[Buddha-l] it's not about belief -= science & Christian religion

[Bob Zeuschner]

Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote:
> 
> 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.

Stan --
The problem with your mode of arguing is that it is trivially true; each 
and every statement about ALL "Christians in toto" is false.
Do all Christians accept the divinity of Jesus? I certainly know a few 
people who call themselves Christians and do not think Jesus was divine.
Whenever we say "all" or "in toto" there only needs to be ONE Christian 
who does not act that way to show the claim to be false (or a "specious 
claim or half truth").
Were all Christians opposed to Galileo? No, certainly not. In fact, 
Galileo was a Christian.

Since this interpretation ["all Christians in toto"]is so easily shown 
to be false, it seems very likely that this is not the correct 
interpretation of the claim.

In the past the great majority of Christians did not know anything about 
science, and did not care. They weren't even literate.

It was church authorities who opposed any scientific claim which they 
perceived to contradict the literal reading of sacred texts.
It was not only the Catholics. As I recall Martin Luther rejected 
Galileo as did the other Protestant theologians.

I tell my students that in 400 years, each and every time that 
[Christian] religion [religious authorities] has disagreed with science, 
or opposed scientific findings, each and every time the church was shown 
wrong and science was correct. I know of no case where the claims of 
Christian religion were shown to be correct and science to be incorrect. 
When the church authorities finally did accept astronomical claims, it 
was reluctantly. Many church authorities opposed dissecting cadavers, 
and fought against the ability of a woman to learn techniques of 
contraception. Certainly the Roman Catholic church has accepted 
evolution (1952?), but much later than the Church of England (1875), the 
Lutherans (1915?), and the major Protestant denominations.

I think the great majority of Americans are Christians, and the great 
majority of Americans are not trained in science or critical thinking. 
It is most obvious when some Christians describe science as 
anti-Christian, and mistakenly treat science as a form of argument which 
appeals to authority. Most of the claims I hear combing from the 
anti-science Christians are describing science or scientists in a way 
that is simply a straw man.


Regards,
Bob Zeuschner
Dept. of Philosophy