Steel and aluminum are of national security importance, and the US is just about out of the business, though fortunately, we get most of ours from Canada.
The US is not out of the business. We've been consuming at least 3/4 of the steel we produce and production has been consistent since the 1980s. The reduction in the steel workforce is due to technological advances so the same amount of production is possible with 25% of the labor.
(read for a while before I even created an account, much to my everlasting shame)
This is funny!
I agree with you on the gestures, I didn't think I would like them and quickly got used to it. The lack of a TouchID was concerning since I still really like being able to have the phone accessible by the time I look at it. So for example let's say you're in a meeting, yes yes you should be paying attention, Face ID isn't as optimal since you need a specific angle for it to get your face whereas the Touch ID just needs a finger. Besides that, easily the best phone I've owned.
Most religions outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition do not posit creation at all. The universe is said to be eternal, without beginning or purpose, and never having been created, it has no creator. From this view, the universe is a supreme mystery, inconsistent, unpredictable, and perhaps arbitrary. For those holding this view, the only paths to wisdom are meditation or inspiration - there being nothing to reason about. But if the universe was created in accord with rational rules by a perfect, rational creator, then it ought to yield its secrets to reason and observation. Hence, the scientific truism that nature is a book ment to be read.
As for the Greeks, many of them also regarded the universe as eternal and uncreated - Aristotle condemned the idea "that the universe came into being at some point in time... as unthinkable" Indeed, none of the traditional Greek gods would have been capable of such a creation. But, worst of all, the Greeks insisted on turning the cosmos, and inanimate objects more generally, into living things. Consequently, they attributed many natural phenomena to motives, not to inanimate forces. Thus, according to Aristotle, heavenly bodies moved in circles because of their affection for doing so, and objects fall to the ground "because of their innate love for the centre of the world."
As for Islam, the orthodox conception of Allah is hostile to the scientific quest. There is no suggestion in the Quar'an that Allah set his creation into motion and then let it run. Rather, it is assumed that he often intrudes into the world and changes things as it pleases him. Thus, through the centuries, many of the most influential Muslim scholars have held that all efforts to formulate natural laws are blasphemy in that they would seem to deny Allah's freedom to act.
Catholics rejected science, then eventually came to embrace it.
Would you elaborate? Is this a reference to the Dark Ages or Galileo?
The Islamic Golden Age [wikipedia.org] was a time of amazing scientific and philosophical progress, but they gave it up
With respect to progress doubly so for Europe. Education, Art, Science, Architecture, Music, Farming, Astronomy there were massive advancements.
Do you really not see a spectrum of championed beliefs or values with respect to political leanings? Just curious about your view point, if you'd care to enlighten.
Sorry to hear that. I recommend uMatrix in addition to what you're using now - since it provides granular control of images, js, iframes etc. based on domains.
While they couldn't use propaganda as overtly racist, crack was preferred by poor black people, while powder cocaine was preferred by rich white people. So thinly veiled racist propaganda led to requiring 100x as much powder cocaine to trigger the same mandatory prison terms as crack.
This contradicts the historical record. The Black Leaders of the time were the ones calling for the stiff penalties due to out of control crime. For example gangs were massively prevalent in the 80s - urban homicide rates corroborate this.
I've heard the credit freeze being mentioned in response to the news. My understanding is that when freezing your credit you're assigned a PIN. Freezing is also not permanent. In which database are the PIN numbers stored?
Religious fanatics would rather burn progressive thinkers like Galileo Galilei on the stake rather than listen to reason.
Galileo didn't really get into trouble for his books, or his scientific convictions, it was his arrogant duplicity. It's true he was called before the Roman Inquisition and charged with the heretical teaching that the earth moves around the sun or otherwise. And he was forced to recant. But he was neither imprisoned nor tortured; he was sentenced to a comfortable house arrest during which he died at age 78.
Long before he became Pope Urban VIII (1623 to 1644), while still a cardinal, Maffeo Barberini knew and liked Galileo. In 1623 when he published Assayer, Galileo dedicated the book to Barberini (the Barberini family crest appeared on the title page of the book), and the new pope was said to have been delighted by the many nasty insults it directed against various Jesuit scholars. Assayer was mainly an attack on Orazio Grassi, a Jesuit mathematician, who had published a study that (correctly) treated comets as small heavenly bodies; Galileo ridiculed this claim, arguing wrongly that comets were but reflections on vapors arising from the earth. In any event, Assayer, prompted Pope Urban VIII to write an adulatory poem on the glory of astronomy. So, what went wrong?
