Religion & Science Collaboration

I'm taking this quote from the Wikipedia article on the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method):

"The earliest known roots of the scientific method trace as far back as Imhotep (c. 2600 BC), who is credited as the orginal author of the Edwin Smith papyrus; though this work is believed to be based on earlier material as early as circa 3000 BC. The methods entailed in the Edwin Smith papyrus reflect the basic components of the scientific method: examination, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis. A basic structure of the scientific method is also highlighted in the Ebers papyrus (c. 1550 BC); though this work is not considered as rational as the Edwin Smith papyrus, because its remedies rely heavily upon magic and superstition.

The development of the scientific method is inseparable from the history of science itself. Though earlier documents describe methods resembling that of the scientific method, it is not until ancient Greek culture that the first elements of the scientific method clearly become well established. Nevertheless, the ancient Greeks themselves are known to have studied in Egypt."

Your original claim that "science" began in the 1600's is false. It actually began to become prominent in Ancient Egypt, around 2600 BC. Remember the pyramids? And the buildings in Ancient Greece? Science began LONG before Christianity came around. In fact, Science is more than twice as old as Christianity is.

From the Wikipedia on Galileo:

"Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas, which were condemned as "formally heretical";.
He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest."

That's quite the committed Christian, huh?

From the Wikipedia on Copernicus:

"Copernicus' work contradicted then-accepted religious dogma: it could be inferred that there was no need of an entity (God) that granted a soul, power and life to the World and to human beings — science could explain everything that was attributed to Him."

Copernicus wasn't so much of a Christian either, was he?

I do not believe you are understanding Ockham's Razor correctly.

Consider these two statements:

(1) The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance.

(2) The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance. This force is generated by the will of some powerful aliens.

Ockham's Razor would choose the first such statement, because it is simpler, and there is no evidence for the latter half of the second statement.

By the same argument, CLEARLY the universe has a logic to it. Clearly, it has some point in time in which it either came into existance, or began to take form as this existance (what scientists call the Big Bang, or what Christians would call Genesis).

Now consider these two statements:

(1) The universe just came into existance, or has always existed.

(2) The universe was created by a God which just came into existance, or has always existed.

Again, Ockham's Razor would choose the first statement, because it is SIMPLER. And again, there is NO EVIDENCE of the added part of the second statement.

And don't call the Bible evidence. If somebody wrote a book about the will of powerful aliens (which has certainly been done), that wouldn't be considered evidence either.

Nice try, Erasmus.

Unfortunately, you wrongly assumed that science started in the 1600's simply because the scientific method was formally stated as such then. When it is true that thousands of years ealier, in Ancient Egypt, in Ancient Greece, even in Ancient Rome, the scientific method existed, but was not called "the scientific method." Instead it had its own names, in Egyptinan, in Greek, in Latin ...

Then, you pass off a few names of so-called Christian scientists, several of which were excommunicated for heretic beliefs (not very Christian after all, huh?) that existed in the past few decades.

Then misconstrue the principal of parsimony, Ockham's Razor, as some sort of philosphical suggestion that God should be considered responsible for the order of the universe.

All doing this under the guise of a guest account. Funny how this guest account speaks exactly like Erasmus (including the fallacies), and the last activity of both accounts is right around the exact same time ...

 

I dont have time right now to go through your crappy 'reinterpretation' of comments you piece together from Wikipedia except to say:

You are quoting and 'rebutting' some comments from Mil Beso and not me.
Mil Beso is right and your lame.

The other thing you need to realise is that we are all not utterly confused about history as you might be and when you hear me say 'what we know as' Modern Science began in Christendom Europe then try and grasp that.

 

Is that the best you can do? Limp around saying "oh you're still so confused" and "I don't have time for this"?

Facts are facts. You can't refute the largest, most comprehensive encyclopedia in the world.

And the sad part is, you know it, and that's why you won't even try, you just make up excuses and continue to claim your wrong opinions as fact.

Even pretending for a second that you and mil besos aren't the same person, I refuted his comments ANYWAY.

Oh, and Erasmus ...

If you AREN'T mil besos, why do you say you don't have time to refute my points? My points were made AGAINST HIM. If he is someone else, why do you feel so obligated to refute my points against him, hummm?

Furthermore, if you are not mil besos, why did you say this:

In this thread, you never even SAID "what we know as modern science began in Christendom Europe." Mil Besos did.

Caught with your hand in the cookie jar, Erasmus.

