06 Apr 14
Originally posted by humyI like another one that says " I am against religion because it teaches you to be satisfied not understanding".
I had a look at this link. It indirectly lead me to other links and finally I found this which is one of Richard Dawkins quotes:
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1194.Richard_Dawkins
“Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can f*** off.
07 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseand yet Newton penned more words in his quest for religious truth than he did in his search for scientific truth. In view of the fact that not few notable and great scientists were and are religious what are we to make of your now rather odious comment? that its based on ignorance? prejudice? a one dimensional perspective? ironic really, all things having been considered.
I like another one that says " I am against religion because it teaches you to be satisfied not understanding".
07 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWas Newton really so faithful to the contemporary church? If the church knew what Newton was up to they would have called him blasphemous. If he would be closer to Rome geographically and the Pope got hold of him, would he then be burned, as Bruno? In fact he denied himself a grave in the St Paul cathedral, that was how much he despised the church but he was put there anyway, against his own will.
and yet Newton penned more words in his quest for religious truth than he did in his search for scientific truth. In view of the fact that not few notable and great scientists were and are religious what are we to make of your now rather odious comment? that its based on ignorance? prejudice? a one dimensional perspective? ironic really, all things having been considered.
Don't use Newton as a good example, because, according to the contemporary church, he wasn't.
07 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasit matters not whether he was close or not, he was a deeply religious man and an excellent Biblical scholar. Church is one thing, Bible and God quite another.
Was Newton really so faithful to the contemporary church? If the church knew what Newton was up to they would have called him blasphemous. If he would be closer to Rome geographically and the Pope got hold of him, would he then be burned, as Bruno? In fact he denied himself a grave in the St Paul cathedral, that was how much he despised the church but he ...[text shortened]...
Don't use Newton as a good example, because, according to the contemporary church, he wasn't.
07 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat difference does it make whether or not Newton was religious? The basic point of that saying is you accept not knowing how the universe works for the absolute knowledge that what the bible says is totally true.
it matters not whether he was close or not, he was a deeply religious man and an excellent Biblical scholar. Church is one thing, Bible and God quite another.
It's a trade off.
07 Apr 14
Originally posted by sonhouseit makes a mockery of the statement that being religious suppresses understanding.
What difference does it make whether or not Newton was religious? The basic point of that saying is you accept not knowing how the universe works for the absolute knowledge that what the bible says is totally true.
It's a trade off.
07 Apr 14
Originally posted by sonhouseIt means a scientist, like Newton, could still study and experiment with science and still believe the creation account in Genesis. That does not make him a moron.
What difference does it make whether or not Newton was religious? The basic point of that saying is you accept not knowing how the universe works for the absolute knowledge that what the bible says is totally true.
It's a trade off.
07 Apr 14
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo it doesn't because he didn't let his religious beliefs interfere with his discovery of scientifically observable truths of the world thus he gained understanding DESPITE whatever religious beliefs he had.
it makes a mockery of the statement that being religious suppresses understanding.
If he, like creationists like you, HAD let it interfere so that he just looked at the Bible rather than think for himself when interpreting his own observations, he would have understood nothing but rubbish and there would be no advanced in understanding from him at that time.
Where in the bible does it explain that the Earth orbits the sun in an ellipse or that white light is made of 3 primary colors or what causes a rainbow? Thus religion, at least of your kind, suppresses understanding whichever way you look at it.
No doubt, if only he saw the evidence for evolution (which was a bit before his time ) and was concisely told of the mechanism of evolution, he, unlike Creationists like you, would have immediately accepted it as fact for the same reason.
07 Apr 14
3 edits
Originally posted by humyoh dear Humy this is not going to go well for you, it seems that Sir Isaac was motivated by his religious beliefs to attempt to ascertain scientific truth putting to the sword the ludicrous concept that he discovered them despite his religious convictions. Nothing but rubbish? here is what he actually wrote,
No it doesn't because he didn't let his religious beliefs interfere with his discovery of scientifically observable truths of the world thus he gained understanding DESPITE whatever religious beliefs he had.
