Not exact matches
The irony being that he was threatened by the
church for going
against the whole «god did it» argument, which is what this guy was trying to claim, and has nothing to do with «real
science»
Yeah, the
church totally wasn't responsible for killing
science, they only heavily suppressed it and tortured / executed people who spoke
against it.
unfortunately, the religious aristocracy rails
against science that contradicts
church doctrine.
The
church and xstians are guilty of causing fatality (ie murder) and then whine about «freedom of religion» I think it's time to fight «beam stuffling with beam stuffling» Call it jihad of logic,
science, and reason,
against these dangerous lethal religious believers.
Paradigm shifts in
science have historically resulted from revolution
against the
church and anti-intellectual philosophies.
It is this kind of «hate - speech» which led to the burning down of 77
churches in Norway by militant atheists and which at the most extreme end of the atheist movement leads to comments such as this from the
Church Arson website «Any intelligent Antichrist methodology at that point will involve a consolidation of strength, public education in the ways of
science and logic for our individual members, and actions taken
against the remaining believers.
The
Church and Christians generally still smart from accusations levelled
against our slow acceptance of Darwinian theory; one of the first toys that baby
science threw out of the cot for us to pick up and since become one of the key tenets of the modern scientific «belief system».
Huxley originated the myth of a «war» between
science and religion, but in reality the war he waged was
against the privileges of the aristocracy and the English state
church.
The truth is that
science has given us the answers to many of the previous needs for a god, and now that the «
church» is threatened by rationality of thought and reason of
science, they are taking a harder stand
against atheism.
Now, in the third millennium, the
Church must continue to announce that «all truth is God's truth» and offer a credible apologetic
against both fundamentalist Christians and non-Christians who seek to posit a conflict between
science and religion.
Every time the
church has went
against science (e.g., the earth revolves around the sun)
science has won.
If that were an appropriate procedure, then we would find it necessary to side
against the liberation of women (including giving them a significant role in the
church) and
against modern
science with its evolutionary perspectives.
Even if an uncritical relationship between the
church and
science does not totally ideologize Christianity, we still have history's word that the ambiguous nature of many scientific achievements argues
against the
church's unqualified sponsorship of them.
The «conflict thesis» of
science and religion was born in the salons of ancien régime France, where philosophes like Voltaire and d'Alembert used it as a weapon
against the Catholic
Church.
Nor will it any longer be incumbent upon the
church to guard
against becoming an ideological spokesman for
science; for
science, as the agent of humanization, will have entered into a synthesis with all else that contributes to human spirituality.
In 1868, the roles of women,
science, and religion are under scrutiny and often at odds with one another; Darwin's The Origin of Species is only nine years old, and its ideas of evolution are beginning to knock
against the teachings of the
church.