Yes, I agree, 'the origins' are unprovable. However, any theory becoming fact depends on a far more universal interpretation of the evidence or even what evidence is deemed relevant. In my opinion, to say evolution is fact is still a stretch. Whether macro or micro evolution is in focus brings in another variable. Some actually do use evolution as an all-encompassing theory specifically to delete deity from the equation. Since you reject that stance, I find you to be a rational supporter of evolution. In a similar manner, many "religious" people reject the dogmatic assertion that God alone created the universe with no evolution at all.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Stingray, I think the main point is that 'the origins' are unprovable. But evolution is fact. The primordial goo theory makes the most sense to me, but it would be ignorant to say I know that's how we came about. Evolution and Creationism aren't even comparable ideas. One explains the concept of things changing over time, the other attempts to create a universal roadmap of existence. Evolution isn't an all-encompassing theory where the end game is to demonstrate that we arose from lightning striking primordial elemental pools.
Why be all or nothing about it? At least the hybrid is compatible with science. I can get along just fine with people who hold that belief set. Literal creationists are the problem, not people that simply choose to hold onto faith. It doesn't do any harm, and probably has a positive on their life. Let it be.Ty wrote:
I'm sorry but that is horse shit. You know what 'seeking discovery' actually entails right? It's gathering evidence and drawing conclusions based on this evidence. What you're talking about, which would fit under creative design theory, is a conclusion in search of evidence. It's not a middle ground or a hybrid it just reflects a different kind of ignorance - faith. It's a side that isn't seeking discovery, it's seeking God.Stingray24 wrote:
Disagree with their conclusions if you like, but stating that only one side is seeking discovery is simply false. There is also a hybrid position between the two opposing views which is that God made matter, then set evolution in motion with the big bang. Neither side will ever prove scientifically that their view of our origins occurred.Ty wrote:
Yeah but RAIMUS you're missing the main difference. While one side admits that there are things we don't know and strives to understand these the other side shrugs and says "well since we don't know - a wizard did it." One side embraces the unknown and explores it, the other covers themselves in a blanket of willful ignorance and closes its ears. This is the 21st Century, we don't have to live in the stupid ages any more.
It's an attitude more than a result that's the important factor here. You may say 'neither side has conclusively proven much of anything' on the creation of the universe but it's clear that at least one side eventually might while the other hasn't got any closer in the past 2000 years and wont in the future either.
The absoluite truth of the matter is that we simply don't know, there is a gap in our knowledge. Why is there the need to fill this gap with God? Come on people, as a species we should be smarter than this.
But yeah, we're kind of getting off topic a bit now.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Also, the 'i'm smarter than you because i don't believe in god' shit i've seen a few times in this thread is seriously just about the most obnoxious thing anyone could possibly say. They're not doing you any harm, and church going people are some of the nicest, happiest people i've known. Perhaps they're the more intelligent ones. Who wants to walk through life pissed off and constantly looking for a fight?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I'm quite aware of what is involved in seeking discovery. Are you aware there are "religious" folks who study in every branch of science? A conclusion in search of evidence could be said about either side depending on one's bias. Faith and seeking discovery are not mutually exclusive, though I can see how one who rejects any and all faith would hold that view. If we simply don't know, how can you eliminate God completely from the equation? Anyway, we are off topic.Ty wrote:
I'm sorry but that is horse shit. You know what 'seeking discovery' actually entails right? It's gathering evidence and drawing conclusions based on this evidence. What you're talking about, which would fit under creative design theory, is a conclusion in search of evidence. It's not a middle ground or a hybrid it just reflects a different kind of ignorance - faith. It's a side that isn't seeking discovery, it's seeking God.Stingray24 wrote:
Disagree with their conclusions if you like, but stating that only one side is seeking discovery is simply false. There is also a hybrid position between the two opposing views which is that God made matter, then set evolution in motion with the big bang. Neither side will ever prove scientifically that their view of our origins occurred.Ty wrote:
Yeah but RAIMUS you're missing the main difference. While one side admits that there are things we don't know and strives to understand these the other side shrugs and says "well since we don't know - a wizard did it." One side embraces the unknown and explores it, the other covers themselves in a blanket of willful ignorance and closes its ears. This is the 21st Century, we don't have to live in the stupid ages any more.
