How to deal with "Science came from religion dumbasses&

[Maraxus]

I'm currently engaged in a debate with a pseudo-fundy who claimed that religion spawned science.

I'm aware that this is not true, but i cannot find any strong historical fact contradicting this statement.

If anyone could help, it would be greatly appreciated.

[OmegaGuy]

The burden of proof is on him. Ask him to prove that science came from religion with actual historical facts.

[Admiral Johnason]

Look at the constant bickering between scientists and the Christian Churches for the past 1,500 years. While some scientists have come from the Church (Mendel and others like him,) I have rarely heard of the Churches suppoerting science.

[wilfulton]

I hear large mallets also work wonders.


Seriously, some people are just irrational, and arguing with them is simply a wasted effort. If he wants to think science came from religion, so be it. Not like he'd recognize science if it bit him on the ass anyway.

[Hotfoot]

The Church LOVES the big bang. It's a nice "moment of creation" that fits in nicely with their views of creation.

[SWPIGWANG]

I don't think origin means much in terms validity compared to content anyways.

[Morilore]

I'm currently engaged in a debate with a pseudo-fundy who claimed that religion spawned science.

I'm aware that this is not true, but i cannot find any strong historical fact contradicting this statement.

If anyone could help, it would be greatly appreciated.

First, ask him to define his terms. What does he mean by "religion," "spawned," and "science?" Is he referring to the institutions, the individuals practicing both, or the mindsets? If he's referring to either of the first two then he may actually be correct, but it means nothing, since the church had its claws in everything (in Europe) back then. Science's greatest contributions to humanity occured when the scientific method matured fully; this mindset is utterly contradictory to any religious one.

[PrinceofLowLight]

The church did indeed run the precursor to the modern European universities. What of it? No organization is a monoloth. There is absolutely no contradiction in the idea that there were proto-scientists in the early church despite the fact that its doctrines and major figures were against the scientific method. Especially when you combine that with the fact that the church had something of a monopoly on formal education at this time, anyone who would be in a position to learn and apply early scientific methods would have to have had a religious education.

[Trytostaydead]

Hold it hold it guys. He said religion, not the church. There was science and religion far before the church ever came around.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Sometimes, religion can be a motivational catalyse for moving into science. Many scientifically inclined indivdiuals during the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution of the 17th-18th centuries were influenced by their conception of God and nature, but that's not to say religion gave birth to it entirely.

Ideas don't usually pop out of nowhere. Although they did not invent the scientific method, and the mentality of region does diverge from scientific thought, some people were motivated to explore scientific methods and concepts to better understand/verifiy their religions.

In specific, this was the case of Isaac Newton and many Deists. It didn't spawn science, but it, in some ways, gave inspiration for it as it developed (for some individuals).

What does he mean when he says it spawned it?

[Patrick Degan]

Tell Mr. Religion to read up on the ancient Ionians —particularly Democritus of Abdera.

[Zac Naloen]

Well its true that Isaac Newton were attempting to prove the existance of god with their investigations. But they just ended up doing more to disprove him... kinda says something doesn't it?

[drachefly]

I know a guy whose interest in the physical universe led him to become a rocket scientist and a priest. He is still both.

I'd say that a spirit of inquiry can lead one to either religion or science or both; but that neither of those two caused the other.

[Darth Wong]

The people who argue that science comes from religion because its early practitioners were religious should also realize that by this logic, criticism of religion also comes from religion. After all, virtually all of the Enlightenment period critics of religion were in fact raised in a religious environment.

That fact alone should dispel the idiotic notion that science cannot possibly be in conflict with religion due to the fact that many of its early practitioners were religious. After all, by that fucked-up logic, criticism of religion is not in conflict with religion either.

[Sriad]

Well its true that Isaac Newton were attempting to prove the existance of god with their investigations. But they just ended up doing more to disprove him... kinda says something doesn't it?

Wait, how many Isaac Newtons were there?

17-18th century religi-scientists tried to get closer to God via higher understanding of his works. Reading the (fictionalized) historical scientists in the Baroque Cycle helped me understand how it all might have worked.

[Zac Naloen]

Well its true that Isaac Newton were attempting to prove the existance of god with their investigations. But they just ended up doing more to disprove him... kinda says something doesn't it?

Wait, how many Isaac Newtons were there?

17-18th century religi-scientists tried to get closer to God via higher understanding of his works. Reading the (fictionalized) historical scientists in the Baroque Cycle helped me understand how it all might have worked.

Woops, i blame that accidental pluralisation on a lingering hang over.

[WTR]

Weren't a lot of things like using leeches and maggots and herbs all wrapped up in religious stuff?
"Verily unto taketh this maygikal plant and...blah blah blah..healed by the Great <insert Diety of healing here>.." when all it really is is just the plant doing it's thing. Like garlic and lemons are good for colds.

[WTR]

Take this horrible tasting brew, I'll now dance around and rattle some chicken bones...I mean the bones of Saint Heebiejeebie and you'll be cured in a few days. That'll be 10 shekels.

[WTR]

As to science, well just look at Gallileo and how much crap he had to go through? Religions should just stick to that herbal stuff and leave the mathmatical science to the scientists.

[Ghost Rider]

Stop fucking spamming.

[WTR]

Sorry.

[Wicked Pilot]

The Church LOVES the big bang. It's a nice "moment of creation" that fits in nicely with their views of creation.

Too bad your average fundie has no idea of the history of Big Bang, it's first proposers, and it's battle with the atheist popular Steady State. On an issue concerning the origins of the universe the Christian backed theory trumped the atheist one and the fundies shun it as if it were a newly wed interracial gay couple burning the American flag. They won, Lemaitre was right, Hoyle was wrong, what a bunch of morons.

[SyntaxVorlon]

I'm currently engaged in a debate with a pseudo-fundy who claimed that religion spawned science.

I'm aware that this is not true, but i cannot find any strong historical fact contradicting this statement.

If anyone could help, it would be greatly appreciated.

Modern science developed in the 17th century under the guise of learning about "Our Lord's wondrous mechanism 'nature'". Boyle and Newton and Kepler and so on were all religious and in a sense western science developed out of an interest in physico-theology.

But, as has been stated, so what? The fact that religious people were the first scientists doesn't mean that modern science is inherently religious or makes claims that favor any specific religion. Your response to this twit should be, 'so what?'

The people who argue that science comes from religion because its early practitioners were religious should also realize that by this logic, criticism of religion also comes from religion. After all, virtually all of the Enlightenment period critics of religion were in fact raised in a religious environment.

Oh much earlier than that, biblical exegesis of the variety that Maimonides(RMBM circa. 12thC) created was based around the idea that you can't take the scriptures too seriously because they were written in the language of man. This may not sound that critical but it is this sort of thinking that allows people to question the unquestionable holy book.