You do and be our guest.
Christians are anti-science.
- Thread starter Grugore
- Start date
You do and be our guest.
Not just Christians who are anti science, but religions. The Arab nations were the most advanced a couple thousand years ago in science and math. That is why you use Arabic numerals. The Europeans adopted what they learned from them. Then Islam came along, dragging them backwards.
Christianity was a believer in burning down libraries and fighting scientific knowledge. The Dark Ages are a reminder oif what they did and are still doing when we let them get away with it. Remember the Inquisition? Those powers are stll alive and well in the church.
The Arabs. http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/arabic-roots-scientific-revolution
Christianity was a believer in burning down libraries and fighting scientific knowledge. The Dark Ages are a reminder oif what they did and are still doing when we let them get away with it. Remember the Inquisition? Those powers are stll alive and well in the church.
The Arabs. http://www.muslimheritage.com/article/arabic-roots-scientific-revolution
What she said.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
This comes from their misunderstanding of what 'science' is...
Science is defined by philosophy as 'a set of falsifiable theories'. That's literally all science is.
Atheists tend to think that science is some sort of "method" (they can never describe what it is) and they seem to think that science uses supporting evidence (it doesn't) and that science can prove things (it can't).
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
I think a decent amount of people who hold to the religion of Creationism become "anti-science" because they don't understand what religion and science even are, so they think that science is an "enemy" to their God.
I understand what both of them are, and I am a Creationist Christian who is not "anti-science".
Irish Exit
Verified User
Scientist are anti-science these days.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
VERY true... Especially when it comes to the "global warming" buzzword...
Those scientists deny multiple scientific laws, such as the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan-boltzmann law.
Irish Exit
Verified User
What I have noticed in climate stuff is that there a large disconnect between what the researchers say and what the "Climate scientists" say about the research. Researchers say we need more research generally. The Climate "Scientists" proclaim that the research done by the researchers who think we need more research conclusive "proves" things the researchers who did the research labeled a possibility but allowed for alternate explanations. One case I recall specifically encountering this with was a group of British researchers who were measuring water temps in the antarctic that found warmer than expected temps, but acknowledged they don't have a lot of real world data to compare it to, especially at depths, and that the reason could be the prevailing winds were pushing warmer waters toward the area. All the alternate explanations were tossed out the window when their study reached the hands of the "Climate Scientists".
Not all of them. Just the ones who believe that the theory of evolution is based on real science.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
The Theory of Evolution isn't even science, to be honest... It is a religion.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Religion is an initial circular argument with additional arguments extending from that initial circular argument.
The Theory of Evolution is non-falsifiable, so it is not science. It is religion.
You're, of course, referring to a law that "applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation."
I see creationists refer to laws of thermodynamic frequently. Their clams are debunked every time.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Nope. My current understanding is that it applies to all bodies.
Bulverism fallacy.
It doesn't. Blackbodies. Earth is not one.
I'll repeat. Creationists frequently refer to the laws of thermodynamics in attempts to prove their religious case. Pseudo-science. Those claims are debunked every time.
You're the one who claims dictionaries don't contain definitions, aren't you?
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
It doesn't. Blackbodies. Earth is not one.
I'll repeat. Creationists frequently refer to the laws of thermodynamics in attempts to prove their religious case. Pseudo-science. Those claims are debunked every time.
You're the one who claims dictionaries don't contain definitions, aren't you?
I never said that they don't contain definitions... I said that they don't define words. Address my actual argument next time...
Gonna split some hairs there, aren’t you, Jethro? They don’t define words, but they provide definitions.
Earth is not a blackbody, is it, Rufus?
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Gonna split some hairs there, aren’t you, Jethro? They don’t define words, but they provide definitions.
Earth is not a blackbody, is it, Rufus?
You do know that there is a difference between offering definitions and being the source of definitions, right?
Source? What is that? Your Creationist god?
Words evolve, pally boy. From various languages, various times or are even coined. Old meanings disappear, new meanings appear. Spellings, as well. Your little “source” mantra is manure.
The premise that there is an inherent, long-standing, and irreconcilable conflict between science and religion is an artificial human construct of the 19th century.
The modern American presumption of relentless "conflict" between science and religion mainly originates from the Protestant Reformation, with it's emphasis on personal salvation and disregard for natural philosophy. The rise of American Protestant fundamentalism did not help matters, since that denomination of Christianity stresses biblical literalism and seems to gravitate to ignorance.
It is worth remembering that Arab advances in mathematics, astronomy, philosophy came as a result of the Golden Age of Islam. It is not attributable to Arab pagans. Though admittedly, Islamic scientific accomplishments declined after the Golden Age for reasons I am still not 100 percent sure about .
Christianity, natural philosophy, and science all synergistically contributed to our unique western emphasis on reason, logic, mathematics, scholarly skepticism.
That intellectual approach was a unique development of western civilization - and the Christianity of late antiquity and the middle ages played a fundamental role in laying the groundwork for the use of reason and scholarly inquiry in the west. Western science grew out of the Neoplatonism and Aristotelian logic of the Jesuit and Dominican orders, the scholarly theologies of Church fathers, and the Catholic universities of the middle ages.
Using reason and logic to study the natural world has historically been considered a form of religious devotion, from the Greeks to Isaac Newton. I always like to make the point that a seminal figure in the science of evolution, and widely considered to be the father of genetics, was the Catholic Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel.
In my opinion, bottom line is this:
The relationship between science and religion through history is complex, and for sure there were skirmishes. But western civilization and western science owes a deep and profound debt to western Christianity for blazing the trail in resurrecting Greek thought, elevating Platonic reason and Aristotelian logic to the pinnacle of western intellectual tradition, and establishing the principle of higher education by the development of universities. I doubt we would recognize western civilization and western science without its debt to the Christian theologians and scholars of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages
StoneByStone
It's OK to Be White
Very few Christians are anti-science in every aspect of their lives, but religious people are more likely to deny certain scientific facts that call religion into question. Atheists don't because they're not emotionally invested in maintaining religious ideas.
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Creationism is not anti-science.