It is important to put the Galielo affair in historical context. At this time the Reformation stood defiant in northern Europe, the Thirty Year's War raged, and the Catholic Counter-Reformation was in full bloom. Partly in response to Protestant charges that the Catholic Church was not faithful to the Bible, the limits of acceptable theology were being narrowed, and this led to increasing Church interference in scholarly and scientific discussions. However, Urban VIII and other leading officials were not ready to clamp down on scientists, but instead proposed ways to avoid any conflicts between science and theology by separating their domains. Thus, Friar Marin Mersenne advised his network of leading scientific correspondents to defend their studies on grounds that God was free to place the earth anywhere he liked, and it was the duty of scientists to find out where he had put it. More cautious early scientists adopted the tactic of identifying scientific conclusions as hypothetical or mathematical, hence being without direct theological implications. And that was what the pope asked Galileo to do - to acknowledge in his publications that "definitive conclusions could not be reached in the natural sciences. God in his omnipotence could produce a natural phenomenon in any number of ways and it therefore was presumptuous for any philosopher to claim that he had determined a unique solution.
That seemed an easy evasion. And, given Galileo's propensity to claim false credit for inventions made by others, such as the telescope, and to have conducted empirical research he probably did not really perform, such as dropping weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, it would not seem to have stretched his ethical standards to have gone along with the pope. But to defy the pope in a rather offensive way was quite consistent with Galileo's ego.
In 1632, Galileo published his awaited Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Although the ostensible purpose of the books was to present and explanation of tidal phenomena, the two systems involved were Ptolemy's, in which the sun circles the earth, and Copernicus's wherein the earth circles the sun. The dialog involves three speakers, two of them philosophers and the third a layman. It is the layman, Simplicio, who presents the traditional views in support of Ptolemy - the resemblance of the name to "simpleton" was obvious to all. This allowed Galileo to exploit the traditional "straw man" technique to ridicule his opponents. Although Galileo did include the disclaimer suggested by the pope, he put it in the mouth of Simplicio, thereby disowning it.
The book caused an immense stir and, understandably, the pope felt
In fact, Islamic communities were once highly-regarded as scholarly and scientific types.
All of them? They actively were hostile to science since explaining the natural world went against Allah as blasphemy. Science arose only in Christian Europe because only medieval Europeans believed that science was possible and desirable. And the basis of their belief was their image of God and his Creation (see Theology, and Scholastics.) Christian Theology was essential for the rise of science, just as non-Christian thologies had stifled the scientific enterprise everywhere else. Explained at the Lowell Lectures at Harvard by Alfred North Whitehead, co-author of Principia Mathematica, he explained:
The greatest contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement [was] the inexpungeable belief.. that there was a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind?.... It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of faith in rationality."
Rene Descartes justified his search for the "laws" of nature on the ground that such laws must exist because god is perfect and therefore "acts in a manner as constant and immutable as possible." That is, the universe functions according to rational rules of laws. Many early scientists felt morally obliged to pursue these secrets because god has given humans the power of reason it ought to be possible for us to discover the rules established by god.
In contrast, most religions outside the Judeo-Christian tradition do not posit creation at all. The universe is said to be ternal, without beginning or purpose, and never having been created, it had no creator. From this view, the universe is a supreme mystery, inconsistent, unpredictable and perhaps arbitrary. For those holding this view, the only paths to wisdom are meditation or inspiration - there being nothing to reason about. But if the universe was created in an accord with rational rules by a perfect, rational creator, then it ought to yield its secrets to reason and observation. Hence, the scientific truism that natur is a book meant to be read. Many of the Greeks considered the universe as eternal and uncreated - Aristotle condemned the idea "that the universe came into being at some point in time... as unthinkable." Indeed none of the traditional Greek gods would have been capable of such a creation. But, worst of all, the Greeks insisted on turning the cosmos, and inanimate objects more generally, into living things. Consequently, they attributed many natural phenomena to motives, not to inanimate forces. Thus according to Aristotle, heavenly bodies moved in circles because of their affection for doing so, and objects fall to the ground "because of their innate love of for the centre of the world."
