I love how Semck acts as though being an outright atheist is the only thing that would count against his co-religionists taking credit for scientific discovery, as if non-conventional freethinking views weren't condemned and ridiculed by the religious authorities, be they protestant or catholic.

"Averroes"

Supported by Muslim rulers? That's some revisionist bs. He was persecuted by his Muslim rulers and his books were burned. Ibn Sina wasn't treated much better.

As for al -Khwarizmi, his surname indicates his father or ancestors were from Chorasmia, the world center of Zoroastrianism.

"Supported by Muslim rulers? That's some revisionist bs. He was persecuted by his Muslim rulers and his books were burned."

Yeah, so many of his books were burned that they were (and are) a staple of any respectable library in the Muslim world and he remains famous to this day.

"Ibn Sina wasn't treated much better."

Are you on crack? The man was a royal physician and he wrote the most widely disseminated medical treatise in the whole world for hundreds of years.

"As for al -Khwarizmi, his surname indicates his father or ancestors were from Chorasmia, the world center of Zoroastrianism."

My surname indicates my ancestors were from Poland, a center of animism up until the 11th century. But somehow I'm not an animist. Go figure!

"Yeah, so many of his books were burned that they were (and are) a staple of any respectable library in the Muslim world and he remains famous to this day. "

So being banished, having your books burned, and implementing an institution of Greek philosophy suppression is an example of how the Muslim world "supported" Averroes. Got it.

"Are you on crack? The man was a royal physician and he wrote the most widely disseminated medical treatise in the whole world for hundreds of years."

Which is why he did much of his writing in hiding, and was banished and/or imprisoned by various emirs. But let me guess, the fact that he wasn't killed is proof of the Muslim world's "support" for him at the time. And after all, there are still books in publication, so all is forgiven.

"In 1002, Avicenna's father died and then, soon after, the Samanids were deposed by the Turkish Qarakhanids. Avicenna declined the offers of new ruler Mahmud of Ghazni and, without the support of a patron or his father, he began a life of wandering around the towns of Nishapur, Merv and Khorasan. He acted as a physician and administrator by day, while every evening he gathered students round him for philosophical and scientific discussion. For a period he was court physician and vizier at Hamadan (west-central Iran), despite threats of banishment by the emir, and at one point he was forced into hiding and even spent some time as a political prisoner. He began his two most important medical works ("The Book of Healing" and "The Canon of Medicine") during his time at Hamadan."

http://www.philosophybasics.com/philosophers_avicenna.html

But I guess I'm on crack.

Diplomacy is my religion. Follow it.... (http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=87002)

Ibn Rushd (Averroes) was banished to a Jewish colony around 1195. He was hauled before a tribunal in Cordoba where his works were pronounced anathema and burned. His entire library minus the ones on astronomy, arithmetic and medicine were burned. This is an example of Islamic 'support' for science. Averroes is most notable for the fact that he had very little influence in the Muslim world, despite Tolstoy's assurances that they all adore him.

http://humweb2.bgu.ac.il/herzog/page/tarek-heggy-islam-between-copying-and-thinking

^ Did you actually read your own link, Putin? Apparently not. As usual, you just throw up a link to some boring academic website and hope that no one bothers to actually read it to find that it (in large part) contradicts your point. (for those short on time, this very brief and (IMHO) extremely oversimplistic paper says that Averroes' 'pro-science' strain of Islam triumphed in most of the Islamic world over the 'anti-science' advocated by folks like Ghazali until the 20th century)

"Ibn Rushd (Averroes) was banished to a Jewish colony around 1195"

And he was reinstated as court physician within a couple of years. Not surprising to see you distort simple court intrigues into some sort of massive plot against Science. Ditto with Avicenna. Yes, you are on crack - or a bigoted and dishonest sack of shit. Or both.

@Yellowjacket,

"But I'll still challenge you to find examples of mainstream Christianity supporting science that goes against Christian dogma. Judging from your confidence in refuting my historical arguments, and your decision not to address my last one at all, I suspect you may struggle with that."

I did address your last point -- I take it you are referring to the creationism point. I said this: "Citing additional examples, past or present, of tensions is not going to change the fact that your initial and defended claim -- your ludicrously caricatured portrayal of the Christian church as a foe (or at best neutral) toward science -- is indefensibly bad scholarship."

