People are less and less religious. Why? What will change this?

[abucs]

If we look at the grounding of science in the western world that then was taken to the rest of the world it is clear that is emerged through Christian developed institutions such as the university and hospitals.

You mention the dates of the Christian scientists I recorded. A couple of things there. Firstly if you are the pioneer of a fundamental scientific discipline then you are the first and therefore you are likely to be early. Secondly, I prefaced these comments (talking to another poster) with the words - “if you look at medieval Christian science”.

If you look at Albert the Great, your derogatory description of ‘poked his nose on just about everything’ really means that he was a master of so many disciplines that he was called great in his own lifetime. Be honest please.

I notice you didn’t include Le Maitre in your list who was of the 20th century.
Please be consistent please.

Your introductory comments of ‘the assumption of God’ in incorrect. It is looking at scientific evidence and asking what is the most rational explanation from what we know of reality. Either that reality is based on intelligence or non intelligence. The theist argues that intelligence is the most rational explanation given the evidence. It is incorrect to assume that I am making an assumption on this.

 

[pocaracas]

If you look at Albert the Great, your derogatory description of

Really? You thought I was being derogatory with that?
Quite the contrary, just acknowledging that he tried to learn about a great many things.

I notice you didn’t include Le Maitre in your list who was of the 20th century.

Please be consistent please.

Weren’t we trying to go for medieval times?
20th century doesn’t count.

Your introductory comments of ‘the assumption of God’ in incorrect. It is looking at scientific evident and asking what is the most rational explanation from what we know of reality. Either that reality is based on intelligence of mom intelligence. The theist argues that intelligence is the most rational explanation given the evidence. It is incorrect to assume that I am making an assumption on this.

And you rationally arrive at the reasoning for said intelligence by?..
Clearly, not using the scientific evidence… science doesn’t concern itself with metaphysics, does it?

But, if you follow through on the metaphysics, you’ll discover the assumption of the intelligence, because “clearly” there must be an unactaulized purely conceptual intelligence to support the existence of the highest form of actuality, which is the very self-centered human intelligence.
Am I remotely close?

 

[abucs]

ok you are being silly now. If you list the scientists I mentioned and give their dates but then leave out Le Maitre then you are not being inconsistent.

If I point out to you that the context regarding the first list of scientists was regarding medieval science and you don’t acknowledge that then you are being dishonest.

If I mention to the other poster about a analogy of Le Maitre outside of the medieval context and you are somehow trying to include this without accepting your dishonesty then you are being really silly.

btw, the phrase you gave to Albert the Great of ‘poking his nose in just about everything’ is clearly derogatory. To pretend it is not is again clearly dishonest.

You do yourself no favours when you ignore main points, be dishonest about minor things and then expect to be taken seriously.

Please have more intelligence and be honest in your comments otherwise this is a waste of time.

The main point that I was talking about with the other poster is how the historical record clearly shows heavy Christian involvement regarding the development in science in contrast to the ignorant view today that science is in opposition to Christian thought.

 

[pocaracas]

I’m being silly?
Come, now… Lemaître, as a 20th century scientist, is a bit far from the medieval category, isn’t he?
I just went back and noticed that I skipped one guy:
Boscovich –> 1711 – 1787

The main point that I was talking about with the other poster is how the historical record clearly shows heavy Christian involvement regarding the development in science in contrast to the ignorant view today that science is in opposition to Christian thought.

That is true.

But they mostly stem from “scientific revolution” times, don’t they? (according to the wiki, “the publication in 1543 of Nicolaus Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) is often cited as marking the beginning of the scientific revolution.”)
And they were mostly preceded by non-scholastics… that’s why I put the ones I selected - no friars, priests, bishops, nor any direct relation to the church… but we know too well how Galileo got in trouble with the church.

And I couldn’t care less about what you think is obvious about the way I phrase things. I told you it wasn’t meant as you assumed… but, even taking information from its origin, it seems you prefer to accept your assumed version. (full circle?)

 

[abucs]

And you rationally arrive at the reasoning for said intelligence by?..

Clearly, not using the scientific evidence… science doesn’t concern itself with metaphysics, does it?

But, if you follow through on the metaphysics, you’ll discover the assumption of the intelligence, because “clearly” there must be an unactaulized purely conceptual intelligence to support the existence of the highest form of actuality, which is the very self-centered human intelligence.

Am I remotely close?

No I don’t think you are.

Science concerns itself with the material world. The question of whether that material world looks to be created and maintained through an intelligent process or an non intelligent basis is one that science can add value to.

 

[abucs]

But they mostly stem from “scientific revolution” times, don’t they? (according to the wiki, “the publication in 1543 of Nicolaus Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) is often cited as marking the beginning of the scientific revolution.”)

