It's a non-question.
That's not a cop-out, by the way. It's a case of using the wrong tools for the job.
Theology is the wrong tool to debate scientific theories.
Science is the wrong tool to try to see if 'God' is real or not.Cliff Richards once said, "God and Rock'n'Roll work together in the hands of someone who loves them both"... and it's much the same with theology and science. They're both interesting, they both can be used to explore the world around us, but they're going to show us different things.
WEll put. I second this fully. Actually I'll be using it for personal discussions in the future.
Guys. Please let this thead die.
Yet more good advice goes unneeded. Such is human nature. :-)
I get it. You are trying to be clever.
Correct. Please don't tell me you were trying to be serious!
Because any serious discussion would need to include the fact that, for many centuries, those who attempted science outside of the good graces of church were unceremoniously put to the sword (or worse).
Meh...details. :P
I get it. You are trying to be clever.Correct. Please don't tell me you were trying to be serious!
Because any serious discussion would need to include the fact that, for many centuries, those who attempted science outside of the good graces of church were unceremoniously put to the sword (or worse).
Meh...details. :P
Indeed, Newton's support of the Church of England was merely a facade he had to play in order to do his work.
Indeed, Newton's support of the Church of England was merely a facade he had to play in order to do his work.
A valuable lesson on the difference between often and always...for those of us who might require one. I suspect Galileo did not.
Edit: And there was Giordano Bruno, who was burned to death (apparently per the Pope's suggestion) for pointing out the sun is the center of the solar system.
|
Indeed, Newton's support of the Church of England was merely a facade he had to play in order to do his work.A valuable lesson on the difference between often and always...for those of us who might require one. I suspect Galileo did not.
Edit: And there was Giordano Bruno, who was burned to death (apparently per the Pope's suggestion) for pointing out the sun is the center of the solar system.
As well as Monsignor Georges Lemaître not forming the idea of the big bang or several discoveries in astronomy and physics.
Of course we could do the large list if you really want to go that route.
As well as Monsignor Georges Lemaître not forming the idea of the big bang or several discoveries in astronomy and physics.
Of course we could do the large list if you really want to go that route.
No need; my point doesn't require it.
Though until I see the NSF forming death squads, I will continue to balk at the implication of parity.
|
|
Indeed, Newton's support of the Church of England was merely a facade he had to play in order to do his work.A valuable lesson on the difference between often and always...for those of us who might require one. I suspect Galileo did not.
Edit: And there was Giordano Bruno, who was burned to death (apparently per the Pope's suggestion) for pointing out the sun is the center of the solar system.
He was burned at the stake by civil authorities in 1600 after the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy for his pantheism and turned him over to the state, which at that time considered heresy illegal.
So no he was burned to death being a Panthiest. Not for saying that the Sun is a star. He did not in fact say it was in the center of the solar system. Copernican heliocentrism was well established by 1543.
He was burned at the stake by civil authorities in 1600 after the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy for his pantheism and turned him over to the state, which at that time considered heresy illegal.
A wonderful argument for the separation of church and state if there ever was one.
So no he was burned to death being a Panthiest. Not for saying that the Sun is a star. He did not in fact say it was in the center of the solar system. Copernican heliocentrism was well established by 1543.
I'll just say that isn't quite what I read, but I'm no expert.
My point remains: Highlighting the contributions while ignoring the persecution and repression is one-sided.
My point remains: Highlighting the contributions while ignoring the persecution and repression is one-sided.
As is highlighting only the persecution and repression and not also recognizing the contributions of those that were/are highly religious.
|
|
As well as Monsignor Georges Lemaître not forming the idea of the big bang or several discoveries in astronomy and physics.
Of course we could do the large list if you really want to go that route.
No need; my point doesn't require it.
Though until I see the NSF forming death squads, I will continue to balk at the implication of parity.
Death squads, way to godwin. You know your not really good at this, you might want another hobby.
Indeed, Newton's support of the Church of England was merely a facade he had to play in order to do his work.I get it. You are trying to be clever.Correct. Please don't tell me you were trying to be serious!
Because any serious discussion would need to include the fact that, for many centuries, those who attempted science outside of the good graces of church were unceremoniously put to the sword (or worse).
Meh...details. :P
You ever notice how it his work on optic and gravity that we remember Newton for, and not his writings on meta-physics, Christianity and alchemy...
Oh yeah, its because science actually explains the world, while religion barely manages to tell use about ourselves ;)
Death squads, way to godwin. You know your not really good at this, you might want another hobby.
Whatever; you win. Have a cookie.
As is highlighting only the persecution and repression and not also recognizing the contributions of those that were/are highly religious.
...which I have not denied.
