Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I disagree.
You forget. Christianity destroyed science and Classicism. Islam preserved it and reintroduced it to Europe to start the Scientific Renaissance, which led into the Scientific Revolution.
Those terms are specific. You can't have a renaissance unless something has died. I suggest you read the introductions to Vesalius' "De humani corporis fabrica" and Copernicus' " De revolutionibus orbium coelestium," both published in 1543. They tell firsthand about how Europe is an intellectual wasteland.
Not to mention, most of those writers were after the Protestant Reformation. Galileo was a stauch proponent that there could be personal interpretation of the bible, a stong anti-Chirstian belief of the time.
Thats covers Scientific Revolution wirters. Scientific Renaissance writers didn't appear until the Moral Crisis. Christianity got so screwed up because of the Reformation, the validity of the Bible was challenged, Europe was discovering countless new cultures, and people finally realized how much they had been missing since antiquity. It took Europe until the 1700s to recover what the Romans knew in 476. The loss of that knowledge was directly contributed to by Christianity. Its reintroduction was directly inhibited by Christianty.
Secondly, of course Christians have contributed to science.
However, thats not the issue. Christians may have contributed to science, but Christianity is anti-science. Its a lot easier for the Christian church to swallow something like a battery, than to swallow something that defies its doctrine. Christianity itself has alway been against science, because it has the inability to promote free science that is in conflict with its beliefs. Its often takes the church centuries to come to terms with inconsistancies. If you look at scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, etc whose views actually challenge the church (as opposed to bringing up non-issue science) you will find that Christianity has an abysmal record.
Many Christian scientists directly and consiciously ignore or re-interpret aspects of Christian dogma to fit with science. Thats wonderful in my opion, however, its widely despiesed in the Christian church.
Originally posted by Lord UrizenThe abortion thread. This thread. Most threads in general.
Name one instance.....
✅ Yes it does.If you beleive in spirits, you do not have to justify why. You have the right to beleive it. If you beleive in something hateful or something that classifies a people as superior or inferior in anyway, especially when that beleif creeps its way into politics, then yes...you better have justification for such a belief.
Either belief needs to be justified if one asserts it as true.
Originally posted by Alliance
You forget. Christianity destroyed science and Classicism. Islam preserved it and reintroduced it to Europe to start the Scientific Renaissance, which led into the Scientific Revolution.Those terms are specific. You can't have a renaissance unless something has died. I suggest you read the introductions to Vesalius' "De humani corporis fabrica" and Copernicus' " De revolutionibus orbium coelestium," both published in 1543. They tell firsthand about how Europe is an intellectual wasteland.
Not to mention, most of those writers were after the Protestant Reformation. Galileo was a stauch proponent that there could be personal interpretation of the bible, a stong anti-Chirstian belief of the time.
Thats covers Scientific Revolution wirters. Scientific Renaissance writers didn't appear until the Moral Crisis. Christianity got so screwed up because of the Reformation, the validity of the Bible was challenged, Europe was discovering countless new cultures, and people finally realized how much they had been missing since antiquity. It took Europe until the 1700s to recover what the Romans knew in 476. The loss of that knowledge was directly contributed to by Christianity. Its reintroduction was directly inhibited by Christianty.
Secondly, of course Christians have contributed to science.
However, thats not the issue. Christians may have contributed to science, but Christianity is anti-science. Its a lot easier for the Christian church to swallow something like a battery, than to swallow something that defies its doctrine. Christianity itself has alway been against science, because it has the inability to promote free science that is in conflict with its beliefs. Its often takes the church centuries to come to terms with inconsistancies. If you look at scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, etc whose views actually challenge the church (as opposed to bringing up non-issue science) you will find that Christianity has an abysmal record.
Many Christian scientists directly and consiciously ignore or re-interpret aspects of Christian dogma to fit with science. Thats wonderful in my opion, however, its widely despiesed in the Christian church.
You clearly did not read what I said. Try again.
1. What I wrote was not biased and was not my personal opinion.
2. I never blamed the fall of Rome on the fall of science or the rise of Christianty. Christianity did contribute to the fall of Rome, but it was one of the least significant factors.
3. I CLEARY made a distinction between Christians and Christianity. GET IT?
4. Catholics WERE Christianity, there was no difference. Since the split both Catholicsm and Protestantism have been guilty of what I have described.
5. Nothing new was described in science until the Moral Crisis. Things like heliocentrism were proposed in the Greek times. The issue was that Christianity supressed science and free thought. It took almost a millenium for it to return, thanks to the interestd of several scholars and the academic perserverances of the Ottoman and Islamic empires.