As for Islam. There is no suggestion in the Qur'an that Allah set his creation in motion and then let it run. Rather, it is assumed that he often intrudes into the world and changes things as it pleases him. Thus, through the centuries, many of the most influential Muslim scholars have held that all efforts to formulate natural laws are blasphemy in that they would seem to deny Allah's freedom to act. Thus did their images of God and the universe deflect scientific efforts in China, ancient Greece, and Islam.
It was only because Europeans believed in God as the Intelligent Designer of a rational universe that they pursued the secrets of creation. In the words of Johannes Kepler, "The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony imposed on it by God and which when he revealed to us in the language of mathematics."
I never said priests/clergy didn't contribute to science, just that it was disingenuous to attribute things like the Scientific Method to the church
Where did it originate, who taught it, where was it taught, and more importantly, why?
Your assertion that religion isn't afraid of science, hasn't always been the case, and in fact is only a very recent development out of need. Science has slowly been eroding god's domain over time,
Science is the result of people studying God's work, people like Einstein, ignorance of the origins of Western science such as the painting of Galileo as a heroic martyr to blind faith demonstrate that there are many old lies still being told throughout history. Just as a group of eighteenth-century philosophers invested the notion of the Dark Ages to discredit Christianity, they labeled their own era the Enlightenment on grounds that religious darkness had finally been dispelled by secular humanism. As Bertrand Russel (1872-1970) explained, the "Enlightenment was essentially a revaluation of independent intellectual activity, aimed quite literally at spreading light where hitherto darkness had prevailed." Thus did Voltaire, Rousseau, Lock, Hume, and others wrap themselves in the achievements of the "Scientific Revolution" as they celebrated the victory of secularism, eventuating in the Marquis Laplace's claim that God was now an unnecessary hypothesis. Of course, not one of these figures had played any part in the scientific enterprise.
Christianity is LUCKY that the scientific community is rational and wouldn't think of treating Christians the same way that scientists have been treated at the hands of the Christian church, and would do well to remember that.
Science isn't moral. Eugenics was extremely progressive and scientific at the turn of the last century, look at modern munitions like chemical and atomic weapons, hell look at what Nazi scientists and Imperial Japanese did. Were they not scientists? 20th Century Soviet Union - a bastion of Science since religion was under the boot, persecuted and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of clergy up to the 1960s, which was disregarded by the JFK administration as fascist lies, and killed millions of their own people. I'm sure it's a relief to all those who perished that it wasn't because of some sky wizard. For example many perceptions about the Inquisition are hilariously false, rivaling many people's understanding of the Old West seemingly full of gun fights making modern day Chicago look tame.
Religion puts forth ideas (often blatantly wrong), not supported by any kind of evidence, and then chastises/persecutes you when you question those ideas.
Science arose only in Christian Europe because only medieval Europeans believed that science was possible and desirable. And the basis of their belief was their image of God and his Creation (see Theology, and Scholastics.) Christian Theology was essential for the rise of science, just as non-Christian thologies had stifled the scientific enterprise everywhere else. Explained at the Lowell Lectures at Harvard by Alfred North Whitehead, co-author of Principia Mathematica, he explained:
The greatest contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement [was] the inexpungeable belief.. that there was a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind?.... It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of faith in rationality."
Rene Descartes justified his search for the "laws" of nature on the ground that such laws must exist because god is perfect and therefore "acts in a manner as constant and immutable as possible." That is, the universe functions according to rational rules of laws. Many early scientists felt morally obliged to pursue these secrets because god has given humans the power of reason it ought to be possible for us to discover the rules established by god.
In contrast, most religions outside the Judeo-Christian tradition do not posit creation at all. The universe is said to be ternal, without beginning or purpose, and never having been created, it had no creator. From this view, the universe is a supreme mystery, inconsistent, unpredictable and perhaps arbitrary. For those holding this view, the only paths to wisdom are meditation or inspiration - there being nothing to reason about. But if the universe was created in an accord with rational rules by a perfect, rational creator, then it ought to yield its secrets to reason and observation. Hence, the scientific truism that natur is a book meant to be read. Many of the Greeks considered the universe as eternal and uncreated - Aristotle condemned the idea "that the universe came into being at some point in time... as unthinkable." Indeed none of the traditional Greek gods would have been capable of such a creation. But, worst of all, the Greeks insisted on turning the cosmos, and inanimate objects more generally, into living things. Consequently, they attributed many natural phenomena to motives, not to inanimate forces. Thus according to Aristotle, heavenly bodies moved in circles because of their affection for doing so, and objects fall to the ground "because of their innate love of for the centre of the world."
