AAFitz wrote:
I am presuming nothing. Im laughing, and not hardly embarrassed.
I have simply presented my argument of how the belief in supernatural powers has impeded the study of essentially the exact opposite. Many of those who disagree, believe in varying degrees in supernatural powers, and a 6000 year old book, that states the earth was created in one day.
Except, as I have pointed out repeatedly, science and religion are not actually opposite...at all. In fact, religion spurs many people on to various scientific investigations, whether it is attempts to prove/disprove prayer (misguided as most of the studies conducted to date are), verify miracles,e tc OR to "simply" investigate how Earth began, how diseases happen, etc.
I was not being spurious when I said you could as readily blame Alchemy as religion for the hold back of science. It took time for people to narrow down the ideas of proof and verification in what we now think of as science. ALSO, you have to realize how much of what we learn as science was just plain unknown back then. Was it
really "unscientific" to think that spontaneous generation was real? There was plenty of evidence for someone not familiar with microbes and the like. It took the creation of a swan mouth flask, etc to truly prove that idea was false.
You are actually making one of the most serious and dangerous errors one can make when viewing history OR science...namely, looking at the solutions we have already found and dismissing the many varied paths it took to get where we are.
As greekdog asserted, where "religion" seemed to come out against science, it was really a matter of power struggles. Those who got chastized were those who, in some way threatened the powers that be, not so much those who simply practiced the most serious science.. (not at all).
AND, as BBS and I have each pointed out, the church actually contributed to science. You may look at agriculture, food production and safety as some kind of "lessor" discovery than the idea of the earth circling the sun, but it was Pasteur and even some of the studies of wine creation that really and truly spurred on much of what we have today.
AAFitz wrote:
At no point ever would I presume to ever convince such people of a belief in something which is essentially so complex, since even the simple to understand is easily dismissed.
If you choose to believe that a belief that the earth is 6000 years old, which was essentially taught to most every human didnt stifle science in any way, great.
STOP right there. You know full well how much I disagree with that idea. Yet, here is the thing. Was it really and truly illogical or unscientific to think that way
at that time? In fact, no. Some of the most intelligent people of the time basically thought that (though there was also always dissent, even within the religious community). The proof of an old Earth had not yet been found, put together into proof. Not having the foundation of proof of dinosaurs, for example, it was not that big a stretch to think that the occasional big bone that was found were from a time of giants. And, given no other firm proof, it was not that unreasonable to think that Genesis meant a true 6 day creation. It is only now, with the proof of the other that such is absolutely not scientific.
Also, the whole idea of the 6000 day creation, exactly, is actually a pretty modern idea. You won't find any such mention in historical documents. Basically, it was just one of those things about which people had no real proof, some just assumed one thing or another, but the most objective always felt there was ambiguity in those words. That is, there was no reason not to believe the Earth was young, but no one really asserted there was real proof it was young.
Note that even Darwin's estimates were way, way off. People just plain did not have the concept that the Earth could be as old as it was. Most had no real concept of another continent, either.
AAFitz wrote:
If you choose to believe that believing in thunder gods instead of assuming more rational explanations didnt stiffle science in any way, great.
If you choose to believe that entire churches protesting in vitro-fertilization and essentially preaching to their followers didnt stifle science in any way, great.
If you choose to believe that the dark ages was just named because the sun was less bright, great.
The problem is that those things
did not happen. They are the types of arguments atheists put forward as an attempt to justify their beliefs, and as such rather offensive to believers, because they utterly ignore the truth and reality of what religion really means and is.. something I have not known you to do before, so am surprised that you are doing so now.
You take the grossest of misunderstandings about religion and then put that silliness out as proof of how religion is harmful. Not your normal mode of debate.
AAFitz wrote:
The only way I could be embarrassed is if I argued what you are arguing.
People believe in many ridiculous things, some are even true. Maybe, just maybe you got lucky on this one. However, the history of the world suggests otherwise, in my very humble, opinion.
Except, that is not the point.. at all. And religion is not just silliness.
Blaming religion for the holdback of science is a popular modern atheistic trick nowadays. It is not, however the truth. The truth is, as I, greekdog, BBS, etc have said, far more complex. Blaming religion for the holdback of science is nothing more than a modern attack on religion. It is not historical truth.