6. Religon resists change, hence why religion has always been on the wrong side of science.
I seriously question your ability to analyze. Are you reading what I'm saying or reading what you want me to say? I study the scientific revolution every day. I am a history of science MAJOR. This is not a biased opinion.
If you'd like an athiest persepective, I can give it to you. That was the academic persepective.
Originally posted by Alliance
If you'd like an athiest persepective, I can give it to you. That was the academic persepective.
Oweeee boy! You sure do rite fast. I say you done give us 4 more dem dere statements from da atheest perpective..and den we'll ad dem to da other 6 statments ya gave us an we'll have the Good ol Atheist version of da 10 commandments. So watcha think bout dat boy?
Originally posted by Alliance
You clearly did not read what I said. Try again.1. What I wrote was not biased and was not my personal opinion.
2. I never blamed the fall of Rome on the fall of science or the rise of Christianty. Christianity did contribute to the fall of Rome, but it was one of the least significant factors.
3. I CLEARY made a distinction between Christians and Christianity. GET IT?
4. Catholics WERE Christianity, there was no difference. Since the split both Catholicsm and Protestantism have been guilty of what I have described.
5. Nothing new was described in science until the Moral Crisis. Things like heliocentrism were proposed in the Greek times. The issue was that Christianity supressed science and free thought. It took almost a millenium for it to return, thanks to the interestd of several scholars and the academic perserverances of the Ottoman and Islamic empires.
6. Religon resists change, hence why religion has always been on the wrong side of science.
I seriously question your ability to analyze. Are you reading what I'm saying or reading what you want me to say? I study the scientific revolution every day. I am a history of science MAJOR. This is not a biased opinion.
If you'd like an athiest persepective, I can give it to you. That was the academic persepective.
I don't care what your major is in if you present 'facts' twisted by personal bias or the bias with which you were taught (profs can be terrible sometimes). I was a science student in my day and a history student before choosing psychology. The Reformation is an area I am actually pretty well informed in and am very interested in. I am not stupid and unaware of the facts.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Oweeee boy! You sure do rite fast. I say you done give us 4 more dem dere statements from da atheest perpective..and den we'll ad dem to da other 6 statments ya gave us an we'll have the Good ol Atheist version of da 10 commandments. So watcha think bout dat boy?
Originally posted by Nellinator
Why have you started talking like a hillbilly. Please type normally, its easier to read and will warrant you a more personable response.
Just a little humour to lighten the mood. :wink: No offense to anyone. You are indeed correct, sometimes I do indeed get a bit carried away with myself. Me thinks its time for me to take a break for a while. 😖leep:
Originally posted by Nellinator
I am not mad at you, I would just hate to see the language you use create reason for the thread to degenerate.
Its cool. I understood. I actually appreciate your criticism. 🙂 You made an excellent point. But it is indeed time for me to go to bed. I've been on this forum waaay to much today. Have a good night.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Oweeee boy! You sure do rite fast. I say you done give us 4 more dem dere statements from da atheest perpective..and den we'll ad dem to da other 6 statments ya gave us an we'll have the Good ol Atheist version of da 10 commandments. So watcha think bout dat boy?
Originally posted by NellinatorThe Christian minority of the Roman empire threw off many of the traditional Roman philosophies instead of their own. Instead of supporting philosophy, they would rather sit on poles all day and contemplate their religion. When the Western RE fell, Christianity became the dominant force in Europe, rising to become the sole power. During this time, 476 until the Reformation, there were no significant advances in science. Science was but a fraction of what it was under Classical times. Now, you may state that science was already in decline at the end of the RE, and I'd agree with you, but you go almost an entire millenia under Chrstianity with little or no development in fields from medicine to natural philosophy. That is not the Romans, thats Christianity. Many other empires, notably the Islamic and Ottoman empires had no problem carrying on the majority of the Classical tradition, even improving upon it. It took some real brilliant minds in Europe to overcome this deficit.
I said that the fall of Rome destroyed science, not Christianity and you did not refute that.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Not in terms of Copernicus and Galileo. The Reformation started in 1520. Zwingli (whom I consider the starter of the real Reformation) died in 1531. Copernicus published his theory in 1543 and received skepticism from Luther and Melanchthon, but Pope Clement VII was acutally impressed. Kepler (1571-1630) also used a heliocentric model and was the court astronomer of the Holy Roman Emperor (very Catholic) with no problems. Pope Gregory XIII had no problems changing the accepted calender when it proven faulty. He did this sometime between 1572-85, can't quite remember exactly though. Galileo published his work in 1611 adn 1632, many years after the Reformation had taken place. He was unfortunate enough to have the hatred of the Dominican Order and a closeminded Pope (Urban VIII). Galileo had bad timing, but as a whole Christianity was not hostile to science in that era. Almost everything Newton said starting in 1687 was accepted, showing a openness to science.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Not true, see 4.