As for Islam. There is no suggestion in the Qur'an that Allah set his creation in motion and then let it run. Rather, it is assumed that he often intrudes into the world and changes things as it pleases him. Thus, through the centuries, many of the most influential Muslim scholars have held that all efforts to formulate natural laws are blasphemy in that they would seem to deny Allah's freedom to act. Thus did their images of God and the universe deflect scientific efforts in China, ancient Greece, and Islam.
It was only because Europeans believed in God as the Intelligent Designer of a rational universe that they pursued the secrets of creation. In the words of Johannes Kepler, "The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony imposed on it by God and which when he revealed to us in the language of mathematics."
Western Society owes a lot to the Church. Science explains the how, religion is more about the why. Modern science, as in the scientific method, has its origins in the Church via Roger Bacon. Separation of Church and State is a Christian thing, as well as the whole scholastic and theology schools of thought enabled by the wildly popular University system.
Slashdot Mirror
Steel and aluminum are of national security importance, and the US is just about out of the business, though fortunately, we get most of ours from Canada.
The US is not out of the business. We've been consuming at least 3/4 of the steel we produce and production has been consistent since the 1980s. The reduction in the steel workforce is due to technological advances so the same amount of production is possible with 25% of the labor.
Scope the steel production tons vs employment, ever declining, it's about 40% less even from 15 years ago. Now look at the usa.arcelormittal chart for utilization capacity, we're at ~75% for 2016, higher in years past. We consume most of it. http://usa.arcelormittal.com/sustainability/our-business/operating-context/understanding-the-domestic-steel-industry
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/steel-production
(read for a while before I even created an account, much to my everlasting shame)
This is funny!
I agree with you on the gestures, I didn't think I would like them and quickly got used to it. The lack of a TouchID was concerning since I still really like being able to have the phone accessible by the time I look at it. So for example let's say you're in a meeting, yes yes you should be paying attention, Face ID isn't as optimal since you need a specific angle for it to get your face whereas the Touch ID just needs a finger. Besides that, easily the best phone I've owned.
Font size and style are not interactivity any more than a newspaper is interactive.
How do you dynamically change font size or font styles based on user interaction in the browser presently without JS?
Trends come and go in all religions
Most religions outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition do not posit creation at all. The universe is said to be eternal, without beginning or purpose, and never having been created, it has no creator. From this view, the universe is a supreme mystery, inconsistent, unpredictable, and perhaps arbitrary. For those holding this view, the only paths to wisdom are meditation or inspiration - there being nothing to reason about. But if the universe was created in accord with rational rules by a perfect, rational creator, then it ought to yield its secrets to reason and observation. Hence, the scientific truism that nature is a book ment to be read.
As for the Greeks, many of them also regarded the universe as eternal and uncreated - Aristotle condemned the idea "that the universe came into being at some point in time... as unthinkable" Indeed, none of the traditional Greek gods would have been capable of such a creation. But, worst of all, the Greeks insisted on turning the cosmos, and inanimate objects more generally, into living things. Consequently, they attributed many natural phenomena to motives, not to inanimate forces. Thus, according to Aristotle, heavenly bodies moved in circles because of their affection for doing so, and objects fall to the ground "because of their innate love for the centre of the world."
As for Islam, the orthodox conception of Allah is hostile to the scientific quest. There is no suggestion in the Quar'an that Allah set his creation into motion and then let it run. Rather, it is assumed that he often intrudes into the world and changes things as it pleases him. Thus, through the centuries, many of the most influential Muslim scholars have held that all efforts to formulate natural laws are blasphemy in that they would seem to deny Allah's freedom to act.
Catholics rejected science, then eventually came to embrace it.
Would you elaborate? Is this a reference to the Dark Ages or Galileo?
The Islamic Golden Age [wikipedia.org] was a time of amazing scientific and philosophical progress, but they gave it up
With respect to progress doubly so for Europe. Education, Art, Science, Architecture, Music, Farming, Astronomy there were massive advancements.
Do you really not see a spectrum of championed beliefs or values with respect to political leanings? Just curious about your view point, if you'd care to enlighten.
