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

[SJZiobro at cs.com]

Bob Zeuschner <rbzeuschner at adelphia.net> wrote:

>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.

Bob,

Yes, and it simply made the point to Curt that his claims were equally false if his claim was that all Christians oppose science.  I took his mention of Christendom as shorthand for "all Christians."  But if I was mistaken, as per the following:

>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.

Then it could well be the case that Curt was speaking of some perceived dominant attitude towards science.  That said, I wonder how much he has read in patristics or even mediaeval theology.  Many Church Fathers and later theologian utilized the science of their day in their theologizing, their exegesis, etc.  Basil the Great easily comes to mind, as does Aquinas.  So, even on this count, I judge that Curt's remarks were ultimately specious.

Regards,

Stan Ziobro