[Buddha-l] it's not about belief

[Jim Peavler]

On Jan 4, 2006, at 9:37 AM, 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?

Well, I believe (without evidence) that your hypothesis is bullshit.  
Good old atheist scientists often discuss the ethics, morality,  
social significance, or emotional results of their research and  
practice, particularly in the biological, nuclear, and medical  
fields. And, there is strong evidence that Islamic groups have  
strongly opposed scientific progress and scientific ideas.