It's an attitude more than a result that's the important factor here. You may say 'neither side has conclusively proven much of anything' on the creation of the universe but it's clear that at least one side eventually might while the other hasn't got any closer in the past 2000 years and wont in the future either.
The absoluite truth of the matter is that we simply don't know, there is a gap in our knowledge. Why is there the need to fill this gap with God? Come on people, as a species we should be smarter than this.
But yeah, we're kind of getting off topic a bit now.
lol'd. Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder!Stingray24 wrote:
In my opinion, to say evolution is fact is still a stretch.
We are off topic, (my fault,) but whatever, I'll roll with it.
I do admittedly reject faith, at least on a religious level, and I don't mind being judged on that either. And it's not so much an "I'm smarter than you because I don't believe in God" by the way Jay it's more an "I'm smarter than you because I look to rational critical thought rather than fairy stories." Say what you will about that.
And yeah Stingray, some scientific minds are religious people. Francis Collins was the head of the operation that mapped the human genome, (more an administrator than a researcher but certainly an intelligent man,) and he is very religious - he believes the whole thing too about the Garden of Eden and all that rubbish. Of course in my view his religiousness doesn't play in his favour in terms of how I consider his intelligence but whatever, you're right. That's one of the things I struggle to understand, how these otherwise intelligent people can believe nonsensicle and unnecessary bullshit.
Jay, you say "it's just faith" and "it's harmless" and expect me to back off out of respect - but its not harmless. Religion denies rights to people, it protests the funerals of war veterans, it blows up people, it opresses people, it holds back progress. It justifies all of this under texts from a time where people barely understood the world around them. It could be harmful in more subtle ways too. People like George W Bush believe that the second coming of Jesus and the Apocalypse will happen in his lifetime and his Presidency certainly didn't show him as a man who was planning for the future. And I don't think religion is responsible for the nice happy church-going people you talk about either. I mean I'm an athiest and I'm very happy, I'm also very polite, kind, incredibly modest and not at all pretentious. Where is the requirement that this niceness or sense of happiness has to come along with the belief of the world being created in six days and the son of a virgin performing magic tricks in ancient Judea? Because it's comfortable? Because people fear death and want to believe there's something afterwards? Because they want to know that there's some higher purpose or plan? Is this superficial comfort really worth it when you consider all the problems religion has caused and is still causing? It comes time for people to put away childish things and as a species I sincerely believe that we're far too old for this shit. We grew out of Santa Claus we can grow out of this. But if you do want to believe in this kind of thing for your own personal reasons, spirituality or whatever, I wont stop you but I'm not going to refrain from pointing out that it's stupid either. I'm certainly not going to respect a politician who puts religion before rationality as I believe Rick Perry would, (yay, topical!)
But I perhaps haven't been clear about my own beliefs. I don't discount God from the equasion. Not entirely anyway, (about 99.9%.) I simply stress the fact that on the big questions we don't know. I believe in doubt. Religion is the antithesis of doubt, it preaches certainty. We are far from a certain species, our history is a map of us getting stuff so very very wrong. I accept that while religion kind of sweeps it under the carpet. I honestly think that if everyone were to accept this human fallacy, this humility, (which ironically religion preaches,) we would be so much better off. And one of the best first steps we could take is recognising that a politician with strong religious beliefs and motivations is not necessarily someone who should hold public office, (yay, topical again!)
Bam. Well that's me out on the table.
I do admittedly reject faith, at least on a religious level, and I don't mind being judged on that either. And it's not so much an "I'm smarter than you because I don't believe in God" by the way Jay it's more an "I'm smarter than you because I look to rational critical thought rather than fairy stories." Say what you will about that.
And yeah Stingray, some scientific minds are religious people. Francis Collins was the head of the operation that mapped the human genome, (more an administrator than a researcher but certainly an intelligent man,) and he is very religious - he believes the whole thing too about the Garden of Eden and all that rubbish. Of course in my view his religiousness doesn't play in his favour in terms of how I consider his intelligence but whatever, you're right. That's one of the things I struggle to understand, how these otherwise intelligent people can believe nonsensicle and unnecessary bullshit.
