So i provide evidence but because it is from America (more specifically the FBI that looks at global data) it is no good. — Anaxagoras
For balance it is worth questioning the — I like sushi
I’m open minded. Go ahead. If you’re scared of posting here though then you’ve lost already I think?
Of course some people will wish to frame you as X or Y rather than deal with your points though. I prefer points made and opinions expressed as succinctly as possible. My comment was neither an attack or defense of anything you’ve said. I merely pointed out how anyone, me, you or Anaxagoras can easily enough - purposefully or not - present stats that suit our views. I look for stats both for and against and assume they are only part of the full story. I’m more interested in the term used (hence my comment about the ‘white terrorist’ as opposed to ‘black terrorist’ or ‘asian terrorists’? Point being I find it typical of the kind of rhetoric flying around today and it lacks any clear definition because being from a country, speaking a certain language and/or having a particular skin tone don’t in any way convey a particular ideological position - although admittedly the country you grow up in does often represent some loose ideas upon which you venture out into the wider intellectual world if you so wish to.
Note: I was not disagreeing with anything you said merely offering the sort of counter argument I have seen from others in regards to the use of stats - when it suits them it’s fine, when it disputes some stance they hold too (consciously or otherwise) they are all too ready to question the source. I’m not omitting myself from this because I have erred before and will again; just hopefully less so than in the past :) — I like sushi
Christianity was a huge threat to reason and science and today the threat is Islam. — I like sushi
...it doesn’t change the reality of history and how theocratic states have killed men of science over the centuries due to “blasphemy”. — I like sushi
Religious institutions have continually tried to block scientific investigation and still do so today. — I like sushi
This is demonstrably false. — Benkei
Okay, show me how then? — I like sushi
I certainly don’t dispute that religious people, and a number of prominent theologians, have built upon the reasoning of the Greeks and Romans and carried through their legacy through the ages. — I like sushi
If you don't dispute it then it should be clear that religion isn't fundamentally opposed to science or reason. — Benkei
Christianity was a huge threat to reason and science and today the threat is Islam. The scales are by far more in favour of reason and science though because they’re fully established in secular societies.
I would still argue that in terms of theocracies Christianity was quite obviously a threat to reason and science - witch hunts and the burning of “heretics” for questioning dogma are quite apparent pieces of evidence there. That said I find it hard to deny that theological discussions helped in part to the progress of science and reason, but I’d still be dubious of anyone suggesting they were the primary force for science and reason unless they meant as an opponent of science and reason that helped propel the human intellect above superstitions.
Why don't you enlighten us about when "men of science" have killed people. Science is just a method, you know.Do you believe that men of science never killed people because of "blasphemy laws"? — Mariner
with respect to your idea that religion and science are opposed to one another
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.