The Church and Science

[hisgrace26]

I know most Christians will say that many scientists back then were Christians and godly men who started a lot of great ideas and new discoveries about science. However, they just happen to be Christians because of the times. Consider the vast amount of knowledge we have today they probably would re-think their Christianity.

Furthermore, should Christians also worship the Greek Pantheon too since so much of knowledge we know about math and philosophy derived from their knowledge? How about the Muslims that made huge contributions to mathematics and global travel? How about other race like the Chinese who change the course of mankind through their discoveries? Being in a certain religion does not make one smarter, the Christian scientists back then knew well enough to leave God out of their scientific work, and only report what they find in their earthly senses. They even got branded as heretics, and even the Church accepted evolution as fact. Every other denominations such as the protestant were just a spin off that came out of the catholic church.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

What?

 

[Faith24]

What?

Nature does fine without God, and it has always been that way. Scientist back then were Christians, but that doesn't mean their work is "Christian work." There are contributions of math and philosophy from Greeks, Muslims, and the Chinese that far surpasses the work of Christians. Consider all the information that were destroyed in the Dark Ages - Christians even contributed less! Christian scientists back then were a by product of the predominant culture of that time.

 

[Hentenza]

Thread moved from Christian Apologetics to Exploring Christianity.

 

[drich0150]

I know most Christians will say that many scientists back then were Christians and godly men who started a lot of great ideas and new discoveries about science. However, they just happen to be Christians because of the times. Consider the vast amount of knowledge we have today they probably would re-think their Christianity.

Furthermore, should Christians also worship the Greek Pantheon too since so much of knowledge we know about math and philosophy derived from their knowledge? How about the Muslims that made huge contributions to mathematics and global travel? How about other race like the Chinese who change the course of mankind through their discoveries? Being in a certain religion does not make one smarter, the Christian scientists back then knew well enough to leave God out of their scientific work, and only report what they find in their earthly senses. They even got branded as heretics, and even the Church accepted evolution as fact. Every other denominations such as the protestant were just a spin off that came out of the catholic church.

I was going to say: "What" as well, but I guess that didn't work, because of that I am going to try:

So what?

 

[Walter Kovacs]

So what?

Indeed. So what?

 

[razeontherock]

I know most Christians will say that many scientists back then were Christians and godly men who started a lot of great ideas and new discoveries about science. However, they just happen to be Christians because of the times. Consider the vast amount of knowledge we have today they probably would re-think their Christianity.

Nope, not at all! They understood G-d was not "god of the gaps," and that Scripture was not all literal nor given as a textbook.

the Christian scientists back then knew well enough to leave God out of their scientific work,

Again, completely incorrect! They attributed their motivation and ability to G-d, almost to a man.

 

[AlexBP]

They even got branded as heretics,

Are you able to name any scientist who was branded as a heretic?

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Pretty sure Galileo got that.

 

[AlexBP]

Galileo was never convicted of heresy, nor even accused of it. He was convicted of oath-breaking and lying under oath. Thomas Lessl wrote a nice summary that clears up some of the misunderstandings about the Galileo case here:
The Galileo Legend

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Ahh, yes, that's right. Eh, I tried

 

[MattRose]

Galileo was never convicted of heresy, nor even accused of it. He was convicted of oath-breaking and lying under oath. Thomas Lessl wrote a nice summary that clears up some of the misunderstandings about the Galileo case here:
The Galileo Legend

I infer from your response that you think Galileo wasn't tried for heresy. That isn't correct. "Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633, "for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world", against the 1616 condemnation, since "it was decided at the Holy Congregation [...] on 25 Feb 1616 that [...] the Holy Office would give you an injunction to abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it; and that if you did not acquiesce in this injunction, you should be imprisoned".

He WAS convicted of heresy and was under house arrest for the rest of his life. The article you mentioned only feebly attempts to shift blame to non-priest scholars rather than squarely on the Catholic church's shoulders were it belongs.

 

[AlexBP]

If you don't like Dr. Lessl's paper, this one by Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher covers the case of Galileo in much more detail, and upholds the main points. The controversy over Galileo's advancement of the heliocentric theory began as an academic dispute that became extremely heated. The Church intervened with the intention of calming that dispute and Galileo agreed to temporarily refrain from promoting that theory, under oath. In the following years he continued doing scientific research and the Church funded that research. If the myth that the Church desired to shut down research and persecute scientists were true, this obviously would not be the case. In 1633, Galileo published his famous book promoting heliocentrism, violaitng the oath. The Pope and other Catholic officials would have preferred to give him a minor rebuke and let the matter rest. However, partially due to Galileo's abrasive personality and personal attacks on the Pope, that didn't happen, and eventually it became a big show trial that spiraled out of control. Galileo himself was a Catholic and held no ill will about the trial. There may be reason to blame the Church for allowing that to happen, but absolutely none to support the mythical idea that the Church wanted to suppress scientific research.