Jay, you say "it's just faith" and "it's harmless" and expect me to back off out of respect - but its not harmless. Religion denies rights to people, it protests the funerals of war veterans, it blows up people, it opresses people, it holds back progress. It justifies all of this under texts from a time where people barely understood the world around them. It could be harmful in more subtle ways too. People like George W Bush believe that the second coming of Jesus and the Apocalypse will happen in his lifetime and his Presidency certainly didn't show him as a man who was planning for the future. And I don't think religion is responsible for the nice happy church-going people you talk about either. I mean I'm an athiest and I'm very happy, I'm also very polite, kind, incredibly modest and not at all pretentious. Where is the requirement that this niceness or sense of happiness has to come along with the belief of the world being created in six days and the son of a virgin performing magic tricks in ancient Judea? Because it's comfortable? Because people fear death and want to believe there's something afterwards? Because they want to know that there's some higher purpose or plan? Is this superficial comfort really worth it when you consider all the problems religion has caused and is still causing? It comes time for people to put away childish things and as a species I sincerely believe that we're far too old for this shit. We grew out of Santa Claus we can grow out of this. But if you do want to believe in this kind of thing for your own personal reasons, spirituality or whatever, I wont stop you but I'm not going to refrain from pointing out that it's stupid either. I'm certainly not going to respect a politician who puts religion before rationality as I believe Rick Perry would, (yay, topical!)
But I perhaps haven't been clear about my own beliefs. I don't discount God from the equasion. Not entirely anyway, (about 99.9%.) I simply stress the fact that on the big questions we don't know. I believe in doubt. Religion is the antithesis of doubt, it preaches certainty. We are far from a certain species, our history is a map of us getting stuff so very very wrong. I accept that while religion kind of sweeps it under the carpet. I honestly think that if everyone were to accept this human fallacy, this humility, (which ironically religion preaches,) we would be so much better off. And one of the best first steps we could take is recognising that a politician with strong religious beliefs and motivations is not necessarily someone who should hold public office, (yay, topical again!)
Bam. Well that's me out on the table.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
We share the same beliefs. I don't claim anything but agnosticism, with a super heavy leaning towards no belief at all. I just can't commit to ruling anything out simply because there is no way to know. If you asked me straight up if I believe in a deity I would say no, but you always have to leave open any possibility that isn't slammed shut by reality.
I just try to be more respectful towards others religious views. As long as they aren't trying to preach to me, I will confer the same amount of respect on them. Preaching is exactly what you're doing when you go out of your way to put others down that don't share your beliefs. Whether you've thought about it or not in that light and just don't care... well, don't bitch when they hand you their religious tracts or knock on your door then.
I just try to be more respectful towards others religious views. As long as they aren't trying to preach to me, I will confer the same amount of respect on them. Preaching is exactly what you're doing when you go out of your way to put others down that don't share your beliefs. Whether you've thought about it or not in that light and just don't care... well, don't bitch when they hand you their religious tracts or knock on your door then.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You know if you look in the mirror there is evidence of the third eyelid we once had.AussieReaper wrote:
lol'd. Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder!Stingray24 wrote:
In my opinion, to say evolution is fact is still a stretch.
I know we get goosebumps, like other animals, because we used to make our hair stand when we were frightened.. to seem bigger.
(just some of the more interesting things I remember from elementary school ..lol)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
When I railed against creationism I was talking specifically about those who outright deny evolution and other scientific findings based on their religion. On the topic of whether or not religion is dangerous, it's irrelevant. The more you try to fight it the more fanatical its followers become.
My beliefs are much like Jay's. Although I'm absolutely certain none of the religions on earth got it right (there's just no such thing as personal allpowerful deities that regularily intervene in the happenings on this insignificant space rock), I leave the concept of god in its most basic form (sentient creator) as an option. Really, beyond the big bang noone really knows what happened. Personally I prefer the view the ancient Greeks held which is that the very first step is probably chaos (a formless void of matter that came into existence at the end of reason: the illogical, lawlessness, non existence). The question to me is whether this void would need sentience to produce a universe, which is governed completely by laws and reason - unlike where the void came from, or if you can leave even that up to probability.