The point, you see, is that you are desperately trying to change your point to the newer, "The church opposes science when it opposes their dogma" from your original claim that

"in practice religion has not been a friend to the advances of medicine or science.

And for good reason! After all, science dares to answer with logic and reason what religion can only answer with millenia-old speculation, and medicine dares to offer the cures previously reserved for millenia-old Jesus."

This claim is the one I have been attacking, which is completely fair, because you have never backed away from it, just tried to pretend that you actually said something else that you did not.

As to the point you are now trying to raise: it's completely ill defined, as I suggested. Christian dogma? There are thousands of denominations, and they respond to any given dogma and any given scientific discovery differently. Scientific young-earth creationism only got really serious in the 1960s, though it was around to some extent since the early 20th century. Many of the leading theologians from leading denominations did not oppose Darwin at all at all, and/or adopted similar but vaguely different old-earth theories.

So it is with any scientific theory. Sometimes there's resistance to a new theory from some quarters. Usually there's not. There was much stronger institutional philosophical resistance to the atomic theory of matter, by the way, from the scientific community (Ernst Mach et al.) than from the church. Resistance comes in all shapes and forms.

"I don't think your thinly veiled claim of tautology holds water either - it should be fairly apparent that when the the church is going to take issue, it will do so with those sciences that contradicts their holy books or dogma."

This is simplistic though. Holy books have to be interpreted. Different dogmas are valued different amounts.

"I apologize if I didn't spell out specifically enough what kinds of science the church has found fault with, I considered it obvious enough that religion hadn't found cause to take issue with the invention of the graphite pencil or the cotton gin."

Impressive sarcasm aside, you'd be hard-pressed to name any area of science that has been uniformly opposed by the Christian world -- and, as I've said, it has in fact supported and led to some of the great discoveries (such as, you know, the theory of gravitation and laws of motion).

"But I'll still challenge you to find examples of mainstream Christianity supporting science that goes against Christian dogma."

Anyway, though, to answer your ill-posed challenge, I'll go with the old earth. It hasn't been _unanimously_ supported, but the RCC, the Anglican church, and the large majority of main stream Protestant denominations have no problem with it. Does that work?

I also suggest you read the article I post to Putin, below.

@Zmaj,

"Lol, just a wider perspective"

Didn't you know that the ideology of wider perspectives has faded now?

@putin,

"I'm pretty sure if it didn't get written in wikipedia, Semck wouldn't bother reading it."

Sorry -- you're right I wouldn't usually link to just a wikipedia article. This one had a lot of sources, though, and I guess I was telling myself that, oh, maybe you'd click on actual sources or something. Obviously I was wrong. I apologize.

"So this notion that your apologists are mostly non-Christian is horsepuckey."

Well, you've shown that exactly two of them are Christian. I would count that as "a few." Note that you also didn't even come close to listing all the sources on the article.

"I'm glad though you're citing critiques of Draper when I didn't even provide you Draper"

Well, Draper was mentioned in the same sentences that mentioned White. I thought the context was worth it, given that things like comparisons were used.

"I guess it doesn't matter because you're too lazy to criticize the actual text of the book I provided you"

So wait -- you just link a whole book, without making any of the points in it yourself, but I'm supposed to write an original critique of it, and not just link to those of others?

.... that seems a little unfair, Putin.

Of course, many of the better responses to White aren't available free online -- you know, not being 114 years old and out of copyright law. I did find you the following article, though (it was linked from the wiki page I sent you before), which deals entirely with White. It's by Ron Numbers and David Lindberg. In case you care, Numbers is an agnostic. I don't really know what Lindberg is.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html

"I love how Semck acts as though being an outright atheist is the only thing that would count against his co-religionists taking credit for scientific discovery, as if non-conventional freethinking views weren't condemned and ridiculed by the religious authorities, be they protestant or catholic. "

I confess I've completely lost track of what point you're trying to make at this point, putin. Was Newton persecuted for his religious views? No. (Though he didn't talk much about them). His scientific views? No. (He published them broadly). Was he agnostic? Atheist? No. He was (non-orthodox) Christian, and frequently stated that he did his scientific work for explicitly religious reasons.

What about this supports a narrative of religion persecuting science?

To make the point again -- yes, Isaac Newton's RELIGIOUS views might well have gotten him in trouble. But that couldn't be less relevant to a discussion about the church's attitude toward his SCIENTIFIC views; and it's clear that from the fact that he said so REPEATEDLY that his Christian views, even though heterodox, were a primary motivation for his work.

