IMAGE of the Day: Why Do We Need Science ?

[John Manning]

Have a look: http://www.bartcop.com/bible-not-science.jpg

[John Manning]

[Terry Cross]

On May 16, 10:18 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> Have a look:http://www.bartcop.com/bible-not-science.jpg

You are committing a basic logical fallacy, called a "false
dichotomy." The "science" that has you so much agog was invented
mostly by Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

TCross

[casey]

On May 17, 3:18 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> Have a look:http://www.bartcop.com/bible-not-science.jpg

If you don't need science then I challenge you
to give up ALL the products of science and go
back and live like an animal in a cave clutching
your Bible without science that has made the
production of food easy and provided cures
for the horrible diseases the caveman had to
endure before his/her death.

[John Manning]

Another *totally false* assertion by
the shamefully dishonest Terry Cross.

Science in Early Cultures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science#Early_cultures




>
> TCross
>

[MattB .]

Actually they couldn't have a Bible without science. Not in book form
anyway.

What kind of book can be made without any science?

[Terry Cross]

On May 16, 12:06 pm, MattB . <trdell1...@spamnogmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:55:31 -0700 (PDT), casey
>

You can't have science without religion. All the great discoveries
were made by Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists. Atheists
invented Communism, and the results are history.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

Until the Scientific Method, there was no "science". The science you
know was first called "natural philosophy," and it was started by
Christians. The rest of this stuff is NOT science. The people who
invented agriculture in various primitive cultures did not use the
scientific method.

Your article begins "In prehistoric times, advice and knowledge was
passed from generation to generation in an oral tradition." Yeah,
right. Number One, you have no evidence of this. It is speculation,
not science. Number two, that knowledge was based on myth,
superstition, practical experience (not science), and even
hallucination. If that is "science" to you, go for it.

TCross

[MattB .]

I wouldn't go that far. Then again some scientist of the past
worshipped rock.

Some atheist are as fanatical as some religious people.

[John Manning]

On 5/16/2013 4:19 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
> On May 16, 12:03 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>> On 5/16/2013 3:37 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
>>
>>> On May 16, 10:18 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>> Have a look:http://www.bartcop.com/bible-not-science.jpg
>>
>>> You are committing a basic logical fallacy, called a "false
>>> dichotomy." The "science" that has you so much agog was invented
>>> mostly by Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
>>
>> Another *totally false* assertion by
>> the shamefully dishonest Terry Cross.
>>
>> Science in Early Cultureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science#Early_cultures
>
> Until the Scientific Method, there was no "science". The science you
> know was first called "natural philosophy," and it was started by
> Christians. The rest of this stuff is NOT science. The people who
> invented agriculture in various primitive cultures did not use the
> scientific method.

Nope.

Plato's student Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) introduced empiricism
and the notion that universal truths can be arrived at via
observation and induction, *thereby laying the foundations of the*
*scientific method*

~~ O'Leary, De Lacy (1947). How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lacy_O%27Leary

>
> Your article begins "In prehistoric times, advice and knowledge was
> passed from generation to generation in an oral tradition."

Poor Terry just can't help lying.

A concrete instance of Pythagoras' law *was recorded* as early
as the 18th century BC: the Mesopotamian cuneiform tablet Plimpton
322 records a number of Pythagorean triplets (3,4,5) (5,12,13).
..., dated 1900 BC, possibly millennia before Pythagoras.

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/achieve.html


In Babylonian astronomy, *records* of the motions of the stars, planets,
and the moon are left on thousands of clay tablets created
by scribes.

Even today, astronomical periods identified by Mesopotamian
scientists are still widely used in Western calendars such as
the solar year and the lunar month. Using these data they
developed arithmetical methods to compute the changing length
of daylight in the course of the year and to predict the
appearances and disappearances of the Moon and planets and
eclipses of the Sun and Moon...

According to the historian A. Aaboe, "all subsequent varieties of
scientific astronomy, in the Hellenistic world, in India, in Islam, and
in the West—if not indeed all subsequent endeavor in the exact sciences—
*depend upon Babylonian astronomy* in decisive and fundamental ways."

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1257/21

Those are just a small sample of what readers can find
for themselves at the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science#Early_cultures


> Yeah,
> right.Number One, you have no evidence of this. It is speculation,

> not science. Number two, that knowledge was based on myth,
> superstition, practical experience (not science), and even
> hallucination. If that is "science" to you, go for it.

All you or any reader has to do is to read for themselves the material
at the link I provided to see what a shameful liar you are, Terry.



>
> TCross
>

[John Manning]

Here Terry once again makes a self-serving assertion
*without* any verifiable objective substantiation.

[Dreamer In Colore]

Are you out of your mind?

You think Archimedes, Aristotle, Thales, Pythagoras, Galen,
Hippocrates, and Eratosthenes were Christian or Jewish or Muslim?

Posting what you said was shameful.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

That's just plain wrong.

There are any number of great discoveries eminently attributable to
ancient scientists. Loads of Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and Indian
thinkers existed long before the rise of any of the religions you've
mentioned. The fact that they may or may not have been religiously
inclined is not relevant. It doesn't even matter that scientific
research was made easier by religious funds: the reality is that
Christian dogma crushed a lot of scientific research because that
conflicted with its own mythology. Look at what happened to Galileo
and Copernicus.

Communism, by the way, has nothing to do with science... so your
conclusions are feeble at best.

Would you prefer an alternative history where science was
non-existent?

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Terry Cross]

On May 16, 8:38 pm, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Do think Pythagoras was a "scientist"? Thales? Hippocrates?

> Posting what you said was shameful.

You can work out your shame in some other forum.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On May 16, 12:51 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> On 5/16/2013 4:19 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
> > On May 16, 12:03 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >> On 5/16/2013 3:37 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
>
> >>> On May 16, 10:18 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >>>> Have a look:http://www.bartcop.com/bible-not-science.jpg
>
> >>> You are committing a basic logical fallacy, called a "false
> >>> dichotomy."  The "science" that has you so much agog was invented
> >>> mostly by Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
>
> >> Another *totally false* assertion by
> >> the shamefully dishonest Terry Cross.
>
> >> Science in Early Cultureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science#Early_cultures
>
> > Until the Scientific Method, there was no "science".  The science you
> > know was first called "natural philosophy," and it was started by
> > Christians.  The rest of this stuff is NOT science.  The people who
> > invented agriculture in various primitive cultures did not use the
> > scientific method.
>
> Nope.
>
>    Plato's student Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) introduced empiricism

You are disappointingly incorrect. Socrates invented the hypothesis/
test/hypothesis cycle.

>    and the notion that universal truths can be arrived at via
>    observation and induction, *thereby laying the foundations of the*
>    *scientific method*

Foundations do not a structure make. You should research the phrase
"necessary but not sufficient."

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On May 16, 8:44 pm, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 16 May 2013 12:14:50 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 16, 12:06 pm, MattB    .  <trdell1...@spamnogmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:55:31 -0700 (PDT), casey
>
> >> <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> >On May 17, 3:18 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >> >> Have a look:http://www.bartcop.com/bible-not-science.jpg
>
> >> >If you don't need science then I challenge you
> >> >to give up ALL the products of science and go
> >> >back and live like an animal in a cave clutching
> >> >your Bible without science that has made the
> >> >production of food easy and provided cures
> >> >for the horrible diseases the caveman had to
> >> >endure before his/her death.
>
> >> Actually they couldn't have a Bible without science.  Not in book form
> >> anyway.
>
> >> What kind of book can be made without any science?
>
> >You can't have science without religion.  All the great discoveries
> >were made by Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists.  Atheists
> >invented Communism, and the results are history.
>
> That's just plain wrong.

What? You think communism was invented by Presbyterians?

> There are any number of great discoveries eminently attributable to
> ancient scientists.

There was no such animal. The Greeks called themselves "natural
philosophers," for example. Others were just folks working out the
truths of life. Science was not invented until Francis Bacon.

Loads of Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and Indian
> thinkers existed long before the rise of any of the religions you've
> mentioned.

Sure. But they weren't scientists.

TCross

[John Manning]

On 5/17/2013 1:14 AM, Terry Cross wrote:
> On May 16, 12:51 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>> On 5/16/2013 4:19 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
>>> On May 16, 12:03 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>> On 5/16/2013 3:37 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
>>
>>>>> On May 16, 10:18 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>> Have a look:http://www.bartcop.com/bible-not-science.jpg
>>
>>>>> You are committing a basic logical fallacy, called a "false
>>>>> dichotomy." The "science" that has you so much agog was invented
>>>>> mostly by Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
>>
>>>> Another *totally false* assertion by
>>>> the shamefully dishonest Terry Cross.
>>
>>>> Science in Early Cultureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science#Early_cultures
>>
>>> Until the Scientific Method, there was no "science". The science you
>>> know was first called "natural philosophy," and it was started by
>>> Christians. The rest of this stuff is NOT science. The people who
>>> invented agriculture in various primitive cultures did not use the
>>> scientific method.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Plato's student Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) introduced empiricism
>
>
> You are disappointingly incorrect. Socrates invented the hypothesis/
> test/hypothesis cycle.

Notice that Terry dishonestly snipped the full text.

Here it is again:

Plato's student Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) introduced empiricism

and the notion that universal truths can be arrived at via
observation and induction, *thereby laying the foundations of the*
*scientific method*

All you or any reader has to do is to read for themselves the material
at the link I provided to see what a shameful liar you are, Terry.

>> and the notion that universal truths can be arrived at via
>> observation and induction, *thereby laying the foundations of the*
>> *scientific method*
>
>
> Foundations do not a structure make. You should research the phrase
> "necessary but not sufficient."

Being dishonest and obtuse doesn't change the obvious facts throughout
the material, Terry.




>
> TCross
>

[John Manning]

Communism was invented by the Mormons in the 1800's when they
implemented their 'United Order'.

>> There are any number of great discoveries eminently attributable to
>> ancient scientists.
>
>
> There was no such animal. The Greeks called themselves "natural
> philosophers," for example. Others were just folks working out the
> truths of life. Science was not invented until Francis Bacon.
>
>
> Loads of Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and Indian
>> thinkers existed long before the rise of any of the religions you've
>> mentioned.
>
> Sure. But they weren't scientists.

Of course they were. You seem to think anyone who reads your nonsense
assertions will actually believe them.


>
> TCross
>

[walksalone]

John Manning <jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote in
news:2tGdnZum_e23rgvM...@giganews.com:

> On 5/17/2013 1:17 AM, Terry Cross wrote:
>> On May 16, 8:44 pm, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 12:14:50 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>>> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 16, 12:06 pm, MattB . <trdell1...@spamnogmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:55:31 -0700 (PDT), casey
>>>>> <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>> On May 17, 3:18 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>>>>>>> Have a look:http://www.bartcop.com/bible-not-science.jpg

snip

> What kind of book can be made without any science?
>>>
>>>> You can't have science without religion. All the great discoveries
>>>> were made by Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists. Atheists
>>>> invented Communism, and the results are history.
>>>
>>> That's just plain wrong.
>>
>>
>> What? You think communism was invented by Presbyterians?
>
> Communism was invented by the Mormons in the 1800's when they
> implemented their 'United Order'.

Earlier than that, it is first found in the Greek Testaments where some one
& his wife were killed because they sold the house & kept some of the
money. Or something like that.

snip, in case no one noticed.

walksalone who is going to invoke that great Vietnam war saying, I go now.

An oppressive government is more to be feared than a tiger, or a beer.
--Confucius.

[MarkA]

You are using a very narrow definition of science. To me, any time you
modify your behavior, based on observations of the results of previous
behavior, you are doing "science". For example, if you are making
meatloaf, and the recipe calls for adding 1 Tablespoon of salt, and you
find the meatloaf is too salty, so the next time you make it,
you only add 1 tsp of salt, you're doing science. You (informally)
hypothesize that the meatloaf tastes too salty because you have added
too much salt. So, you perform an (informal) experiment: decrease the
amount of salt added, and see if the meatloaf tastes better. If, OTOH,
you assume that the degree of saltiness is unrelated to your recipe, and
is controlled by gods and spirits, that's not science. Bacon's main
contribution was to insist that observation and inference about the
natural world should depend ONLY on what can be directly observed, with NO
consideration given to what any gods or spirits might want.

>
>
> Loads of Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and Indian
>> thinkers existed long before the rise of any of the religions you've
>> mentioned.
>
> Sure. But they weren't scientists.

But, they were doing science, anyway.

>
> TCross

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[John Manning]

Indeed they were! They for sure weren't doing religion!


>
>>
>> TCross
>

[MarkA]

In 200 BC, the Greek mathematician Eratosthenes calculated the
circumference of the Earth to a remarkable degree of accuracy. It wasn't
from "divine inspiration" that he arrived at his measurement.

[Terry Cross]

> ~~ O'Leary, De Lacy (1947). How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lacy_O%27Leary

>
> >
> > Your article begins "In prehistoric times, advice and knowledge was
> > passed from generation to generation in an oral tradition."
>
> Poor Terry just can't help lying.
>
> A concrete instance of Pythagoras' law *was recorded* as early
> as the 18th century BC: the Mesopotamian cuneiform tablet Plimpton
> 322 records a number of Pythagorean triplets (3,4,5) (5,12,13).
> ..., dated 1900 BC, possibly millennia before Pythagoras.
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/achieve.html
>
> In Babylonian astronomy, *records* of the motions of the stars, planets,
> and the moon are left on thousands of clay tablets created
> by scribes.
>
> Even today, astronomical periods identified by Mesopotamian
> scientists are still widely used in Western calendars such as
> the solar year and the lunar month.

Like, we would never have noticed the solar year without those old
Mesopotamians pointing it out. Amazing. Wow. Except, of course,
leap year, leap century, and other details. And the devil is in the
details.

> Using these data they
> developed arithmetical methods to compute the changing length
> of daylight in the course of the year and to predict the
> appearances and disappearances of the Moon and planets and
> eclipses of the Sun and Moon...
>
> According to the historian A. Aaboe, "all subsequent varieties of
> scientific astronomy, in the Hellenistic world, in India, in Islam, and
> in the West—if not indeed all subsequent endeavor in the exact sciences—
> *depend upon Babylonian astronomy* in decisive and fundamental ways."
>
> http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1257/21
>
> Those are just a small sample of what readers can find
> for themselves at the link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science#Early_cultures
>
> All you or any reader has to do is to read for themselves the material
> at the link I provided to see what a shameful liar you are, Terry.
>
> >> and the notion that universal truths can be arrived at via
> >> observation and induction, *thereby laying the foundations of the*
> >> *scientific method*
>
> > Foundations do not a structure make. You should research the phrase
> > "necessary but not sufficient."
>
> Being dishonest and obtuse doesn't change the obvious facts throughout
> the material, Terry.

None of your "obvious facts" turn those subjects into "science,"
either. Math doesn't become "science" simply by being right. A few
drops of facts in a sea of mythology don't become "science" just by
you agreeing with them. And you have no evidence those documents were
peer reviewed -- and "peer review" is defined as an essential factor
in science. If peer review is essential to science, science is not
science without it.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

What malarkey.

> >> There are any number of great discoveries eminently attributable to
> >> ancient scientists.
>
> > There was no such animal.  The Greeks called themselves "natural
> > philosophers," for example.  Others were just folks working out the
> > truths of life.  Science was not invented until Francis Bacon.
>
> > Loads of Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and Indian
> >> thinkers existed long before the rise of any of the religions you've
> >> mentioned.
>
> > Sure.  But they weren't scientists.
>
> Of course they were. You seem to think anyone who reads your nonsense
> assertions will actually believe them.

Nope. Research the essential elements of science. Right answers is
not enough.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On May 17, 6:51 am, walksalone <spamstop...@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote innews:2tGdnZum_e23rgvM...@giganews.com:

The same name does not make the same thing. Atheist Communism was
more devastating than the Black Plague, more deadly than WW II, and
more destructive to culture than an Ice Age.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

But you said it -- mathematics, not science. Not peer reviewed, not
empirically verified, not science.

TCross

[Budikka666]

But not a jot of it was done through religion. It was *all* done by
the scientifc method which the creationists refuse to adhere to, and
which the religious refuse to employ when it comes to analyzing their
own beliefs.

Got that now, you abysmal moron?

Budikka

[Tom McDonald]

On 5/17/2013 1:03 PM, Terry Cross wrote:
<snip>

> A few
> drops of facts in a sea of mythology don't become "science" just by
> you agreeing with them.

I find this interesting, especially from a person who claims science
came from Abrahamic folks.

<snip>

[John Manning]

The fact that they pointed it out demonstrates that they knew the
science, dimwit.

You're making a fool of yourself thinking that readers buy your
transparent self-serving nonsense.

A few
> drops of facts in a sea of mythology don't become "science" just by
> you agreeing with them. And you have no evidence those documents were
> peer reviewed -- and "peer review" is defined as an essential factor
> in science. If peer review is essential to science, science is not
> science without it.

The above information I provided is simple historical fact. Peer-review
has nothing to do with it. You're a fraud, Terry.


>
> TCross
>

[John Manning]

Terry seems to live in his/her own imaginary world.

[John Manning]

Nope, it's an historical fact, dimwit.


-- In the Latter Day Saint movement, the United Order was
one of several 19th-century church collectivist programs.

Early versions of the Order beginning in 1831 attempted
to implement the Law of Consecration, a form of Christian
communalism, modeled after the New Testament church which had
"all things in common".

These early versions ended after a few years. Later
versions within Mormonism, primarily in the Utah Territory,
implemented less-ambitious cooperative programs, many of which
were very successful.

The United Order established egalitarian communities
designed to achieve income equality, eliminate poverty,
and increase group self-sufficiency.

The movement had much in common with other communalist
utopian societies formed in the United States and Europe
during the Second Great Awakening which sought to govern
aspects of people's lives through precepts of faith and
community organization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Order

>
>
>>>> There are any number of great discoveries eminently attributable to
>>>> ancient scientists.
>>
>>> There was no such animal. The Greeks called themselves "natural
>>> philosophers," for example. Others were just folks working out the
>>> truths of life. Science was not invented until Francis Bacon.
>>
>>> Loads of Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and Indian
>>>> thinkers existed long before the rise of any of the religions you've
>>>> mentioned.
>>
>>> Sure. But they weren't scientists.
>>
>> Of course they were. You seem to think anyone who reads your nonsense
>> assertions will actually believe them.
>
> Nope. Research the essential elements of science. Right answers is
> not enough.