Classical thought was lost for a millenia, then several people re-opened up the classic disciplines. Then, after these men have passed, we get to the Moral Crisis. Then Europe discovered the true depth of Classical thinking and what they had been missing. The writings of Sextus Impiricus really shook them up too.
Then we can get to scientists like Newton. Newton's threat was a constant threat to Christianity. The mechanization of the natural world was strongly rejected by the church and Newton spent a lot of time defending himself. Despite Newton's claims to the contrary, his work removed God from the equation and the church too GREAT threat from that.
Again. The church can let stuff slide if it doesn't conflict with their views. If you discover a new species of insect, they have no problem. However, if you mess with their interpretation of God, they'll bastardize your work.
Originally posted by Nellinator
People resist change. Some people are religious, it is no mystery.
Originally posted by Nellinator
I don't care what your major is in if you present 'facts' twisted by personal bias or the bias with which you were taught (profs can be terrible sometimes). I was a science student in my day and a history student before choosing psychology. The Reformation is an area I am actually pretty well informed in and am very interested in. I am not stupid and unaware of the facts.
I try to be as unbiased as possible. That the way I live every day. Thats how you have to be in my field. I do my research, I know what positions are widely supported and which aren't. Of course there may not be one right answer, but there are a range of right ones.
I try to keep rhetoric out of intellectual arguments.
You may not be unaware of facts, but you had gross misinterpretations in my first writings. As I said, I question your motives. The Church has an institutionalized practice against science, just as they do civil rights (but thats another story). This is not saying that all religious people hate science, many scientists I know have religious beliefs. They two are perfectly compatible...however, when it comes down to it, religion has to bend.
Originally posted by Alliance
The Christian minority of the Roman empire threw off many of the traditional Roman philosophies instead of their own. Instead of supporting philosophy, they would rather sit on poles all day and contemplate their religion. When the Western RE fell, Christianity became the dominant force in Europe, rising to become the sole power. During this time, 476 until the Reformation, there were no significant advances in science. Science was but a fraction of what it was under Classical times. Now, you may state that science was already in decline at the end of the RE, and I'd agree with you, but you go almost an entire millenia under Chrstianity with little or no development in fields from medicine to natural philosophy. That is not the Romans, thats Christianity. Many other empires, notably the Islamic and Ottoman empires had no problem carrying on the majority of the Classical tradition, even improving upon it. It took some real brilliant minds in Europe to overcome this deficit.What your missing is the history. Osiander had no problem slipping in his preface to Copernicus, stating that the Copernican model was just a way of looking at things, and NOT a physical model of reality. Of course Copernicus thought different, its obvious from his texts. That was a few years after what was later termed the reformation had begun. Most astronomers that used the Heliocentric model were forced or had to edit their papers to make it clear that the helocentric model was a mathematical model and was not a physical model of reality. When lines like that were crossed (as in Galileos case...Galileo was also in many ways stupid to make the structure of the cosmos a public debate) censorship occurred. Protestants critiqued heliocentrism, Catholics banned the books. Especially as it became increasingly clear that the Reformation was going to be a permanent solution, the Catholic church tightened its grip on the intellectual community. After the Council of Trent and the Decree of the Index, Copernicus' book was only allowed in an edited version, even with Osianders' parasitic preface. Publications that gave a biblical justification to heliocentrism, like Foscarini's were banned.
No, true. Heliocentrism was proposed in Classical times. Copernicus cites the previous models in his introduction. This was post-Ptolemy stuff, but the model was definitely present and viable in Antiquity.
Classical thought was lost for a millenia, then several people re-opened up the classic disciplines. Then, after these men have passed, we get to the Moral Crisis. Then Europe discovered the true depth of Classical thinking and what they had been missing. The writings of Sextus Impiricus really shook them up too.
Then we can get to scientists like Newton. Newton's threat was a constant threat to Christianity. The mechanization of the natural world was strongly rejected by the church and Newton spent a lot of time defending himself. Despite Newton's claims to the contrary, his work removed God from the equation and the church too GREAT threat from that.
Again. The church can let stuff slide if it doesn't conflict with their views. If you discover a new species of insect, they have no problem. However, if you mess with their interpretation of God, they'll bastardize your work.
