Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
1,944 bytes added ,  09:34, February 3, 2008
→‎Social effects of Creationist ideas: It wasn't biblical literalism.
Line 274: Line 274:  
::::::Philip, if we look at the evidence we know that Christians were always on both sides of the debates. Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian. But when we look at the issues we see that you had roughly speaking two types of Christians scientists in those days, namely those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside. And, let's face it, those who were literalists lost pretty much every time. Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible. Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists. Nicolas Oresme, natural philosopher and bishop said, "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly". He did already disagree in 1365 with todays creationist stance, even though he was a Catholic bishop. So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.
 
::::::Philip, if we look at the evidence we know that Christians were always on both sides of the debates. Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian. But when we look at the issues we see that you had roughly speaking two types of Christians scientists in those days, namely those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside. And, let's face it, those who were literalists lost pretty much every time. Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible. Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists. Nicolas Oresme, natural philosopher and bishop said, "There is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly". He did already disagree in 1365 with todays creationist stance, even though he was a Catholic bishop. So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.
 
::::::It is debatable if the contemporary US is not the most Christian nation at this point in time,  but is certainly not the most Christian if you compare it with other countries in history, and it never was. You are again boasting yourself with the achievements of others. The US is most active in science in the last 50 years, first mostly due to an influx of European scientists, and later from other continents. Go into an American lab, and you will meet people from all over the world, but have often a hard time finding an American. And even among the Americans, go to the National Academy of Science, and check its members, and you will find that hardly anyone would subscribe to your view of Christianity. So, please, don't claim people for your side that with whom you hardly agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:15, 3 February 2008 (EST)
 
::::::It is debatable if the contemporary US is not the most Christian nation at this point in time,  but is certainly not the most Christian if you compare it with other countries in history, and it never was. You are again boasting yourself with the achievements of others. The US is most active in science in the last 50 years, first mostly due to an influx of European scientists, and later from other continents. Go into an American lab, and you will meet people from all over the world, but have often a hard time finding an American. And even among the Americans, go to the National Academy of Science, and check its members, and you will find that hardly anyone would subscribe to your view of Christianity. So, please, don't claim people for your side that with whom you hardly agree. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:15, 3 February 2008 (EST)
 +
::::::: "''Noting the fact that in pre-modern Europe most scientist were Christian is pointless because being a European was equivalent to being a Christian.''": That is not what is noted.  What is noted is that science arose ''because of'' the Christian worldview, not coincidentally.
 +
::::::: "''...you had ... two types of Christians scientists ... those who looked for evidence outside of the bible, and those that looked for evidence inside.''":  Really?  Newton, to pick one example, did both.
 +
::::::: "''...those who were literalists lost pretty much every time.''": Yeah?  This is not borne out by your following examples.
 +
::::::: "''Galileo was a Christian, but a Christian who when he offered his theory, accompanied it with an alternative less literal interpretation of the bible.''":  The implication being that the geocentric view that he rejected was derived from a ''more'' "literal interpretation" of the Bible.  But this was not the case.  The geocentric view common at the time was derived from the ''non-Christian'' teachings of Aristotle.
 +
::::::: "''Copernicus was even a cleric, but even he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the literalists.''":  No, he was afraid about how his finding would be received by the scientific establishment that had (for the most part) fallen in with the Aristotelean view.
 +
::::::: "''So I find it a bit audacious that you claim all of these for yourself, even though you fundamentally disagree with their philosophy.''":  I hope you see by now that you had their philosophy wrong.
 +
::::::: My comments about America and Christianity are something I've heard a few times, but I can't add much to.  But I was not talking particularly about America ''today'', and even today, much of the American culture owes its origins to a Christian worldview, even though many people now reject that basis.
 +
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:34, 3 February 2008 (EST)
nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254

edits

Navigation menu