Your selective self-serving definitions of the elements of science
make you look like an idiot.



>
> TCross
>

[John Manning]

Terry doesn't think readers can see how he dishonestly puts words in
people's mouths. MarkA made no comment or suggestion whatever to the
effect that "-- mathematics, not science. Not peer reviewed, not
empirically verified, not science."

You just made that up. It fits nicely your notorious reputation
as a bald-faced liar, Terry.




>
> TCross
>

[//"".]

> You are committing a basic logical fallacy, called a "false

> dichotomy." =A0The "science" that has you so much agog was invented

> mostly by Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

"But not a jot of it was done through religion. It was *all* done by the
scientifc method which the creationists refuse to adhere to, and which the
religious refuse to employ when it comes to analyzing their own beliefs."

Western science started in what was called natural philosophy. One prime
motivation was the idea that the creation was a 2nd revelation of God and
much of a religious nature was to be discovered therein. The scientific
method was born of it, many if not most giants of science in past were
religious. Newton for example wrote much more on religious topics then on
those for which he is better known.

When it comes to the question of the divine science stands mute and dumb.
Exactly how would one even take the 1st step to do science about the
divine?

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Christianity and the Birth of Science
by Michael Bumbulis, Ph.D

The author holds an M.S. degree in Zoology from Ohio State University
and a Ph.D in Genetics from Case Western Reserve University.

Summary: In an attempt to account for the origin of modern science, I
will argue that the Judeo-Christian world view played a crucial role
in this birth. I will cite four lines of evidence to support this
hypothesis and respond to objections at the appropriate places.

Acknowledgment: Several points in the following essays are indebted to
Stanley Jaki's, "Science and Creation: From eternal cycles to an
oscillating universe."

Points of clarification:

1. It was not my intention that this article would convince those
highly skeptical of this hypothesis (for those convinced against their
will are of the same opinion still). Instead, I intend to simply
clarify why it is that one might rationally think the Judeo-Christian
world view was important, even crucial, in the birth of science.

2. I am not claiming that Christianity was sufficient for the birth of
science. Other important ingredients stemmed from Greek philosophy and
mathematics and various technical achievements associated with
building and designing things.

3. I am not claiming that one must be a Christian to be a "good
scientist." My focus is on history. The current relationship between
Christianity and Science can be addressed in another article.

OUTLINE

1. Introduction
2. Hypothesis
3. Evidence that supports hypothesis

a. Science was born in a Christian culture
b. Science was not born in any Christian culture
c. Biblical beliefs provided fertile ground for the birth of
science
d. Christian philosophers paved the way for science

4. Left-over objections
5. Future concerns

INTRODUCTION

Whenever one is educated about history, some paradigm is usually
assumed to interpret all the facts in the context of a coherent
pattern. As a student of the public schools and public universities, I
was taught about the history of science in the light of the notion
that there has always been warfare between science and Christianity.

The warfare myth is very popular and very powerful. It is popular
because it seems to be substantiated today. We often hear certain
scientists making metaphysical claims such as "the Universe is all
that exists." We also hear religious leaders making scientific claims
such as "evolution is not true." It's as if the religious leaders
think they have the authority to make scientific judgments and
scientific leaders think they have the authority to make religious/
metaphysical judgments. The warfare myth is clearly supported by these
dynamics, as it is if there are two opposing camps firing back at each
other.

The myth is also very powerful. As one who is both a Christian and a
scientist, I can see this from both sides. As a Christian, there are
many fellow Christians who look upon my science with suspicion. How
can I be a Christian yet believe in evolution? How can I be a
Christian yet focus so much attention on something that doesn't seem
directly related to the faith? As a scientist, there are many fellow
scientists who look upon my Christianity with suspicion. How can I be
a scientist yet believe Jesus bodily rose from the dead? How can I be
a scientist yet focus too much attention on things that depend on
faith? As many Christians who are scientists will tell you, they are
often caught between a rock and a hard place.

So what is a Christian scientist (not to be confused with the religion
of Christian Science) to do? Unfortunately, many opt for a perspective
that tacitly reinforces the warfare myth. They buy into the warfare
myth in the sense that science and Christianity are two camps that
have little to say to each other. That is, they may not take part in
the warfare, but they buy peace simply by cutting off meaningful
dialog between the two camps. It's a mindset that basically says,
"Look, since we can't talk to each other without fighting, let's not
talk to each other." Thus, the Christian scientist often leads two
lives - as a scientist, she is little more than a moral Naturalist and
as a Christian, she keeps her science to herself.

Of course, some Christian scientists can't live such a schizoid life.
Unfortunately, they also fail to achieve balance. For example, the
Christian who becomes an authority in the lab finds himself thinking
this expertise naturally extrapolates to authoritative judgments on
matters of Christian belief. Many of these folks become closet
naturalists or closet pantheists. They may attend church and use
Christian language, but their theology and faith has long ago ceased
being "mere Christian."

What is needed is a balance, a recognition that we are talking about
two different camps, but these are camps that can talk to each other
and contribute to each other. The Christian scientist needs to
integrate their Christianity and science in a way that doesn't turn
their science into non-science and their Christianity into some
religion that is not Christian. If this can be done, then these
scientists can serve as a light to both the Christian and scientific
communities. To the scientific community, they can show that
Christianity is not an anti-science, anti-thinking, emotional based
system of blind faith that would punish scientists for daring to say
something perceived contrary to the faith. To the Christian community,
they could show that science is not an anti- Christian, man-centered,
reason-worshiping belief system that would reduce Christianity to
nothing more than a fuzzy, happy form of humanism.

How can we hope to make such an integration? After all, it can't be
easy, otherwise, it would be more commonly done. In my opinion, the
reason why this integration has been so hard is that we have been
conditioned as students to buy into the warfare myth. That is, we've
been told, explicitly and implicitly, that warfare is the natural
state between religion and science. To make matters worse, atheists
and other non-christians have gotten plenty of apologetic mileage out
of perpetuating this myth. And Christian scientists help perpetuate
this myth either by engaging in the warfare or by admitting that
nothing can be said between to two camps. But what he have is
something like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we continue to believe
in the reality of such warfare, we will act in ways that bring about
the warfare. So maybe the first step of integration is to call into
question the necessity of the warfare myth. How can this be done?

I propose that we must first understand the origin of modern science.
That is, to truly understand where we are, we must understand how we
got here. Once we understand history, we can then call upon
philosophy. And when history is understood, we shall see that science
was not born as an enemy of the faith. On the contrary, we shall see
that Christianity played the crucial role in giving birth to modern
science.

The Christian world view's importance in the birth of science has
other relevant implications. As noted, often times we are told that
Christianity was/is an enemy of science. Such an analysis shows that
this need not be true. Furthermore, in today's multicultural
environment, where all cultures are deemed equally important, we fail
to realize just how special Christianity has been in the history of
civilization. Finally, as I will briefly explain at the end of these
conclusions, the greatest threat to science stems from the same
mindset that is an enemy of Christian faith. That is, in today's
increasingly pagan environment, Christians have the unique opportunity
to rally to science's defense, and thus show once again just how
important Christian assumptions are to the practice of modern science.

HYPOTHESIS

The primary observation that led me to suspect that Christianity was
crucial to the birth of science was the localized nature of the origin
of science. That is, modern science was born in Christianized Europe.
Of course, this observation alone is not a proof. As one skeptic has
noted:

[That would be] a clear example of post hoc ergo propter hoc
argumentation. Or possibly the correlation-causation fallacy. In
either case, it is fallacious.

But neither of these labels capture the essence of my argument. As I
have said countless times in the past, I approach reality as a sleuth,
not a mathematician. And when I approach reality, I encounter the
practice of science. Being a Christian, I am *fully* aware of the
contingency of our being. Things need not be as they are. So why are
they as they are? Thus, I ask myself, "How did science come into
being?" Has it always existed? If not, was its existence inevitable?

When I look to history, I find that science, has not always existed.
So how did it come to be? Most historians of science and philosophers
of science recognize that a new type of science, what we call 'modern
science,' was born only a few centuries ago in Europe. I also
recognize that Europe was thoroughly influenced by the Christian world
view. So as a Christian, I cannot help but ask, "Is this coincidence
or is there something deeper involved?" Obviously, I think something
deeper is involved. My hypothesis is that the Christian world view was
crucial, perhaps even necessary, for the birth of modern science. I
realize I cannot prove this, but since I set out not as a
mathematician, interested in certainties and proofs, this is
irrelevant. Instead, I set out as a sleuth, and I find many clues that
converge to support my belief.

So again, at the very least, I think the Christian world view played
an important role in the birth of modern science. This is not to say
that Christianity "caused" science or that Christianity was sufficient
cause for the birth of science. Instead, I have come to believe that
the Christian religion was important, maybe even necessary, for the
birth of science. The clues that support my belief are fourfold.

THE EVIDENCE

Clue #1. The founders/fathers of modern science were shaped by a
culture that was predominantly Christian.

The founders of modern science were all bunched into a particular
geographical location dominated by a Judeo-Christian world view. I'm
thinking of men like Louis Aggasiz (founder of glacial science and
perhaps paleontology); Charles Babbage (often said to be the creator
of the computer); Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method); Sir
Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system);
Robert Boyle (father of modern chemistry); Georges Cuvier (founder of
comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology); John Dalton (father of
modern atomic theory); Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern
entomology); John Ambrose Fleming (some call him the founder of modern
electronics/inventor of the diode); James Joule (discoverer of the
first law of thermodynamics); William Thomson Kelvin (perhaps the
first to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics); Johannes
Kepler (discoverer of the laws of planetary motion); Carolus Linnaeus
(father of modern taxonomy); James Clerk Maxwell (formulator of the
electromagnetic theory of light); Gregor Mendel (father of genetics);
Isaac Newton (discoverer of the universal laws of gravitation); Blaise
Pascal (major contributor to probability studies and hydrostatics);
Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory).

If an appreciation for math and the cause-and-effect workings of
nature were sufficient to generate modern science, how does one
explain the historical fact the the founders of modern science were
all found in a *particular* culture that just happened to be shaped by
a Judeo-Christian world view? Instead of measuring energy in joules,
why don't we measure it in platos or al-Asharis?

Of course, the cynics would claim these men were not *really*
Christians. That is, they really didn't *believe* in Christianity, but
they professed such beliefs because they did not want to be
persecuted. This is the "closet-atheist" hypothesis. But it doesn't
square with the facts.

Many of the founders of modern science were also very interested in
theology. If you read Pascal, this is obvious. Mendel was a monk.
Newton often said his interest in theology surpassed his interest in
science. Newton did end his Principles with:

"This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets, could
only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and
powerful Being...This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the
world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont
to be called Lord God."

As Charles Hummel notes,

"Newton's religion was no mere appendage to his science; he would
have been a theist no matter what his profession."

Boyle set up Christian apologetics lectures. Babbage and Prout
contributed to an apologetics series called the Bridgewater Treatises.
Aggasiz, Cuvier, Fleming, Kelvin, and Linnaeus were what we now call
'creationists.' When I speak about Biblical beliefs that paved the way
for science, I will use both Kepler and Pasteur to highlight two
specific examples.

Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when
others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity - Hume,
Hobbes, Darwin, etc. When Boyle argues against Hobbe's materialism or
Kelvin argues against Darwin's assumptions, you don't have a case of
"closet atheists."

Clue #2: Science was not born in any non-christian culture.

Yet it's not just the bunching of these founders in a Christian
culture alone that is significant. Perhaps even more significant is
the complete lack of analogs for these men from other cultures. Where
is the Greek version of Newton? Where is the Muslim version of Kepler?
Where is the Hindu version of Boyle? Where is the Buddhist version of
Mendel? Such questions are all the more powerful when you pause to
consider that science studies truths that are universally true. How is
it that so many other cultures, some existing for thousands of years,
failed to discover, or even anticipate, Newton's first law of motion
of Kepler's laws of planetary motion? So it's not just that the
Christian religion is associated with the birth of modern science,
it's also the fact that modern science was not birthed in cultures
which lacked the Christian religion.

Of course, the skeptic could reply as follows:

Many of the most important advances were made by Muslims in the
Moorish Spain area, and other infidels.

I do not deny that other cultures contributed important ingredients,
for I would never argue that the Christian world view alone was
sufficient for the birth of modern science. But the fact remains that
advances in mathematics and engineering do not count as modern science
(as I am thinking of), for the Muslims and "other infidels" did not
discover the laws of motion, the laws of gravity, the laws of
thermodynamics, the laws of chemistry, the laws of heredity, the law
of biogenesis, etc. If you take any introductory undergraduate
textbook in physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, physiology,
paleontology, etc., it is not hard to point to the knowledge that is
indebted to the work of these Christian scientists from Europe. But
you would find very little that is indebted to Greek, Muslim, Hindu,
or Buddhist philosophers (aside from tools like mathematics and Arabic
numerals).

In fact, if you survey other non-christian cultures, their inability
to generate modern science renders this clue all the more powerful.
For these cultures not only lacked the Christian world view's
perception of Nature *and* God, they held to a view that prevented the
birth of science. In this view, the Universe was eternal, necessary,
cyclical, and organismic. One could argue that this view of the
Universe followed from reason and observation (like Geocentrism). But
Christianity gave men a larger reason to deny this type of cosmology,
and in doing so, it paved the way for the birth of science.

I don't think it can be overemphasized as to how detrimental cyclical
thinking was to the birth of science. And what made the cyclic views
even worse was their close tie to the animistic/organismic view of the
Universe. This feature was shared by the Hindus, the Aztecs, the
Mayans, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and the Chinese. A detailed
analysis of all these cultures, in this light, would make my case all
the more obvious. Consider the Chinese.

The Chinese make an excellent case study in the stillbirths of
science. For the Chinese culture experienced long centuries of
relative peace, material prosperity, active social interplay,
creativity of mind, and contact with other cultures.

The French sinologist, M. Granet, noted that "the conviction that the
All and everything composing it, having a cyclic nature" was what
stymied the Chinese awareness of causal links between events. Thus,
there was nothing odd, as far as the Chinese were concerned, in
attributing the political failure of a prince to the fact that human
sacrifices took place at his burial. As Granet noted, the Chinese were
not interested in causes and effects, rather "manifestations, whose
order mattered little, conceived as they were separate, but grafted
nevertheless on the same root. Equally expressive, they appeared
interchangeable." Thus, as historian of science, Stanley Jaki points
out, "if at a particular time, a mountain collapsed, a river ran dry,
a man allegedly changed into a woman, and a dynasty came to an end,
the Chinese sage took all these as equally significant indications of
a "change of order" both in the cosmos and in history, without feeling
any urge to search into a causal relationship among them."

It's hard for us to appreciate this mentality given that we have been
shaped to think in linear terms. But if you can begin to grasp it, you
will see how awful it is for the development of science. Yes, the
Chinese and many other cultures would keep records about the position
of the stars. Yes, they would invent calenders and be able to make
predictions. But none of this had anything to do with trying to
understand how nature works. It had nothing to do with science. And
for thousands of years, it never anticipated science. It was simple
record-keeping so that they could recognize the "signs of the time"
and situate themselves in the rhythmic breathing of the eternally
cycling Universe. And boy, did these cultures get carried away with
their cycles. They'd break cosmic history into large repeating epochs,
that spun like a wheel, and within each epoch were smaller cycles, and
within each smaller cycle were smaller cycles yet. And on and on went
the wheel. Thus, phenomena were not something to understand. They were
merely signs that gave you an address. Or as today's neo-pagans would
say (as yesterday's Stoics said), we need to live in *harmony* with
nature.

This is why historian of science Stanley Jaki would remark:

"In such a outlook, measurable, quantitative aspects of events
occurring closely in time could have no particular significance. Their
frequency or order of magnitude commanded no special interest, nor did
the normal sequence of events....The Chinese, bent on seeking the
poetical, empathic, and organismic solidarity among facts, had no
interest in their regular sequence. In their eyes, it was cyclic
anyway, bringing about much the same situation after the completion of
each period."

It's no wonder that Yu-Lan Fung, a Chinese scholar in the early 20th
century, wrote the following in The International Journal of Ethics:

"China has no science, because according to her own standard of
value she does not need any....China has not discovered the scientific
method, because Chinese started from mind, and from one's own mind."

But it isn't just cyclical thinking that prevents the birth of
science. Organismic thinking is also just as detrimental and is almost
always associated with cyclical thinking. The Confucian method of
finding cosmic order was premised on intuitive reflections of social
life. Confucius himself wrote that "Custom is whereby Heaven and Earth
unite, whereby the sun and moon are brilliant, whereby the four
seasons are ordered.." Confucians believed this not only because they
saw the cycles of history as reflections of cosmic cycling, but
because they saw humanity as a reflection of the cosmos In fact, their
organismic views got carried away, where Tung Chung-Shu (who succeeded
in making Confucianism the official state doctrine in 136 BC) would
claim that the number of lesser joints in the body was the same as the
number of days in a year. He would then add that there were twelve
large joints in the body, because this figure and the four limbs
matched the twelve months and four seasons. Opening and closing of
one's eyes was explained as a reflection of the succession of day and
night. Winter and summer were reflected in man's strength and
weakness. This thinking is alien to science. This is thinking held
captive by a cyclical, organismic world view where the focus was on
finding one's *place* in the spinning wheel.

What matters is that cyclical thinking was a great hindrance to the
birth of science. It was very powerful and channeled much thinking and
creativity away from a scientific pursuit. This is one reason why
Greek science, which started with such promise, died. This is why
astrology eventually overshadowed astronomy, so much so that even
Ptolemy would consider his Tetrabiblios to be of far greater
importance than his Almagest.