Honestly the greeks were much more sophisticated than these christian barbarians . Ultimately though it's pointless to even think about it. I can't possibly know the answer.
My beliefs are much like Jay's. Although I'm absolutely certain none of the religions on earth got it right (there's just no such thing as personal allpowerful deities that regularily intervene in the happenings on this insignificant space rock), I leave the concept of god in its most basic form (sentient creator) as an option. Really, beyond the big bang noone really knows what happened. Personally I prefer the view the ancient Greeks held which is that the very first step is probably chaos (a formless void of matter that came into existence at the end of reason: the illogical, lawlessness, non existence). The question to me is whether this void would need sentience to produce a universe, which is governed completely by laws and reason - unlike where the void came from, or if you can leave even that up to probability.
Honestly the greeks were much more sophisticated than these christian barbarians . Ultimately though it's pointless to even think about it. I can't possibly know the answer.
inane little opines
Pre-Planck time is inherently unknowable etc. etc. etc.
Unless some of the dark flow/CMB pattern work by Penrose and others bears fruit.
Unless some of the dark flow/CMB pattern work by Penrose and others bears fruit.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
As has already been pointed out: Texas doesn't teach creationism in its schools. So how exactly has appointing this guy somehow imposed his beliefs on the education system of the state?Ty wrote:
No I'm not, I'm simply suggesting that someone who wasn't so religiously slanted would have recognised that it was a bad idea to appoint a backwards-thinking willfully ignorant person, Don McLeroy, to head the state's board of education.FEOS wrote:
Creationism was not a litmus test for the position. You are confusing correlation with causation.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
For those who think that "seeking discovery" means eschewing God/religion:Ty wrote:
I'm sorry but that is horse shit. You know what 'seeking discovery' actually entails right? It's gathering evidence and drawing conclusions based on this evidence. What you're talking about, which would fit under creative design theory, is a conclusion in search of evidence. It's not a middle ground or a hybrid it just reflects a different kind of ignorance - faith. It's a side that isn't seeking discovery, it's seeking God.Stingray24 wrote:
Disagree with their conclusions if you like, but stating that only one side is seeking discovery is simply false. There is also a hybrid position between the two opposing views which is that God made matter, then set evolution in motion with the big bang. Neither side will ever prove scientifically that their view of our origins occurred.Ty wrote:
Yeah but RAIMUS you're missing the main difference. While one side admits that there are things we don't know and strives to understand these the other side shrugs and says "well since we don't know - a wizard did it." One side embraces the unknown and explores it, the other covers themselves in a blanket of willful ignorance and closes its ears. This is the 21st Century, we don't have to live in the stupid ages any more.
It's an attitude more than a result that's the important factor here. You may say 'neither side has conclusively proven much of anything' on the creation of the universe but it's clear that at least one side eventually might while the other hasn't got any closer in the past 2000 years and wont in the future either.
The absolute truth of the matter is that we simply don't know, there is a gap in our knowledge. Why is there the need to fill this gap with God? Come on people, as a species we should be smarter than this.
But yeah, we're kind of getting off topic a bit now.
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Science-C … 1596981555
What I haven't heard yet about this book (will have to pick it up to see if it covers it--have only heard a couple of interviews with the author) is the apparent inconsistency WRT the Church persecuting early scientists...but some of the above seems to cover that.Maybe the Dark Ages Weren't So Dark After All...
Here are some facts you probably didn't learn in school:
People in the Middle Ages did not think the world was flat--in fact, medieval scholars could prove it wasn't;
The Inquisition never executed anyone because of their scientific ideas or discoveries (actually, the Church was the chief sponsor of scientific research and several popes were celebrated for their knowledge of the subject);
It was medieval scientific discoveries, methods, and principles that made possible western civilization's "Scientific Revolution".
If you were taught that the Middle Ages were a time of intellectual stagnation, superstition, and ignorance, you were taught a myth that has been utterly refuted by modern scholarship.
As a physicist and historian of science James Hannam shows in his brilliant new book, The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution, without the scholarship of the "barbaric" Middle Ages, modern science simply would not exist.