 

[MattRose]

If you don't like Dr. Lessl's paper, this one by Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher covers the case of Galileo in much more detail, and upholds the main points. The controversy over Galileo's advancement of the heliocentric theory began as an academic dispute that became extremely heated. The Church intervened with the intention of calming that dispute and Galileo agreed to temporarily refrain from promoting that theory, under oath. In the following years he continued doing scientific research and the Church funded that research. If the myth that the Church desired to shut down research and persecute scientists were true, this obviously would not be the case. In 1633, Galileo published his famous book promoting heliocentrism, violaitng the oath. The Pope and other Catholic officials would have preferred to give him a minor rebuke and let the matter rest. However, partially due to Galileo's abrasive personality and personal attacks on the Pope, that didn't happen, and eventually it became a big show trial that spiraled out of control. Galileo himself was a Catholic and held no ill will about the trial. There may be reason to blame the Church for allowing that to happen, but absolutely none to support the mythical idea that the Church wanted to suppress scientific research.

You're splitting hairs. The church then (as it does now) had absolutely no problem with any new scientific theroies that agree with church teachings. It's smart to be cautious, but even the Catholic church was against (or refused to comment on) the teaching of evolution until around 1950. In fact, most US churches still think it's fiction.
The point here is not that the church suppresses science, it's the fact that the church vets all science with what they think the bible (or church doctrine) says about the subject. The church gets it wrong sometimes and it's annoying to some people that the church doesn't admit to being wrong. In protecting the Catholic church on this Galileo issue I feel you're using the same argument that some Southerners (USA) use to claim that the civil war wasn't about slavery. Technically it was about states' rights, but the underlying reason was salvery. They don't want to admit that their side was proslavery so they try to muddy the waters.

 

[berachah]

You're splitting hairs. The church then (as it does now) had absolutely no problem with any new scientific theroies that agree with church teachings. It's smart to be cautious, but even the Catholic church was against (or refused to comment on) the teaching of evolution until around 1950. In fact, most US churches still think it's fiction.

And the non believing scientific community does no such thing....!

The facts are:
The study of science originated with Christians. Go back further than that and you will find advanced learning such as universities and colleges were started by Christians. In fact formal schooling was started by Christians as well.

That the church erred in quashing thought they felt contradicted the faith is indisputable. Rather they should have intensified their own study of science and the Bible and they would ultimately have found harmony.

What we have now is a godless cabal that has hijacked science and declared it contrary to the Christian faith when it is not. Further than that they have hijacked the public space and now freely declare much evolutionary theory as fact even when it is clearly unscientific. Dare anyoe suggest otherwise and they are considered lunatics or fools. Any further debate on the matter has been destroyed with this devilish tactic.

Evolution has not been scientifically proven neither can it be. To be a scientific fact it must be;
- observable
- reproduceable
Neither has happened, nor will ever.

Evolutionists have managed to merge natural selection with evolution and used this lie to accuse and oppose Christianity. In fact many weak willed Christians now even accept evolution as a fact, rather than the Word of God.

I for one would love to know how the incredible process of reproduction managed to evolve, before the creature itself died out.......scientific answers only please....

 

[MattRose]

And the non believing scientific community does no such thing....!

The facts are:
The study of science originated with Christians. Go back further than that and you will find advanced learning such as universities and colleges were started by Christians. In fact formal schooling was started by Christians as well.

That the church erred in quashing thought they felt contradicted the faith is indisputable. Rather they should have intensified their own study of science and the Bible and they would ultimately have found harmony.

What we have now is a godless cabal that has hijacked science and declared it contrary to the Christian faith when it is not. Further than that they have hijacked the public space and now freely declare much evolutionary theory as fact even when it is clearly unscientific. Dare anyoe suggest otherwise and they are considered lunatics or fools. Any further debate on the matter has been destroyed with this devilish tactic.

Evolution has not been scientifically proven neither can it be. To be a scientific fact it must be;
- observable
- reproduceable
Neither has happened, nor will ever.

Evolutionists have managed to merge natural selection with evolution and used this lie to accuse and oppose Christianity. In fact many weak willed Christians now even accept evolution as a fact, rather than the Word of God.

I for one would love to know how the incredible process of reproduction managed to evolve, before the creature itself died out.......scientific answers only please....

I agree with much of what you have to say. Unfortunately, you made my point better than I did. Your response implys you disagree with evolution only because it goes against your understanding of your Christian beliefs. I don't see you disputing other scientific theories that happen to conform perfectly to Christian beliefs. I'm sure there are dozens of widely accepted theories that have much less evidence than evolution. We can't even name any because Christians aren't condemning these theories!!

Your understanding of science is severely flawed. You say
To be a scientific fact it must be;
- observable
- reproduceable
Observable doesn't mean one has to watch evolution take place in real time. One can observe the massive amounts of fossils that show clearly that there were once animals that appear to be like animals of today, but that these fossils show that the animal changes slightly (evolve) the older the fossils become.
Reproduceable doesn't mean one has to evolve a species themself. Other scientists can independently reproduce the same results that a particular fossil has characterisitics suggesting it came from a particular ancient animal.