If he, like creationists like you, HAD let it interfere so that he just looked at the Bible rather than think for himself when interpreting his own obser ...[text shortened]... e, unlike Creationists like you, would have immediately accepted it as fact for the same reason.
“I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever.” Sir Issac (peace be upon him)
Now Humy you can accept the truth or you can continue to resist the facts, but I tell you to do so is to betray the scientific method and reject empiricism. It will not go well for you so crash and burn while you can.
07 Apr 14
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh dear Humy this is not going to go well for you, it seems that Sir Isaac was motivated by his religious beliefs to attempt to ascertain scientific truth putting to the sword the ludicrous concept that he discovered them despite his religious convictions. Nothing but rubbish? here is what he actually wrote,
“I find more sure marks of authentici ...[text shortened]... ific method and reject empiricism. It will not go well for you so crash and burn while you can.
it seems that Sir Isaac was motivated by his religious beliefs
That may have been so. So what? That's irrelevant because he still didn't let that interfere with his interpretation of his observation. For example, he concluded that the Sun, not the Earth, was at the centre of the solar system. If he didn't think for himself and just consulted the bible or religious authority or religious dogma prevailing at the time for the answers, he would probably have erroneously concluded that the Earth was at the centre of the solar system and understood nothing correctly!
Religious dogma 0; science 1.
07 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by humyThe Bible does not state that the Earth is the centre of the universe and its well known that he regarded contemporary religious organisations and doctrine as corrupt, after he made a diligent study of scripture. Why you seems to hold that these very same organisations and doctrines are of any consequence in the quest for Biblical truth I cannot say, its neither logical nor rational to do so.it seems that Sir Isaac was motivated by his religious beliefs
That may have been so. So what? That's irrelevant because he still didn't let that interfere with his interpretation of his observation. For example, he concluded that the Sun, not the Earth, was at the centre of the solar system. If he didn't think for himself and just consul ...[text shortened]... he centre of the solar system and understood nothing correctly!
Religious dogma 0; science 1.
Sir Isaac and the Bible 1: Religious and scientific dogma:0
07 Apr 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt might be (speculation on my part) that since in Judaism, food preparation was introduced into the religion even though it was just a safety issue having nothing to do with god but they put it in to be bloody well sure that the observant Jews would follow through with the not eating pig thing and so forth, and have held that belief to this very day, at least the observant ones.
The Bible does not state that the Earth is the centre of the universe and its well known that he regarded contemporary religious organisations and doctrine as corrupt, after he made a diligent study of scripture. Why you seems to hold that these very same organisations and doctrines are of any consequence in the quest for Biblical truth I cannot say ...[text shortened]... logical nor rational to do so.
Sir Isaac and the Bible 1: Religious and scientific dogma:0
I saw that first hand in Israel, lived there for several years and saw the edicts against pork and such and kosher dishware and food.
The dishware thing I saw up close, working at Intel in Jerusalem, at the Intel cafeteria the Kosher flatware had holes drilled in the ends to separate them out so only the observant Jews ate with those knives and such.
Some Palestinian kid decided it would be a great joke to play on them, drill holes in the non kosher forks and spoons and sneak them in with the real kosher ones.
It was found out maybe a week later and all hell broke loose, they were practically rioting in the food hall.
The kid got fired and almost lynched.
I am just saying that to illustrate what kind of stuff can enter a religion and be taken seriously as a religious edict.
So perhaps the Earth as center of the universe was not specific in the Bible but tradition held that the old Aristotle view of the universe was worked into the religion kind of sneaked in sideways and it became a religious issue by the 1400's and such.
Someone said there was no official statement of the issue by the church till some time in the 1600's but it could have been unofficially official before that time.
I am the first to admit not being anything close to a religious scholar but it seems to me it could have happened like that.