And then, to top it all off, let me say this:

Modern science did not BEGIN in Christendom Europe. It exploded with knowledge in Christendom Europe. But science did not ONLY advance in Christendom Europe at this time. It also advanced in the Orient, where Christianity was almost entirely absent during this time period.

Obviously, Christianity is not to blame for the explosion in science.

 

Look you Moron.. only someone as shockingly ignorant of the topic as you are would even start to pretend something SO STUPID as to say that any reference to scientific principles in any other part of the whole fucking history of civilisation can somehow change the obvious and well understood understanding that what we call 'modern science' comes straight out of Christian Europe and for that matter straight out of Christian Churches and Orders themselves.

Now lets review why you are a total dork on this subject:

You google up a Wiki article (in which even YOU can write stupid shit in it) and you are so dull that you figure you have some AHA because you just fucking found out Greeks, Romans and Byzantines had some forms of scientific method in terms of experiment, object reasoning etc.
DUHHHHHHHHHH FUCKING DUHHHH!
Guess what.. there are examples of that before those guys and arguably, The early Samarians had some pretty wild stuff on the go.

Whaaa???

But aha Erasmus you said: ....THANK GOd for Christianity which invented and defined and promoted what we know as Science and the Scientific Method which has become THE standard for all the world

Try Reading Comprehension.
Whatever forms of Science might have been flourishing back in Pytharus' day - those schools of thought were for the most part LOST or had never developed through and after things like the Decline of the Roman Empire.

Even to the extent there had always been those clever few in Christendom who preserved these things (usually Monks and such) it was to be another long wait before the now established 'Christendom' began to develop WHAT IS NOW THE STANDARDS AND WHAT WE CALL 'SCIENCE'.

Mil has it just about bang on accurate as you can get:
The scientific method is the empirical method. Newton's Principia is regarded as the foundation text for science as we understand it today, although it doesn't explicitly lay out the empirical method. As such, "science" begain in the 1600s. Before that we were working off Aristotle's writings (who was a student of Plato) which has been one of the key motivators for the Renaissance.

The history of science as we understand it today is therefore inseperable from Christianity. Gallileo was a committed Christian up to the day he died. As was Copernicus, Newton, Boyle, Descartes and Pascal and any of the other founding fathers of modern science. This empirical method that is the basis for all research in all labs everywhere today is based on the assumption that there is an order to the universe that we can come to understand. Although we no longer automatically realise that this order is far more likely to have arisen through the intentional intervention of a creator (based on the famous Razor principle of another great Christian scientist, Ockham), when science first got going, these Christians understood their work as an act of worship to God.

So read that again and again and hammer into your thick bloody skull until hopefully some sense shows up.

"DUhhhhhAhhh... but Plato also used Some KinD of SCCIence.and he is OlDEr"
No.
Shut up and listen.
What you and I now call 'Science' and what is now the worldwide standard comes out of a Christian European School of Thought.
Yes.

http://www.christianity.co.nz/science3.htm

"Yeah.. but I saw this thing that said there was earlier science.. and Im so unfuckingbelieveably ignorant on this topic I actually believe that nobody will know if I say it started from Greeks and Christianity is caught out and..."

Fock!
Please.. STOP posting on this Topic Hikaru.
Just stop it.
At one point you even try explaining Ochams Razor for crying out fucking loud!

THE POINT IS THAT Christians were the ones WHO BELIEVED IN A CREATOR GOD who DESIGNED the Earth and Life WITH A PURPOSE and Therefore (THE RATIONALISED) that through nature - God could be Revealed.
Oh..
And ALSO BECAUSE THATS CLAIMED IN THE BIBLE THEY BELIEVED IN.!

THAT is why Christianity was the perfect place for what we now know and call 'Modern Science'.

The only downside.. 'Heretics' and Unbelievers came up with the Shittiest WATERING DOWN OF SCIENCE theory on the face of the planet called Naturalistic Evolution.
DUMBING DOWN Science on the way.
Nice job Huxley.. nobody has done more to work AGAINST science than the EvoFundies.
To this day our kids are DUMBER and have LESS UNDERSTANDING of Science thanks to a fucking pseudoscience belief system in naturalistic evolution.
Way to go.

 

Wikipedia articles are periodically reviewed by a professional group of editors for accuracy. They are reliable. Most of the articles WERE written by professionals who are a part of the Nupedia project (which is a CLOSED encyclopedia), and they contain SOURCES that back up the Wikipedia content. Yes, anyone can edit it. But that doesn't mean it's wrong or unreliable. The point of Wikipedia is, if you have some knowledge that isn't already available/posted, you post it. And anybody else who finds contradictory knowledge, can edit yours and post theirs. This informal process of peer review allows EVERYBODY with expertise on a topic to share their wisdom.

