[Buddha-l] it's not about belief

[Stanley J. Ziobro II]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, curt wrote:

> This site provides a glaring example of the kind of muddled thinking
> that comes from failing to adequately distinguish between Christianity
> and the rest of the world's Religions. Specifically the statement:
>
> "The  history of science is replete with discoveries  that were
> considered socially, morally, or emotionally  dangerous in their time."
>
> applies only to Christendom. There has never been any other Religion -
> not Islam, not Judaism, not Confucianism, not Buddhism, not Hinduism,
> not Paganism, not Zoroastrianism, not Taoism, not Shinto, not Santeria,
> etc - that has ever actively opposed scientific progress - or that has
> viewed scientific discoveries to be "socially, morally, or emotionally
> dangerous." How's that for a strong hypothesis? I would be very
> interested to know of any counter-examples.

It's a mistaken hypothesis inasmuch as it is not true that Christians in
toto have hampered scientific progress.  Genetics, capitalism, astronomy,
medicine, etc. have arisen in strongly Christian spheres of influence.
Christendom is simply an attempt at categorization distinguishing
histotrical eras by certain sociological, political, or cultural
characteristics.  "Christendom" never did anything; Christians have, and
your hypothesis fails because it does nothing more than make specious
claims or half truths.

Regards,

Stan Ziobro