In other words, again, your response is completely off-point.

"But as usual Christians just wish away or ignore everything unsavory about their history, and pretend they're all about progress, peace, and love. "

Actually, no, I don't. The church has done plenty of bad things I just don't appreciate additional lies and mischaracterizations, or denial of the good things that it has done, too.

Anyway, I recognize that there is zero chance you are ever going to either budge or stay on-topic for 30 seconds, so you're going to be last-priority in further responses on this thread. (If you make any good points that I haven't already refuted, I will respond to them, though).

Sir Francis bacon, in my view one of our greatest scientists, sums up the ''conflict'' between science and religion very well:

''But the greatest error of all the rest is the mistaking or misplacing of the last or furthest end of knowledge. For men have entered into a desire of learning and knowledge, sometimes upon a natural curiosity and inquisitive appetite; sometimes to entertain their minds with variety and delight; sometimes for ornament and reputation; and sometimes to enable them to victory of wit and contradiction; and most times for lucre and profession; and seldom sincerely to give a true account of their gift of reason to the benefit and use of men: as if there were sought in knowledge a couch whereupon to rest a searching and restless spirit; or a terrace for a wandering and variable mind to walk up and down with a fair prospect; or a tower of state, for a proud mind to raise itself upon; or a fort or commanding ground, for strife and contention; or a shop, for profit or sale; and not a rich storehouse for the glory of the Creator and the relief of man's estate.''

The Advancement of Learning.

I cannot comprehend that paragraph you quoted at all...

Its a ridiculously wordy paragraph - I think Mr Bacon (one of the shakespeare writers) is trying to be funny.

He's basically moaning about people not being holy enough for his tastes.

"Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits." --Dan Barker, former evangelist

"When one person suffers from delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."

I think you guys have gotten off topic though. Damian was asking specifically about how he can look past the absurd things he reads in a bible and still be able to believe in the christian god, or any god, as worthy of his devotion. I would argue that no god is worthy, especially a christian one.

I wouldn't agree to the "especially" part. I'm sure the Greek and Roman gods were less worthy. You mean, a goddess like Hera who does all sorts of completely despicable things? She's worse than the worst bitch that ever walked the earth.

How do I deal with 'dodgy' passages in the Bible, easy, I don't read it.

...That's like arguing that I should also have noted that the devil is also not a good entity to worship... which I thought was obvious. Besides, I was talking about current religions. Greek/roman/Norse/Egyptian/etc gods don't really have the large followings that they used to have. But sure, if you want to split hairs, I definitely also include those gods in my list of silly religions to follow.

Tolstoy is hilarious.

First, you claim that the article I posted undermined my point, because OMG the Muslims finally decided they liked Averroes after 700 years of suppressing or ignoring his work (and only then they decided that Averroes was great because they could brag about the mythical 'golden age' of Islamic learning, the age when they hated Averroes). Meanwhile he managed to revolutionize most of the West. Wow, and that's supposed to be your proof that your Muslim buddies loved science & reason. Right.

Second, you evidently think being banished for four years and having your library burned down is no big deal, or yet another example of how Muslims loved Averroes and support science and reason. If Christians did this you'd be jumping up and down in outrage, but you've already demonstrated that anybody who doesn't applaud every single thing your Muslims do is called a 'bigot' (nevermind that you're a Confederacy sympathizing Ron Paulie with a white grievance chip on your shoulder and have the audacity to call people bigots).

Third, the great saving grace for the Andalusians harsh treatment of Averroes (and ban of all philosophy, oh those open minded Spanish Muslims) is that he was 'reinstated'. Yeah, when he was dying. Notice he was banned from Marrakesh to Lucena in 1194, and died in 1198, shortly after he was 'reinstated'. His illness was caused by his exile, as he fell into a deep depression. But that's enough for you to absolve the Andalusians of their actions. Because anything Muslims do is just peachy with you.

"Not surprising to see you distort simple court intrigues into some sort of massive plot against Science."

'Simple court intrigues', that's why they burned down his library and banned all greek philosophy, right? Because of court intrigue. No, as usual you have horse blinders on when it comes to people who aren't even your fucking co-religionists. But what do I expect from a guy who admires the fucking Golden Horde and pretends like he's a voice of reason.