The Middle Ages were a time of one intellectual triumph after another. As Dr. Hannam writes, "The people of medieval Europe invented spectacles, the mechanical clock, the windmill, and the blast furnace by themselves. Lenses and cameras, almost all kinds of machinery, and the industrial revolution itself all owe their origins to the forgotten inventors of the Middle Ages."
In The Genesis of Science you will discover:
Why the scientific accomplishments of the Middle Ages far surpassed those of the classical world;
How medieval craftsmen and scientists not only made discoveries of their own, but seized upon Eastern inventions--printing, gunpowder, and the compass--and improved them beyond the dreams of their originators;
How Galileo's notorious trial before the Inquisition was about politics, not science; and
Why the theology of the Catholic Church, far from being an impediment, led directly to the development of modern science.
Provocative, engaging, and a terrific read, James Hannam's The Genesis of Science will change the way you think about our past--and our future.
From the Back Cover
PRAISE FOR THE GENESIS OF SCIENCE
"With an engaging fervour, James Hannam has set about rescuing the reputation of a bunch of half-forgotten thinkers, and he shows how they paved the way for modern science." --Boris Johnson, Mail on Sunday
"This book contains much valuable material summarised with commendable no-nonsense clarity...James Hannam has done a fine job of knocking down an old caricature." --Sunday Telegraph
"Hannam, the liveliest of guides, makes enjoyable reading out of some seriously dusty history and difficult ideas." --Scotsman
"Here, in short, is a readable book, aimed at an intelligent but ignorant layman. You'll enjoy it." --Daniel Hannan MEP, Daily Telegraph
"A very useful general survey of a difficult topic, and a robust defence of an unfairly maligned age." --Spectator
As has been stated before, Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. One can believe a supreme being created the universe according to a set of rules, set things in motion, and evolution took over from there. Yes, I know that follows the "intelligent design" path of thought. But it goes back to the concept that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. IMO, those who argue either position with single-minded vehemence are evangelical followers of their own "religion."
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Ignorance is bliss I guess.Jay wrote:
They're not doing you any harm, and church going people are some of the nicest, happiest people i've known.
Church going people I've known are some of the worst hypocrites and have done some of the nastiest stuff imaginable.
"But I cannot sin, I'm a Christian" is always the excuse.
Fuck Israel
Book sounds interesting, I'd be keen to read it. I do object to the argument that cases against scientists like Galileo were "politics, not science" given how non-secular the middle ages were. Religion and politics were pretty much one in the same. Sounds like something I should read though.FEOS wrote:
As has been stated before, Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. One can believe a supreme being created the universe according to a set of rules, set things in motion, and evolution took over from there. Yes, I know that follows the "intelligent design" path of thought. But it goes back to the concept that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. IMO, those who argue either position with single-minded vehemence are evangelical followers of their own "religion."
Now your above point that Creationism and Evolution aren't mutually exclusive thanks to Creative Design - yes but my question is why God has to be a part of it. Why when we don't know what sparked it all of and are seeking enlightenment are we falling back into bad old habits and seeking explanation via a fiction? Nothing in any holy texts mention anything about creative design or evolution in any way. The Bible is quite clear about its opinion on the matter in fact. Creative Design, in its liberal form at least, is just Evolution with God shoe-horned in there for no other purpose but to placate those who would be uncomfortable otherwise. It's a security blanket. It may be harmless but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to think it's stupid or childish.
Also FEOS in regard to Mr McLeroy, look at what he did, or more tried to do, while on the Texas Board of Education. The truth is he could have been very very harmful if it wasn't for other board members voting him down. Many of his attempts to discredit evolution failed because others wouldn't let him do what he wanted to. And not only evolution, he wanted to teach abstinance only in schools, (which I always find ironic from Christian lobbyists as it is only under their faith that abstinence isn't 100% effective.) McLeroy is an idiot and that's regardless of his religious beliefs - but you can see through his tenure that religion played a significant part. His conduct was far from secular and that's what I have a major problem with. I may not be the most tolerant person when it comes to religion but I can appreciate a religious person holding office if their conduct is truly secular. People like McLeroy and most likely Perry too is that they can't keep their religion out of their politics and it is only due to the efforts of others that it is kept at bay.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Yes, we all know people like that.Dilbert_X wrote:
Ignorance is bliss I guess.Jay wrote:
They're not doing you any harm, and church going people are some of the nicest, happiest people i've known.