And they were mostly preceded by non-scholastics… that’s why I put the ones I selected - no friars, priests, bishops, nor any direct relation to the church… but we know too well how Galileo got in trouble with the church.

Well Copernicus was a clergyman and Galileo was heavily related to the Church. Both were ensconsed in a Christian world as was Tycho Brae whose astronomy work was cited against Galileo and who was awarded the honorary title of a canon at the Cathedral of Roskilde The fourth person you listed was Avicenna who wasn’t Catholic or western so it is strange that you would list him in response to a discussion on Catholic and western development of science. Perhaps you realised your mistake by adding the words “ooh Persian”. I wouldn’t want to criticise you for derogatory comments without giving you the chance to explain that addendum.

I notice a lot of atheists will write phrases like this and also something like ‘got in trouble with the church’ but not attach it concretely to a particular point. You really have to because the Galileo affair is the one big case atheists use against the church and yet when it is analysed it is an embarrassingly weak argument.

Which again is my main point regarding general amateur atheist thought regarding science and Christianity.

 

[pocaracas]

Both were ensconsed in a Christian world

And the scientists from the Persia, the Middle East and Andalus were ensconsed in the muslim world.
And the scientists from India were ensconsed in the Hindi world.
Not to talk about the Chinese.

People made advances in spite of the religion, not because of it.

I notice a lot of atheists will write phrases like this and also something like ‘got in trouble with the church’ but not attach it concretely to a particular point.

Et tu, Brute?
“Copernicus was a clergyman”?
From the wiki: “A polyglot and polymath, he obtained a doctorate in canon law and was also a mathematician, astronomer, physician, classics scholar, translator, governor, diplomat, and economist.”
Is the clergy bit a doctorate in canon law?
(But aren’t we getting a bit sidetracked?)

 

[abucs]

(But aren’t we getting a bit sidetracked?)

Yes you are.

It usually happens when people come into other people’s discussion, try to change the topic because they are not addressing the main points and then are shown to be incorrect even in the minor points they try to argue.

Et tu, Brute?

“Copernicus was a clergyman”?

From the wiki: “A polyglot and polymath, he obtained a doctorate in canon law and was also a mathematician, astronomer, physician, classics scholar, translator, governor, diplomat, and economist.”

Is the clergy bit a doctorate in canon law?

This was the first person you listed in your supposed list of people unrelated to the church which was in itself a side track from what was being discussed. He was not unrelated to the church as you claim.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm.

He was brought up by his uncle (a bishop) and

_

probable that, at least in later life, he had entered the priesthood. After the death of his uncle, in 1512, Copernicus went to Frauenburg for the election of the new bishop, and remained there until 1516, when he was nominated administrator of the diocesan castle of Allenstein. His term of four years being over, he returned to the chapter in Frauenburg. Three years later the bishop died, and Copernicus became administrator of the diocese.

_

And the scientists from the Persia, the Middle East and Andalus were ensconsed in the muslim world.

And the scientists from India were ensconsed in the Hindi world.

Not to talk about the Chinese.

People made advances in spite of the religion, not because of it.

Again you are missing the picture. The birth of western science is the birth of modern science. No other region of the world comes anywhere close to it. That birth was in a Christian world from Christian institutions. Your throw away line of ‘in spite of religion’ has no rational connection to what is being talked about, Twice above I have mentioned the Christian institutions and you have not even tried to refute it directly by discussing those institutions and the people involved in them.

You might as well say that Tongan scientists are ensconsed in a Tongan world. It means absolutely nothing if you are going to deliberately miss the main point.

ok, I am sorry how this is going to sound but you are attached emotionally to an anti religion philosophy which interferes with your level of comprehension when discussing that issue. If we talk again I would ask you to be a little more intelligent, otherwise have a good life.

 

[pocaracas]

Again you are missing the picture. The birth of western science is the birth of modern science. No other region of the world comes anywhere close to it.

huh… kinda…
Even Western knowledge drank much from knowledge that came from other places.
But yes, it did advance substantially under the influence of Christianity. (Would it have happened in the same or similar way, had it been some other religion in its place?)

Anyway, that is something I never refuted because…

Twice above I have mentioned the Christian institutions and you have not even tried to refute it directly by discussing those institutions and the people involved in them.

Why would I refute something that is patent?
Those people were involved in Christian organizations and were also scientists.

If we talk again I would ask you to be a little more intelligent,

Speaking of a derogatory tone… there’s one.

 

[abucs]

Definitely. It took a while but you earned it.

 

[pocaracas]

yeah…

I’ll try to avoid your superior intellect until I get out of my nappies…

 

[abucs]

That’s quite a big statement from you. Perhaps there is some hope.

While we have made some progress perhaps you should think about why you never even asked about the historical detail of any of the people I raised who were key people in the development of western science. Not one.

That is deliberately trying to side track the discussion.

