Remember How Religion Has Harmed Science

Indeed. That being said, religion does hinder science in some areas (especially within scientific education), we shouldn't ignore that, it's just that religion is not always a problem, and as you said, it's not the only one.

__________________
Sarcasm is obviously the lowest form of wit.

I don't think that is true. Hinduism, Jainism, Confusionism, Taoism, the Greek, Roman and German pantheons, most Native American animistic religions...I don't think that one supreme God is all that common and the ones who have it seem to be closely related to each other.

Universalist?

That's not something you could know, one way or the other.

__________________
- Daisy

If such people were amenable to facts, they would have gotten the point long ago...Whatever it is that is blocking the understanding of the "denialist", it is not access to facts or information. The blockage is most likely emotional, possibly based on fear, and one does not most effectively deal with emotional barriers by using facts as instruments of assault and battery. - Dan Murphy

You know your party is in trouble when people ask did the rape guy win, and you have to ask which one?

Hindus recognize one supreme God, as did the ancient Romans and Greeks (Father Zeus), I'm not sure about the Germans, I've thought their Pantheon was similar to the rest of the Indo-European ones, but I've not studied it. Confusionism and animism generally go along with or without other religions and don't themselves deal with the concept of God. Many native Americans did have God in their religion before the arrival of European Christianity. And I honestly don't know about Jainism or Taoism.
I don't know much about Universalism, but I bet there's a lot that goes with that label that wouldn't fit me.
My belief is simply that God is God, and the attributes and traits that our different religions assign to him do not change what he really is.
I'm just taking the word of some of these scientists at face value.

__________________
"They're spinning the centrifuges faster." - Paul Ryan

And let's not forget how atheism has harmed science.

quote from Wikipedia article on Trofim Lysenko: Lysenko was put in charge of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union and made responsible for ending the propagation of "harmful" ideas among Soviet scientists. Lysenko served this purpose by causing the expulsion, imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists and eliminating all study and research involving Mendelian genetics throughout the Soviet Union. This period is known as Lysenkoism. He bears particular responsibility for the persecution of his predecessor and rival, prominent Soviet biologist Nikolai Vavilov, which ended in 1943 with the imprisoned Vavilov's death by starvation. In 1941 Lysenko was awarded the Stalin Prize.

I suppose as they say.. It is not ideology that harms, it is dogma.

Im more inclined that religion didnt do it, it was people who had that religion, who did it.

This. This a million times. Religions can't do anything, it's people that do things.

__________________
Sarcasm is obviously the lowest form of wit.

Religion can be a motivator, though. It can lead people to totally abandon their intellect in favor of irrationality, as in the case of Kurt Wise.

Turing was not forced into an early grave. He knew what the laws were in Britain at that time and he willingly chose to break them. He couldn't handle the consequences of his actions and he so willingly chose the coward's way out. I firmly believe that everyone is responsible for his or her own actions.

__________________
We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us down new paths. ---Walt Disney

Diane

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Was Christianity in fact necessary for the Scientific Revolution？ Is it just a coincidence that almost all of the important scientists of the Scientific Revolution were Christian？

Here's sociologist Rodney Stark: Recent historical research has debunked the idea of a "Dark Ages" after the "fall" of Rome. In fact, this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress, by the end of which Europe had surpassed the rest of the world. Moreover, the so-called "Scientific Revolution" of the sixteenth century was a result of developments begun by religious scholars starting in the eleventh century. In my own academic research I have asked why these religious scholastics were interested in science at all. Why did science develop in Europe at this time? Why did it not develop anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian theology.

Even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the leading scientific figures were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God's handiwork. My studies show that the "Enlightenment" was conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists attempting to claim credit for the rise of science. The falsehood that science required the defeat of religion was proclaimed by self-appointed cheerleaders like Voltaire, Diderot, and Gibbon, who themselves played no part in the scientific enterprise--a pattern that continues today. I find that through the centuries (including right up to the present day), professional scientists have remained about as religious as the rest of the population--and far more religious than their academic colleagues in the arts and social sciences.

LINK

Stark also came up with a list of top scientific contributors during the Scientific Revolution. Of 52 top contributors 50 were Christian. Christians also founded the universities where many of these scientists worked.