In fact, it is most interesting to view China through the eyes of some
Europeans. Specifically, I'm thinking of the letters of Father Matteo
Ricci. Ricci settled in the mainland of China in 1584. At first he was
impressed, as he found that they were able to predict two eclipses of
the moon without any knowledge of Ptolemaic astronomy. But as the
years went by, Ricci began to realize that even with his own modest
level of understanding, he was more knowledgeable about matters of
nature than his hosts' best minds. He would write in 1595:

"In truth, if China was the entire world, I could undoubtedly call
myself the principal mathematician and philosopher of nature, because
it is ridiculously and astonishingly little what they know; they are
preoccupied with moral philosophy, and with elegance of discourse, or
to say more properly, of style."

Y'see, a few more years of eclipses showed Ricci that his Ptolemaic
astronomy was superior to Chinese astronomy. In 1597, he would write:

"About the learned among the Chinese, let me say that this: the
Chinese have no science at all; one may say that only mathematics is
cultivated, and the little they know of it is without
foundation.....They just manage to predict eclipses and in that they
make many mistakes. All are addicted to the art of divination, which
is most unreliable and also completely false. Physics and metaphysics,
including logic, is unknown among them....Their literature consists
wholly in beautiful and stylish compositions all of which correspond
to our humanities and rhetoric."

In 1605, he would explain the following concerning those who predicted
eclipses:

"they know nothing more than to make computations, without any
insight into the rules, and when the result does not come out right,
all they say is that they kept to the rules of their forebears."

Ricci also discovered that the Chinese were preoccupied with astrology
and he blamed this, more than anything else, for the backwardness of
their science. He noted that while they were very interested in
predicting when eclipses would occur, they had no idea of the physical
cause of the moon's eclipse. Put simply, cause and effect thinking was
not used to understand nature. In fact, those who did try to explain
the cause of eclipses simply used their philosophy shaped by cyclical,
organismic thinking. For example, in AD 80, Wang-Chhung explained
eclipses as periodic changes in the "life-strength" of the moon and
sun and to the consequent rhythmic variation in their intrinsic
brightness.

The Chinese were also very resistant to views that did not line up
with their organismic, cycling universe. They could co-opt other
cultures that shared these basic views, but they turned their back on
ideas that stemmed from a different view. This is clearly seen when
the European missionaries visited China over a span of several several
centuries and tried to teach them science. In 1645, Father Schall von
Bell was forced to change in the title of his great astronomical
encyclopedia the expression "according to Western methods" to
"according to new methods." And the Chinese were not really interested
in these "new methods." For example, Juan Yuan praised Chinese
thinkers for not falling prey to the lure of Western methods:

"Our ancients sought phenomena and ignored theoretical
explanation. Since the arrival of the Europeans, the question has
always been concerning explanations, circular orbits, mean movements,
eclipses, and squares. The foreigners think the earth revolves about a
fixed sun....but the theory of Tycho has been modified many times
during the last century and I believe it will be again....Therefore, I
do not see upon what the Europeans base their arguments...and really
it does not seem to me the least inconvenient to ignore the western
theoretical explanations and simply to consider the facts."

The perception of "where we are" was indeed an overwhelming obsession
of many cultures that held to an organismic, cyclical world view. This
type of thinking was poison to science. It smothered a spirit of
progress and replaced it with fatalism. It turned phenomena into omens
and made astrology far more important than astronomy. And it even led
to severe closed-mindedness, as once you figured out where you are,
you had no use for views that would disturb this harmony. A great
example comes again from Father Ricci. Ricci's map implied the
sphericity and true dimensions of the earth that really bothered the
Chinese. Wei Chun would write:

"Lately Mateo Ricci utilized some false teachings to fool
people... The map of the world which he made contains elements of the
fabulous and mysterious, and is a downright attempt to deceive people
on things which they personally can not go to verify for themselves.
It is really like the trick of a painter who draws ghosts in his
pictures. We need not discuss other points, but just take the example
of position of China on the map. He puts it not at the center but
slightly to the west and inclined to the north. This is altogether far
from truth, for China should be in the center of the world, which we
can prove by the single fact that we can see the North Star resting at
the zenith of the heaven at midnight. How can China be treated like a
small unimportant country, and placed slightly to the north as on this
map? This really shows how dogmatic his ideas are. Those who trust him
say that the people in his country are fond of traveling afar, but
such an error as this would certainly not be made by a widely-traveled
man."

While it is true that many cultures mapped and described the heavens,
and they did seek to describe relationships between things, this had
nothing to do with understanding how nature works. And it certainly
had nothing to do with trying to understand why nature is as it is.
The ancients were interested in finding correlations. Just because
someone figures out that the cock crows when the sun comes up doesn't
mean they were interested in how nature works. No one would ask how is
it that the cock crows when the sun rises. No one would ask why the
cock crows when the sun rises. In fact, their organismic thinking
often might lead them to think the cock might be causing the sun to
rise! For example, in China, it was believed that misconduct on the
part of the Emperor, or his officials, would have a disturbing effect
on celestial motions which would have a further disturbing effect on
terrestrial affairs.

Concerning the Babylonian astrologers and magi, Jaki says:

"Their principal compositions were incantations appropriate to any
of the sundry phenomena of the heavens. Among them most notable were,
of course, the eclipses. Legion is the number of tablets on which all
sorts of events on earth were connected with the moon's partial and
total eclipses and with the various shapes of its horns. The invasion
of locusts, the sickness of princes, the flourishing of market places,
the peaceful reign of the king, the slaying of huge armies, general
inundations, devastation of crops, eruption of fighting in the temple
of Bel, the healing of sick, are only a few of the countless events
connected in ancient Mesopotamian omens with eclipses."

Magic was also *very* common in all cultures.and it was almost always
tied to a cyclical, organismic view of the cosmos. If human affairs
could could effect celestial motions, and celestial motions could
effect human affairs, then of course the magicians would look for
incantations and formulas to tap into this vibrating, rhythmic world.
And the number of these incantations and formulas would simply grow
and grow over time. Why? Because magic is not science. If an
incantation didn't work, the magician would not abandon it. He would
simply figure that the timing was not right, and then move on to the
next incantation.

Nothing better shows the non-scientific nature of magic than the
growing laundry lists of incantations. In magic, nothing is discarded,
because failed magic simply meant the right button wasn't pushed for
the right occasion. Or perhaps the right omen wasn't recognized. So
more and more "buttons"were created until one had a large list to
choose and a better chance of getting the right one. Thus, if the use
of pig entrails was correlated with the recovery of one person, it
would be added to the list. If pig entrails didn't help the second
person with the same symptoms, well, that was because the the second
person was not in harmony with the same cycle as the first. But the
magician wouldn't discard the pig entrails formula because another
person in the future might find himself in the same cycle as the
first.

And more and more omens were were also added. In Babylonia, a dog in a
specific part of one's house was believed to entail its destruction by
fire. So you go see a magician, and wouldn't y'know, his incantations
kept the house from burning down. In that world of magic, the right
formula could restore harmony in the cycling, organismic cosmos which
reflected itself in human affairs. Of course, then you had to worry
about the future of the land, which could be ascertained from the
shape of the ears of lambskins.

It is interesting that some pagans try to claim that magic was the
thing that put humanity on the road to science. But a scientific
viewpoint that is part of a linear, mechanistic view is *very*
different from a magical viewpoint that is part of a cyclical,
organismic view. They are two very different ways of looking at the
same data. And however you view it, magic failed to give birth to
science in non-christian cultures, and in fact, almost derailed the
birth of science in Europe.

Clue #3. Since most of the founders of science were Christians, it is
reasonable to suppose their perspectives were shaped by their
Christian world view. And this world view was in turn shaped by
Christian theology. And there are several aspects of Christian
theology that can easily be seen as contributing factors to the birth
of science?

First, let's note that Christianity is a "religion of the book." This
is significant. A religion that places special authority on the
written word necessarily diminishes the authority of the priesthood.
The Catholic Church got around this problem early on by claiming,
"Hey, we wrote that book, thus we're the primary authorities." That's
why the Church persecuted other Christians who later dared to get the
Good Book in the hands of the common man. For the Good Book couldn't
be properly interpreted in the hands of those who were not the primary
authority. But, of course, Luther came along and said, "You guys have
it upside down, the book is the real authority and any authority you
think you have can only be imparted from it." What this meant is that
the authority of the Bible itself imparted a certain freedom and a
courage to dissent . And some of these early scientists (like Galileo)
relied on this. If their scientific views were questioned on religious
grounds, they could simply consult the Bible and question the
*interpretations* of the religious authorities. Of course, they knew
they were treading on someone else's turf, so that had to be careful
about it all. But what it meant was that although a priest might
condemn or ridicule a scientist's beliefs, in his own mind and heart,
that scientist could consult the Bible and other works of theology and
blunt the criticism of the priest TO HIS OWN SATISFACTION. It might
not have been "freedom to inquire" in the modern sense of the term, as
the Church remained very powerful, but there was enough freedom to at
least personally question without having to resort to simple dismissal
(and *this* is what is important). This also meant that early
Christian scientists didn't have to throw the baby out with the bath
water. They didn't have to reject Christianity to reject a priest's
views. Instead, they could merge their religious beliefs with the
scientific pursuits.

The Book is also important from the other direction, for it imparts
*some* sense of authority, thus consensus. That is, a religion that
places special authority on written texts not only necessarily
diminishes the authority of the priesthood, but it also diminishes the
authority of private belief. Someone once asked, "what type of
Christianity are we talking about, after all, there are thousands of
types." To me, that type of response misses the boat. It's like saying
since there are so many types of dogs, it makes no sense to say "a dog
is a man's best friend." Just as those many dogs share features, so
too do many Christian variants share features. And it was the shared
features, consensus beliefs, that played the role in the birth of
modern science. For example, I would not claim that belief in baptism
was important for the birth of science, but belief in Creation was
important. Let's consider these consensus beliefs in more detail.

a. A belief in an "only God." This belief had two major implications.
Only a lofty and vigorous monotheism could instill a sense that there
existed a being so powerful that He created ALL there is to create.
Pagan gods were too often seen as PART of nature. The birth of science
needed a God bigger than that. Secondly, this God was a personal God
with a will. Just as He willed certain moral laws, He could be
perceived as willing laws of nature. In fact, this type of assumption/
perspective actually turned into an apologetic argument, where
theologians and scientists would argue the laws of nature implied a
Lawgiver. Whether or not the argument if valid is irrelevant. I'm
simply highlighting how the medieval mind would easily see it from the
opposite angle - a Lawgiver implied laws in creation. Pagan gods were
simply not seen as Lawgivers.

b. A belief in a rational God. This belief has a major implication. A
rational God would create a rational creation, a creation that would
turn out to be ultimately intelligible. Thus, all one had to do was
uncover what was there waiting to be uncovered. One didn't have to
worry that such searching would be in vain. No one worried about a
deceiving god. Or a creation that was ultimately an illusion.

c. A belief that the Universe was created ex nihilo. This belief had
several major implications.

i. If the universe was created, it is not eternal. Thus, it was also
not necessary. Since it need not exist, there must be a reason why it
exists. Furthermore, since it could have existed in another form,
there must be reasons why it existed in the form that it does. A
contingent universe arouses curiosity. A necessary universe does not.

If a Christian is curious about Creation and God's reasons for
creating what He created, the obvious place to start is by studying
Genesis. Whether or not one interprets Genesis as metaphor, myth, or
history, one big truth arises from this account - ALL is creation.
That is, the earth and the bird are every bit creation as the stars
and the sun. It's this type of insight which enabled folks like
Buridan (see below) to describe heavenly motions in terms of
terrestial motions. It's hard for us modern folks to appreciate how
radical it was to describe the movement of the heavens as being like a
man jumping or a smith's wheel turning. But this was a crucial step.
And it was a crucial step that helped to get around Aristotle's
philosophy.

ii. It is true that the Bible doesn't clearly distinguish between the
natural and the spiritual. But some type of distinction is assumed,
otherwise, the miraculous would be meaningless. The distinction the
Bible makes is between the Creation and the transcendent Creator. And
this is a distinction which was very important to the birth of modern
science. Pagans made no such distinction. A tree would never be
studied because a tree was a divine representation! And Eastern
religions could care less about the tree, as it was either an illusion
or a distraction. But in Christianity, the tree was desacralized.
Thus, it could be studied. And since it was made by a rational
Creator, a Creator who instructed us to "subdue the earth," the
impetus was there to study the tree. Why? Because it didn't
necessarily exist. It was made and thus need not exist. Thus, to
understand the tree, one couldn't deduce its existence from first
principles, one had to actually "take it apart" and figure out how it
worked. And since God was rational, it was thought that the tree would
ultimately be intelligible.

This distinction between Creation and God was essential to science.
For it is this very distinction that is behind what we now call the
"natural" and the "spiritual" (anyone who can see this relationship
will clearly see how science is indebted to Christianity). That is, if
you simply remove God from the picture, Creation becomes the Natural.
And God is over there in the "Spiritual." But this distinction was not
commonly found among the worlds religions. Their views were inherently
monistic and pantheistic. As Francis Bacon would write:

"For as all works do shew forth the power and skill of the
workman, and not his image; so it is of the works of God; which do
shew the omnipotency and wisdom of the maker, but not his image; and
therefore therein the heathen opinion differeth from sacred truth; for
they supposed the world to be the image of God, and man to be an
extract or compendious image of the world." Bacon would add that this
pantheistic view resulted in "the greatest arrest and prejudice of
further discovery."

iii. Another simple implication is that a creation implies an act of
creating. This would be an important point of speculation for medieval
philosophers, and their speculations would turn out to be important in
the birth of modern science.

d. If you are going to think God's thoughts after Him (as Kepler
said), you'd better have reasons for believing this could be done.
Part of this reason stemmed from the belief in a rational God. But
also important was the belief that man was created in the image of
God. This belief enabled folks to trust their own reason, as their
ability to reason was not only viewed as a gift from God, but it was
also a way in which humankind reflected God. Furthermore, the
Incarnation was also probably relevant. For if God became man, then
maybe the chasm between Man and God wasn't so huge. So maybe it wasn't
so absurd to think God's thoughts after Him. After all, a Muslim would
never dare to "think God's thoughts after Him," as God was viewed to
be totally different from humankind.

e. Almost all cultures throughout history have had a cyclical
cosmology. This makes sense. We live on a spinning globe which is in
turn spinning around the sun, and this produces natural cycles on
earth. And its these cycles that led to a cyclical cosmology (just as
appearances also led to Geocentrism). But this cyclical view is not
fertile ground for science. Science entails the notion of progress, a
belief that we can progress towards a state where we understand
nature. The Christians inherited from the Jews a sense that was most
"unnatural," a sense that stemmed from revelation - cosmology is
linear. That is, God created and works through history. For example,
His delivery of the Israelites from Egypt would never happen again, so
it must be retold. The Christians inherited this spirit. Their history
became as follows: Creation - the Fall - the coming of Messiah- the
death of Messiah - the birth of the Church - the return of Messiah. It
was a linear view where history was progressing towards a goal. This
linear thinking was important to science. Why? Intellectuals from
cyclical world views tend to think "there's nothing new." Instead of
looking for something new, they look to the wisdom of ancients who
represent a Golden Age. But the Christian could say, "Hey, maybe the
ancients didn't know everything. Maybe there is something new to be
learned, something that has NEVER been known before." And to find this
new material, they need look no further than Creation, for the Author
of the Bible (who shows his intentions in linear fashion) is also the
Author of Nature.

To see the importance of linear thinking, consider how cyclical
thinking stunted the birth of science in Greece. Let's consider one of
the greatest Greek philosophers, Aristotle. Aristotle attempted to
explain the world in typical Greek fashion. Aristotle postulated a law
(in "On the Heavens") which stated that the rate of at which falling
bodies speed toward the center of the earth, or its surface for that
matter, was determined by their weight. Aristotle said that if two
bodies were dropped from the same height, the one with twice the
weight as the other would reach the ground twice as fast as the
lighter one. This law was simply accepted. And how odd this is! Any
construction worker would have observed that this was not true. Anyone
could have tested Aristotle's claim with a very simple experiment -
climb a house and drop two objects of differing weight. But no Greek
ever seemed curious enough to simply test this claim! Why was this?
Why were they so blind to such basic science?

Well, we have to understand Greek cosmology. For them, the universe
existed as an eternal cycle of birth-life-death-rebirth. This cyclical
view of nature prevented the birth of science. For one thing, the
notion of an eternal universe went hand-in-hand with the notion of a
necessary universe. Aristotelian physics was simply taken to be
necessarily true and known through introspection. It seems intuitively
obvious that heavier objects would fall faster than lighter objects.
But the Greek mind never thought to test it. And what a simple test it
is! Furthermore, the cyclical view of nature eliminates the
perspective of progress. And without the belief in progress, there is
no need to look further once you think you have it all figured out.
Aristotle endorsed, in a manner-of-fact way, the idea of eternal
cycles. One way he did this was to make reference to cultural history.
He explicitly stated that inventions familiar to his contemporaries
had been invented in innumerable times before. But he did add that the
comfort provided by the technical brand of those inventions available
in his time represented the highest level they are capable of
providing. This attitude also hindered science. If reality exists as a
series of eternal cycles, the tendency is to think either one is at
the bottom, and a hopeless, inward perspective develops, or one is at
the top (as Aristotle thought), and complacency develops. Greek
success with mathematics, coupled to their cosmogony, led them to
think they could deduce reality and questioning those deductions by
silly experiments was unthought of.

Unfortunately for Christendom, Greek philosophy was merged with
Christian theology. And this, more than anything else, is what caused
the birth of modern science to be delayed. The break with Aristotle
stemmed from Christian theologians who questioned Aristotle's self-
evident truth of the eternal universe. Their theology taught
otherwise, that the universe was created ex nihilo. This teaching was
formally and solemnly declared in 1214 as the Fourth Lateran Council
(although is was debated a long time prior). The declaration
essentially stated the truth of our finite creation, but said we could
only know this from revelation. This declaration freed Christian
thinkers as they began to reinterpret the world simply by assuming as
fact the temporality and contingency of the universe.

