Science and Love, Religion and Hate ?

[Razgovory]

"Who taught you to post like this?" "You, grumbler! I learned it by watching you!"

   "You learned... poorly."

I learned quite well.  I learned that you have very thin skin and if contradicted enough will take your ball and go home.

[mongers]

"Who taught you to post like this?" "You, grumbler! I learned it by watching you!"

   "You learned... poorly."

I learned quite well.  I learned that you have very thin skin and if contradicted enough will take your ball* and go home.

I think you mean small, manoeuvrable, skiff-like water craft.

[Valmy]

Western "religion" has never been as pro-science as "Islam" was in the Umayyad and Abbysid Caliphates.  I use quotes because I don't think religion actually had much to do with the matter.

What about Christian Scientists eh?  Oh they believe what?  Nevermind.

Well we have Copernicus, Mendel, and Georges Lemaitre.  How many clergy members in the Abbasid Caliphate did that?

[mongers]

Western "religion" has never been as pro-science as "Islam" was in the Umayyad and Abbysid Caliphates.  I use quotes because I don't think religion actually had much to do with the matter.

What about Christian Scientists eh?  Oh they believe what?  Nevermind.

....

Yeah, that confused me too, especially as for years I only knew those words in the context of the 'Christian Science Monitor', which I thought was excellent, so I had assumed they were like some American version of socially active Quakers. 

[DontSayBanana]

Listening to some old hippy music and this line crops up:

"It's a new age under science and love, joining together that's building a new age"

Which got me thinking, most scientists I've met seem like good, positive people. Whereas some of the religious people I've know have been somewhat judgemental and a few rather hate filled. Though that's not to say I don't know plenty of decent Christian folk. 

So do you see any connections between the practice of science and love ? 

Anecdotal.  Personally, I've known plenty of good folk who were Christian- they just tend to talk about "love" more in terms of "loving" God, which kind of gently creeps me out.  Also, how about the Dawkins-esque atheists, who can get so obnoxiously self-righteous that it's fair to say it crosses the line into "hate?"

[crazy canuck]

Well we have Copernicus, Mendel, and Georges Lemaitre.  How many clergy members in the Abbasid Caliphate did that?

In the backward West one needed to be a cleric to be educated.  The Muslims had non religious centres of learning far earlier than the West.  As a result they were able to produce such thinkers as http://www.famousscientists.org/muhammad-ibn-musa-al-khwarizmi/

[Sheilbh]

One could argue that Western advances happened despite religion. Those advances have been fought at every opportunity by zealots.

Only if one was ignorant.

I'd argue the classical legacy was a far bigger hindrance to science than 'Western' religion.

[Jacob]

Anecdotal.  Personally, I've known plenty of good folk who were Christian- they just tend to talk about "love" more in terms of "loving" God, which kind of gently creeps me out.  Also, how about the Dawkins-esque atheists, who can get so obnoxiously self-righteous that it's fair to say it crosses the line into "hate?"

Yeah, plenty of hateful atheists around. Some nice ones too.

Same for religionists.

Maybe it's a people thing?

[Razgovory]

One could argue that Western advances happened despite religion. Those advances have been fought at every opportunity by zealots.

Only if one was ignorant.

I'd argue the classical legacy was a far bigger hindrance to science than 'Western' religion.

I agree.  Aristotle was an enormous hurdle that nearly every field of science had to get past in the early modern era.

[frunk]

Only if one was ignorant.

I'd argue the classical legacy was a far bigger hindrance to science than 'Western' religion.

I agree.  Aristotle was an enormous hurdle that nearly every field of science had to get past in the early modern era.

I think it was more of a mixed bag.  Aristotle certainly was a headache, but exposure to many other ancient philosophers showed there was an intellectual world outside of religious belief.

[Valmy]

Well we have Copernicus, Mendel, and Georges Lemaitre.  How many clergy members in the Abbasid Caliphate did that?

In the backward West one needed to be a cleric to be educated.  The Muslims had non religious centres of learning far earlier than the West.  As a result they were able to produce such thinkers as http://www.famousscientists.org/muhammad-ibn-musa-al-khwarizmi/

Oh come on, while that was true at some point that had not been true for 500 years by the time Copernicus came along.

[crazy canuck]

One could argue that Western advances happened despite religion. Those advances have been fought at every opportunity by zealots.

Only if one was ignorant.

I'd argue the classical legacy was a far bigger hindrance to science than 'Western' religion.

Well, probably more of a combination of the Church adopting a philosophic and scientific view which supported its dogma which was then hard to challenge.  If the Church had not made the classical views part of its dogma then the classical legacy would have been much less of an obstacle.

[Valmy]

One could argue that Western advances happened despite religion. Those advances have been fought at every opportunity by zealots.

Only if one was ignorant.

I'd argue the classical legacy was a far bigger hindrance to science than 'Western' religion.

So Science would have been better served if all the writings of the Greeks and Romans had all been lost?

[crazy canuck]

Well we have Copernicus, Mendel, and Georges Lemaitre.  How many clergy members in the Abbasid Caliphate did that?

In the backward West one needed to be a cleric to be educated.  The Muslims had non religious centres of learning far earlier than the West.  As a result they were able to produce such thinkers as http://www.famousscientists.org/muhammad-ibn-musa-al-khwarizmi/

Oh come on, while that was true at some point that had not been true for 500 years by the time Copernicus came along.

Yeah, it took another 500 years, isnt that the point. 

[Valmy]

Well, probably more of a combination of the Church adopting a philosophic and scientific view which supported its dogma which was then hard to challenge.  If the Church had not made the classical views part of its dogma then the classical legacy would have been much less of an obstacle.

It wasn't really that big of an obstacle.  By the time scientific discoveries got going there were plenty of Protestant countries who would support you if you got in trouble with the Church.