If you take an idea, or thesis, and contrast it to an opposing idea, or antithesis, you will get a synthesis, which is *always at least as close to the truth as either of the original thesis or antithesis*. This system, the dialectic method, was fathered by Hegel, a philosopher, and a Christian philosopher at that.

It was said previously by mil besos:

"As such, "science" begain in the 1600s."

And I am refuting that point. That science began far earlier. THAT is my "AHA" as you so perfectly put it. And it's not so much an "AHA" as it is a "point" to my argument against his argument.

But Oops! IF YOU WERE NOT MIL BESOS, YOU WOULD NOT BE HAVING A CONNIPTION FIT OVER MY REFUTATION OF HIS POINT.

In your quote above, you are *admitting* that the scientific method, whether formally called that or not, existed LONG before Christianity came into existance.

Well gee, when an empire collapses, don't you think that knowledge would be lost en masse?

And again, you credit the development of science ONLY to Christians! As if, Erasmus! Yes, Christians did have a part, an equal part, in the development of science. But they are not the only ones who preserved the knowledge of the Holy Roman Empire. Nor are they the only ones who furthered scientific knowledge during the Rennaisance. You are forgetting the contributions of the rest of the world. Or rather, not forgetting -- crediting them to the Christians, which is just wrong.

So let's see ... first you start off this post by saying, the scientific method existed way before Christianity, and then you say that you agree with yourself (mil besos) in the idea that "science begain in the 1600s"?

You sound just like the Bible: Full of contradictions and paradoxes.

SOME of what we now call 'science' comes from a Christian European school of thought.

But SOME of it came from the Orient. And SOME of it came from America. And some of it came from a NON-Christian European school of thought! Hell, a page ago I posted a LIST of influential scientists, doctors, and other non-Christians who have furthered science and other aspects of our world!

And yet, you insist on giving ALL credit of scientific development to Christians and Christians only!

Perhaps because I learned it FROM A WEBSITE ABOUT OCKHAM'S RAZOR? The example I gave you comes from a TUTORIAL on Ockham's Razor! I learned about this principal of parsimony FROM A MAN ON THESE FORUMS WHOSE FORUM NAME WAS RAZOROFOCCAM.

No shit?

And any of this has to do with science ... how?

Here's your argument in a nutshell.

Premise A: Christians believe in a God that created everything.
Premise B: The act of creating something leaves evidence that can be reduced to lead back to the creator. Studying the creation can lead to the creator.

Conclusion A: Christians believe that studying the world can reveal God.
Premise C: Christians study the world, furthering science.

Conclusion B: Christians are the dominant force responsible for the furthering of science.

But here's the flaw in your argument: Not only can you not prove premise B, but in addition to that, just because Christians are driven, in some way or another, to reveal God through studying science, DOES NOT MEAN THAT OTHERS ARE NOT EQUALLY DRIVEN OR EQUALLY AWARE.

Conclusion B does not follow from Conclusion A combined with Premise C!

Just because Christians ALSO study the world, does not mean that they are the ONLY ones, or even the DOMINANT ones, which have furthered science!

 

I have never seen such an example of 'a little knowledge is dangerous' since 'Mrree' used to butcher reason on these boards.

You dont even know why you are 'arguing' and you are trying to piece together some 'killer rebuttal' or something but you dont even know whats going on.

Again:
Simply put - What you now know as modern Science blossomed out of (is that a good expression for you?) revolutionised from, exploded out of, was perfected from what was primarily a Christian 'School of thought'.
We generally point to around 1,600.

EVERY OTHER thing you 'think you are doing' is just retarded.
You dont even realise how much of a knob your making of yourself the more you try and refute this.
Please, stop for your own good.
I really really understand you think you are on a big roll and you have discovered these 'cool ways' to 'refute' things.
Its not working.
You dont even know how to do it.

Read Mils post again.
Thats the truth bro.. just finding exceptions or asking open-ended 'what if' questions or 'something is not like this' examples is not changing that.

 

Erasmus, it is strange that you seem to have a problem when people offer up links to information to help refute a post when with your refutations you just expect us to take at your word. Where is your evidence that science is a christian invention, like you so claimed...? You just want us to accept it as truth because you are the person saying it?

Start giving us some sources, Erasmus, and you won't look like such a bumbling fool to everyone here.

 

Honestly, Erasmus, *you have ignored every stable argument that I have posted*.