And finally, it's absolutely marvelous how Tolsoy can call me an anti-Muslim bigot when I spend 90%+ of my time bashing Christianity, with nary a word of protest from this guy. But I guess even atheists are supposed prostrate themselves before Allah and worship everything any Muslim ever does, even though the same actions by Christians revile us.

@NakedBatman
"I would argue that no god is worthy, especially a christian one."

'Especially' a christian one? You are ridiculous. You speak as if you know what religion is all about. And the way you speak of any religion with such a demeaning voice just shows how your head is probably filled with shit. I'm betting your reasons for despising religion is because of your refusal to try and understand it.

"The point, you see, is that you are desperately trying to change your point to the newer, "The church opposes science when it opposes their dogma" from your original claim that"

Hey wait a second! I'm not desperately anything. I fully admitted that you *may* be right, and that I don't feel equipped to pressing the issue - which basically means I concede for my part, but still want to hear what others more knowledgeable than I do have to say. Never let it be said old YJ doesn't know when he's outmatched. But does this then give you a blanket victory over every other point I raise from then on? Or are you just that keen to wave your flag?

"Impressive sarcasm aside, you'd be hard-pressed to name any area of science that has been uniformly opposed by the Christian world"

Haha so you are claiming that the Unitarian Church's glimmer of hope with regards to science gives a free pass to the general scientific idiocy of Christianity worldwide? I think not. Now that's obviously hyperbole but the point does stand (the exception certainly does not disprove the rule).

"There was much stronger institutional philosophical resistance to the atomic theory of matter, by the way, from the scientific community"

Probably. The original Atomic theories were deeply flawed. But any resistance from this community was based on science, not on superstition. See, the difference is that those who challenged the theory were qualified to do so.

"and, as I've said, it has in fact supported and led to some of the great discoveries (such as, you know, the theory of gravitation and laws of motion)."

Forgive my ignorance, I'm going to need to see some more support than just your say-so. Just because Newton was a bit of a fundie weirdo does NOT mean that Christianity gets to take credit for his great findings. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think I now need to see how solid this oft-repeated-as-yet-unsupported claim is.

"To answer your ill-posed challenge, I'll go with the old earth. It hasn't been _unanimously_ supported, but the RCC, the Anglican church, and the large majority of main stream Protestant denominations have no problem with it. Does that work?"

I'm sorry that you don't follow my assertion that the Bible is a reasonable reference point where Christian dogma comes into play. But to answer the question: again, you'll have to excuse my ignorance, but by old earth I assume you mean old-earth creationism? Or old earth evolution? Because the former is not science, and the latter has been uniformly opposed by organized religion across the board, has it not? Less than 60% of Catholics believe in evolution - the rest of western religions do worse (an appalling 25% amongst evangelical protestants). Granted I got that from Wiki but I don't think you'll dispute the numbers. This is a pathetic statistic from a scientific standpoint - but I'll hold the rest of that argument until you confirm whether I've understood yours.

Or did you just mean the age of the earth itself? Because even if your point is true, (they have "no problem" with it) It's still laughable to see a holy man try to reconcile the misinformation found within the Bible regarding the age of the Earth (and many other topics) to the truths demonstrated by science. Again, do you honestly believe that this sort of indoctrination, making children feel it's OK to doubt science if "God says so," can honestly not severely bias a child's mind against science? Of course you can't. Just listen to the arguments presented by the faithful as adults.

*revolt, not revile.

Basically Semck is going to argue anybody, so long as they are nominally Christian, is a credit to Christianity if they make some discovery. Even if that discovery undermines the entire theological foundation for supernaturalism, and strengthens the rise of secularism. And even if that Christian, as is the case with Isaac Newton, was too afraid to share his real beliefs publicly for fear of the backlash from the wider Christian community, because was an extreme anti-Trinitarian who even denied the existence of immortal souls and evil spirits, ideas that in his time were equivalent to atheism.

"You speak as if you know what religion is all about. And the way you speak of any religion with such a demeaning voice just shows how your head is probably filled with shit. I'm betting your reasons for despising religion is because of your refusal to try and understand it."

LOL @ the demeaning whine while calling someone full of shit. Anyway, why do you have to respect you clowns and your clownish religion? Anytime anybody asks you people a damn question you all come back with the same retort about how it's "complicated" and requires further meditation, or some such cop-out. Or you just make crap up that is not even in the bible but is a meaning you want to claim is in there.

