I've just come home from a week on mission, so I've got a clear head for this sort of thing...
1. The Bible might mention a firmament (or "dome" in my translation, the Contemporary English Version), but I've never seen the word "fixed". In fact, there is a fimament: it just happens to be mainly gaseous.
2. The Tree of Knowledge was nominally the tree whose fruit "has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong". That's surely the job of religion, not science, so there's nothing at all wrong with it from this perspective at least.
3. This comment is simply unbelievable. Anyone who realises that the medieval Church believed in the rationality of God would surely imagine that would be one reason that science did not collapse under its own contradictions. If God was not rational (and I believe he is) there would be no point in assuming any world he created would be at all rational. Besides, as John Young writes in The Case Against Christ (a misleading title, by the way):
Those who take this view [that Christianity gave birth to modern science] emphasise that science could only get under way when certain factors were present. One of the most important ingredients was the correct mental approach. For truescience to develop it was vital that certain beliefs about the nature of the world should be widespread. The belief that:
- matter is essentially good
- the same laws apply everywhere
- human beings are called to be stewards of creation
- time moves forward in circles, rather than round in circles
These views are expounded in the Bible.
4. Maybe so, but as Harry Hill says: what are the chances of that happening, eh?:-)
5. As far as I can tell, all of the pioneers of modern science were Christians. I find it difficult to believe that their faith had no effect on their work. This would seem to disprove the argument that Christian faith impedes scientific thought. Also, white supremacists (etc.) act in a way totally and utterly contrary to Jesus' teachings on such matters, and as such they cannot legitimately be called Christians.
6. Where does this come from, exactly? I can't accept this unless I read it for myself.
7. (This has nothing to do with theology.) Don't you just need to calculate v=1/3PIr^2h or something like that (for the volume of a cone)? If so, this wouldn't be calculus, just ordinary geometry.
Slashdot Mirror
1. The Bible might mention a firmament (or "dome" in my translation, the Contemporary English Version), but I've never seen the word "fixed". In fact, there is a fimament: it just happens to be mainly gaseous.
2. The Tree of Knowledge was nominally the tree whose fruit "has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong". That's surely the job of religion, not science, so there's nothing at all wrong with it from this perspective at least.
3. This comment is simply unbelievable. Anyone who realises that the medieval Church believed in the rationality of God would surely imagine that would be one reason that science did not collapse under its own contradictions. If God was not rational (and I believe he is) there would be no point in assuming any world he created would be at all rational. Besides, as John Young writes in The Case Against Christ (a misleading title, by the way):
4. Maybe so, but as Harry Hill says: what are the chances of that happening, eh? :-)
5. As far as I can tell, all of the pioneers of modern science were Christians. I find it difficult to believe that their faith had no effect on their work. This would seem to disprove the argument that Christian faith impedes scientific thought. Also, white supremacists (etc.) act in a way totally and utterly contrary to Jesus' teachings on such matters, and as such they cannot legitimately be called Christians.
6. Where does this come from, exactly? I can't accept this unless I read it for myself.
7. (This has nothing to do with theology.) Don't you just need to calculate v=1/3PIr^2h or something like that (for the volume of a cone)? If so, this wouldn't be calculus, just ordinary geometry.