So let me say this as loud and clear as I possibly can:

I double dog dare you to go back, and refute my posts, with sources, word for word.

We already know that you can't. But until YOU try, YOU will never understand that fact for yourself.

WITH SOURCES, Erasmus.

And, as you so perfectly pointed out earlier on, half of the scientists of that era were EXCOMMUNICATED by the church for HERESAY.

But sure, let's all jump on the Erasmus train and take the credit for ourselves, like the greedy bastard we are, hmm?

Oh, and here's a good one for you, Erasmus ...

Let's pretend for a second that what you say is true ...

THANK CHRISTIANS FOR GOBS AND GOBS OF POLLUTION. THANK CHRISTIANS FOR CANCER, FOR INCREASED AUTISM RATES, FOR MASS-PRODUCTION OF ANIMAL PRODUCTS (AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ANIMALS), FOR USING UP ALL THE GOD DAMNED OIL IN THE WORLD.

And no thanks for finding an alternative energy solution while you're at it.

It's better than sitting here like you providing an ad hominem argument.

Here's today's lesson for you, Erasmus:

Attacking me, and showing that there is something objectionable about me, does NOT give ANY evidence WHATSOEVER that my points are wrong!

Why do you think I haven't wasted my time calling you a douche bag?

Translation: Read my post again. I speak the truth, bro.

And stop putting words in my mouth, you faker.

I did not ask any what if questions. The "something is not like this" example changes EVERYTHING in his post, because he made a claim that science came into existance when the scientific method did, which he pointed out as the 1600s. BUt, the scientific method existed LONG before that.

Thank you!

Honestly, Erasmus, if THIS is the way you're going to act, and represent your faith AND your God in this pathetic, childish display, I won't make any topics giving credit to Christians where it is due.

Maybe I'll just start being like you, and claim that Christians have never, ever, ever, had anything to do with science, and that heathens are the best thing since sliced bread! No matter what anyone else says.

 

Double post. The forum went down for maintainance, so I ended up clicking it a few times. My bad.

 

Oh no.. its you again with this thing your doing.
Look,
Just trust me (or not) that you dont know what your going on about here.
Whats going to happen (hopefully) is that you will spend more time studying the history of the modern scientific method.
Newtons Principles and these sorts of things.
Inevitably, you will become aware that what you know and we commonly call 'modern science' comes straight out of the Churchs and its laymen in Europe.
Seriously.
You will be aware of this and you will find its one of the best and most understood 'realities' of our knowledge of History.
Your even going to find out how many great explorers, astronomers, scientists were specifically commisioned by the Church itself (roman or protty)
Your going to find out that this is always undestood and attributed to the 'crazy beliefs' they had that God designed nature and could be revealed through nature.
Crazy aint it.

Then whats going to happen is your going to feel a bit dumb about this.. but happy too because you will realise there is lots of stuff you didnt know.

One of my favourite 'atheist propaganda' stories for children is when they pretend people like Columbus was some sort of 'Atheist' hahaha.. and that 'The Church' was trying to 'stop him' because 'people believed the earth was flat' (from the Bible apparently) and heroically he 'stood for science' and 'proved them all wrong'.
LMFAO!!!!!

When you get past that stuff you realise that Columbus was not only a Christian who was backed by The Church and The State but in fact, his philosophy in life, his ambition is inseparable from his Christianity, which emboldens him.

Your going to find out a lot of things like that.
So take a breath.
Dont look for some 'yeah but!' or some way to fight it.
Just enjoy it.

 

Ever think we ask for your sources because the crap you come up with is so out there it is hard to source it ourselves?

And dude, you are just crazy...wtf does columbus have to do with any of this? You are basically making up some bullshit and attributing it to atheists so you can feel like you have some wonderful argument or point to make. You christian's can have Columbus (I don't know one atheist that cares about him), but he wasn't exactly a shining example of christ, with the slave trade and all...

This all is entertaining though, I'll give ya that.

 

You showing up to urinate on the thread is not helpful Seramichele but not surprising either.
Asking for some 'evidence' for his is like asking for some proof and evidence that what we now know as The Americas were a product of Europeans.
Hickaru probably googles it and 'aha!' he finds Hurons, Apache, Haida and then points out that Inuit are also on the North American Continent so there!
Then demands to know why anyone would claim Britain and Europe are being given credit for the USA, Canada and Mexico.

Oop.. didnt provide any proof to back that up either.
Oh oh

 

This is all irrelevant to the topic at hand. But I see you are still making up crap and attributing it to other's so you can feel like you have some argument to make.