The Myth of the 'War' Between Science and Religion

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,247
Reputation
6,810
Daps
90,681
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
Most historians regard religion as having had a generally benign and constructive relationship with the natural sciences in the West. There were periods of tension and conflict, such as the Galileo controversy. Yet on closer examination, these often turn out to have had more to do with papal politics, ecclesiastical power struggles, and personality issues than with any fundamental tensions between faith and science. As leading historians of science regularly point out, the interaction of science and religion is determined primarily by historical circumstances and only secondarily by the irrespective subject matters. There is no universal paradigm for the relation of science and religion, either theoretically or historically. The case of Christian attitudes to evolutionary theory in the late nineteenth century makes this point particularly evident. As the Irish scientist and historian David Livingstone makes clear in a groundbreaking study of the reception of Darwinism in two very different contexts—Belfast and Princeton—local issues and personalities were often of decisive importance in determining the outcome.

If I sat here and told cats that their God given beliefs were just the result of those two highlighted statements, they'd call me douche. Disingenuous.
 

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,247
Reputation
6,810
Daps
90,681
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
Religion and science are not incompatible.

So then my friend, you have no problem cosigning this statement..

"In the eighteenth century, a remarkable synergy developed between religion and the sciences in England. Newton's "celestial mechanics" was widely regarded as at worst consistent with, and at best a glorious confirmation of, the Christian view of God as creator of a harmonious universe."

If not, can you guys with completely different religious views stop hiding behind the generic term "religion." Your sentence, this thread, and that article would read completely different if it said "myth of war between science and Catholicism."
 

FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
72,260
Reputation
8,197
Daps
218,655
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
So then my friend, you have no problem cosigning this statement..

"In the eighteenth century, a remarkable synergy developed between religion and the sciences in England. Newton's "celestial mechanics" was widely regarded as at worst consistent with, and at best a glorious confirmation of, the Christian view of God as creator of a harmonious universe."

If not, can you guys with completely different religious views stop hiding behind the generic term "religion." Your sentence, this thread, and that article would read completely different if it said "myth of war between science and Catholicism."

I agree, but what happened in Europe was then exported to the rest of the world. The way of thinking, the way of separating secular vs. religion, that's what I'm getting at.

Everyone is Westernized, even the religious fanatics who claim to be at war with the West
 

ExodusNirvana

Change is inevitable...
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
40,910
Reputation
9,110
Daps
149,781
Reppin
Brooklyn, NY
There are a number of things...in almost all religious texts...that are EASILY disproved by science.

And since these religions all require their devotees to take the word of said religious texts at face value, NO science and religion are NOT compatible.
 

Chris.B

Banned
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
18,922
Reputation
-4,604
Daps
21,891
Science and Religion are not compatible in many cases.

But in my opinion the Bible supersedes any scientific document ever created.
 

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
44,631
Reputation
8,094
Daps
121,493
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Melbournelad said:
Can you define 'define'?
Yes.........​

  1. a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.

  2. the degree of distinctness in outline of an object, image, or sound, especially of an image in a photograph or on a screen.

Melbournelad said:
Can you logically prove that logic is logical?

Can you?

:popcorn:
 
Last edited:

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
44,631
Reputation
8,094
Daps
121,493
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
ExodusNirvana said:
There are a number of things...in almost all religious texts...that are EASILY disproved by science.

I can prove that some planets in our solar system shouldn't exist according to the Big Bang Theory.

Doesn't prove the Theory to be wrong, though.
ExodusNirvana said:
And since these religions all require their devotees to take the word of said religious texts at face value

This is false. Were that the case, there wouldn't be more than one interpretation of each of them.​
 
Last edited:

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,377
Reputation
-34,322
Daps
617,919
Reppin
The Deep State
I agree, but what happened in Europe was then exported to the rest of the world. The way of thinking, the way of separating secular vs. religion, that's what I'm getting at.

Everyone is Westernized, even the religious fanatics who claim to be at war with the West
Except on the nature of assertions, we can factually undermine religious assertions.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,377
Reputation
-34,322
Daps
617,919
Reppin
The Deep State
I can prove that some planets in our solar system shouldn't exist according to the Big Bang Theory.

Doesn't prove the Theory to be wrong, though.

Thats not what the big bang theory asserts.​

This is false. Were that the case, there wouldn't be more than one interpretation of each of them.​

But since theres so many interpretations we can disregard it on that basis alone.

They all claim to be right, regardless of interpretation so they all can't be right.
 

Dafunkdoc_Unlimited

Theological Noncognitivist Since Birth
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
44,631
Reputation
8,094
Daps
121,493
Reppin
The Wrong Side of the Tracks
Napoleon said:
That's not what the theory asserts

Correct so I'll amend it to the Nebular Hypothesis.​

Napoleon said:
But since theres so many interpretations we can disregard it on that basis alone.​

2 + 1 = 3
4 - 1 = 3
3 x 1 = 3
√9 = 3

Since there are so many ways to get the same answer, we can disregard math on that basis alone.
:popcorn:
 
Last edited:
Top