Well...there's way too much there to comment on. But a couple of comments anyway:
Some thoughts about Marc Carter's post. Marc said that my original contention was that: >"thoughtful theologians" were responsible for modern science, not that the >collection of people who invented science were religious. I may have been unintentionally misleading, but my actual contention was much more the latter: that the people involved with the development of science thought that their explorations using God's highest gift of reason was glorifying God. That is, their science was religiously motivated--not that they were professional theologians. In the sense that Christianity has a specific theology (that God created a lawful universe accessible to reason, etc. etc.) these men were motivated to create their science to better understand the Christian God. >Reflection on the world and the human condition led to the development of >science, not reflection on the existence or characteristics of gods. This is a categorical statement about which I disagree. It was exactly the reflection on the characteristics of the Christian God as spelled out in Christian theology that both inspired and allowed these men to embark on the scientific enterprise. >Read Gleick or Michael White on Newton. His Christianity didn't make him a >scientist, and his commentary on the Bible didn't make him a theologian. I think it is pretty clear that Newton was a very religious man and that he considered himself in the service of God and uncovering the knowledge of God as he undertook his scientific activities. I would assume that Gleick and White simply are anti-religious. True to form Mike Palij managed to come up with some obscure individual in order to further complicate the issue (with standard disclaimers also), prefaced by: >One problem with "shallow" explanations like that provided by Prof. Smith is >that it fails to recognize that others may have made similar sorts of claims Actually, I don't think that's a problem at all and Mike's post seems rather like a non-sequitur. and finally, Allen commented: > Leaving aside that Darwin was hardly among "the first scientists", it is erroneous to state he was religious. On the contrary, he had ceased to believe in the tenets of Christianity by the early 1840s, and following the death of his beloved daughter Annie in 1850 he ceased to be a believer in any kind of conventional religious belief. Yes, I know that Darwin isn't among the first scientists. I included Darwin because he is the object of almost orgasmic devotion by at least some very vocal atheists (and probably their followers)--their god one might say--and because he also was religious: at least in the beginning, as shown by your post that "he had ceased to believe". So then, Darwin too at least started out religious and his motivation for engaging in the study of the natural world could well have been a religious one. --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4942 or send a blank email to leave-4942-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
