Comments on: Egnor vs PZ Myers

By: John

John — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:56:15 +0000

Also, I feel you do mainstream science a disservice with the implication that it is united in promoting a common ideology. Mainstream scientists challenge their peers and pull each others’ research apart all the time, because it’s the most efficient way of finding what works.

Any mainstream scientist would give his right arm to overthrow a theory of one of the giants in his field (yes, even Darwin or Newton or Einstein). There isn’t some kind of dogmatic loyalty that’s keeping the good stuff back.

By: John

John — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:49:12 +0000

It’s a bit of a stretch to say that science began as a challenge to the Catholic church. I’m sure that the Mesopotomians, Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle, Archimedes – in fact, ancient scientists too numerous to list – would all be rather surprised to learn that they were challenging Catholicism.

Science is simply deducing truths about the universe by observing, positing a theory, testing that theory and refining it until the theory can reliably predict what happens in reality. Authority-challenging is not in its remit.

By: pec

pec — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:47:21 +0000

Science began as a challenge to established authority, which at that time happened to be the Catholic church. It was not a challenge to religion, or mysticism, in general.

Now mainstream science is part of the established authority, and it is dominated by the ideology of materialism, which opposes all religion and spirituality.

Alternative science is now the challenge to established authority. It challenges both dogmatic authoritarian religion and dogmatic authoritarian mainstream science.

By: decius

decius — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:56:13 +0000

The problem with Sastra’s post is that selectively focuses on the relationship between the school of Scholasticism and the Greek philosophers, while the wider picture tells a very different story.

Here are a few facts which cannot be overlooked.

-The reception that christian ideas were met with during the debates between Saul and the philosophers.

-The Hellenistic schools were shut down by christians.

-The library of Alexandria was burnt down by a christian mob, the same who murdered Hypathya.

-The suppression of Stoic and Sceptic ideas lasted for many centuries prior to inception of the Scholasticism.

-The Scholasticism doctored documents and distorted greek thought. Also, its methods were encouraged only until it seemed that the results were not in contrast with christian doctrine.

-Immediately after that, science and reason were hindered in countless ways. Free-thought was not just frowned upon, but it positively led to silencing, torture, persecutions, executions on a vast scale- right until the Enlightenment.

Therefore – most emphatically- science and reason developed IN SPITE of christianity, and not because of it.

By: Potter1000

Potter1000 — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 04:29:53 +0000

I like the spiffy new banner. This a cool place to be.

By: pec

pec — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:36:57 +0000

Egnor’s arguments do sound ridiculous. In general I don’t have the impression that Egnor is knowledgeable outside his field.

But showing that ridiculous arguments are ridiculous is pretty easy, and it doesn’t make Novella look smart by comparison. Both of these guys have a talent for irrational self-deception.

By: DevilsAdvocate

DevilsAdvocate — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:11:27 +0000

The Christian churches in western nations did not get out of the way, they were put out of the way – kicking and screaming the whole time.

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:09:23 +0000

In Sastra’s defense – I think there is some truth to what she wrote. Western scholars became adept at pursuing science and philosophy without running afoul of the church. The two basic strategies – as I understand it – were:
1) to argue that the material corrupt world was fair game for materialist investigation and philosophy
2) to argue that they were simply describing what makes sense, not was is literally true. Some scholars therefore claimed that their arguments about reality were simply hypothetical – an exercise in logic, and not meant to imply that church dogma was wrong.

So, again, what we are discussing is the relative lack of hindrance, not a promotion, of science and philosophy. And, it is probably more true that scholars figured out how to get out of the church’s way, rather than the other way around.

By: decius

decius — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 04:38:17 +0000

Sastra

that’s pure hogwash.

By: Sastra

Sastra — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:25:14 +0000

My understanding is that the slow rise of science was the result of many factors — and yes, the specific character of the Christian religion at the time was one of them. Its theology was unworkable in practical terms. Because it was literally impossible to form a government based on the New Testament — and because Christian theologians admired the work of Greek philosophers — Christianity split its world into the sacred and profane, the City of God and the City of Man. This dualism made it possible for its scholars to study the world, instead of confining themselves to ancient texts. Other religions — such as the Eastern religions — had their mystical views permeate their understanding of everything.

So I think the main contribution of Christian theology towards science was its unique ability to get the heck out of the way.