Scope this setup, operates at 28 GB/sec (faster than DDR4 memory at 2133). Eight NVMe M2 SSDs in RAID on X399 Threadripper.
Sorry to hear that. I recommend uMatrix in addition to what you're using now - since it provides granular control of images, js, iframes etc. based on domains.
I had to dig deep into the first page of results for this. Many Bothans died to bring you this information... https://www.usnews.com/opinion...
While they couldn't use propaganda as overtly racist, crack was preferred by poor black people, while powder cocaine was preferred by rich white people. So thinly veiled racist propaganda led to requiring 100x as much powder cocaine to trigger the same mandatory prison terms as crack.
This contradicts the historical record. The Black Leaders of the time were the ones calling for the stiff penalties due to out of control crime. For example gangs were massively prevalent in the 80s - urban homicide rates corroborate this.
Cite 0
Cite 1
Cite 2
Cite 3
I've heard the credit freeze being mentioned in response to the news. My understanding is that when freezing your credit you're assigned a PIN. Freezing is also not permanent. In which database are the PIN numbers stored?
And with that you can run C++ in the browser. It sounds like a gimmick but it's not. I know people using it in production for serious stuff
The argument that JavaScript is actually close to the hardware really made my evening. We are living in the future!
Here's a look at what might've been circa 1995, behold it's glory! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Does that price include tax? Regular screening is $14.19+ [1] IMAX is $21+
[1] https://www.amctheatres.com/mo...
[2] https://tickets.fandango.com/t...
Religious fanatics would rather burn progressive thinkers like Galileo Galilei on the stake rather than listen to reason.
Galileo didn't really get into trouble for his books, or his scientific convictions, it was his arrogant duplicity. It's true he was called before the Roman Inquisition and charged with the heretical teaching that the earth moves around the sun or otherwise. And he was forced to recant. But he was neither imprisoned nor tortured; he was sentenced to a comfortable house arrest during which he died at age 78.
Long before he became Pope Urban VIII (1623 to 1644), while still a cardinal, Maffeo Barberini knew and liked Galileo. In 1623 when he published Assayer, Galileo dedicated the book to Barberini (the Barberini family crest appeared on the title page of the book), and the new pope was said to have been delighted by the many nasty insults it directed against various Jesuit scholars. Assayer was mainly an attack on Orazio Grassi, a Jesuit mathematician, who had published a study that (correctly) treated comets as small heavenly bodies; Galileo ridiculed this claim, arguing wrongly that comets were but reflections on vapors arising from the earth. In any event, Assayer, prompted Pope Urban VIII to write an adulatory poem on the glory of astronomy. So, what went wrong?
It is important to put the Galielo affair in historical context. At this time the Reformation stood defiant in northern Europe, the Thirty Year's War raged, and the Catholic Counter-Reformation was in full bloom. Partly in response to Protestant charges that the Catholic Church was not faithful to the Bible, the limits of acceptable theology were being narrowed, and this led to increasing Church interference in scholarly and scientific discussions. However, Urban VIII and other leading officials were not ready to clamp down on scientists, but instead proposed ways to avoid any conflicts between science and theology by separating their domains. Thus, Friar Marin Mersenne advised his network of leading scientific correspondents to defend their studies on grounds that God was free to place the earth anywhere he liked, and it was the duty of scientists to find out where he had put it. More cautious early scientists adopted the tactic of identifying scientific conclusions as hypothetical or mathematical, hence being without direct theological implications. And that was what the pope asked Galileo to do - to acknowledge in his publications that "definitive conclusions could not be reached in the natural sciences. God in his omnipotence could produce a natural phenomenon in any number of ways and it therefore was presumptuous for any philosopher to claim that he had determined a unique solution.
That seemed an easy evasion. And, given Galileo's propensity to claim false credit for inventions made by others, such as the telescope, and to have conducted empirical research he probably did not really perform, such as dropping weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, it would not seem to have stretched his ethical standards to have gone along with the pope. But to defy the pope in a rather offensive way was quite consistent with Galileo's ego.