[I often think Christians fail to realize that Big Bang cosmology
represents a very powerful confirmation of their Christian faith.
Every world view (including atheism) other than that shaped by Judaism
and Christianity has proclaimed the Universe is eternal. In the
thirteenth and fourteenth century, Christian philosophers took the
bold step in denying that matter and time was eternal, something
taught by all the great Pagan and Muslim philosophers. Yet they
acknowledged that their denial could not be proven true, that it
stemmed solely from their faith. And modern science has now
corroborated their position!]

f. Finally, the Christian religion did indeed place emphasis on moral
behavior and a concern for Truth. Both of these are important to
science. Science is, after all, an attempt to uncover the Truth about
the world. Science is committed to the notion of objective truth,
truth that exists apart from individual belief. Since Christianity
placed emphasis on this type of truth (in contrast to many forms of
paganism), this religious attitude could easily be extended to the
physical world. As for moral behavior, science depends on truthful
reporting and honest experiments.

In addition to all these consensus assumptions, there is one more
relevant point. Not only did the Bible provide a consensus on some
basic assumptions about the world, assumptions important for the birth
of science, but the very perspective about the book was important. God
was viewed as the Author of the Book and the Book spoke of Truth. But
for these Christians, God was also the Author of Nature. Yet, Nature
was simply another book written by God in another code. The early
scientists often used the metaphor about the *book* of nature. Seeing
Nature as a *book* meant there were intelligible truths that could be
uncovered with study. This whole attitude was already placed inside
these men by their Christian religion's attitude toward the Bible. For
them, Nature wasn't an illusion, Nature wasn't evil, Nature wasn't the
playground of a myriad of gods or fairies, Nature wasn't simply
"matter and space." Nature was a Book! And it was a book with
containing new material from the Author of the Good Book. So
uncovering new truths, uncovering God's thoughts, was actually a
religious endeavor!

Many of the founders of modern science were in fact amateur
theologians. And their theology constituted important background
belief for their endeavors. Let us consider two examples, Kepler and
Pasteur.

Arno Penzias (1978 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics and co-
discoverer of the cosmic background radiation) makes a very
interesting point concerning Johannes Kepler. Speaking about the
scientific goal to find the simplest answer possible (a philosophical
principle which of course stems from a Christian theologian -see
below), Penzias says:

"That really goes back to the triumph, not of Copernicus, but
really the triumph of Kepler. That's because, after all, the notion of
epicycles and so forth goes back to days when scientists were swapping
opinions. All this went along until we had a true believer and this
was Kepler. Kepler, after all, was the Old Testament Christian. Right?
He really believed in God the Lawgiver. And so he demanded that the
same God who spoke in single words and created the universe is not
going to have a universe with 35 epicycles in it. And he said there's
got to be something simpler and more powerful. Now he was lucky or
maybe there was something deeper, but Kepler's faith was rewarded with
his laws of nature. And so from that day on, it's been an awful
struggle, but over long centuries, we find that very simple laws of
nature actually do apply. And so that expectation is still with
scientists. And it comes essentially from Kepler, and Kepler got it
out of his belief in the Bible, as far as I can tell. This passionate
belief turned out to be right. And he gave us his laws of motion, the
first real laws of nature we ever had. And so nature turned out to
redeem the expectations he had based on his faith. And scientists have
adopted Kepler's faith, without the cause."

The other example concerns Louis Pasteur, a devout Christian who
nailed down the germ theory. In this case, we can see the clear
contribution of his Christian theology. Pasteur lived in a time when
belief in spontaneous generation still persisted. Many biologists in
his day believed microbes could spontaneously appear from chemicals
and this was thought to be the cause of illness. This disagreed with
Pasteur's religious beliefs and theological beliefs involving
Creation, so he set out to prove it false. And he succeeded with some
clever experiments that are still taught in modern biology texts.
Since Pasteur proved that microbes didn't spontaneously appear from
previous chemical states, he argued that illness must be caused by the
transfer of microbes from one person the the next. Pasteur's views and
work influenced another Christian scientist/physician at the time,
Joseph Lister, who then developed antiseptic surgery. So like it or
not, the germ theory and modern surgery owe a great deal to the
theological motivations that led to the rejection of spontaneous
generation.

Clue # 4. The third clue comes from the Christian theologians/
philosophers of the thirteenth and fourteenth century, who uniquely
paved the way for the birth of science.

The founders of modern science did not develop their outlook in a
vacuum. Instead, they inherited and built upon an intellectual
landscape that was previously established by various medieval
philosophers/theologians. Many of these philosophers had a distinct
anti-Aristotelian bent. I won't go through all the details, but I will
mention five of the men who were important to the birth of science.
But before doing this, let's set the stage.

According to "Medieval Philosophy"( H. Shapiro, ed.):

"For roughly six hundred years the the western Church faced no
problems of having to defend its doctrines against rival philosophical
claims. This situation changed abruptly when, in the later half of the
twelfth century, the works of Aristotle, Avicenna, Averroes,
Maimonides, and other pagan, Arabic, and Jewish thinkers finally
entered the Christian cultural orbit. At first these systems of
thought which claimed competence in philosophical domains long
considered the exclusive preserve of Christian thinkers were received
with great reverence and candor. But as it began to appear that many
of these importations contained powerfully structured arguments
leading to conclusions diametrically opposed to approved teachings,
the Church began to take steps accordingly. At the University of Paris
in 1210, and again in 1215, students were forbidden to read the works
of the new philosophers, except those on formal logic, and masters
were forbidden to lecture on them. Still, as seems always to be the
case with prohibited writings, these works continued to circulate.
Only gradually, as the Christian thinkers themselves undertook to
master the contents of the proscribed writings in order to get
themselves into a better position to defend the Faith, did a critical
spirit begin to manifest itself among the Christian scholars."

Nevertheless, the works of these non-christian philosophers began to
become entrenched in the universities. So much so that by the
thirteenth century, Aristotle had come to be regarded as 'The
Philosopher.' In F.C. Copleston's "Medieval Philosophy," Copleston
writes:

"Aristotelianism was the one philosophical system of which the
medievals possessed a wide knowledge. Not all were enthusiastic in
their reception of Aristotelianism, as we shall see; but the contrast
drawn tended to be between Aristotle on the one hand and St Augustine
and the Christian writers on the other."

Let's now consider some of these Christian philosophers/theologians
(remember, this list is not exhaustive)..

a. Robert Grosseteste: He was born in 1175 in Suffolk, England. He
dies in 1253. In 1235, he became Bishop of Lincoln and until he died,
he worked energetically on many issues related to the Church. He was
also present at the signing of the Magna Charta, was strongly
influenced by Augustine's philosophy, and studied refraction.

Grosseteste was important to the birth of science for at least two
reasons. First, as F.C. Copleston writes (in his text on Medieval
Philosophy), "Grosseteste had insisted on the need for observation and
experiment in the study of nature." Secondly, Grosseteste was the
mentor of Roger Bacon.

b. Roger Bacon: One can hardly speak of the birth of modern science
without talking about this colorful thirteenth century monk. He lived
around 1212 to 1292 and was an English Franciscan. In many ways, his
views were Augustine. But he was also a "troublemaker." Shapiro's text
on Medieval Philosophy states:

"Though he charged the bulk of his contemporaries, among other
things, with obscurantism in philosophy, faulty scriptural exegesis,
ignorance of languages, and undue veneration for theological
commentaries even to the point of preferring these to the Bible
itself, Bacon's principle attacks were leveled against what he
considered their abysmal ignorance and neglect of the sciences."

Bacon came out hard against those who placed more authority on the
teachings of philosophers rather than experience. For example, he
writes:

"He therefore who wishes to rejoice without doubt in regard to the
truths underlying phenomena must know how to devote himself to
experiment. For authors write many statements, and people believe them
through reasoning which they formulate without experience. Their
reasoning is wholly false. For it is generally believed that the
diamond cannot be broken except by goat's blood, and philosophers and
theologians misuse this idea. But fracture by means of blood of this
kind has never been verified, although the effort has been made; and
without that blood it can be broken easily."

Copleston says this about Bacon:

"He made his own observations, in the field of optics, for
example, and urged observation on others. He was also quick to see the
practical purposes to which scientific purposes could be put. He
conceived, for instance, the possibility of the telescope [had it not
been for Bacon, Galileo would never have had his telescope - MB].
Moreover, both Grosseteste and Bacon laid great emphasis on the role
of mathematics in science. We have to start with the empirical data;
but the aim of theoretical science is to render that data
intelligible; that they are made intelligible by being explained
deductively in the light of mathematical reasoning. 'Experience' is
necessary in order to become acquainted with the empirical data and to
extend one's factual knowledge and also in order to confirm the
conclusions of deductive reasoning from 'causes' ascertained by
induction; but a mere accumulation of empirical data does not
constitute science."

Copleston also adds:

"Aristotle had held that we have scientific knowledge in the
proper sense only when we can show that the effects follow necessarily
from 'causes' as conclusion follows premises in logic; but he had
given no clear indication how the knowledge of such 'causes' is to be
obtained in the physical sense. Bacon, however, tried to show how the
'cause' of the facts can be ascertained by eliminating theories which
are incompatible with the facts. In other words, he had some grasp of
the importance of hypothesis in science and of the role of
verification in confirming or discrediting a given hypothesis.
Thirteenth-century science was certainly primitive and elementary; but
research has shown, first that some of the scientific theories and
investigations of the Renaissance were anticipated in the fourteenth
century, and secondly that fourteenth century science was not entirely
a new development but had its roots in the preceding century."

But there is one more thing to add about Bacon, something that is not
often spoken of by those who study the medieval philosophers. Make no
mistake, Bacon was thoroughly Christian. And after formulating his new
science, Bacon offered it as a apologetic and *evangelistic* tool for
the Church! Consider some of the things he wrote after explaining his
new science:

"Then this science as regards the commonwealth of believers is
useful, as we saw in its special knowledge of the future, present, and
past, and in its display of wonderful works on behalf of Church and
state, so that all useful activities are promoted and the opposite are
hindered both in the few and the multitude, as was explained. And if
we proceed to the conversion of unbelievers, it is evidently of
service in two main ways with numerous subdivisions, since a plea for
the faith can be effectively made through this science, not by
arguments but by works, which is the more effective way. For the man
who denies the truth of the faith because he cannot understand it I
shall state the mutual attraction of things in nature..."

Bacon then lists a series of observations about nature where the
common theme is apologetic. That is, the more we find out about
Nature, the more we find truths that are ultimately hard to
understand. Yet they remain true. Thus, like Nature, Christianity is
true although it may be hard to ultimately understand. This apologetic
move is questionable (to say the least), but it shows how Bacon was
already explaining how science could be used by the Church. But he
says much more:

"But there is still another very useful way; since the formation
of judgments, as I have said, is a function of this science, in regard
to what can happen by nature or be effected in art, and what not. This
science, moreover, knows how to separate the illusions of magic and to
detect their errors in incantations, invocations, conjurations,
sacrifices, and cults. But unbelievers busy themselves in these mad
acts and trust in them...Wherefore this science is of the greatest
advantage in persuading men to accept the faith, since this branch
alone of philosophy happens to proceed in this way, because this is
the only branch that considers matters of this kind, and is able to
overcome all falsehood and superstition and error of unbelievers in
regard to magic, such as incantations and the like already
mentioned....And now the wonderful advantage derived from these three
sciences in this world on behalf of the Church of God against enemies
of the faith is manifest, who should be destroyed rather by the
discoveries of science than by the warlike arms of combatants."

I hope you read that carefully, because that's pretty "modern"
thinking from a monk in thirteenth century. So not only did Roger
Bacon lay the ground work for the development of the scientific
method, he also gave science a purpose - the purpose of apologetics
and evangelism. No wonder many of the founders of modern science
(listed above) used their science in an apologetic framework. For
example, Robert Boyle set up the Boyle lectures, which were apologetic
lectures designed to reach unbelievers.

c. William of Ockham. He was born somewhere between 1280 and 1290 and
lectured at Oxford from about 1309 to 1323 and died in 1349. While it
is true that Ockham ran into problems with the Vatican, most of this
was political and had to do with the issue of wealth. Ockham was
important in the birth of modern science for three reasons:

i. He was probably the first to launch a serious, systematic attack on
Greek metaphysics. These leads some people to think of him as a sort
of modern rationalist. But this view would be in error. Copleston
describes the true intentions of Ockham:

"In his view, the introduction of Greek metaphysics into Christian
theology had made the theology talk as though God, in His creative
activity, were guided or ruled by ideas or patterns of creation. But
to say this is, in Ockham's opinion, to limit or circumscribe the
divine freedom and omnipotence. In other words, he considered that the
Greek metaphysics of the thirteenth century theologian-philosophers
had contaminated the purity of the Christian faith. To get rid of this
metaphysic is to liberate Christian theology from an alien yoke....He
wanted also to purify theology from what he regarded as the
contamination of pagan metaphysics."



Ockham was not the first Christian philosopher to attack Greek
philosophy. Around 1270, Giles of Rome composed his "Errors of the
Philosophers," where he set out to highlight the faulty beliefs of
Aristotle, Averroes, Avicenna, etc. And among these errors were the
belief that motion never began, time never began, the world never
began, the heavens are not created, etc. But Ockham was the first to
offer a serious, methodical attack. And this would influence those who
would follow.

ii. Part of Ockham's attack involved the formulation of an
epistemology where knowledge "about the world is based on experience;
and experience is experience of individual things." Copleston would
observe that "it is clear that his insistence on the experiential
foundation of knowledge about the world would naturally favor the
growth of physical science, in the sense that its natural effect would
be to concentrate attention on observable facts."

iii. Ockham is generally known for his principle of economy -- the so-
called Ockham's Razor. This principle stated that one should not
postulate the existence of a greater number of entities or factors
when fewer will suffice. Ockham didn't invent this principle, as it
really stemmed from Durandus, who in turn used it to eliminate the
number of entities postulated by the traditional Aristotelian
psychology in order to explain abstraction. Nevertheless, it is well
known how important Ockham's Razor has been to science.

d. Jean Buridan: There is very little we know about this man apart
from his writings. We do know that he was appointed as Rector of the
University of Paris in 1340. In his text on medieval philosophy,
Herman Shapiro states:

"According to the estimates of modern scholars, Buridan was
responsible for originating or developing some of the most essential
ideas of the modern scientific tradition."

As a philosopher, Buridan wrote on the projectile motion, falling
bodies, and the rotation of the earth. His writings, in many ways,
anticipate the science of Galileo and Newton. For example, consider
projectile motion. Buridan was a Christian philosopher who took for
granted the temporality of the universe (thanks to his theology). In
attempting to describe celestial motion, Buridan did something
Aristotle (or any Greek) would dare to do - he explained the heavens
by appealing to the terrestial. Y'see, Aristotle split reality into
the celestial and the terrestial. These two were completely different
not only as a matter of basic tenet, but also as a matter of religious
dogma. But Buridan explained celestial motion by an analysis of the
manner in which two earthly motions begin and continue - the rotation
of a smith's heavy wheel and the manner in which the length of a jump
could be increased. From these humble descriptions, Buridan dared to
explain the movement in the heavens!

Aristotle had explained projectile motion by saying that the
projectile experiences a push from the air closing in behind it.
Buridan didn't buy it (by the way, Ockham also rejected Aristotle on
this matter). He wrote:

"...one who wishes to jump a long distance drops back a way in
order to run faster, so that by running he might acquire an impetus
which would carry him a longer distance in the jump. Whence the person
so running and jumping does not feel the air moving him, but rather
feels the air in front strongly resisting him."

After ridding himself of Aristotle's views and replacing them with his
impetus theory, Buridan then immediately invokes his theology to
extrapolate this to the heavens:

"Also, since the Bible does not state that appropriate
intelligences move the celestial bodies, it could be said that is does
not appear necessary to posit intelligences of this kind, because it
would be answered that God, when He created the world, moved each of
the celestial orbs as He pleased, and in moving them He impressed in
them impetuses which moved them without His having to move them any
more except by the method of general influence whereby He concurs as
co-agent in all things that take place....And these impetuses which he
impressed in the celestial bodies were not decreased nor corrupted
afterwards, because there was no inclination of the celestial
movements for other movements. Nor was there resistance which could be
corruptive or repressive of that impetus."

I don't know how anyone could read this and not be struck by its
importance in the birth of science (I should point out that Buridan's
work was very popular among Christian scholars in the 1400s). Buridan
gets rid of Aristotle's views with some simple observations. His views
of Creation then allow him to contemplate the celestial in terms of
the terrestial. In doing so, he extrapolates his impetus theory to the
heavens. Furthermore, by ridding himself of the eternal universe,
Buridan had a place for his impetus. The impetus was imparted by the
Creator in the beginning. Since He is God, there is no other impetus
and since He is perfect, nothing could resist that impetus. The
result? Buridan anticipates Newton's First Law of Motion!

e. Nicholas of Oresme: He followed Buridan, taught in Paris and died
as bishop of Lisieux in 1382. Oresme was one who liked to discuss the
daily rotation of the earth. The common objection to this belief was
that stones dropped from a tower did not fall behind one a rotating
globe. Oresme's answer to this objection was simply a special
application of Buridan's theories - the earth's rotation was imparted
to bodies and was kept undiminished by them. A little later, along
comes Copernicus. And guess what his reply is to the objection about
dropped stones falling behind? It's the same one Oresme developed.
Oresme's solution (which was indebted to Buridan) must have been well
known, as Copernicus didn't get this from his Greek sources and he
offered the solution in a matter-of-fact way as if the objection had
long been resolved.

Oresme contributed much more. According to Copleston:

"He discovered, for example, that the distance traveled by a body
moving with a uniformly increasing velocity is equal to the distance
traveled in the same time by a body moving with a uniform velocity
equal to the velocity attained by the first body in the middle instant
of its course. Moreover, in order to express these and similar
successive variations of intensity in a manner which would facilitate
understanding and comparison, Nicholas conceived the idea of
representing them by rectangular co-ordinates, that is to say, by
means of graphs."