Threads like this are pointless. We're all far too entrenched in our worldviews to even consider anything that doesn't fit them.
|
|
Indeed, Newton's support of the Church of England was merely a facade he had to play in order to do his work.I get it. You are trying to be clever.Correct. Please don't tell me you were trying to be serious!
Because any serious discussion would need to include the fact that, for many centuries, those who attempted science outside of the good graces of church were unceremoniously put to the sword (or worse).
Meh...details. :P
You ever notice how it his work on optic and gravity that we remember Newton for, and not his writings on meta-physics, Christianity and alchemy...
Oh yeah, its because science actually explains the world, while religion barely manages to tell use about ourselves ;)
Or maybe he was just a better scientist than theologian.
Religion can tell us a great many things, you just have to be willing to listen and hear.
Indeed, Newton's support of the Church of England was merely a facade he had to play in order to do his work.I get it. You are trying to be clever.Correct. Please don't tell me you were trying to be serious!
Because any serious discussion would need to include the fact that, for many centuries, those who attempted science outside of the good graces of church were unceremoniously put to the sword (or worse).
Meh...details. :P
You ever notice how it his work on optic and gravity that we remember Newton for, and not his writings on meta-physics, Christianity and alchemy...
Oh yeah, its because science actually explains the world, while religion barely manages to tell use about ourselves ;)
Or maybe he was just a better scientist than theologian.
Religion can tell us a great many things, you just have to be willing to listen and hear.
Cool.. You have an example with evidence to back it up? I'd be especially interested to hear about work of a theologian, who's work in the field has significantly increased human life expectancy...Or how theology helped us over come the technical difficulties of getting to the moon..but I'll listen to whatever example you have of a tangible advance or benefit that religion has provided humanity since the enlightenment.
|
|
Cool.. You have an example with evidence to back it up? I'd be especially interested to hear about work of a theologian, who's work in the field has significantly increased human life expectancy...Or how theology helped us over come the technical difficulties of getting to the moon..but I'll listen to whatever example you have of a tangible advance or benefit that religion has provided humanity since the enlightenment.Indeed, Newton's support of the Church of England was merely a facade he had to play in order to do his work.I get it. You are trying to be clever.Correct. Please don't tell me you were trying to be serious!
Because any serious discussion would need to include the fact that, for many centuries, those who attempted science outside of the good graces of church were unceremoniously put to the sword (or worse).
Meh...details. :P
You ever notice how it his work on optic and gravity that we remember Newton for, and not his writings on meta-physics, Christianity and alchemy...
Oh yeah, its because science actually explains the world, while religion barely manages to tell use about ourselves ;)
Or maybe he was just a better scientist than theologian.
Religion can tell us a great many things, you just have to be willing to listen and hear.
And as with 90% of your posts you have severely missed the point. I am sure that was on purpose.
as above:
Theology is the wrong tool to debate scientific theories.
Science is the wrong tool to try to see if 'God' is real or not.Cliff Richards once said, "God and Rock'n'Roll work together in the hands of someone who loves them both"... and it's much the same with theology and science. They're both interesting, they both can be used to explore the world around us, but they're going to show us different things.
They teach us different things. Are useful for different aspects of our lives. It's like comparing apples and car engines.
Cool.. You have an example with evidence to back it up? I'd be especially interested to hear about work of a theologian, who's work in the field has significantly increased human life expectancy...Or how theology helped us over come the technical difficulties of getting to the moon..but I'll listen to whatever example you have of a tangible advance or benefit that religion has provided humanity since the enlightenment.Indeed, Newton's support of the Church of England was merely a facade he had to play in order to do his work.I get it. You are trying to be clever.Correct. Please don't tell me you were trying to be serious!
Because any serious discussion would need to include the fact that, for many centuries, those who attempted science outside of the good graces of church were unceremoniously put to the sword (or worse).
Meh...details. :P
You ever notice how it his work on optic and gravity that we remember Newton for, and not his writings on meta-physics, Christianity and alchemy...
Oh yeah, its because science actually explains the world, while religion barely manages to tell use about ourselves ;)
Or maybe he was just a better scientist than theologian.
Religion can tell us a great many things, you just have to be willing to listen and hear.
It is especially funny given that science (specifically evolutionary psychology)is now giving us better answers about the very things that religion tries to lay claim to than religion. Be is ethics or the origins of mythology that makes up the very frame work of the religions themselves. The bible couldn't even get it right when it came to slavery being wrong, but between philosophy and Evolutionary psychology in less than a quarter of the time since the supposed birth of Jesus, has provided logical explanations of not only why it wrong, but why we as humans think it is(and why for so long we engaged in it anyway).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Locking thread. Dismissing other people's beliefs, even when they differ from your own, is not cool.