In 1632, Galileo published his awaited Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Although the ostensible purpose of the books was to present and explanation of tidal phenomena, the two systems involved were Ptolemy's, in which the sun circles the earth, and Copernicus's wherein the earth circles the sun. The dialog involves three speakers, two of them philosophers and the third a layman. It is the layman, Simplicio, who presents the traditional views in support of Ptolemy - the resemblance of the name to "simpleton" was obvious to all. This allowed Galileo to exploit the traditional "straw man" technique to ridicule his opponents. Although Galileo did include the disclaimer suggested by the pope, he put it in the mouth of Simplicio, thereby disowning it.
The book caused an immense stir and, understandably, the pope felt
You can download them to your device if you need your precious with you at all times.
Here's a breakdown. It looks like duplicate data due to the framework they're using.
It's a joke that flew over your head.
It's pretty easy now, single installer. https://thetinhat.com/ is a pretty easy place to direct people to.
It's kind of humorous with the units flipped around, since ' is foot and " is inches. "Yeah, my modest 23 foot home screen just isn't cutting it."
Scope out Pi-hole. It's a really slick way to do this.
Straight to jail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
In fact, Islamic communities were once highly-regarded as scholarly and scientific types.
All of them? They actively were hostile to science since explaining the natural world went against Allah as blasphemy. Science arose only in Christian Europe because only medieval Europeans believed that science was possible and desirable. And the basis of their belief was their image of God and his Creation (see Theology, and Scholastics.) Christian Theology was essential for the rise of science, just as non-Christian thologies had stifled the scientific enterprise everywhere else. Explained at the Lowell Lectures at Harvard by Alfred North Whitehead, co-author of Principia Mathematica, he explained:
The greatest contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement [was] the inexpungeable belief .. that there was a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind? .... It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of faith in rationality."
Rene Descartes justified his search for the "laws" of nature on the ground that such laws must exist because god is perfect and therefore "acts in a manner as constant and immutable as possible." That is, the universe functions according to rational rules of laws. Many early scientists felt morally obliged to pursue these secrets because god has given humans the power of reason it ought to be possible for us to discover the rules established by god.
... as unthinkable." Indeed none of the traditional Greek gods would have been capable of such a creation. But, worst of all, the Greeks insisted on turning the cosmos, and inanimate objects more generally, into living things. Consequently, they attributed many natural phenomena to motives, not to inanimate forces. Thus according to Aristotle, heavenly bodies moved in circles because of their affection for doing so, and objects fall to the ground "because of their innate love of for the centre of the world."
In contrast, most religions outside the Judeo-Christian tradition do not posit creation at all. The universe is said to be ternal, without beginning or purpose, and never having been created, it had no creator. From this view, the universe is a supreme mystery, inconsistent, unpredictable and perhaps arbitrary. For those holding this view, the only paths to wisdom are meditation or inspiration - there being nothing to reason about. But if the universe was created in an accord with rational rules by a perfect, rational creator, then it ought to yield its secrets to reason and observation. Hence, the scientific truism that natur is a book meant to be read. Many of the Greeks considered the universe as eternal and uncreated - Aristotle condemned the idea "that the universe came into being at some point in time
As for Islam. There is no suggestion in the Qur'an that Allah set his creation in motion and then let it run. Rather, it is assumed that he often intrudes into the world and changes things as it pleases him. Thus, through the centuries, many of the most influential Muslim scholars have held that all efforts to formulate natural laws are blasphemy in that they would seem to deny Allah's freedom to act. Thus did their images of God and the universe deflect scientific efforts in China, ancient Greece, and Islam.
It was only because Europeans believed in God as the Intelligent Designer of a rational universe that they pursued the secrets of creation. In the words of Johannes Kepler, "The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony imposed on it by God and which when he revealed to us in the language of mathematics."
I never said priests/clergy didn't contribute to science, just that it was disingenuous to attribute things like the Scientific Method to the church
Where did it originate, who taught it, where was it taught, and more importantly, why?
Your assertion that religion isn't afraid of science, hasn't always been the case, and in fact is only a very recent development out of need. Science has slowly been eroding god's domain over time,
Science is the result of people studying God's work, people like Einstein, ignorance of the origins of Western science such as the painting of Galileo as a heroic martyr to blind faith demonstrate that there are many old lies still being told throughout history. Just as a group of eighteenth-century philosophers invested the notion of the Dark Ages to discredit Christianity, they labeled their own era the Enlightenment on grounds that religious darkness had finally been dispelled by secular humanism. As Bertrand Russel (1872-1970) explained, the "Enlightenment was essentially a revaluation of independent intellectual activity, aimed quite literally at spreading light where hitherto darkness had prevailed." Thus did Voltaire, Rousseau, Lock, Hume, and others wrap themselves in the achievements of the "Scientific Revolution" as they celebrated the victory of secularism, eventuating in the Marquis Laplace's claim that God was now an unnecessary hypothesis. Of course, not one of these figures had played any part in the scientific enterprise.