Oresme also questioned the Ptolemaic hypothesis by showing that things
might not be as they appear. He then said that Scriptures which seem
to support Geocentrism were simply written according to the common
mode of speech and should not be regarded as scientific treatises. In
the end, Oresme did not abandon Ptolemism simply because one could not
yet *prove* that is was false.

Much more can be said about these men (and others), but I hope the
reader can see the importance of these men and their works. None of
them were true scientists. Instead, they were philosophers who birthed
and nurtured science. Eventually, men who were not philosophers would
study the world. The empirical spirit birthed by Bacon and Ockham
could stand on its own. The scientist would be born. Take Galileo.
Galileo was clearly indebted to these works. When he argued with the
Aristotelian professors at Pisa, he must have known of the works of
Ockham, Buridan and Oresme. His anti-Aristotelian spirit owed much to
Ockham, Giles of Rome, Buridan, Oresme, and many others. His spirit of
investigation and experiment owe much to Bacon and Ockham. His
telescope would not exist had it not been for Bacon! His replies to
the clergy owe much to Oresme. Galileo was more than Galileo.

Let me quote a lengthy passage from Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions." Kuhn is recognized as one of the greatest
modern historians of science. So what did Kuhn have to say?

"Since remote antiquity most people have seen one or another heavy
body swinging back and forth on a string or chain until it finally
comes to rest. To the Aristotelians, who believed that a heavy body is
moved by its own nature from a higher position to a state of natural
rest at a lower one, the swinging body was simply falling with
difficulty. Constrained by the chain, it could achieve rest at its low
point only after a tortuous motion and considerable time. Galileo, on
the other hand, looking at the swinging body, saw a pendulum, a body
that almost succeeded in repeating the same motion over and over again
ad infinitum. And having seen that much, Galileo observed other
properties of the pendulum as well and constructed many of the most
significant and original parts of his new dynamics behind them. From
the properties of the pendulum, for example, Galileo derived his only
full and sound arguments for the independence of weight and the rate
of fall, as well as for the relationship between vertical height and
terminal velocity of motions down inclined planes. All these natural
phenomena he saw differently from the way they had been seen before."

Note two things. Galileo dealt with something that was not cultural-
specific. All cultures must have known about the fact of swinging
bodies. Yet only Galileo used this fact to help bring about modern
science. Why? That brings us to the second point - Galileo *saw* the
swinging body in a different light. His perception *was* culture-
specific. Why is this? Kuhn continues:

"Why did this shift of vision occur? Through Galileo's individual
genius, of course. But note that genius does not here manifest itself
in more accurate or objective observation of the swinging body.
Descriptively, the Aristotelian perception is just as accurate."

Kuhn's observation shows us that science was not born as the result of
better measurements and new observations. The same ol' thing was seen,
but it was seen in a different light. In fact, Kuhn adds:

"When Galileo reported that the pendulum's period was independent
of amplitude for amplitudes greater than 90 degrees, his view of the
pendulum led him to see far more regularity than we can now discover
there."

Not only did Galileo see regularity where the Aristotelian saw none,
he saw more regularity than measurement would provide. Now pay careful
attention to what Kuhn says:

"Rather, what seems to have been involved was the exploitation by
genius of perceptual possibilities made available by a medieval
paradigm shift."

Bingo. And what do you think was behind this paradigm shift?

"Galileo was not raised completely as an Aristotelian. On the
contrary, he was trained to analyze motions in terms of the impetus
theory, a late medieval paradigm which held that the continuing motion
of a heavy body is due to the internal power implanted in it by the
projector that initiated its motion."

It's right there, looking ya in the eyes. Y'see, the pagan mind never
came up with anything like the impetus theory. The Christian mind not
only came up with it, it *explored* this theory as an alternative to
Aristotelian thinking. The link is obvious, as the impetus theory is
quite at home among the theological belief in a transcendent God who
created nature out of nothing. But it is not at home among the beliefs
of an organismic, pantheistic universe that cycles from eternity.

Kuhn continues:

"Jean Buridan and Nicole Oresme, the fourteenth-century
scholastics who brought the impetus theory to its most perfect
formulations, are the first men known to have seen in oscillatory
motions any part of what Galileo saw there."

I have already touched on the relevance of Buridan and Oresme. You'll
find that in the same breath, Buridan could speak of the impetus
theory concerning a jumping man and God creating the Universe. How
much more clear could it be? When you talk about a projector who
initiates motion and implants internal power to an object, that's
simply another way of saying, "In the beginning, God created the
heavens and the earth."

Kuhn adds:

"Buridan describes the motion of a vibrating string as one in
which impetus is first implanted when the string is struck: the
impetus is next consumed in displacing the string against the
resistance of its tension; tension then carries the string back;
implanting increasing impetus until a mid-point of motion is reached;
after that the impetus displaces the string in the opposite direction,
again against the string's tension, and so on in a symmetric process
that may continue indefinitely."

Once again, we must ask if vibrating strings were not found in non-
christian cultures. Of course they were found in non-christian
cultures. They are universally found. Yet Buridan saw something in a
vibrating string that other non-christian thinkers failed to see. Is
it because the trade was so great in France that they obtained strings
that better vibrated? Er, no. And even if they did, why didn't the
folks they traded with notice the vibrating strings? Buridan saw
something because his Christian world view enabled him to see things
that could not be seen by those who held to views that nature was
organismic, pantheistic, irrational, and cyclical.

Kuhn continues:

"Later in the century Oresme sketched a similar analysis of the
swinging stone in what now appears as the first discussion of the
pendulum. His view is clearly very close to the one with which Galileo
first approached the pendulum."

Galileo's indebtedness to Oresme is obvious not only here, but when it
came to his interpretation of biblical teachings about nature.

Finally, Kuhn says:

"At least in Oresme's case, and almost certainly in Galileo's as
well, it was a view made possible by the transition from the original
Aristotelian to the scholastic impetus paradigm for motion. Until that
scholastic paradigm was invented, there were no pendulums, but only
swinging stones, for the scientist to see. Pendulums were brought into
existence by something very like a paradigm-induced gestalt switch."

I am satisfied in noting that Kuhn is saying basically what I have
said throughout these essays. The only difference is that Kuhn is not
identifying the cause of the paradigm shift. But the cause is obvious
- Christianity.

So in conclusion, we either attribute the localized aspect of the
birth of science, where modern science was born in Christianized
Europe, to a coincidence or to something resulting from a dependence
on Christianity. I favor the later interpretation. It has the overall
simplicity where it doesn't depend on a series of ad hoc explanations
to account for the lack of science in so many other cultures. There
are also several basic elements of Christian theology that certainly
seem to provide a fertile ground for the birth of science, elements
that are not found in other religious world views. In fact, many of
these elements are found on the lips of the founders of science. And
finally, even a brief synopsis of Christian medieval philosophy
documents many elements that clearly paved the way for, and even
anticipated, modern science.

LEFT-OVER OBJECTIONS

Of course, there are two more objections to my hypothesis:

When the time is ripe for a discovery, the discovery is made by
someone. Consider calculus, invented almost simultaneously by Liebnitz
and Newton. What makes the time ripe? Usually external fertilization,
from other areas.

In my opinion, what made time ripe was the thinking through of the
implications of the Christian world view. Christianity had to cut
itself away, once and for all, from the hindrance of pagan philosophy.
This is easier to say than done, as Greek metaphysics had a very high
reputation among thinking people, and science would of course be born
among thinking people.

But if you think there is a better ripening factor, be specific. What
was it? And in choosing this alternative factor, keep in mind that you
must find candidates that are particular to Europe, as modern science
was birthed only there.

I must confess that I really can't see any other truly viable
alternative. After all, science is a "way of thinking," a "way of
seeing the world." As such, you need to find a "way of thinking" that
gave rise to the scientific "way of thinking," and do so in a way that
is particular to Europe. Given that the Christian "way of thinking"
predominated in Europe, and the theology and philosophy of the
Christian world view can be seen to easily and simply explain the rise
of science, I don't know how you could come up with a better
explanation. But if you have one, I'm all ears.

Finally:

If Christianity had been the cause, many discoveries would have been
made when Christianity became the dominant religion. Yet, as soon as
Christianity became the religion, the entire civilization collapsed.

It's not as simple as this. Even when Christianity became the most
popular religion, the intellectual arena was still dominated by those
beholden to pagan philosophy. So much so that Christian thinkers
looked for ways to fuse their theology with Greek thinking. Neo-
Platonism was the obvious system of choice. It took a long time for
Christian thinkers to finally decide to throw out all the Greek
metaphysics.

More importantly is the simple fact that Christianity inherited a
decaying civilization. Don't confuse cause with correlation. Just
because the rise of Christianity is often correlated with the fall of
Rome does not mean Christianity caused the fall. In fact, I would
argue that the fall of Rome was more important in the rise of
Christianity. Rome would fall whether or not Christianity came into
existence, and in fact, Christianity may have actually prolonged the
Empire. But eventually it fell, and total chaos followed. Simply
consider the chaos that has followed the fall of the Soviet Union.
This is gentle when compared what followed the fall of the Roman
Empire. Countless wars and battles, fought along tribalistic lines,
occurred. The only unifying factor in all of Europe was Christianity
and it was busy trying to work out its relationship with the little
states and kingdoms. We can go into all the historical details in
another article, but suffice it to say that Christianity inherited the
ashes of a burnt out and savaged civilization. From this dust, new
systems and new thoughts would have to emerge. And in an environment
of confusion and chaos, you need time. Time for things to become more
structured and more ordered.

Finally, couldn't the skeptic claim that I am engaged in revisionism,
where I am simply using my Christian bias to rewrite history to show
the importance of Christianity?

Y'see, what happens is historians look at history through the filters
of their world view. Their world views then determine what facts are
significant and what facts are irrelevant. A Freudian historian might
think Galileo's momma was important in the birth of science, while a
Marxist historian might focus on economic conditions. A Pragmatist
might think pragmatism sufficient for the birth of science. Now, I
realize that my interpretation of history is no less colored than
others. But, nevertheless, not all interpretations of history can be
equally true. And I am encouraged in my interpretation for several
reasons:

1. It is not really "my" interpretation, as many non-christian
scholars and scientists have arrived at very similar interpretations.
Thus, the Christian world view is not necessary to engender such an
interpretation.

2. It has the beauty of simplicity and better explanatory power. It
explains the Big Fact - why modern science was born in a Christian
culture and why it failed to be born in many non-christian cultures.
It also explains many little facts - i.e., why it is that Aristotle's
claim about falling bodies could remain accepted.

3. It is better *documented*. Most historians of science would point
to Galileo as perhaps the most crucial figure in the history of
science. Yet Galileo did not arrive at his approach all on his own. He
was clearly indebted to medieval philosophers who, as many scholars of
medieval philosophy note, paved the way for the birth of modern
science. Galileo was more than Galileo.

4. When you consider the consensus views engendered by Christianity,
it is very easy to show their importance in the birth of modern
science. That is, you don't have to stretch things and rely on an
obscure verse from the Bible to make this point. Instead, widespread
and very basic assumptions form a set of beliefs that would be very
powerful and helpful. On the other hand, it is also easy to see how
the assumptions of non-christian religions would hinder the birth of
science - as they did.

Let's consider point 1 on more detail:

Many non-christian scholars have acknowledged the role of Christianity
in the birth of modern science. I suppose it began with Alfred North
Whitehead (1861-1947) and J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904-1967). While
neither were Christians, both stressed that modern science was born
out of the Christian world view (after all, it was born in Europe).
Whitehead was a widely respected mathematician and philosopher and
Oppenheimer was director of the Institute for Advanced Study at
Princeton and wrote on a wide range of topics, ranging from subjects
related to science to the atom and atomic energy.

In 1962, Oppenheimer wrote an article on "Science and Culture" for the
journal "Encounter" and Whitehead gave a presentation at the Harvard
University Lowell Lectures entitled "Science and the Modern World."
Whitehead said that Christianity is the mother of science because "of
the medieval insistence on the rationality of God." He noted that
because of this belief, the founders of science had an "inexpugnable
belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its
antecedents in a perfectly definite manner. exemplifying general
principles. Without this belief the incredible labors of scientists
would be without hope." As Whitehead noted, the Christian thought form
of the early scientists gave them "the faith in the possibility of
science."

Nowadays, Christianity seems irrelevant to science because science can
point to its successes. But before there was success, there was only
faith that science would succeed. And that faith stemmed from the
Christian world view. From our perspective, it is hard to appreciate
the boldness of the founders of modern science. They lived in a time
when Aristotle's philosophy was considered dogma in the university.
Yet before science had proved itself with a series of successes, they
dared to do things such as explain how the heavens worked by appealing
to how things worked on the earth. In fact, it was a theologian who
anticipated Newton's First Law!

Paul Davies is a theoretical physicist who is also not a Christian.
But he too has spoken about the essential role of Christianity. Davies
notes that modern science was born as the result of a symbiosis
between Greek philosophy and Judeo-Christian thinking. Davies notes
that it was from the merging of these two thought streams that modern
science emerged. Greek thinking contributed the emphasis on
mathematical principles and Judeo-Christian thinking contributed an
emphasis on the contingent, linear, and rational nature of creation.
Davies said,

"All the early scientists, like Newton, were religious in one way
or another. They saw their science as a means of uncovering traces of
God's handiwork in the universe. What we now call the laws of physics
they regarded as God's abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in
the mind of God. So in doing science, they supposed, one might be able
to glimpse the mind of God - an exhilarating and audacious claim."

If you read Davies carefully, he is saying science was born as a quasi-
religious expression! We often don't appreciate just how religious
many of these men were. After revolutionizing physics, Newton spent
most of his later years studying and writing about the Bible (although
most of this wasn't published). Robert Boyle is considered the chief
founder of modern chemistry. He also set up the "Boyle lectures,"
which were *apologetic* lectures about Christianity that tried to
reach skeptical unbelievers.

Of course, it wasn't just any ol' religion that helped to birth modern
science. In spite of the fact that the laws of science are universal,
modern science was born in a Judeo-Christian context. For where is the
Muslim version of Newton - the Muslim who also independently
discovered Newton's laws? Where is the Buddhist version of Mendel?
Where is the Hindu version of Kepler?

Davies also adds something that should cause some eyebrows to rise
here:

"In the ensuing three hundred years, the theological dimension of
science has faded [note that science began with a "theological
dimension"]. People take it for granted that the physical world is
both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature- the
laws of physics - are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody
asks where they come from; at least they do not do so in polite
company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act
of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is rational basis
to physical existence manifested as lawlike order in nature that is at
least part comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the
scientist adopts an essentially theological world view."

I agree. The thinking of the atheistic French existentialists would
never have given rise to science. But I would add something else to
Davies' claim. It's not just any ol' theological world view. The
theology of paganism or the various Eastern religions would likewise
not have given rise to modern science. And in fact, they didn't.

Of course, I realize that it would cause too much cognitive dissonance
for some atheists and skeptics to believe that Christianity was
important in the birth of modern science. To help them, let me offer
another type of argument - one that seeks to blame Christianity for an
evil. Since many skeptics and atheists are always open to this
approach, perhaps it might be more fruitful.

Y'see, Christianity has been blamed for our ecological crisis. How? It
is noted that Christianity desacralized nature and gave us science and
technology. These in turn gave us the ecological crisis. This claim
was first popularized in an article which appeared in the scientific
journal "Science." Lynn White, Jr. wrote 'The Historical Roots of our
Ecological Crisis' and this work has been repeatedly circulated in
ecological circles.

According to White, Christianity was crucial in the birth of modern
science. White wrote:

"The victory of Christianity over paganism was the greatest
psychic revolution in the history of our culture....It is often hard
for the historian to judge, when people explain why they are doing
what they want to do, whether they are offering real reasons or merely
culturally acceptable reasons. The consistency with which scientists
during the long formative centuries of Western science said that the
task and reward of the scientist was "to think God's thoughts after
him." If so, then modern Western science was cast in the matrix of
Christian theology. The dynamism of religious devotion, shaped by the
Judeo-Christian dogma of creation, gave it impetus."

As I noted, White argues that Christianity was crucial in the birth of
science and technology. He then blames Christianity for our ecological
crisis because of this. So, for those skeptics who can only believe
something about Christianity if it is bad for Christianity, here is
your out. You can acknowledge the facts that show Christianity to be
crucial in the birth of science, but like White, you can move on from
here and blame Christianity for yet another evil!

THE FUTURE THREAT TO SCIENCE

While science was born in a Christian environment, and the founders of
modern science viewed it as something that complemented their faith,
today's scientist no longer feels obligated to recognize the role of
Christianity. The reason is obvious - science proceeds nicely on its
own. Like a child who no longer needs his mother, science continues to
advance simply due to its own success. But will science continue like
this far into the future, or might it be forced to return to its
mother like a prodigal son? I suspect that most think science will
continue to exist as science because of its pragmatic value. And there
is certainly some truth to this. But I think it naive to think science
will continue to exist as it exists today. Consider my reasoning.

We live in an age when more and more people are adopting a "neo-pagan"
outlook - where everything is ultimately relative and subjective. Can
science continue to exist protected from such an outlook? I'm not so
sure.

The common person seems to live in a love/hate relationship with
science. They love the pragmatic benefits of science - cures to
disease, better standards of living, new technology, etc. But they do
hate the "coldness" of science. They don't like to think of themselves
as meaningless, accidental accumulations of genes and chemicals. In
fact, many think science is hostile. Why? Like it or not, humans are
religious beings. We have always been so. And since science if often
popularized by naturalists (folks who adopt the world view of
naturalism), scientific findings are often interpreted in ways that
threaten our religious sense of humanity and meaning. This need not be
the case, but by taking Christianity out of the mix, you have the
cold, rational materialistic interpretations of the scientist in
conflict with the subjective, irrational religious views of the neo-
pagan. And just as ancient paganism hindered the birth of science,
modern neo-paganism can work to starve and ultimately kill science as
we know it. How so? Consider just two phenomena - the rise of
postmodernism and the rising influence of the animal-rights movement.