There is not a single Christian around here who can make a coherent logical case. It's all obscurantism, all the time.

<YAWN> Putin says..."UNLESS the people are oppressed and violently subjugated to the Communist will...they all shall DIE...FUCK free will!!! SO SAYS PUTIN!!!!"

Fuck you....fuck you...SO SAYS PUTIN.

Putin, I think that you purposely fail to understand anything outside of your frame of reference.

I think you project your own failings onto others on a daily basis.

And I'm still waiting for an actual answer to my question, since I answered yours.

Putin33, the fact that you hold a bias against Christians make you ineligible to talk with. Also, I can't deal with your silly assumptions.

Putin's head is filled with many things: contempt, vitriol, napalm, acid, rat poison, and probably a deep-seated desire to blow Joseph Stalin, but shit has never, in my experience, been one of them. (how's THAT for a mixed compliment?!)

Yellowjacket,

"Never let it be said old YJ doesn't know when he's outmatched."

OK, sorry for misinterpreting.

"But does this then give you a blanket victory over every other point I raise from then on?"

Well, not necessarily, but it may mean that they're irrelevant, and can remain unanswered without affecting the success of the position I have staked out in the argument.

When I disagree with somebody on a forum, I do not undertake to refute every position they may conceivably choose to take later in the discussion -- only the one they have actually taken.

"Now that's obviously hyperbole but the point does stand (the exception certainly does not disprove the rule)."

Yeah, but there are few areas that have been opposed by even a substantial majority (say 2/3). Vocal minorities, sure, but that's another thing.

"Probably. The original Atomic theories were deeply flawed. But any resistance from this community was based on science, not on superstition. See, the difference is that those who challenged the theory were qualified to do so."

Wow, you'll just make up any old thing and believe it, if it's consistent with your few science-is-great fixed points, won't you? No, the opposition to atomic theory was not based on science. It was based on philosophy.

Specifically, Ernst Mach aggressively opposed all forms of the atomic theory of matter on philosophical grounds. His opposition to Ludwig Boltzmann, in particular (not only public, but in undermining his career) is often credited as a major factor in Boltzmann's suicide.

See the following article. (I don't know if you have subscription access, but you can see the first page anyway, and that is enough).

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/687573?uid=3739960&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56084390783

See also any rounded article on Mach or on Boltzmann.

So, no, you're wrong, and I have the strong impression you just typed that blindly, with no knowledge at all, because you believed it must be so, because you have a precommitment that that is how scientists operate.

Of course, that is conjecture. All I can know is that you are wrong.

"Forgive my ignorance, I'm going to need to see some more support than just your say-so. Just because Newton was a bit of a fundie weirdo does NOT mean that Christianity gets to take credit for his great findings. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think I now need to see how solid this oft-repeated-as-yet-unsupported claim is."

That's fair. I'll have to get back to you with the support, though (it will involve looking at actual physical books, etc.) Until then, consider the stronger claim unsupported, but the weaker claim, that Christianity did not stop or oppose Newton's science, as established.

"But to answer the question: again, you'll have to excuse my ignorance, but by old earth I assume you mean old-earth creationism?"

Nope, just the actual age of the earth being old, which would include a variety of theories.

"Or old earth evolution? Because the former is not science, and the latter has been uniformly opposed by organized religion across the board, has it not?"

No, that's too strong. The Catholic church hasn't, and a lot of mainstream protestant churches haven't. But I didn't mean evolution anyway.

"It's still laughable to see a holy man try to reconcile the misinformation found within the Bible regarding the age of the Earth (and many other topics) to the truths demonstrated by science. "

I'd be most surprised to learn that you have actually read any Christian scholars discussing this, so I assume you are just speaking hypothetically here.

"Again, do you honestly believe that this sort of indoctrination, making children feel it's OK to doubt science if "God says so," can honestly not severely bias a child's mind against science? Of course you can't."

Please don't answer questions for me.

The actual answer: the position you state is a parody of what most Christian children are actually taught. What they are taught (by and large -- there are of course no universals) does not, in y mind, make them likely to be opposed to science at all. It may make them unlikely to accept something as true just because scientISTS say so, without knowing on what evidence they do; but I would hope that would be true of any well-educated child, Christian or otherwise.

Of course, there certainly are Christian children who are turned against science with extremely unreasonable teachings, just as there are atheist children who are taught lies about religion.