Christianity is LUCKY that the scientific community is rational and wouldn't think of treating Christians the same way that scientists have been treated at the hands of the Christian church, and would do well to remember that.
Science isn't moral. Eugenics was extremely progressive and scientific at the turn of the last century, look at modern munitions like chemical and atomic weapons, hell look at what Nazi scientists and Imperial Japanese did. Were they not scientists? 20th Century Soviet Union - a bastion of Science since religion was under the boot, persecuted and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of clergy up to the 1960s, which was disregarded by the JFK administration as fascist lies, and killed millions of their own people. I'm sure it's a relief to all those who perished that it wasn't because of some sky wizard. For example many perceptions about the Inquisition are hilariously false, rivaling many people's understanding of the Old West seemingly full of gun fights making modern day Chicago look tame.
Religion puts forth ideas (often blatantly wrong), not supported by any kind of evidence, and then chastises/persecutes you when you question those ideas.
Science arose only in Christian Europe because only medieval Europeans believed that science was possible and desirable. And the basis of their belief was their image of God and his Creation (see Theology, and Scholastics.) Christian Theology was essential for the rise of science, just as non-Christian thologies had stifled the scientific enterprise everywhere else. Explained at the Lowell Lectures at Harvard by Alfred North Whitehead, co-author of Principia Mathematica, he explained:
The greatest contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement [was] the inexpungeable belief .. that there was a secret, a secret which can be unveiled. How has this conviction been so vividly implanted in the European mind? .... It must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher. Every detail was supervised and ordered: the search into nature could only result in the vindication of faith in rationality."
Rene Descartes justified his search for the "laws" of nature on the ground that such laws must exist because god is perfect and therefore "acts in a manner as constant and immutable as possible." That is, the universe functions according to rational rules of laws. Many early scientists felt morally obliged to pursue these secrets because god has given humans the power of reason it ought to be possible for us to discover the rules established by god.
... as unthinkable." Indeed none of the traditional Greek gods would have been capable of such a creation. But, worst of all, the Greeks insisted on turning the cosmos, and inanimate objects more generally, into living things. Consequently, they attributed many natural phenomena to motives, not to inanimate forces. Thus according to Aristotle, heavenly bodies moved in circles because of their affection for doing so, and objects fall to the ground "because of their innate love of for the centre of the world."
In contrast, most religions outside the Judeo-Christian tradition do not posit creation at all. The universe is said to be ternal, without beginning or purpose, and never having been created, it had no creator. From this view, the universe is a supreme mystery, inconsistent, unpredictable and perhaps arbitrary. For those holding this view, the only paths to wisdom are meditation or inspiration - there being nothing to reason about. But if the universe was created in an accord with rational rules by a perfect, rational creator, then it ought to yield its secrets to reason and observation. Hence, the scientific truism that natur is a book meant to be read. Many of the Greeks considered the universe as eternal and uncreated - Aristotle condemned the idea "that the universe came into being at some point in time
As for Islam. There is no suggestion in the Qur'an that Allah set his creation in motion and then let it run. Rather, it is assumed that he often intrudes into the world and changes things as it pleases him. Thus, through the centuries, many of the most influential Muslim scholars have held that all efforts to formulate natural laws are blasphemy in that they would seem to deny Allah's freedom to act. Thus did their images of God and the universe deflect scientific efforts in China, ancient Greece, and Islam.
It was only because Europeans believed in God as the Intelligent Designer of a rational universe that they pursued the secrets of creation. In the words of Johannes Kepler, "The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony imposed on it by God and which when he revealed to us in the language of mathematics."
As for the Scientific Method coming from
Western Society owes a lot to the Church. Science explains the how, religion is more about the why. Modern science, as in the scientific method, has its origins in the Church via Roger Bacon. Separation of Church and State is a Christian thing, as well as the whole scholastic and theology schools of thought enabled by the wildly popular University system.