An excellent editorial appeared in the Wall Street Journal (7/10/95)
entitled "The Flight From Science and Reason." It was written by
Christina Hoff Sommers, a professor of philosophy at Clark University

Sommers notes that New Jersey has just sponsored the "New Jersey
Project".

"It's goal is to 'transform' the curriculum in higher education to
make it more multicultural and "inclusive." The project circulates a
guideline cautioning that 'much previous scholarship has offered a
white, male, Eurocentric, heterosexist, and elite view of "reality."'
Citing the words of feminist historian of science, Elizabeth Fee, the
guideline explains how male scientists exploit nature the way a
violent man exploits a helpless woman: 'Nature was female, and
knowledge was created as an act of aggression - a passive nature had
to be interrogated, unclothed, penetrated, and compelled by man to
reveal her secrets.'"

Sommers notes, "The document is striking because it emanates from an
official government agency."

In my opinion, it is more than "striking." It is scandalous. While
skeptics are quick to identify and oppose some local school board
which is trying to include creationism in its curricula, look what is
happening on the larger scale - feminist ideologues are using the
state government to "transform" higher education with the notion that
science = rape.

This is not an isolated event. Sommers notes:

"But it is the kind of attack that has been ROUTINELY leveled at
science by multiculturists, radical environmentalists, feminist
theorists and others on the cultural left for the past several
years." (emphasis added)

What is really troublesome is that a good portion of these
antirational, anti-science agendas are funded by the government. The
Department of Education is one source of funds for these efforts. Its
Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education backs "Women's
Way of Knowing." Sommers describes this as:

"an influential book that impugns 'male ways of knowing' as
excessively concerned with logic and hard data, and 'valorizes'
something called 'connected knowing,' a compassionate style of
cognition women are supposed to be especially good at."

Sommers also notes that even the NSF funds a faculty development
project that runs seminars and workshops on doctrines "of prominent
anti-science feminist epistemologists."

Sommers has a great summary of this current fad of irrationalism:

"Perhaps there is a place for romantic rebellion against reason
and objectivity, but that place is not the Department of Education,
nor the National Science Foundation, not university administrations
(which are duty bound to promote respect for reason in the students
under their care); nor is it in educational projects paid for by the
taxpayers of New Jersey."

When you have government agencies coupled with university
administrations working to promote anti-science and antirational
ideologies, our culture is distinctly threatened.

Sommers writes:

"Martin Lewis, a geographer and environmentalist at Duke
University, informed the conference (more on this below) that
"hostility to science, coupled with misgivings about reason, is the
norm among a sizable and influential group of academics devoted to the
study of....environmental philosophy." Western philosophy and science
are seen as "irredeemably flawed," says Mr. Lewis, "while the rest of
the world is pictured as having existed in a state of near ecological
bliss." He reports a particular hostility to the founders of modern
science - Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Descartes - who are seen as "eco-
villains."

For some time now, the deconstructionists have ravaged the humanity
departments of their respective schools. It appears that they are now
setting their sights on the practice of science.

But it goes beyond the university environment. Sommers brings up
another example:

"In 1989, the American Chemical Society (ACS) commissioned the
Smithsonian Museum of American History to design a permanent exhibit
on "Science in American Life." The ACS scientists naturally expected
an exhibit celebrating the triumphs of 20th century American science
and did not imagine that this needed to be spelled out in the
contract. But five years and $5 million dollars later, what the
scientists got was an exhibition that presented American science as a
series of moral debacles and environmental catastrophes: Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, Silent Spring, Love Canal, Three Mile Island, and the
explosion of the space shuttle."

As it was with the Enola Gay exhibit, the Smithsonian is defending its
exhibit while the scientists now have to resort to calls for balance.

Yes, this is the America we are handing to our children and
grandchildren: an America where you can take your kids to the museum
to see the horrors of science and then send them to college to learn
that science is rape. Of course, this will not happen overnight. It's
happening one small step at a time.

But there is a reason for some hope. Scientists are beginning to wake
up. Under the auspices of the New York Academy of Sciences, University
biologist Paul Gross and Rutgers mathematician Norman Levitt helped
organize "The Flight from Science and Reason," a high-level conference
of more than 200 scientists, physicians, and humanists who met to
"consider the flight from reason and its associated anti-science." At
least the scientific community is beginning to become aware of the
distant thunder over the horizon.

The July 10, 1995 edition of TheScientist also has an article
addressing the same thing Sommers discussed in her editorial in the
WSJ. The article describes the recent conference addressing the rising
tide of irrationalism and anti-science beliefs. In this
conference,several threats were identified - the rise in "alternative
medicine,"cuts to scientific funding, and creationism/fundamentalism.

However...

"The meeting's primary critical focus was postmodernism, a
powerful intellectual shift in many humanities disciplines over the
past few decades. Postmodernism has many facets - social
constructivism and poststructuralism among them - but one of its
central notions is that humans cannot perceive the natural world
directly. Instead, perceptions must pass through such filters as
language and culture, which define our understanding of the world."

Now, there is probably some truth to this "central notion," but
postmodernists take this position as an absolute and push it too
extremes. Of course, when they do this, they end up refuting their own
position, because their "central notion" itself stems from perceptions
which "must pass through such filters as language and culture." So why
think this notion is TRULY "central?"

The articles cites some of the speakers.

From Mario Bunge, professor of philosophy and head of the Foundations
and Philosophy of Science Unit at McGill University in Montreal:

"Walk a few steps away from the faculties of science, engineering,
and medicine, walk towards the faculty of arts. Here, you will meet
another world, one where falsities and lies are manufactured in
industrial quantities. Here, some professors are hired, promoted, or
given power for teaching that reason is worthless, empirical evidence
unnecessary, objective truth nonexistent, basic science a tool of
either capitalists or male domination, and the like. Here, we find
people who reject all the knowledge painstakingly acquired over the
past 5 million years."

David Goodstein, a physicist from Caltech, states:

"All scientists have a fundamental faith - and it is faith - that
there is a real world out there that has rules that can be understood
by rational means. That's what science is all about, and all
scientists must believe that. Those who say science is socially
constructed, it's not written in nature, it's whatever the scientists
and their masters want it to be - that's crackpot. That's where I draw
the line."

Notice that while Goodstein decides to draw the line at this point,
his line seems arbitrary and based on blind faith. The Christian world
view, on the other hand, gives reasons for drawing the line at this
point. And since the postmodernists are enemies of Christianity (they
are expressions of a sophisticated form of paganism), they don't
acknowledge the line. Thus, the importance of Christian faith in
science is clearly seen.

Now, let me add a couple of my own observations. We all know about the
anti-science tendencies of certain fundamentalists. The prime example
is creationism. But creationism is not the threat that postmodernism
is. For one thing, creationism actually respects science. How?
Creationists actually appeal to science to support their views. They
may not succeed, but in trying to USE science to establish their
viewpoint, they show a deep respect for the place of science.
Postmodernists, on the other hand, are not interested in using science
to support their views. They are engaged in a total attack on science
_itself_. Another reason creationism is not nearly the threat that
postmodernism is can be found in the influence of the two.
Creationists are not commonly found in the University; they are simply
outsiders whose influence reaches into a handful of local communities.
Postmodernists, on the other hand, walk the halls of the University,
receive government grants to fund their propaganda, and teach
thousands of impressionable college students each year. That is,
postmodernists are on the INSIDE and they have the ear of the state.
Thirdly, it's easier to spot a creationist, tie his beliefs to
religion, and then use the First Amendment and Court rulings to keep
his views out of the schools. NONE of this applies to the
postmodernists.

Or look at it this way. Postmodernists decry the influence of
"Eurocentric, white, male, heterosexist" assumptions behind science.
Now what religion is viewed as representing the "Eurocentric, white,
male, heterosexist" viewpoint?

Postmodernism is not the only threat to science. Another threat can be
seen in another expression of the pagan mindset - the notion that a
boy is a dog is a rat. This pantheistic expression is found in the
animal rights movement which would sacrifice scientific advancement to
emotional and often pantheistic notions of animal essence.

Consider some abstracts from mainstream publications:

AUTHOR: Cherfas, Jeremy.
TITLE: Two Bomb Attacks on Scientists in the U.K.
APPEARS IN: Science 1990, v248n4962, Jun 22, p. 1485 (1 pages)
ABSTRACT: Animal rights activists have stepped up a campaign of
violence against UK scientists who do experiments involving animals.
Two recent bombing incidents in UK are recounted.

AUTHOR: McCabe, Katie.
TITLE: Beyond Cruelty.
APPEARS IN: Washingtonian 1990, v25n5, Feb p. 72-77+
ABSTRACT: Animal-rights activists want to end man's use of animals for
research experiments. Activists have created a climate of fear in US
laboratories by their acts and threats of violence. The animal rights
movement and its effects are discussed.

AUTHOR: Getty, Jeff.
TITLE: Animal rights or AIDS research?
APPEARS IN: San Francisco Chronicle 1996, Jul 17, Sec A, p17 col1.
ABSTRACT: Jeff Getty discusses the debate over the use of animals for
AIDS research and notes that using tactics, intimidation, harassment
and in some cases even violence, animal rights extremists have
effectively delayed significant AIDS research.

AUTHOR: Wells, Janet.
TITLE: Animal researchers feel hunted.
APPEARS IN: San Francisco Chronicle 1993, Oct 1, Sec A, p1 col1.
ABSTRACT: Security procedures at California university animal research
labs are discussed. Animal rights activists have targeted the labs,
committing 569 criminal acts, protests and boycotts against them from
1991 to 1992.

AUTHOR: Price, Joyce.
TITLE: Animal Activists Threaten Studies.
APPEARS IN: Washington Times 1990, Mar 5, Sec A, p1 col1.
ABSTRACT: Increased violence and threats by animal rights activists
have forced some scientists to halt research and are discouraging many
students from pursuing biomedical careers.

TITLE: Animal Rights Raiders Destroy Years of Work.
APPEARS IN: New York Times 1992, Mar 8, Sec 1, p51 col1.
ABSTRACT: A scientific research center at Michigan State University
was set on fire on Feb 28, 1992 by animal rights advocates. University
officials say the blaze destroyed 32 years' worth of animal science
research.

TITLE: Animal Rights: Man's Mirror.
APPEARS IN: Economist 16 Nov 1991 v.321 no.7733 p.21-22,24
SUBJECT: Terrorism --Great Britain --United States.
EXCERPT: "Animal-rights terrorism has become a familiar phenomenon.
Laboratories, abattoirs and furriers throughout Britain and America
have been attacked. One raid, at a campus of the University of
California in 1987, caused $3.5m-worth of damage to a veterinary
centre. The Association of American Medical Colleges has recorded
almost 4,000 cases of intimidation by animal-rights activists." (p21)

AUTHOR(S): Begley, Sharon.
TITLE: Liberation in the Labs.
APPEARS IN: Newsweek 27 Aug 1984 p.66.
EXCERPT: Each year, 70 million animals are employed in research in the
United States. Approximately 400 groups with two million dues- paying
members are crusading to stop the use of these animals in scientific
experiments. (p66)

AUTHOR: Braaten, David.
TITLE: Animal Rights on a Roll : Insect Abusers Next.
APPEARS IN: Washington Times 1990, May 11, Sec A, p1 col3.
ABSTRACT: Biologist Robert Full's scientific experiments with various
insects have raised the ire of animal rights activists. Full puts
cockroaches, centipedes and crabs on treadmills to study their energy
consumption and mobility.

AUTHOR Kleinhuizen, Jeff.
TITLE: Scientists State Their Case for Animal Research.
APPEARS IN: USA Today 1991, Apr 22, Sec D, p1 col5.
ABSTRACT: The National Academy of Sciences, worried about the growing
influence of animal rights activists, has issued a rare position paper
defending the use of animals in research.

TITLE: Dissection Pits Scientists vs. Activists.
APPEARS IN: USA Today 1991, Apr 3, Sec A, p1 col2.
ABSTRACT: The American Medical Association issued a statement saying
that animal-rights activists seeking a ban on dissection in the
classroom are a threat to science education.

AUTHOR: Pope, John.
TITLE: Official Denounces Animal Activists.
APPEARS IN: Times-Picayune 1991, May 16, Sec A, p18 col3.
ABSTRACT: Frederick Goodwin, head of the federal Alcohol, Drug Abuse
and Mental Health Administration, accuses radical animal-rights groups
and the Church of Scientology of mounting anti-intellectual attacks on
research that is scaring away scientists.

APPEARS IN: Wall Street Journal 1992, Jan 17, Sec A, p10 col1.
ABSTRACT: A brief editorial notes that a recently ruling by Federal
Judge Charles Richey that the FDA isn't looking out for the interest
of rodents and birds used in medical research basically means that
money will be siphoned out of science and transferred into inspections
and compliance.

AUTHOR: Saltus, Richard
TITLE:Teachers feeling the heat in dissection issue.
APPEARS IN: Boston Globe 1993, Apr 5, 29:3.
ABSTRACT: Like conscientious objectors in wartime, more and more
students are asking to opt out of animal dissection. They are getting
encouragement from the Ethical Science Education Coalition, a
grassroots group founded in Connecticut and funded in part by the New
England Antivivisection Society.

The animal rights movement, and especially the postmodernist movement,
represent a serious threat for two reasons--science no longer
acknowledges its indebtedness to the Christian world view and
abandonment of the Christian world view among people is becoming more
and more common. The mindset that hindered the birth of science is
being resurrected, and the continued existence of science-as-we-know-
it is therefore threatened. The polarity between a scientific world
view and a religious world view was only able to be bridged by
Christianity. For Christianity, like science, acknowledges an
objective reality that is intelligible, but unlike atheistic
interpretations of science, it also acknowledges the reality of the
non-material realm. As science comes under attack, the Mother of
Science ought to step-up to defend her offspring from the attacks of
the neo-pagan. For only the Christian world view can defend against
the attacks of the postmodernists. Only the Christian world view can
justify animal research. The atheists and the naturalists have only
their blind faith and sentiments, and these are easily steam-rolled by
the irrational faith and sentiments of the neo-pagan mind. The same
philosophical and theological assumptions that paved the way for the
birth of science are needed to defend the life of science. Christians
have another unique opportunity to demonstrate the importance of
Christian views in the practice of science. Will they take this
opportunity? Or will they join sides with the neo-pagans?

Thus ends my little series of essays highlighting the crucial role
Christianity has played in the existence of science. It is my hope
that more Christians would stop buying into the warfare myth, stop
seeing science as an enemy of their faith, learn to tease apart
philosophical naturalism from science, and learn to appreciate that
science is part of the cultural heritage of their Christian world
view.

http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

[Dreamer In Colore]

Nice snip. You're focusing on communism, when what I pointed out was
your error in saying that all the great discoveries were made by
Christians, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists.

>
>> There are any number of great discoveries eminently attributable to
>> ancient scientists.
>
>
>There was no such animal. The Greeks called themselves "natural
>philosophers," for example. Others were just folks working out the
>truths of life. Science was not invented until Francis Bacon.

Science wasn't "invented" ever. It was just done. Are you saying that
the Romans were just engineers?

>
>
>Loads of Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and Indian
>> thinkers existed long before the rise of any of the religions you've
>> mentioned.
>
>Sure. But they weren't scientists.

You can call them any damn thing you want, but at the end of the day,
science was done.


>
>TCross

[Dreamer In Colore]

I think all of them were scientists. You don't think math is a
science? How about astronomy? Or medicine? Sciences, each and every
one.

>> Posting what you said was shameful.
>
>You can work out your shame in some other forum.
>

You're the one that needs to be ashamed. You post things that are
patently untrue.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

There's nothing to divinate. If there was one single incontrovertible
piece of evidence to support the notion of the divine, then we would
have seen all kinds of lines of inquiry open up. What we got instead
was Augustinian and Thomist theology.

At the end of the day, dvinity is a human concept articulated to
attempt to explain unknown things. It rests on faith, and as such, can
be honestly and critically examined to see whether the tenets hold up.
Since there are nothing but words available to use, it is impossible
to actually validate the divine, and therefore it should be left to
philosophers to dicker about.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[hypatiab7]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 2:55:31 PM UTC-4, casey wrote:

> On May 17, 3:18 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > Have a look:http://www.bartcop.com/bible-not-science.jpg
>
>
>

> If you don't need science then I challenge you
>
> to give up ALL the products of science and go
>
> back and live like an animal in a cave clutching
>
> your Bible without science that has made the
>
> production of food easy and provided cures
>
> for the horrible diseases the caveman had to
>
> endure before his/her death.

He couldn't have his Bible, either, since the printing press
is a result of scientific development. And, the inks to write
it with are the result of primitive scientific research. So is
the use of papyrus and parchment. There must have been a lot of
experimentation to get the results they needed. He'd need to
carve the Bible into rocks from memory.

[hypatiab7]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:14:50 PM UTC-4, Terry Cross wrote:
> On May 16, 12:06 pm, MattB . <trdell1...@spamnogmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:55:31 -0700 (PDT), casey
>
> >
>

> > <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > >On May 17, 3:18 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > >> Have a look:http://www.bartcop.com/bible-not-science.jpg
>
> >
>
> > >If you don't need science then I challenge you
>
> > >to give up ALL the products of science and go
>
> > >back and live like an animal in a cave clutching
>
> > >your Bible without science that has made the
>
> > >production of food easy and provided cures
>
> > >for the horrible diseases the caveman had to
>
> > >endure before his/her death.
>
> >
>

> > Actually they couldn't have a Bible without science.  Not in book form
>
> > anyway.
>
> >
>
> > What kind of book can be made without any science?
>
>
>
> You can't have science without religion. All the great discoveries
>
> were made by Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists. Atheists
>
> invented Communism, and the results are history.
>
>
>

> TCross

The first reach was done by people living in tribal groups and in caves.
The first farmers were around thousands of years before Judaism and
Christianity. That was the beginning of horticulture, botany, biology
and more.