Church going people I've known are some of the worst hypocrites and have done some of the nastiest stuff imaginable.
"But I cannot sin, I'm a Christian" is always the excuse.
I, for one, don't think a small group defines the whole.
Well, except muslims or the dutch. Or worse...Dutch muslims (duslims).
WRT the book, the whole premise is the very nature and doctrine of Christianity is what led to the birth of science as we know it (according to interviews with the author). That accepting everything has been put together according to some set of rules set forth by God and that we should learn those rules to better understand God...that was (to paraphrase) the birth of science, and why it was also predominantly in the Church. Of course, the book goes into a lot more detail, I'm sure. I found it a fascinating premise that I had not heard before.Ty wrote:
Book sounds interesting, I'd be keen to read it. I do object to the argument that cases against scientists like Galileo were "politics, not science" given how non-secular the middle ages were. Religion and politics were pretty much one in the same. Sounds like something I should read though.FEOS wrote:
As has been stated before, Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. One can believe a supreme being created the universe according to a set of rules, set things in motion, and evolution took over from there. Yes, I know that follows the "intelligent design" path of thought. But it goes back to the concept that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. IMO, those who argue either position with single-minded vehemence are evangelical followers of their own "religion."
Now your above point that Creationism and Evolution aren't mutually exclusive thanks to Creative Design - yes but my question is why God has to be a part of it. Why when we don't know what sparked it all of and are seeking enlightenment are we falling back into bad old habits and seeking explanation via a fiction? Nothing in any holy texts mention anything about creative design or evolution in any way. The Bible is quite clear about its opinion on the matter in fact. Creative Design, in its liberal form at least, is just Evolution with God shoe-horned in there for no other purpose but to placate those who would be uncomfortable otherwise. It's a security blanket. It may be harmless but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to think it's stupid or childish.
Also FEOS in regard to Mr McLeroy, look at what he did, or more tried to do, while on the Texas Board of Education. The truth is he could have been very very harmful if it wasn't for other board members voting him down. Many of his attempts to discredit evolution failed because others wouldn't let him do what he wanted to. And not only evolution, he wanted to teach abstinance only in schools, (which I always find ironic from Christian lobbyists as it is only under their faith that abstinence isn't 100% effective.) McLeroy is an idiot and that's regardless of his religious beliefs - but you can see through his tenure that religion played a significant part. His conduct was far from secular and that's what I have a major problem with. I may not be the most tolerant person when it comes to religion but I can appreciate a religious person holding office if their conduct is truly secular. People like McLeroy and most likely Perry too is that they can't keep their religion out of their politics and it is only due to the efforts of others that it is kept at bay.
As to Perry and McLeroy: I've been in Texas the entire time that went on. When you look at the actual changes that were proposed and that went in to the textbooks, they are a far cry from what national/international media overhyped them to be. They dealt with facts, did not have racist overtones (as some claimed), and did not teach creationism. Nor has Perry been particularly religious in his governance. In fact, his faith never even became an issue until the Reliant Stadium thing...which had nothing to do with governance.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
That's a massive huge spectacular stretch.FEOS wrote:
WRT the book, the whole premise is the very nature and doctrine of Christianity is what led to the birth of science as we know it (according to interviews with the author).
Modern science and technology has more to do with Western Europeans expanding upon Greek and Middle Eastern tech and theories in an effort to one up each other than it'll ever have to do Christianity.
I'll concede that the Dark Ages weren't very 'dark' but to give credit for modern science to middle age Christians is absurd. It also smells of Eurocentrism.