Please don't tell me that you've simplified this to this level. The majority of people in the religious. Its difficult to embrace every type of change. However, I'm not talking about people, I'm talking about institutions. These things are not coincidence. They happen deliberately. Whether is a direct suppression of the Reformation or merely the absence of developments, these things have reasons and exist beyond simple "people resist change." There is an institutionalized reaction against science in religion. I see it and work around it every day.
Here we go again. Honestly, for being an adult you need to grow up a bit. You've insulted my education before. I don't state my major to say that I'm right, I state it to show that I'm active in the field and I do my research.
I try to be as unbiased as possible. That the way I live every day. Thats how you have to be in my field. I do my research, I know what positions are widely supported and which aren't. Of course there may not be one right answer, but there are a range of right ones.
I try to keep rhetoric out of intellectual arguments.You may not be unaware of facts, but you had gross misinterpretations in my first writings. As I said, I question your motives. The Church has an institutionalized practice against science, just as they do civil rights (but thats another story). This is not saying that all religious people hate science, many scientists I know have religious beliefs. They two are perfectly compatible...however, when it comes down to it, religion has to bend.
1. I am in fact saying that science was already in decline at the end of the Roman Empire. However, I would not contribute the failure of the reestablishment of science to Christianity, but rather to the lack of education and of civilization in general. These existed in many of the Islamic nations. However, do not ignore the science of the Byzantines. Greek fire comes to mind and the fact that their science did not crumble despite being Christian.
2. You seem to be forgetting that Clement VII did not oppose Copernicus. Also, Galileo was allowed to teach his theory (as a hypothesis, mind you) which shows that the church was bent on wiping out a theory that was shown to have validity. They were overly cautious perhaps, but the science continued and was passed on. Kepler knew and accepted the basic Copernicus theory and modified it saying that the planets orbitted in an eliptical path, showing his acknowledgement of the sun being the center of the solar system. Kepler was not censored and his work was passed on. Galileo was simply unfortunate to have Urban as Pope and live during a temporary lapse in wisdom in the churches. Newton was forced to defend himself because much of what he said was revolutionary. However, his theories in physics remained for hundreds of years, his calculus is still taught today and his astronomy was generally accepted in his time. When he adequately defended himself, his theories became acceptable. Newton had a successful career and despite removing God from his science he did not truly challenge anything that the churches held dear. Mostly because science should not conflict with religion.
3. Whoops, got carried away and missed what you were saying. My apologies.
4. It may not be that simple, but institutions are usually little more than the people that are part of them. Institutions may resist change more fiercly, but people do naturally resist change. Some hold on to some aspects of their beliefs more tightly than others leading to changes in some areas rather than others. Thus deliberate changes must be made, but a lot of the time science does not change things, but rather fills in acknowledged holes in our knowledge. If Christianity suppressed science, I am not sure that Christian men would have reestablished it, but rather atheist or agnostic believers.
Originally posted by Alliance
You forget. Christianity destroyed science and Classicism. Islam preserved it and reintroduced it to Europe to start the Scientific Renaissance, which led into the Scientific Revolution.Those terms are specific. You can't have a renaissance unless something has died. I suggest you read the introductions to Vesalius' "De humani corporis fabrica" and Copernicus' " De revolutionibus orbium coelestium," both published in 1543. They tell firsthand about how Europe is an intellectual wasteland.
Not to mention, most of those writers were after the Protestant Reformation. Galileo was a stauch proponent that there could be personal interpretation of the bible, a stong anti-Chirstian belief of the time.
Thats covers Scientific Revolution wirters. Scientific Renaissance writers didn't appear until the Moral Crisis. Christianity got so screwed up because of the Reformation, the validity of the Bible was challenged, Europe was discovering countless new cultures, and people finally realized how much they had been missing since antiquity. It took Europe until the 1700s to recover what the Romans knew in 476. The loss of that knowledge was directly contributed to by Christianity. Its reintroduction was directly inhibited by Christianty.
Secondly, of course Christians have contributed to science.
However, thats not the issue. Christians may have contributed to science, but Christianity is anti-science. Its a lot easier for the Christian church to swallow something like a battery, than to swallow something that defies its doctrine. Christianity itself has alway been against science, because it has the inability to promote free science that is in conflict with its beliefs. Its often takes the church centuries to come to terms with inconsistancies. If you look at scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, etc whose views actually challenge the church (as opposed to bringing up non-issue science) you will find that Christianity has an abysmal record.
Many Christian scientists directly and consiciously ignore or re-interpret aspects of Christian dogma to fit with science. Thats wonderful in my opion, however, its widely despiesed in the Christian church.
