It appears, at long last, we have found the ever elusive Missing Link, and it's name is "Nathaniel". We're just not sure what it's linking to...
Is not this whole debate, science versus religion, a recent invention? As I understand it, it began with the enlightenment when the Western world started to become more scientific in outlook. Religion was upset that people were turning to science as a way to understand the world. So a group of American evangelists began to claim that the Bible was just as scientific as, well, science. Which is always going to be a losing battle.
But until then, science and religion were working together to explain the world, each with its own particular domain, and never shall the magisteria overlap, except perhaps in unexpected ways.
Religion, or Faith, has been at war with Reason for millenia, because Faith is the antithesis of Reason. When Reason takes over the various Clergy got no J O B.
Started with that pesky snake, I suppose....
we attempt to show unbelievers that our faith in the Scriptures is reasonable, justified, and logically defensible. and many verses push logic as a good thing.
there is no "blind faith" in scripture
Believing that scripture is one thing, believing you will become immortal for believing so is another.Do you bother to tell Muslims that they are wrong for not believing Jesus is Lord? People have convinced themselves that wizards are real because they have read a book. That does not make it real.
No. That's very idealistic. Once empirical methods were properly used, religious text and practice played no role in enquiry except possibly for disrupting or delaying progress. Philosophers of science going back to Hume and Kant complained how some people had a literal view of the bible (believing the world was created 6000 years ago is not some new phenomena that appeared in the South US but has been a claim millions of people in various countries have always believed). It's not just American evangelists.
When science and religion worked together, the science wasn't a science but a poor attempt at it (note the incredible pathetic list of notable scientific advancement during the millenia of church rule in Europe and then the utter explosion of progress once the church got its claws out of it. How they compliment is a one way street. Religious people can claim science as their own (helariously the Catholic church claims they laid the ground rules for scientific enquiry while in fact they spent most of their time in thought control with no hesitation to imprison and execute those who contradicted dogma). They also pick and choose scientific knowledge to "compliment" their world view.
Empirical enquiry gains nothing from the "woo" of religion but instead, through exhaustive research will pick out a morsel or two of historical fact in their holy documents and a handful of theories or ideas that stand up to scrutiny when isolated from their religious contact.
The only reason the modern "science vs. religion" debate is recent (say the last 500 years) is because only recently have free thinkers been allowed to have this debate without the threat of being terrorized by the Catholic church which at best meant excommunication and public shame and at worst meant torture and execution. Not a particularly pleasant environment to debate about anything.
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) - Hydraulics, Anatomy
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) - Celestial Mechanics, Astronomy
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) - Hydrostatics, Fluid Pressure
Robert Boyle (1627-1691) - Chemistry, Elements, Gas Volume & Pressure, Scientific Method
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) - Calculus, Laws of Gravity & Motion
John Woodward (1665-1728) - Paleontology
Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778) - Systematic Biology Classification
Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) - Comparative Anatomy, Vertebrate Paleontology
Michael Faraday (1791-1867) - Electromagnetics, Field Theory
Charles Babbage (1792-1871) - Computer Science
Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) - Ichthyology, Glacial Geology
James Joule (1818-1889) - Reversible Thermodynamics
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) - Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) - Bacteriology, Germs cause Disease, Law of Biogenesis
Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) - Thermodynamics, Energetics
William Ramsay (1852-1916) - Isotopic Chemistry
so then none of these people were real scientists, just a poor attempt at it?
Those all happened in the last 500 years. Did you not read my reply? You must have just skimmed it...you seem to read stuff by not pay attention. I bet while you are reading things you are already planning your reply...instead of...you know...learning and considering you might be wrong? All of these scientists did what they did in an environment that was increasingly secular, increasingly outside the control of the church. It started with the enlightenment. It didn't hurt that Divinci lived in Florence which was a highly secular and less-than-religious principality (compared to most other places in Europe at the time). Kepler was harassed by the church multiple times and was threatened relentlessly. Some of them were real scientists, some of then laid down the principles for rational inquiry...and again...all in the last 500 years as I mentioned above (which you failed to read). Now...
...can you show me an equally incredible list of scientists and their accomplishments between say 800AD and 1300AD (in the height of the religious control) which were not exceptional cases happening in the few places which were unusually secular? If you can...I'll take back everything I said.
No...no you can't Nathaniel. Another one of your claims discredited.
your completely right, in fact, most of the first scientists were christians.
Just about everyone in Europe were christians...they had no choice. If they suddenly declared they weren't christian they would be banished and or tortured and or burnt at the stake. So yeah...its bound to be the case that most were christian. The question is...was the environment they lived in when they did their work...hostile towards their work (usually from the Church or inquisition) or supportive of it...(usually enlightenment, secular humanist forces).