The case against Galileo was very political. The Pope, Galileo's friend, gave him permission to present both sides of the argument so long as it was not presented "scientifically". In fact, the Pope (Barberini) never read Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. In that book the church's position was represented by a character name Simplicio (simpleton). The church saw this as an attack on their authority, being that it seemingly dismissed their position and challenged it's power. For what it is worth Galileo was not anti-Religion. His daughter was a Nun, and she even helped him serve his penance.Ty wrote:
Book sounds interesting, I'd be keen to read it. I do object to the argument that cases against scientists like Galileo were "politics, not science" given how non-secular the middle ages were. Religion and politics were pretty much one in the same. Sounds like something I should read though.FEOS wrote:
As has been stated before, Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. One can believe a supreme being created the universe according to a set of rules, set things in motion, and evolution took over from there. Yes, I know that follows the "intelligent design" path of thought. But it goes back to the concept that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. IMO, those who argue either position with single-minded vehemence are evangelical followers of their own "religion."
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Like I said, sounds like something I should read, mostly because I think that is a massive overstatement. An interesting stance but not one I can see myself agreeing with.FEOS wrote:
WRT the book, the whole premise is the very nature and doctrine of Christianity is what led to the birth of science as we know it (according to interviews with the author). That accepting everything has been put together according to some set of rules set forth by God and that we should learn those rules to better understand God...that was (to paraphrase) the birth of science, and why it was also predominantly in the Church. Of course, the book goes into a lot more detail, I'm sure. I found it a fascinating premise that I had not heard before.
Well I don't live in Texas, (although my Dad works for a company based there,) but I do know that if anyone here in New Zealand reflected the kind of non-secular over-religious rhetoric and actions that Perry and particularly McLeroy have they would be booted out of public office at the first chance. Simply because you live in the US and the Bible Belt in particular you don't see their actions as particularly out of the ordinary. It's just a reflection of where we both live and what our experiences have been. I can't help seeing that there is a problem with putting a man like McLeroy in a position where he can potentially achieve things like discrediting evolution in schoolbooks or teaching abstinance only sexual education. A man like that can be a religious shock jock or blogger or the leader of a lobby group - but not head of an Education Board for a state in a secular nation. And yes, America is a secular nation, not a "Christian nation founded on christian values" like McLeroy and so many others keep saying.As to Perry and McLeroy: I've been in Texas the entire time that went on. When you look at the actual changes that were proposed and that went in to the textbooks, they are a far cry from what national/international media overhyped them to be. They dealt with facts, did not have racist overtones (as some claimed), and did not teach creationism. Nor has Perry been particularly religious in his governance. In fact, his faith never even became an issue until the Reliant Stadium thing... which had nothing to do with governance.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
It has a lot to do with the plague. With the sudden and dramatic decrease in population there was plenty of resources to go around. This allowed for the Renaissance. People now had the luxury of sitting around creating art and pondering science. They did not have that after the fall of Rome. When Rome fell Europe was split and left constantly tending the fields and fending off invading northern tribes (like the Vikings).Macbeth wrote:
That's a massive huge spectacular stretch.FEOS wrote:
WRT the book, the whole premise is the very nature and doctrine of Christianity is what led to the birth of science as we know it (according to interviews with the author).
Modern science and technology has more to do with Western Europeans expanding upon Greek and Middle Eastern tech and theories in an effort to one up each other than it'll ever have to do Christianity.
I'll concede that the Dark Ages weren't very 'dark' but to give credit for modern science to middle age Christians is absurd. It also smells of Eurocentrism.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Most people put way too much emphasize on the tribal part of the Dark ages and think that the period was just filled with rape and pillaging after the light of the world went out. The Maygars, Anglo Saxons, Viking etc. all, eventually, civilized and cut out kingdoms and provided stability to the areas they went preceded over. Infrastructure did fall apart after the Romans but people adapted, culture started to recover and banditry began to subside.When Rome fell Europe was split and left constantly tending the fields and fending off invading northern tribes (like the Vikings).
Of course this is also ignoring the fact that after Rome fell the ERE conquered most of their territory and held it for nearly a century including the backbone of the WRE, Italy.