And please rethink your statement that the study of science started with Christianity. Remember fire and the wheel? They were pre-Jesus discoveries. You do believe in them don't you? Good thing that fire and wheels don't go against Christain principles. Joking of course, but here is a wiki timeline of science: Timeline of scientific discoveries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CryptoLutheran]

In fact, most US churches still think it's fiction.

I'm just hopping in on here to point out that this isn't necessarily true. It's certainly true that many of the loudest churches and their members think it's fiction, but Fundamentalism (despite its loudness) isn't necessarily a majority. What may be accurate to say is that there is a proportionally large number of churches that regard evolution as fiction.

I, of course, could be wrong; but I'm somehow inclined to think that if a really excellent case study were done that truly examined the views of Christians and Christian churches across all denominational lines one would find that "most" may be a rather incorrect estimate.

To help illustrate that point, roughly a quarter of the American adult population identifies as Catholic.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MattRose]

I'm just hopping in on here to point out that this isn't necessarily true. It's certainly true that many of the loudest churches and their members think it's fiction, but Fundamentalism (despite its loudness) isn't necessarily a majority. What may be accurate to say is that there is a proportionally large number of churches that regard evolution as fiction.

I, of course, could be wrong; but I'm somehow inclined to think that if a really excellent case study were done that truly examined the views of Christians and Christian churches across all denominational lines one would find that "most" may be a rather incorrect estimate.

To help illustrate that point, roughly a quarter of the American adult population identifies as Catholic.

-CryptoLutheran

I'm sure you're right. We only hear the noisy ones' opinions of course. That's one of the things I find so amusing about the tea party. They want less govt and lower taxes. And who doesn't?!?

 

[berachah]

Your response implys you disagree with evolution only because it goes against your understanding of your Christian beliefs. I don't see you disputing other scientific theories that happen to conform perfectly to Christian beliefs. I'm sure there are dozens of widely accepted theories that have much less evidence than evolution. We can't even name any because Christians aren't condemning these theories!!

I don't disagree with scientific fact; I disagree with evolution because it is a poor theory, based on un-scientific reasoning; one which is being used to systematically undermine and attack Christianity. If people believe they came from a rock they are free to do so. When these same people start to declare their interpretations as scientific fact, then I have a problem with it. When they start to use these 'facts' to attack and ridicule Christians, every sane person should have a problem with them.

Your understanding of science is severely flawed. You say
To be a scientific fact it must be;
- observable
- reproduceable
Observable doesn't mean one has to watch evolution take place in real time. One can observe the massive amounts of fossils that show clearly that there were once animals that appear to be like animals of today, but that these fossils show that the animal changes slightly (evolve) the older the fossils become.
Reproduceable doesn't mean one has to evolve a species themself. Other scientists can independently reproduce the same results that a particular fossil has characterisitics suggesting it came from a particular ancient animal.

Please check a dictionery for the meanining "scientific".

There is absolutely no evidence of transitional species in spite of the billions of fossils already found. There is interpretation and supposition....ie guesswork.. This guesswork is based on a pre-conceived belief system.

There is so much marginalized / suppressed scientific evidence to show evolution is a dud theory. I would seriously investigate both sides and make a scientific assessment of both. Thats what I did - evolution cannot answer basic reasoning, never mind scientific analysis.

"In the beginning there was a big bang. Something came out of nothing.....the big bang was started by nothing and it formed something.......we dont know how, but that is fact......."

 

[MattRose]

I don't disagree with scientific fact; I disagree with evolution because it is a poor theory, based on un-scientific reasoning; one which is being used to systematically undermine and attack Christianity. If people believe they came from a rock they are free to do so. When these same people start to declare their interpretations as scientific fact, then I have a problem with it. When they start to use these 'facts' to attack and ridicule Christians, every sane person should have a problem with them.



Please check a dictionery for the meanining "scientific".

There is absolutely no evidence of transitional species in spite of the billions of fossils already found. There is interpretation and supposition....ie guesswork.. This guesswork is based on a pre-conceived belief system.

There is so much marginalized / suppressed scientific evidence to show evolution is a dud theory. I would seriously investigate both sides and make a scientific assessment of both. Thats what I did - evolution cannot answer basic reasoning, never mind scientific analysis.

The attacking is from the Christian side. The scientists merely report what they observe. Are you suggesting that an expert in a field shouldn't smirk when a layman tells him how to do his job? Like I mentioned earlier, you don't seem to have any problems with theories that don't conflict with your biblical views which points to you being biased. I don't care if we came from fairy farts as long as it can be proven. Nevertheless, you have certainly convinced me that evolution is wrong, but alas what are we against the thousands of biologists who are convinced otherwise?

Please check a dictionery for the meanining "scientific". Please tell me you misspelled "dictionary" and "meaning" on purpose for comedic effect.