Seriously, what are you talking about?
Please, provide me with what Science Islam ''saved'' that Christianity destroyed?
The Islamic Empire inherited the knowledge and skills of the ancient Middle east, of Greece and of Persia, it added to them new and important innovations from outside, such as the manufacture of paper from China and decimal positional numbering from India.
Begining from Jabir Ibn Haiyan , through Ibn Sina (and him in particular) ALL the way to Al-Nisaburi al-Khayyam, ALL to the last one have followed the trends of Pythagoras, Aristotle, Euclid, Archimedes, Ptolemy.
Jabir Ibn Haiyan who was born earliest of all, called Socrates the ''mother and the father of all philosophies''
At the end of 10th century, famous theologian al-Ghazali brought back the madness of Islam, the real Islam that was practiced by the founder of the religion. In his book, “The destruction of philosophy” – al-Ghazali challenged the process of reasoning because it cannot prove the reality of Allah. Philosophical thoughts and scientific investigations were pushed aside and by the time of his death in 1111, the glorious days of medieval age became a story of the past.
Most of the works of these great people have been destroyed. We can only see a glimpse of their enlightened mind through a few evidences, most which were translated to Latin during the ''golden times''. Others were burned!
Works of Ibn Sina were translated to Latin during his lifetime.
But please I am waiting for you to show me what has Islam brought back that Christianity destroyed. Please.
Nellinator is correct - you are bias and so much so, that you simply cannot look further than your resentment of Christianity.
......
There is nothing Christian in the scientific foundings of the people I mentioned earlier. I never claimed so.
But they did call themselves Christians, and they were Christians AND great minds.
I know it is difficult for you to comprehand this, because of your institutionalised resent, but you are just going to have to deal with it.
I have given the examples and quotes of people themselves - so why don't you provide me with some kind of evidence which shows how Islam saved the West.
Also, why is it that Islamic countries NEVER benefited from what they apperantly used to save the Christians?
Where are the great medical minds of Ibn Sina?!
I loved to learn about religion in school, talking with friends or strangers and thought that I had a pretty good grasp on must of the main topics but from posting and discussing on this forum I’ve come to realized that either I don’t know crap about religion or that many religious people here that I’ve talked to don’t know the fundamentals of their own religion and making it up as they go along. I get two people from the “same” religion telling me completely two different things.
Originally posted by ThePittman
I loved to learn about religion in school, talking with friends or strangers and thought that I had a pretty good grasp on must of the main topics but from posting and discussing on this forum I’ve come to realized that either I don’t know crap about religion or that many religious people here that I’ve talked to don’t know the fundamentals of their own religion and making it up as they go along. I get two people from the “same” religion telling me completely two different things.
It maybe a little of both, but if you ask someone else, you might get a different opinion.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonWell that is one of my issues that I ask the same questions to people in the “same” religion and get completely different answers every time. I know that asking some people that just “practice” the religion will not know the correct answers or that they just hum along in church but I have also asked pastor, priests and the like and still get conflicting answers.
It maybe a little of both, but if you ask someone else, you might get a different opinion.
Originally posted by ThePittman
Well that is one of my issues that I ask the same questions to people in the “same” religion and get completely different answers every time. I know that asking some people that just “practice” the religion will not know the correct answers or that they just hum along in church but I have also asked pastor, priests and the like and still get conflicting answers.
The problem is, religion can be, and often is, anything you want it to be. Are you shocked; were you looking for something transcending? I’m sorry to tell you this, but religion was made by man. That is the only way it makes any sense.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonNot really shocked, I have seen lots of problems in religion and its belief structure but you would figure that it would have some ABC’s to it if you want people to follow and teach and hopefully convert. Hell even fiction novels have a better story line then the bible or other religious text. For me this whole “self religion” thing is just a way that people still want to believe in something greater then themselves but can’t buy the whole religion thing. Things that make you go hummmmmmmmmmm
The problem is, religion can be, and often is, anything you want it to be. Are you shocked; were you looking for something transcending? I’m sorry to tell you this, but religion was made by man. That is the only way it makes any sense.
Originally posted by ThePittman
Not really shocked, I have seen lots of problems in religion and its belief structure but you would figure that it would have some ABC’s to it if you want people to follow and teach and hopefully convert. Hell even fiction novels have a better story line then the bible or other religious text. For me this whole “self religion” thing is just a way that people still want to believe in something greater then themselves but can’t buy the whole religion thing. Things that make you go hummmmmmmmmmm
Not all religions are the same.