, and the end of slavery. Princeton: Princeton University, 2003.

[Duder]

Despite lingering myths about a ‘conflict’ between faith and science, leading sociologist Rodney Stark has demonstrated that the flowering of science since the Enlightenment was the direct result of Christianity itself. The uniquely Christian conception of the divine as rational, dependable and omnipotent, together with the belief that the universe was God’s personal creation, resulted in the belief that the universe had a rational, lawful, stable structure. Stark concludes that “theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe.”

Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts, and the end of slavery. Princeton: Princeton University, 2003.

As much as it would please me to locate the origin of the scientific spirit in the church of our Lord, I am afraid this just doesn't fly.

The uniquely Christian conception of the divine as rational, dependable and omnipotent, together with the belief that the universe was God’s personal creation, resulted in the belief that the universe had a rational, lawful, stable structure.

These philosophical insights which your author attributes to the church, about the lawful, predictable and rational qualities of nature, originate, as best we know, with the pre-Christian Greeks, who, so far as we can tell, had very little intellectual commerce with the Semitic roots of Judeo-Christianity.

[savedbygrace]

These philosophical insights which your author attributes to the church, about the lawful, predictable and rational qualities of nature, originate, as best we know, with the pre-Christian Greeks, who, so far as we can tell, had very little intellectual commerce with the Semitic roots of Judeo-Christianity.

pre-Christian Greeks?

like ptolemy, aristotle, and galen?

what do you mean by "little intellectual commerce"? do you mean the exchange of knowledge between the Jewish and Greeks? if so, what ideas would have been "traded"?

[savedbygrace]

Despite lingering myths about a ‘conflict’ between faith and science, leading sociologist Rodney Stark has demonstrated that the flowering of science since the Enlightenment was the direct result of Christianity itself. The uniquely Christian conception of the divine as rational, dependable and omnipotent, together with the belief that the universe was God’s personal creation, resulted in the belief that the universe had a rational, lawful, stable structure. Stark concludes that “theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe.”

Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts, and the end of slavery. Princeton: Princeton University, 2003.


if so, then why did so many Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution ideas challenge Christianity? didnt Atheism and Deism rise from the thinkers of the Enlightenment?

[jason]

As a result, science and religion found themselves fiercely opposed to each other for a century or two. Some churchmen wished the greatest harm upon scientists, and some scientists cast the churchmen in a very unflattering light.
You seem blissfully unaware that it was fellow scientists that had a problem with Heliocentrim. But I don't expect you to get it.

I am afraid that science and Christianity both survived in spite of each other.
Wow it must be a concidence then that so many devout christians make up the ranks of the most influential scientists. I suppose that it is a coincidence that a large number of the measures of units in science are named after devoutly christian men. Yep, must be a conincidence.

Science isn't science if it isn't secularized.
Whatever, history disagrees with this ignorant drivel you are spouting.

Show me a parallel between caution against ID in public schools and the medieval Inquisitions.
What you mean like people being fired from jobs and having their ideas supressed because they dare speak of ID ? Nah, there is nothing akin to a modern day inquisition in any of that.

Why don't you give what Savedbygrace is doing a try, and attend the college or university of your choice?
I have done, and did a history of science course whileI was there. Which is why I know she is being sold a load of old sheeps testicles.

Jason

[The Unassumed]

if so, then why did so many Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution ideas challenge Christianity?
All human thought challenges Christianity. And Christianity rises to the challenge. But this does not change the fact that "the flowering of science since the Enlightenment was the direct result of Christianity itself."



didnt Atheism and Deism rise from the thinkers of the Enlightenment?
Many things arose from the Enlightenment, including Deism. But the further the consequences are from the Christian message, the less an influence Christianity would have been. And Deism is certainly a long way from the Christian doctrine of creation-redemption.

[Stevewalker]

All human thought challenges Christianity. And Christianity rises to the challenge. But this does not change the fact that "the flowering of science since the Enlightenment was the direct result of Christianity itself."



Many things arose from the Enlightenment, including Deism. But the further the consequences are from the Christian message, the less an influence Christianity would have been. And Deism is certainly a long way from the Christian doctrine of creation-redemption.


Hmm I thought I would just add a suggestion here, its my proposition that Deism arose because the melding of the Greek worldview with the Christian thinking left some conflicting ideas along side each other. One of them was the idea of the independence of earth (Platonic idea of eternality of the universe) . And it was these that led to Deism and the demise of Theism during the Enlightenment in favour of other ideas, it was imo basically because they had been left bound together when (parts) they shouldnt have been. However this led to the sad split is from one perspective (many great thinkers indoctrinated into Deism by lack of option) it is good as it allows for a more crediable and coherent Christian philosophy to be rethought (I'm not talking about changing the basics here! just talking about rethinking what they actually mean and how Science/Faith interelate). Atm I've found there's quite a few ideas out there of how much room there is for Theism in Science, however to keep it short I'll suggest a read of "Rebuilding the Matrix" and "The Sacred Cosmos" for those interested, both hypothesize paths for Theism, that needn't challenge the data and scientific interperation of today (like ID and Creation Science does) however there is room for Christians (and others) to challenge when scientists think they can infer a entire philosophy from there discoveries.

Blessings,
Steve

[savedbygrace]

Hmm I thought I would just add a suggestion here, its my proposition that Deism arose because the melding of the Greek worldview with the Christian thinking left some conflicting ideas along side each other. One of them was the idea of the independence of earth (Platonic idea of eternality of the universe) . And it was these that led to Deism and the demise of Theism during the Enlightenment in favour of other ideas, it was imo basically because they had been left bound together when (parts) they shouldnt have been. However this led to the sad split is from one perspective (many great thinkers indoctrinated into Deism by lack of option) it is good as it allows for a more crediable and coherent Christian philosophy to be rethought (I'm not talking about changing the basics here! just talking about rethinking what they actually mean and how Science/Faith interelate). Atm I've found there's quite a few ideas out there of how much room there is for Theism in Science, however to keep it short I'll suggest a read of "Rebuilding the Matrix" and "The Sacred Cosmos" for those interested, both hypothesize paths for Theism, that needn't challenge the data and scientific interperation of today (like ID and Creation Science does) however there is room for Christians (and others) to challenge when scientists think they can infer a entire philosophy from there discoveries.

Blessings,
Steve

:hrm:

ooo.....