Posted on 05/20/2007 7:43:45 PM PDT by nuconvert
As long as they don’t believe it’s a problem, it will remain a problem.
What made science a self-sustaining enterprise in the West, while science suffered many stillbirths in the East? Why did the scientific enterprise arise shortly after the discovery of Aristotle's writings in the West, while the Mohammedans did little with Aristotle's writings?
The answer is the difference between worldviews, which are a matter of philosophy and theology, not the natural sciences. In the East, time is seen as an endless repeating cycle. But in the West, time progresses from Creation onward. In fact, it was the Church's dogmatic promulgation of the teaching of creation "from nothing" that gave rise to Fr. Buridan's impetus theory and Newton's first law of motion.
Just as importantly, Christianity provided the other indispensible axioms of the natural sciences, which are that the universe is intelligible, and that universal physical laws exist, since they are sustained in existence by an eternal Mind.
The Church did attempt to destroy the practioners of scientific method.
Really? Like Fr. Buridan? Or Copernicus, whose works were funded by a bishop and cardinal?
The last of the rules of science, taught to me as part of the scientific method was that “Science accepts no authorities.”
How about your senses? Are they a valid authority? How do you know that universal laws are really universal? How do you know that the universe is ordered and intelligible? All of these presuppositions logically precede scientific endeavors. All of these presuppositions rest outside the boundaries of the natural sciences. Philosophy defines the sciences as a matter of logic, and not vice versa.
This was explained in terms of the hypothesis being tested and teh data supporting or contradicting the hypothesis was what mattered - NOT who made the argument.
Since when did the Church care who made specific scientific arguments? The Church leaves science to scientists, but the Church also recognizes when scientists make philosophical claims that are not within its domain, such as Carl Sagan's famous claim that "the universe is all that was or ever will be." This is (bad) philosophy, not science.
As the Church is committed to authority, the schism was both unavoidable and inevitable. The Church deals with things spiritual, science with things verifiable.
But spiritual things are as real as material things, unless you believe that things like love, free choices, and thoughts don't exist. These fundamentally spiritual things are verifiable, but most would not consider these phenomena to be within the domain of the natural sciences. A better definition of the natural sciences might be "the study of natural phenomena."
Belief simply is a matter of faith.
The Trinity is a matter of faith, the existence of God is not, since it is provable.
Science can only verify hypothesis and promises only probabilities.
True.
Churches can offer truth, but in spiritual matters, rather than verifiable matters here on earth.
Our moment-by-moment existence revolves around our thoughts (intellect) and choices (free will), all of which are fundamentally spiritual yet verifiable matters here on earth.
To say that science was the result of faith is perhaps less accurate than that the inquiring, and those fed-up-with authorities, managed to find a moment in history when they could escape the iron rule of the Church
Is this notion based on anything other than your own prejudice, or the usual distortion of
Muslim cultist satanists have decimated completely the Christian world in the Middle East and north Africa and parts of Europe. They are destroying horribly the remnants of Christianity in Iraq as we speak.
God help us all with these beasts.
My point is that the problem is not "Islamism", but Islam itself.
My point is that Islam is inherently evil. That while there might be Muslims who are good people, that they are good in spite of, rather than because of, Islam
My point is that Islam was founded by a murdering, raping, pedophile bandit chief, an evil psychopath. That it is in the Quran, that this sand pirate is to be emulated by all Muslims:
Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.See my FR homepage for details
Yes, Frank Gaffney. Thank you for catching that.
Islam is as Islam does. I don’t care who says what about the Koran. Islamists murder and the supposedly peaceful majority say and do nothing about their own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.