[hypatiab7]

Many primitive and Renaissance/Enlightenment people used the
scientific method whether they knew it or not. Whatever they
called themselves back then, they were primitive/early
scientists. You can't change this, Terry, no matter how hard
you try. And if you give up all the results of scientific
development, you won't have a Bible, unless you carve one in
rock or wood yourself from memory.

[hypatiab7]

It isn't that Terry doesn't understand that these people really were early scientists. He doesn't WANT to believe it. He HAS to be right.

[hypatiab7]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 11:56:40 PM UTC-4, hypatiab7 wrote:
> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:14:50 PM UTC-4, Terry Cross wrote:
>
> > On May 16, 12:06 pm, MattB . <trdell1...@spamnogmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:55:31 -0700 (PDT), casey
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > >On May 17, 3:18 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > >> Have a look:http://www.bartcop.com/bible-not-science.jpg
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >If you don't need science then I challenge you
>
> >
>
> > > >to give up ALL the products of science and go
>
> >
>
> > > >back and live like an animal in a cave clutching
>
> >
>
> > > >your Bible without science that has made the
>
> >
>
> > > >production of food easy and provided cures
>
> >
>
> > > >for the horrible diseases the caveman had to
>
> >
>
> > > >endure before his/her death.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Actually they couldn't have a Bible without science.  Not in book form
>
> >
>
> > > anyway.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > What kind of book can be made without any science?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You can't have science without religion. All the great discoveries
>
> >
>
> > were made by Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists. Atheists
>
> >
>
> > invented Communism, and the results are history.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > TCross
>
>
>

> The first research was done by people living in tribal groups and in caves.

> The first farmers were around thousands of years before Judaism and
> Christianity. That was the beginning of horticulture, botany, biology
> and more.

I corrected the first sentence. It should have been research not reach.

[Terry Cross]

But we are not interested in your personal definition of English
words.

> any time you
> modify your behavior, based on observations of the results of previous
> behavior, you are doing "science".

Scientists call that "conditioned reflex." It seems you have
neglected your studies.

> For example, if you are making
> meatloaf, and the recipe calls for adding 1 Tablespoon of salt, and you
> find the meatloaf is too salty, so the next time you make it,
> you only add 1 tsp of salt, you're doing science. You (informally)
> hypothesize that the meatloaf tastes too salty because you have added
> too much salt. So, you perform an (informal) experiment: decrease the
> amount of salt added, and see if the meatloaf tastes better. If, OTOH,
> you assume that the degree of saltiness is unrelated to your recipe, and
> is controlled by gods and spirits, that's not science.

None of it is science. That is just intelligence. And insistence by
"scientists" that they can estimate the intelligence of a critter by
measuring the physical cranial capacity is not science either. They
do not learn from observation.

> Bacon's main
> contribution was to insist that observation and inference about the
> natural world should depend ONLY on what can be directly observed, with NO
> consideration given to what any gods or spirits might want.

You are totally wrong about that. Others had been saying that for
thousands of years. Bacon formalized the scientific method using
hypotheses, very much as Socrates had done 2,000 years earlier. You
forget that science is a branch of philosophy.

Incidentally, have you ever noticed that the Jewish religion has been
THE major source of superstition and fear-based religion in the world?

TCross

[.."".]

>> You are committing a basic logical fallacy, called a "false
>> dichotomy." =A0The "science" that has you so much agog was invented
>> mostly by Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
>
>"But not a jot of it was done through religion. It was *all* done by the
>scientifc method which the creationists refuse to adhere to, and which the
>religious refuse to employ when it comes to analyzing their own beliefs."
>
>Western science started in what was called natural philosophy. One prime
>motivation was the idea that the creation was a 2nd revelation of God and
>much of a religious nature was to be discovered therein. The scientific
>method was born of it, many if not most giants of science in past were
>religious. Newton for example wrote much more on religious topics then on
>those for which he is better known.
>
>When it comes to the question of the divine science stands mute and dumb.
>Exactly how would one even take the 1st step to do science about the
>divine?

"There's nothing to divinate. If there was one single incontrovertible
piece of evidence to support the notion of the divine, then we would have
seen all kinds of lines of inquiry open up. What we got instead was
Augustinian and Thomist theology."

Flip that coin, if there were one single bit of evidence the atheist could
do science on the question of the divine. Lacking same the enjine of
science stands mute and dunb for lack of same to process.

"At the end of the day, dvinity is a human concept articulated to attempt
to explain unknown things. It rests on faith, and as such, can be honestly
and critically examined to see whether the tenets hold up. Since there are
nothing but words available to use, it is impossible to actually validate
the divine, and therefore it should be left to philosophers to dicker
about."

At the end of the day the claim of no divine rests exactly on the same
footing as a blind faith system only.

[Dreamer In Colore]

That's not true. The claim of divinity requires evidence. The claim of
no divinity is equivalent to "I don't believe you."

If you said "There are huge black acid-spitting dragons", I'd say "I
don't believe you." The claim of the existence of divinity is
analogous, and the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Terry Cross]

On May 18, 6:41 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Can you show us the rule book? We are willing to believe you, but of
course we require proof.

> If you said "There are huge black acid-spitting dragons", I'd say "I
> don't believe you."

Would you? How impolite.

> The claim of the existence of divinity is
> analogous, and the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

You might notice it was YOUR missionaries who brought YOUR doctrines
to OUR group in this thread. Any burden of proof is therefore YOURS.

But what if no one bears a "burden" of proving her beliefs to the
other? Have you considered that? You believe as you wish, and others
believe as they wish. And neither of us tries to enforce or prove, or
convince the other.

TCross

[']

>At the end of the day the claim of no divine rests exactly on the same
>footing as a blind faith system only.

"That's not true. The claim of divinity requires evidence. The claim of no
divinity is equivalent to "I don't believe you.""

That's not true, it is wishful thinking. If an empirical program can not
be produced in support of the belief system of the atheist it is blind
faith alone.

"If you said "There are huge black acid-spitting dragons", I'd say "I don't
believe you." The claim of the existence of divinity is analogous, and the
burden of proof lies on the one making the claim."

The above assertion regarding dragons is open to an empirical program.
Please do outline same for the belief system of the atheist. Absent same
it is blind faith alone.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:20:54 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

Take a class in critical thinking.

[MarkA]

We are even less interested in yours.

>
>> any time you
>> modify your behavior, based on observations of the results of previous
>> behavior, you are doing "science".
>
>
> Scientists call that "conditioned reflex." It seems you have
> neglected your studies.

You're really THAT ignorant, or is this a parody?

>
>
>> For example, if you are making
>> meatloaf, and the recipe calls for adding 1 Tablespoon of salt, and you
>> find the meatloaf is too salty, so the next time you make it,
>> you only add 1 tsp of salt, you're doing science. You (informally)
>> hypothesize that the meatloaf tastes too salty because you have added
>> too much salt. So, you perform an (informal) experiment: decrease the
>> amount of salt added, and see if the meatloaf tastes better. If, OTOH,
>> you assume that the degree of saltiness is unrelated to your recipe, and
>> is controlled by gods and spirits, that's not science.
>
>
> None of it is science. That is just intelligence. And insistence by
> "scientists" that they can estimate the intelligence of a critter by
> measuring the physical cranial capacity is not science either. They
> do not learn from observation.
>

Right, because "intelligence" is even easier to precisely define than
"science" is?

I'm calling for a "Poe's Law" check!

>
>> Bacon's main
>> contribution was to insist that observation and inference about the
>> natural world should depend ONLY on what can be directly observed, with
>> NO consideration given to what any gods or spirits might want.
>
>
> You are totally wrong about that. Others had been saying that for
> thousands of years. Bacon formalized the scientific method using
> hypotheses, very much as Socrates had done 2,000 years earlier. You
> forget that science is a branch of philosophy.
>
> Incidentally, have you ever noticed that the Jewish religion has been
> THE major source of superstition and fear-based religion in the world?
>
> TCross

No, actually, I haven't. By "fear-based religion", I assume you mean
Christianity? After all, they are the ones who came up with the idea that
you can be punished by God even after you are dead.

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[Dreamer In Colore]

On 18 May 2013 15:43:17 GMT, '; "". wrote:

>>At the end of the day the claim of no divine rests exactly on the same
>>footing as a blind faith system only.
>
>"That's not true. The claim of divinity requires evidence. The claim of no
>divinity is equivalent to "I don't believe you.""
>
>That's not true, it is wishful thinking. If an empirical program can not
>be produced in support of the belief system of the atheist it is blind
>faith alone.

You're clinging to the fallacy that atheism is a belief system. It
isn't. It is lack of belief.

>
>"If you said "There are huge black acid-spitting dragons", I'd say "I don't
>believe you." The claim of the existence of divinity is analogous, and the
>burden of proof lies on the one making the claim."
>
>The above assertion regarding dragons is open to an empirical program.
>Please do outline same for the belief system of the atheist. Absent same
>it is blind faith alone.

There is no belief system in atheism. It's "lack of theism". Look,
you're positing the existence of a supernatural creature, and I'm
saying "Oh yeah? Let's see some serious evidence of that fairly
improbable claim."

At this point, you're going to do what? Hold up a book?

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Dreamer In Colore]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:20:54 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross

The rule book is called "critical thinking". The burden of proof is on
the person making the assertion. If you make the assertion that a
supernatural being exists, then you need to be able to back that up in
a significant way without resorting to hearsay or wishful thinking.

>
>> If you said "There are huge black acid-spitting dragons", I'd say "I
>> don't believe you."
>
>
>Would you? How impolite.

It's not impolite. It's incredulity. You're telling me you'd actually
believe someone if they talked about huge black acid-spitting dragons
without asking for a picture or video evidence? And that's far less a
stretch than an invisible, immaterial, and insubstantial supernatural
entity, which would require vastly more evidence.

>
>
>> The claim of the existence of divinity is
>> analogous, and the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.
>
>
>You might notice it was YOUR missionaries who brought YOUR doctrines
>to OUR group in this thread. Any burden of proof is therefore YOURS.
>

The initial post was "Why do we need science?". And the thread grew
from that. The discussion devolved into your asinine assertions about
the origins of the science, rather than supporting or denying the
initial thesis.

I didn't assert anything without evidence, Terry. You, on the other
hand, made some pretty silly assertions.

>But what if no one bears a "burden" of proving her beliefs to the
>other? Have you considered that? You believe as you wish, and others
>believe as they wish. And neither of us tries to enforce or prove, or
>convince the other.
>

If you continue to maintain a belief without evidence, that is called
delusion. If you wish to maintain your delusion, that's fine, but if
you make assertions without substance, you're going to get called on
it.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Don Martin]

On 18 May 2013 11:55:13 GMT, .. "". wrote:

>At the end of the day the claim of no divine rests exactly on the same
>footing as a blind faith system only.

For me, the claim of a divine results in "why should I give a shit?"
All we get from theists by way of answer are repeated empty threats of
punishment in an unevidenced place for an unevidenced amount of time.
--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[/./"".]

You're clinging to the fallacy that atheism is a belief system. It
isn't. It is lack of belief.

>
>"If you said "There are huge black acid-spitting dragons", I'd say "I
don't
>believe you." The claim of the existence of divinity is analogous, and the
>burden of proof lies on the one making the claim."
>
>The above assertion regarding dragons is open to an empirical program.
>Please do outline same for the belief system of the atheist. Absent same
>it is blind faith alone.

"There is no belief system in atheism. It's "lack of theism". Look, you're
positing the existence of a supernatural creature, and I'm saying "Oh yeah?
Let's see some serious evidence of that fairly improbable claim.""

I'm doing no such thing. I'm saying that an empirical program such as
science is mute and dumb on the question. I have not declared myself one
way or the other. If it ain't amenable to an empirical program then it is
belief alone, and blind at that.

"At this point, you're going to do what? Hold up a book?"

No why should I, given that you have declared your position there is no
divine then we await your empirical program for same. Or absent it we will
see it is a blind faith belief system on the question.

Bottom line, atheism is not science nor can it be made to be one nor does
science in any way illuminate the question. That is why science is a
crutch for the atheist that has not been given due consideration as to the
assumptions made or the conclusions drawn.. In it's place we find a blind
faith based belief system.

The supposed war between science and belief is false with regard to the
question of the divine..

[Dreamer In Colore]

If you bring up the divine, and I say "I don't believe you", it's not
a belief on my part. It's a lack of belief on my part. There's no
empricism necessary.

I don't have any questions on the divine, because it doesn't occupy my
life in the slightest. It's nothing more than an intellectual
curiosity at this point. So at this point, I'm not even using science
for anything. If you say "There is a God" I say... "Oh yeah? Show me."

At this point, I haven't drawn any conclusions except that you're
professing the existence of a supernatural entity. I don't need to
validate my lack of belief for that, any more than I need to validate
my lack of belief in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.

So have at it! Show me the divine!

Note, I didn't ever say "There is no divine", because there's no need
for me to say it. I merely raised an eyebrow when you said "There is a
divine". You're making a claim, and I'm not.

There's no war between science and belief. Belief in unsubstantiated
things is called delusion. Continuing to maintain delusion without
substantiation is suspect.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[Christopher A. Lee]

I have no idea who posted what because proper attribution standards
weren't used.

On 18 May 2013 11:55:13 GMT, .. "". wrote:

>>> You are committing a basic logical fallacy, called a "false
>>> dichotomy." =A0The "science" that has you so much agog was invented
>>> mostly by Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Lie noted.

In the West science was a product of the enlightenment when Europe was
dragging itself out of the Christian dark age, and was discouraged by
the churches to the extent that early scientists were executed
horribly for results that contradicted church doctrine, and even
Galileo was kept under house arrest.

It is just plain dishonest to give Christianity the credit for what a
few brave scientists who went against the tide, achieved.

And in the Arab world it flourished until Islam turned fundamentalist
and descended into its own dark age.

It is also dishonest to give religion credit for modern science
because scientists who are theists step aside from their religious
beliefs when doing their research - even if some prostitute their
profession by being presented as scientists to a religious audience
and then rationalising the irreconcilable to believers who imagine
they're being scientific.

>>"But not a jot of it was done through religion. It was *all* done by the
>>scientifc method which the creationists refuse to adhere to, and which the
>>religious refuse to employ when it comes to analyzing their own beliefs."
>>
>>Western science started in what was called natural philosophy. One prime
>>motivation was the idea that the creation was a 2nd revelation of God and
>>much of a religious nature was to be discovered therein.

But not for centuries.

Not a jot of actual understanding of how the world works, was done by
religion.

Even Galileo, Newton etc simply had a thirst for understanding how
things worked.

>> The scientific
>>method was born of it, many if not most giants of science in past were
>>religious. Newton for example wrote much more on religious topics then on
>>those for which he is better known.

And as a result of his work, Newton became a mechanist who believed in
a god who created the universe and left it to run itself according to
the laws of physics he had discovered.

Just like everybody else, he had been raised since childhood to
believe in the Christian god - but what he found was incompatible
with it and after eliminating what didn't fit what he had discovered,
he was left with just a creator who didn't do it the way Christianity
taught.

The scientific method was not born of religion, and those giants of
science who were religious stepped aside from their religion to reach
the results of their research, revising their beliefs in the light of
it - with the result being that the church executed many of them
horribly as heretics.

>>When it comes to the question of the divine science stands mute and dumb.
>>Exactly how would one even take the 1st step to do science about the
>>divine?

There no "question of the divine" outside the imagination of theists.

Although gods (in the plural) are the study of cultural anthrop logy
and psychology.

It's up to those who claim they are real outside their religion,
whichever god religion, to show they actually are - because until they
do that there is no reason to them any differently than all the
hundreds of others in the long from Amun Ra to Zeus.

In other words it is just one out of hundreds of equivalent religious
beliefs.

>"There's nothing to divinate. If there was one single incontrovertible
>piece of evidence to support the notion of the divine, then we would have
>seen all kinds of lines of inquiry open up. What we got instead was
>Augustinian and Thomist theology."

Exactly.

Science would have gone down that route and whatever was found would
become part of the knowledge base.

Because that's how science works.

Theists don't seem to understand this knowledge base - for example it
doesn't say "God exists" or "God doesn't exist", it says "Christians,
Jews and Muslims believe in a god they call God" and stops there.

>Flip that coin, if there were one single bit of evidence the atheist could
>do science on the question of the divine.

Why would an arheist even bother to do that?

Hint: an atheist isn't what ignorant theists who can't think outside
the box, imagine.

We're people who aren't theist, that's all. And we don't have
positions theists who can't think outside the box invent for us using
presumptions only theists have inside the box.

> Lacking same the enjine of
>science stands mute and dunb for lack of same to process.

It's simply not there at all. Nor is the question.

There is no reason even to give "the divine" a thought outside the
imagination of theists who assume everybody else should take it
seriously even though they never, ever, provide any evidence for it.

So there is no "question of the divine" at all outside their
imagination - they're the only people who could have it even though
they "think" everybody else should.

Because "the divine" is merely somebody else's religious belief, and
there are hundreds of different "the divines" believed in by all the
different religions.

>"At the end of the day, dvinity is a human concept articulated to attempt
>to explain unknown things. It rests on faith, and as such, can be honestly
>and critically examined to see whether the tenets hold up. Since there are
>nothing but words available to use, it is impossible to actually validate
>the divine, and therefore it should be left to philosophers to dicker
>about."

The problem is that far too many theists have the commonsense and
courtesy to keep it where it belongs, and talk outside their religion
as if it were real.

At which point it becomes the subject of "put up or shut up" - but
theists are psychologically incapable of shutting up about it even
though they can't put up.

>At the end of the day the claim of no divine rests exactly on the same
>footing as a blind faith system only.

A standard, dishonest theist lie.

There is no symmetry because there is nothing to make that claim
about so nobody makes it.

It's merely somebody else's religious belief that they haven't the
commonsense and courtesy to keep where it belongs.

Honest theists would not invent straw man (polite word for lie)
opposite positions to theirs, and then attribute them to those who
don't give their religious beliefs a thought.

Why do we see so few?

Intelligent theists understand that others see their god in terms of
"somebody else's religious belief" rather like Zeus, Odin and all the
others. Not as something that could or couldn't exist.

Why do we see so few?

[//"".]

"Note, I didn't ever say "There is no divine", because there's no need for
me to say it. I merely raised an eyebrow when you said "There is a divine".
You're making a claim, and I'm not."

Note, I said no such thing nor made any such claim. I have said that the
atheist has a belief system absent any empirical program in support,
rendering same a belif on blind faith alone.

"There's no war between science and belief. Belief in unsubstantiated
things is called delusion. Continuing to maintain delusion without
substantiation is suspect."

Agreed, no better expression of the situation of the atheist can be made.
They have no science in support, only a blind faith belief system
concerning the divine.

[John Manning]

Utter nonsense.

[Dreamer In Colore]

It's the best a theist can do. Refusal to acknowledge that atheism is
a lack of belief is a cornerstone of their state.

Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

[hypatiab7]

We don't care what you post in your own newsgroup. But, you are
posting your nonsense in alt.atheism. So, it is your responsibility
to back it up.

[/./"".]

I take that as a confession of the reality of what supports the atheist
belief system, blind faith absent any empirical program in support.

[John Manning]

No one can prevent you from your delusions, Mr/Ms /./ "".

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <5197a195$0$2658$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, '; "".
wrote:

> >At the end of the day the claim of no divine rests exactly on the same
> >footing as a blind faith system only.
>
> "That's not true. The claim of divinity requires evidence. The claim of no
> divinity is equivalent to "I don't believe you.""
>
> That's not true, it is wishful thinking. If an empirical program can not
> be produced in support of the belief system of the atheist it is blind
> faith alone.

What "belief system"?

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <5197f63e$0$2655$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, // "".
wrote:

> "Note, I didn't ever say "There is no divine", because there's no need for
> me to say it. I merely raised an eyebrow when you said "There is a divine".
> You're making a claim, and I'm not."
>
> Note, I said no such thing nor made any such claim. I have said that the
> atheist has a belief system

What "belie3f system"?

[Terry Cross]

On May 18, 8:51 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:20:54 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross

> <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

Would you prefer sharper criticism? Let me try.

John Manning, you missionary, brought the thread to us. We replied,
each according to her own beliefs. Now you accuse us of "making
claims" and you say something more is required OF US !

You are mistaken. Stay on your own side of the fence, levy
requirements and burd3ens on each other to your hearts' content, and
leave us alone. Or, if you would like to visit in our groups, learn
our rules, and abide by them.

That is all that is of us by this situation. I hope that is critical
enough to scratch your itch for controversy.

TCros

[Terry Cross]

On May 18, 9:31 am, Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

If that is your rule book, go some place and learn to live by it. At
this time, you demonstrate nothing but hypocrisy because you CLAIM
there is such a book and you CLAIM that it contains such a rule, but
you have not provided evidence to support those claims and you have
not satisfied your own rule of conduct.

Have a good day.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

Then why do you send your missionaries into our groups?

> >> any time you
> >> modify your behavior, based on observations of the results of previous
> >> behavior, you are doing "science".
>
> > Scientists call that "conditioned reflex."  It seems you have
> > neglected your studies.
>
> You're really THAT ignorant, or is this a parody?

Have you not read about Behaviorism? That is the only scientific
psychology.

> >> For example, if you are making
> >> meatloaf, and the recipe calls for adding 1 Tablespoon of salt, and you
> >> find the meatloaf is too salty, so the next time you make it,
> >> you only add 1 tsp of salt, you're doing science.  You (informally)
> >> hypothesize that the meatloaf tastes too salty because you have added
> >> too much salt.  So, you perform an (informal) experiment: decrease the
> >> amount of salt added, and see if the meatloaf tastes better.  If, OTOH,
> >> you assume that the degree of saltiness is unrelated to your recipe, and
> >> is controlled by gods and spirits, that's not science.
>
> > None of it is science.  That is just intelligence.  And insistence by
> > "scientists" that they can estimate the intelligence of a critter by
> > measuring the physical cranial capacity is not science either.  They
> > do not learn from observation.
>
> Right, because "intelligence" is even easier to precisely define than
> "science" is?

No, because doing the right thing for the wrong reason is not
science. Hence, simply doing the right thing is not science. In
fact, science is not a description of activity, but the method by
which knowledge and activity is developed. And that method was not
invented until Francis Bacon's formulation of the Scientific Method.

> I'm calling for a "Poe's Law" check!

You may be assured I am not a Mechanical Turk.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On May 18, 7:05 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <5197f63e$0$2655$1c468...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, // "".

> wrote:
>
> > "Note, I didn't ever say "There is no divine", because there's no need for
> > me to say it. I merely raised an eyebrow when you said "There is a divine".
> > You're making a claim, and I'm not."
>
> > Note, I said no such thing nor made any such claim.  I have said that the
> > atheist has a belief system
>
> What "belie3f system"?

You recently strongly inferred that Nature is so prestigious that you
doubt the sanity of anyone who does not fall on her face when Nature
enters the room. Apparently, you believe everything published by
Nature. If not, give us an example of something it has published and
why you do not believe it.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On May 18, 11:31 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> I have no idea who posted what because proper attribution standards
> weren't used.
>
> On 18 May 2013 11:55:13 GMT, .. "". wrote:
>
> >>> You are committing a basic logical fallacy, called a "false
> >>> dichotomy." =A0The "science" that has you so much agog was invented
> >>> mostly by Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
>
> Lie noted.
>
> In the West science was a product of the enlightenment when Europe was
> dragging itself out of the Christian dark age, and was discouraged by
> the churches to the extent that early scientists were executed
> horribly for results that contradicted church doctrine, and even
> Galileo was kept under house arrest.

The churches did terrible things when they were in power. Then
Atheism came to power and it did even worse things. What is your
point?

> It is just plain dishonest to give Christianity the credit for what a
> few brave scientists who went against the tide, achieved.

It is just plain dishonest to pretend that was my claim. I wrote
"Christians, Jews, and Muslims." I did not write Christianity or
churches.

> And in the Arab world it flourished until Islam turned fundamentalist
> and descended into its own dark age.

You use fundamentalism as a synonym for the "dark age," so your
statement is a tautology. Is that logical?

Islam flourished and prospered until it was repeatedly attacked and
destroyed by "enlightened" Europe and Genghis Khan.

TCross

[Devils Advocaat]

On 16 May, 19:37, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On May 16, 10:18 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>
> > Have a look:http://www.bartcop.com/bible-not-science.jpg
>

> You are committing a basic logical fallacy, called a "false

> dichotomy."  The "science" that has you so much agog was invented

> mostly by Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
>

> TCross

Science wasn't invented.

[John Manning]

Another fine example of Terry's meaningless gobbledegook.



>
> TCros
>

[Terry Cross]

> > John Manning, your missionary, brought the thread to us.  We replied,

> > each according to her own beliefs.  Now you accuse us of "making
> > claims" and you say something more is required OF US !
>
> > You are mistaken.  Stay on your own side of the fence, levy

> > requirements and burdens on each other to your hearts' content, and

> > leave us alone.  Or, if you would like to visit in our groups, learn
> > our rules, and abide by them.
>

> > That is all that is required of us by this situation.  I hope that is critical

> > enough to scratch your itch for controversy.
>
> Another fine example of Terry's meaningless gobbledegook.

Is this how you demonstrate your superior intelligence -- by
pretending you are too stupid to understand?

TCross

[John Manning]

Even more nonsense from Mr/Ms Cross.

[Terry Cross]

A mystic Atheist. Great.

TCross

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 00:55:19 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
<tcro...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:

You have clearly shown that you do not understand what critical thinking
is and are unable to engage in it.

>
>John Manning, you missionary, brought the thread to us. We replied,
>each according to her own beliefs. Now you accuse us of "making
>claims" and you say something more is required OF US !
>
>You are mistaken. Stay on your own side of the fence, levy
>requirements and burd3ens on each other to your hearts' content, and
>leave us alone. Or, if you would like to visit in our groups, learn
>our rules, and abide by them.
>
>That is all that is of us by this situation. I hope that is critical
>enough to scratch your itch for controversy.

No, insults are not critical thinking.

[Dakota]

It is a false equivalence. Those who claim there is no god must accept
the burden of supporting that claim.

[./"".]

> "Note, I didn't ever say "There is no divine", because there's no need
for
> me to say it. I merely raised an eyebrow when you said "There is a
divine".
> You're making a claim, and I'm not."
>
> Note, I said no such thing nor made any such claim. I have said that the
> atheist has a belief system


"What "belie3f system"?"

Concerning the divine.

Additionally that they can bring science to bear in support of that belief
system so as to avoid the reality it is based on blind faith alone.

[John Manning]

Blind faith in what?

[/."".]

The validity of there claims about the question of the divine and the
conclusions drawn thereof.

[John Manning]

That fact that there is no verifiable, objective evidence for
a divinity is self-evident. It needs no faith, blind or otherwise.

[//"".]

"That fact that there is no verifiable, objective evidence for a divinity
is self-evident. It needs no faith, blind or otherwise."

That same is equally the case for the other side of the coin regarding the
divine. Given that the atheist is left naked without evidence and an
empriricle program to apply thereof leaves them standing on blind faith
alone.

[John Manning]

Seems you're stuck in a rut of repetitive self-deception.
Objective reality can help with that.

[/."".]

Some people more then others require additional repetitive attention to
displace dearly held myths about their belief system.

There is a wall of seperation between science and the divine. That's a
bitter pill of reality for some to swallow.

Objective reality is what has now been requested many times,ie. an
empirical program to apply to the divine to rescue the atheist from their
blind faith alone position.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519a0f10$0$2661$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, ./ "".
wrote:

> > "Note, I didn't ever say "There is no divine", because there's no need
> for
> > me to say it. I merely raised an eyebrow when you said "There is a
> divine".
> > You're making a claim, and I'm not."
> >
> > Note, I said no such thing nor made any such claim. I have said that the
> > atheist has a belief system
>
>
> "What "belie3f system"?"
>
> Concerning the divine.

"Concerning the divine"

What the hell does that mean? Try again.

What "belief system"? What do we believe?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519a6004$0$2658$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, /. "".
wrote:

What claims? What conclusions?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519a793a$0$2658$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, // "".
wrote:

Faith in what?

["".]

> "That fact that there is no verifiable, objective evidence for a divinity
> is self-evident. It needs no faith, blind or otherwise."
>
> That same is equally the case for the other side of the coin regarding
the
> divine. Given that the atheist is left naked without evidence and an
> empriricle program to apply thereof leaves them standing on blind faith
> alone.

"Faith in what?"

The validity of the atheist conclusion regarding the divine.

[./."".]

> > "What "belie3f system"?"
> >
> > Concerning the divine.
> >
> > Additionally that they can bring science to bear in support of that
> belief
> > system so as to avoid the reality it is based on blind faith alone.
> >
>
>
> "Blind faith in what?"
>
> The validity of there claims about the question of the divine and the
> conclusions drawn thereof.

"What claims? What conclusions?"

Those now given several times, and not going away any time soon however
many times the question is rephrased.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519a8fcd$0$2658$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, ;; "".
wrote:

What "atheist conclusion regarding the divine" are you talking about?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519a9068$0$2658$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, ./. "".
wrote:

And you STILL haven't answered my question. Gibberish is not an answer.

So try again:

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519a8dfb$0$2658$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, /. "".
wrote:

You STILL haven't explained what we have blind faith in.

Try to answer without gibberish.

[John Manning]

On 5/20/2013 5:56 PM, /. "". wrote:
>> "That fact that there is no verifiable, objective evidence for a divinity
>> is self-evident. It needs no faith, blind or otherwise."
>>
>> That same is equally the case for the other side of the coin regarding
> the
>> divine. Given that the atheist is left naked without evidence and an
>> empriricle program to apply thereof leaves them standing on blind faith
>> alone.
>>
>
> "Seems you're stuck in a rut of repetitive self-deception. Objective
> reality can help with that."
>
> Some people more then others require additional repetitive attention to
> displace dearly held myths about their belief system.

That would appear to something that you need desperately.

>
> There is a wall of seperation between science and the divine. That's a
> bitter pill of reality for some to swallow.

I don't see any bitter pill at all. All I see is a religionist
frantically attempting to sell and/or impose his baseless horseshit onto
others.

>
> Objective reality is what has now been requested many times,ie. an
> empirical program to apply to the divine to rescue the atheist from their
> blind faith alone position.

Polly wanna' cracker? AAWK !!!

[John Manning]

One can reach no conclusion, much less evaluate something
for which there is no verifiable objective evidence.

Your divine entity is in the *same exact* category in that regard,
as the Tooth Fairy and Bugs Bunny.

[John Manning]

On 5/20/2013 6:06 PM, ./. "". wrote:
>>> "What "belie3f system"?"
>>>
>>> Concerning the divine.
>>>
>>> Additionally that they can bring science to bear in support of that
>> belief
>>> system so as to avoid the reality it is based on blind faith alone.
>>>
>>
>>
>> "Blind faith in what?"
>>
>> The validity of there claims about the question of the divine and the
>> conclusions drawn thereof.
>
> "What claims? What conclusions?"
>
> Those now given several times, and not going away any time soon however
> many times the question is rephrased.

Please quote those claims.

>
> There is a wall of seperation between science and the divine.

There *IS* verifiable objective evidence for science.
There is *NO* verifiable, objective evidence for a divine entity.
There is nothing to compare.

[Terry Cross]

On May 20, 3:54 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> On 5/20/2013 6:06 PM, ./. "". wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> "What "belie3f system"?"
>
> >>> Concerning the divine.
>
> >>> Additionally that they can bring science to bear in support of that
> >> belief
> >>> system so as to avoid the reality it is based on blind faith alone.
>
> >> "Blind faith in what?"
>
> >> The validity of there claims about the question of the divine and the
> >> conclusions drawn thereof.
>
> > "What claims? What conclusions?"
>
> > Those now given several times, and not going away any time soon however
> > many times the question is rephrased.
>
> Please quote those claims.

Has Nature or Scientific American ever published anything of which you
are skeptical? Anything? Ever?

> > There is a wall of seperation between science and the divine.
>
> There *IS* verifiable objective evidence for science.

What a silly statement. You make no distinction between "hard" and
"soft". You fail to recognize all the "Scientists think"
pronouncements that pretend to be science, even in the most
"prestigious" magazines. You ignore the frauds and bloopers that
persist in "science," sometimes for decades, for which no objective
verification is provided or even possible.

> There is *NO* verifiable, objective evidence for a divine entity.
> There is nothing to compare.

And what is your point? Your memory of the first word of your first
child is neither objective nor verifiable. Do you contend it must be
untrue?

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On May 20, 3:14 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <519a8fcd$0$2658$1c468...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, ;; "".

> wrote:
>
> > > "That fact that there is no verifiable, objective evidence for a divinity
> > > is self-evident. It needs no faith, blind or otherwise."
>
> > > That same is equally the case for the other side of the coin regarding
> > the
> > > divine.  Given that the atheist is left naked without evidence and an
> > > empriricle program to apply thereof leaves them standing on blind faith
> > > alone.
>
> > "Faith in what?"
>
> > The validity of the atheist conclusion regarding the divine.
>
> What "atheist conclusion regarding the divine" are you talking about?

This is a child's game discovered by almost every child: just keep
asking idiotic questions and eventually the adult is driven to
distraction.

Don't fall for it, Anon.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On May 20, 3:51 pm, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> On 5/20/2013 6:04 PM, "". wrote:
>
> >> "That fact that there is no verifiable, objective evidence for a divinity
> >> is self-evident. It needs no faith, blind or otherwise."
>
> >> That same is equally the case for the other side of the coin regarding
> > the
> >> divine.  Given that the atheist is left naked without evidence and an
> >> empriricle program to apply thereof leaves them standing on blind faith
> >> alone.
>
> > "Faith in what?"
>
> > The validity of the atheist conclusion regarding the divine.
>
> One can reach no conclusion, much less evaluate something
> for which there is no verifiable objective evidence.

Really? Do you stand by that statement categorically?

TCross

[//"".]

> There is a wall of seperation between science and the divine. That's a
> bitter pill of reality for some to swallow.


"I don't see any bitter pill at all. All I see is a religionist frantically
attempting to sell and/or impose his baseless horseshit onto others."

Smile, that is part of the problem of those who continue to cling to the
comfort of science where it can have no relevance.

>
> Objective reality is what has now been requested many times,ie. an
> empirical program to apply to the divine to rescue the atheist from their
> blind faith alone position.


"Polly wanna' cracker? AAWK !!!"

Smile, so it is reduced to this is it? Oh well, ask someone to do some
elementrary science and they choke up.

[."".]

"One can reach no conclusion, much less evaluate something for which there
is no verifiable objective evidence. Your divine entity is in the *same
exact* category in that regard, as the Tooth Fairy and Bugs Bunny."

Very good, we are making progress, That is the heart of the matter.
Science stands mute and dumb on the question of the divine. The atheist
finds no comfort in science accordingly. In contrast those things
mentioned are open to an empiricle program because we can in principle
propose evidence by which confirmation could be attempted.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519ab204$0$2662$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, ;;. "".
wrote:

> "One can reach no conclusion, much less evaluate something for which there
> is no verifiable objective evidence. Your divine entity is in the *same
> exact* category in that regard, as the Tooth Fairy and Bugs Bunny."
>
> Very good, we are making progress, That is the heart of the matter.
> Science stands mute and dumb on the question of the divine. The atheist
> finds no comfort in science accordingly.

What the fuck are you talking about? I find IMMENSE comfort in science
because:

Science works...bitches!

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <519ab0bf$0$2662$1c46...@news.club.cc.cmu.edu>, // "".
wrote:

> > There is a wall of seperation between science and the divine. That's a
> > bitter pill of reality for some to swallow.
>
>
> "I don't see any bitter pill at all. All I see is a religionist frantically
> attempting to sell and/or impose his baseless horseshit onto others."
>
> Smile, that is part of the problem of those who continue to cling to the
> comfort of science where it can have no relevance.