facebook

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad

« For God's Sake, Mr. President, Reclaim Your Spine. | Main | "The Case for Food Stamps" »

05/21/2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Patrick S. O'Donnell

Here is a bibliography in the interest of scientific literacy: http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/2009/08/science-technology-basic-bibliography.html

And here is a list I posted not long ago at RLL on "science and religion:" http://www.religiousleftlaw.com/2011/12/science-religion-a-select-bibliography.html

Bob Hockett

This is characteristically terrific, Charles (post) and Patrick (comment) - thanks so much for posting.

All best,
Bob

Jimbino

It is impossible to take seriously any interest of Christians in science. If they were to take science seriously, they might try a controlled experiment to show us that prayer EVER works in any objective sense.

If they need any help in understanding concepts like the null hypothesis, experimental controls, statistical analysis or peer review, I'd be happy to help.

Once we finish that experiment, we can move on to examine talking snakes and donkeys, burning bushes, arrested rotation of the earth, immaculate conceptions, bodily assumptions, witches, angels, ghosts, turning water to wine and parting of the Red Sea.

Jimbino

One of those "occasional embarrassment(s)" was the persecution and burning at the stake of astronomer Giordano Bruno.

Scientific progress has meant the gradual and bloody abandonment of all religious notions of astronomy, mind-body, health, etc.

Now as then, religious folk persecute scientists and fight to impede scientific progress, whether in artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, cloning or assisted suicide.

Science and Faith cannot be reconciled as long as "...faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Jonathan

"One of those "occasional embarrassment(s)" was the persecution and burning at the stake of astronomer Giordano Bruno."

Embarrassing perhaps because of the unfortunate practice of burning heretics from Christianity. His scientific knowledge and endeavors had nothing to do with it.

The Catholic Church, and indeed, most of the Christian churches, have been friends to science. Galileo was the possible exception, and even then, his actions in deliberately irritating the ruling nobles likely had much to do with it. Galileo was an exception in a long history of Christian support of science, including in the ranks such notables as: John Philoponus, Copernicus, Kepler, Polkinghorne, Roger Bacon, Lemaitre, ad etc.

Jimbino

Science involves more than "scientific knowledge" or "endeavors." It is more involved with "thinking like a scientist," which implies rational rejection of unfounded dogma of any kind in the search for truth. Every scientist is at first a skeptic and an agnostic; what convinces him is evidence, not councils of Nicea or papal proclamations.

Giordano rightly challenged various church dogmas, including the trinity, virgin birth and transubstantiation. He was more scientist than Martin Luther ever was, and he paid a steep price for his rationality.

Indeed, we're still waiting for the first scintilla of scientific evidence of transubstantiation! Or of the efficacy of prayer or exorcism.

The Protestant Reformation had a lot to do with saving Science from persecution by the Roman Church; but for the Reformation, we'd might still have burning of scientists at the stake. Even now, pioneers like Sarah Weddingon and Jack Kervorkian are vilified and persecuted by the unscientific religious.

sean samis

Regarding “Now as then, religious folk persecute scientists and fight to impede scientific progress, whether in artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, cloning or assisted suicide.”

Assisted suicide? That is not an example of scientific progress regardless of whether one supports it or not. Prosecution of Jack Kevorkian was not “anti-science”.

Science is a method, a way of learning about nature, it requires skepticism and reason, but does not require agnosticism or atheism.

sean s.

Jimbino

Wrong, Sean S.

Science is much more than a method. It requires skepticism, reason and agnosticism (look it up), though not necessarily atheism, once proof of the existence of god were evident.

The vast majority of acclaimed scientists are indeed atheists--persons who do not believe in the power of prayer or, indeed, in an immanent god.

Yes, persecution of Jack Kervorkian was anti-science in that it involved persecution of reason by a religious country that believes in a soul, spirit, etc, conceits not yet accepted by science.

sean samis

Jimbino;

“Look it up.” Where? I’ve been “looking up science” for literally half a century; nowhere is agnosticism required. You’re going to need to cite a source.

“The vast majority of acclaimed scientists are indeed atheists”. Perhaps true. The vast majority of plumbers (in America) might Christians, that would not mean Christianity is necessary for plumbing. That most scientists have a particular belief does not mean the belief is required. The vast majority probably have two hands; that does not mean that one-handed persons cannot be scientists!

Jack Kevorkian (the correct spelling) was a guy with a belief. It was not a “scientific” belief.

sean s.

Michael Perry

Welcome to RLL, Sean.

Michael

The comments to this entry are closed.