It is not intelligent to break into a discussion regarding the strong Christian support and enlightenment of our society due to certain individuals regarding science and then not seek to address in detail any of their contributions nor the important impact of those contributions.

 

[pocaracas]

While we have made some progress perhaps you should think about why you never even asked about the historical detail of any of the people I raised who were key people in the development of western science. Not one.

That is deliberately trying to side track the discussion.

Really?
I read those as examples to support your point. And, instead of asking about them, I just presented examples of scientists that pre-dated (for the most part) your examples and were not connected to the church, like yours were. That’s why I put the dates in there.

It is not intelligent to break into a discussion

Well… It’s not nice.
It’s also not nice to quote mine Sorry about that!

It is not intelligent to break into a discussion regarding the strong Christian support and enlightenment of our society due to certain individuals regarding science and then not seek to address in detail any of their contributions nor the important impact of those contributions.

Is it really not intelligent?
By not mentioning them, I’m giving you the acknowledgement that those individuals did and were what you claimed.
By adding other individuals with a somewhat different background, I told (maybe I just hinted) you that Christianity was not the thing responsible for the science done.
But I guess that message got lost.

 

[benjamin1973]

Religion isn’t hereditary, so why would this matter?

The fact is that schools, and especially universities, are far more liberal than the population on the whole. So you can have whatever religion you want, but your daughter is more likely to be a feminist atheist than a traditional Christian.

 

[ConfusedLucy]

more

I wonder if people are less likely to follow in their parents footsteps than before due to peer culture and moving away from your hometown being more common.

 

[abucs]

Is it really not intelligent?

By not mentioning them, I’m giving you the acknowledgement that those individuals did and were what you claimed.

By adding other individuals with a somewhat different background, I told (maybe I just hinted) you that Christianity was not the thing responsible for the science done.

But I guess that message got lost.

You didn’t have a message. Everything was hinted at because you didn’t have an intelligent argument.

Nowhere in your writing did you say. Yes there were many foundational contributions to science from the Christian world. In fact the vast majority of scientific disciplines were founded by Christians, including quite a few clergy. It was of course this Christian dominated world from which modern science comes from, especially from Christian institutions founded, funded, spread, staffed and defended by the church.

There were other contributions to scientific enterprise including …

No you didn’t say that.

and 3 of the 4 people you did mention did in fact have connections to the church. The other one came from Persia. You mentioned these people without any context to fitting into the conversation.

These were your words

I’m curious about all the etc you mentioned.
Galileo? 1564[3] – 1642
Tycho Brahe? 1546 – 1601
Nicolaus Copernicus? 1473 – 1543
Avicenna? 980 – 1037… oooh Persian

That was it. No context in why you brought up these names following on from the discussion regarding Christian contributions to western science.

As I said 3 of the 4 you mentioned did in fact have church connections and the other was Persian and in the context of western science he was not even from the west.

The church universities included Avicenna in their curriculum and the church as an organisation gave cash rewards for anyone who could produce a lost document from the ancient Greek philosophers. In such a way the institution of the church saved countless important writings which aided philosophy and intellectual thought which was a precursor to science.

Your comment that science developed not because of religion but in spite of it is at odds with historical reality.

Your comment is also at odds with your above claim that in not mentioning the many 'Christian founders of scientific disciplines including the ones I listed you were somehow acknowledging their important contribution…

You clearly weren’t.

 

[StevenFrancis]

It will change over time with prayer, fasting, evangelization and witness with our own lives of the Christian truths and mysteries

 

[Scott_Milso]

People of faith are constantly mocked and belittled by the liberal left.

 

[pocaracas]

One can wonder, if Christianity hadn’t been adopted by Constantine, if Europe would have had a different continent-wide religion and if these people or others would have also developed these scientific ideas…
I’m of the opinion that yes they would.
So, they developed them, in spite of Christianity.
You are implying that they developed them because of Christianity. Were it not for Christianity, what?.. we’d still be barbarians? Americans would still be indigenous?

 

[abucs]

One can wonder, if Christianity hadn’t been adopted by Constantine, if Europe would have had a different continent-wide religion and if these people or others would have also developed these scientific ideas…

I’m of the opinion that yes they would.

So, they developed them, in spite of Christianity.

You are implying that they developed them because of Christianity. Were it not for Christianity, what?.. we’d still be barbarians? Americans would still be indigenous?

Typical atheist response. All over the place to try and save face instead of talking sensibly.

You guys are like children.

break into the conversation…Ignore the main point…start going off in all directions… be completely irrational and inconsistent

then end with more of the same with the typical rubbish…

one can wonder…,if this,…,… if that… if something else… I then reckon this…therefore its true… mis-understand the phrase 'in spite of… allege something that wasn’t said… answer your own question and project it on someone else…

God you people are so irrational.