Well. I'm not one of those people. That isn't to say that the Dark ages wasn't full of the aforementioned stuff. Yes banditry eventually subsided (derp?). But for a good period of time the wealthy had to hire ex-Roman trained legionaries and soldiers to protect their lands, as well as the people that served them. These were the knights, which btw were just as responsible for making peasantry life miserable. They were like mob muscle. It was around the time of Clovis that Europe finally began to unite, becoming less 'tribal'. Though Justinian did make a run at bringing the Roman Mediterranean empire (light) back. .. before he went mad.Macbeth wrote:
Most people put way too much emphasize on the tribal part of the Dark ages and think that the period was just filled with rape and pillaging after the light of the world went out. The Maygars, Anglo Saxons, Viking etc. all, eventually, civilized and cut out kingdoms and provided stability to the areas they went preceded over. Infrastructure did fall apart after the Romans but people adapted, culture started to recover and banditry began to subside.When Rome fell Europe was split and left constantly tending the fields and fending off invading northern tribes (like the Vikings).
Of course this is also ignoring the fact that after Rome fell the ERE conquered most of their territory and held it for nearly a century including the backbone of the WRE, Italy.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I find the idea that Christianity is responsible for the birth of science very hard, not least since scientific thought preceded Christ.Macbeth wrote:
That's a massive huge spectacular stretch.FEOS wrote:
WRT the book, the whole premise is the very nature and doctrine of Christianity is what led to the birth of science as we know it (according to interviews with the author).
Modern science and technology has more to do with Western Europeans expanding upon Greek and Middle Eastern tech and theories in an effort to one up each other than it'll ever have to do Christianity.
I'll concede that the Dark Ages weren't very 'dark' but to give credit for modern science to middle age Christians is absurd. It also smells of Eurocentrism.
Fuck Israel
A lot of Churches preserved scientific knowledge through the dark ages, simply because that's where they kept the books and people who could read. You had to learn to read to read the Bible. At the same time though, they certainly withheld learning from other groups of people. Especially when those texts conflicted with the teachings of the Church.Dilbert_X wrote:
I find the idea that Christianity is responsible for the birth of science very hard, not least since scientific thought preceded Christ.
Incorrect assumption on your part regarding what I would view as abnormal regarding religion and secularism and why. The SBOE issue raised a hell of a ruckus here "right in the middle of the bible belt" because the majority of people here don't want religion taught in public schools. They don't want all mention of a certain religion specifically excluded, either. And Perry never said dammit about religion during the SBOE thing, or at any other time during his terms as governor. That was my point in mentioning that I live here and experienced this stuff roughly first hand...it was blown largely out of proportion by the media outside of Texas and outside of the US, neither of whom bothered to learn anything beyond sound bites if "bible belt" and "creationism in schools" and a couple of others that had nothing to do with the facts on the ground.Ty wrote:
Like I said, sounds like something I should read, mostly because I think that is a massive overstatement. An interesting stance but not one I can see myself agreeing with.FEOS wrote:
WRT the book, the whole premise is the very nature and doctrine of Christianity is what led to the birth of science as we know it (according to interviews with the author). That accepting everything has been put together according to some set of rules set forth by God and that we should learn those rules to better understand God...that was (to paraphrase) the birth of science, and why it was also predominantly in the Church. Of course, the book goes into a lot more detail, I'm sure. I found it a fascinating premise that I had not heard before.Well I don't live in Texas, (although my Dad works for a company based there,) but I do know that if anyone here in New Zealand reflected the kind of non-secular over-religious rhetoric and actions that Perry and particularly McLeroy have they would be booted out of public office at the first chance. Simply because you live in the US and the Bible Belt in particular you don't see their actions as particularly out of the ordinary. It's just a reflection of where we both live and what our experiences have been. I can't help seeing that there is a problem with putting a man like McLeroy in a position where he can potentially achieve things like discrediting evolution in schoolbooks or teaching abstinance only sexual education. A man like that can be a religious shock jock or blogger or the leader of a lobby group - but not head of an Education Board for a state in a secular nation. And yes, America is a secular nation, not a "Christian nation founded on christian values" like McLeroy and so many others keep saying.As to Perry and McLeroy: I've been in Texas the entire time that went on. When you look at the actual changes that were proposed and that went in to the textbooks, they are a far cry from what national/international media overhyped them to be. They dealt with facts, did not have racist overtones (as some claimed), and did not teach creationism. Nor has Perry been particularly religious in his governance. In fact, his faith never even became an issue until the Reliant Stadium thing... which had nothing to do with governance.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular