When did the Christian mission...

[Hope]

Atheism reared its head a very long time ago indeed. The ancient Greeks did science, or didn't you realise?

I'm aware that the Greeks 'did' science, but they also 'did' religion; or are you suggesting that it was only Greeks who were atheists who did the science.  I was also asking LJ if he would prefer that history showed that only atheists have 'done' science.

[Hope]

Well yes, the old what did the romans ever do for us argument, ...

I believe that the answer to that argument is ' a lot'.  They invented (perhaps reinvented) a variety of scientifically efficient weapons, ways of thinking, etc. 

[Shaker]

I'm aware that the Greeks 'did' science, but they also 'did' religion; or are you sauggesting that it was only Greeks who were atheists who did the science.

Not only but predominantly, since the records demonstrate that the sort of proto-science we're talking about now amongst the pre-Socratics was done by that group of thinkers conveniently lumped together as atomists (or as we would now say m****ialists - I don't want to type out the word in full or it'll get Vlad out of his coffin).

[Hope]

Nice when people are given the choice, isn't it?

OK, here's a challenge for you Shakes.  Find a passage in the New Testament that either records Jesus instructing his disciples to force others to become his followers, or records one or other gospel/epistle writer instrucing their readers to do the same.

I would be amongst the first to reiterate my oft-repeated statemment that the Church down the centuries hasn't been perfect, and has sometimes been worse than horrific, but does that mean that the principles of Christianity themselves support that behaviour?

[Hope]

Not only but predominantly, since the records demonstrate that the sort of proto-science we're talking about now amongst the pre-Socratics was done by that group of thinkers conveniently lumped together as atomists (or as we would now say m****ialists - I don't want to type out the word in full or it'll get Vlad out of his coffin).

And they were the only ones doing the science?  Do the records indicate that?

[Shaker]

And they were the only ones doing the science?  Do the records indicate that?

Helpful hint: if you read a post carefully and attentively you might just find that it saves you writing a question already answered

[Hope]

I'm unfamiliar with this but a little digging would suggest that you have oversimplified, but it matters little to the point. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that what you say is correct, then it wouldn't be a "scientific story", it would be a statistical mistake.

But it was taken as read for many years, and became accepted fact. 

Humorism was never a scientific idea in any modern sense of the word.

I know that some like to think that science wasn't really born until the Enlightenment, but some of the ideas that pass for 'modern' science had been suggested and worked on by ancient Chinese and Indians.

I literally laughed out loud at that.

I'm glad you did; perhaps you can find a Biblical passage or passages that suggest that it wasn't true.  In fact, I've been known to laugh out loud in the middle of sermons when the preacher says something that I find open to questioning.

It's odd how some people can combine religious faith with scientific curiosity but some clearly manage it.

Perhaps the 'odd ones' are those who can't.   

You haven't said how religion itself can be used as a "balance" to science...

Well, as I said, it can be because religion encourages questioning and enquiry.  Sometimes, that questioning and enquiring will have scientific ideas their target.  However, I'm not one who regards sceince and religion as being at odds with each other, as I seem to get the impression you do.  Rather, I regard them as complimentary; they ask and answer different questions about reality.

[Hope]

Helpful hint: if you read a post carefully and attentively you might just find that it saves you writing a question already answered

Yes, I saw the 'pre-Socratics' definer, but then people have been 'doing' science for centuries.  As I pointed out a recent reply to SKoS, science was being pursued long before the Greeks became of any importance.

[Shaker]

Well, as I said, it can be because religion encourages questioning and enquiry.  Sometimes, that questioning and enquiring will have scientific ideas their target.  However, I'm not one who regards sceince and religion as being at odds with each other, as I seem to get the impression you do.  Rather, I regard them as complimentary; they ask and answer different questions about reality.

What's the process by which religion's answers to what it questions can be ascertained to be true or false, please?

[Hope]

What's the process by which religion's answers to what it questions can be ascertained to be true or false, please?

I've answered this before Shakes.  Remember that even science can only ascertain the truth or falsehood of a theory from the perspective of human understanding and experience.  So, it seems to me that both science and religion can be seen to be based on the same basis.

[Shaker]

I've answered this before Shakes.

You're very fond of claiming this but when pressed are then suddenly unable to provide a pointer to where and when you supposedly said it. Where and when did you answer it? What will it be this time? Forum closed down years ago? It was removed by the mods? Cat had a bout of diarrhoea and shat all over it, miss?

Remember that even science can only ascertain the truth or falsehood of a theory from the perspective of human understanding and experience.

I don't know of any other kind, do you?

So, it seems to me that both science and religion can be seen to be based on the same basis.

If you're saying that religion is an entirely human construct, comprised of human ideas with no external or objective referent anywhere outside the human cranium, I'm happy to agree.

[Gordon]

I've answered this before Shakes.  Remember that even science can only ascertain the truth or falsehood of a theory from the perspective of human understanding and experience.  So, it seems to me that both science and religion can be seen to be based on the same basis.

You left out method: the science version is well understood but the religious equivalent seems to be absent. Perhaps you could provide said method.

[Stranger]

I know that some like to think that science wasn't really born until the Enlightenment, but some of the ideas that pass for 'modern' science had been suggested and worked on by ancient Chinese and Indians.

And...? Ideas aren't rejected just because they predate modern science.

I'm glad you did; perhaps you can find a Biblical passage or passages that suggest that it wasn't true.

But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.

James 1:6-8

Well, as I said, it can be because religion encourages questioning and enquiry.

So you say. Have you come up with that objective methodology for answering assessing religious claims, yet?

[edit]
can't seem to type the right worms today...

[Shaker]

You left out method: the science version is well understood but the religious equivalent seems to be absent. Perhaps you could provide said method.

Mumble mumble mumble rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb mumble mumble.

[Hope]

You left out method: the science version is well understood but the religious equivalent seems to be absent. Perhaps you could provide said method.

As I said, science and religion (or at least Christianity) encourages one to question one's experiences ('test' is the word often used in the Bible).  If what you have experienced runs counter to what Jesus teaches then it is likely that it isn't of him - in the same way that if an experiment produces results that run counter to existing data and understandings, it is likely that the results are wrong.  However, neither suggest ditching the experience/results.  Instead, one stores tham up until such time as there are corroborating experiences/results that can be used to develop a new understanding of the underlying principles.

[Hope]

Mumble mumble mumble rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb mumble mumble.

I notice that you have tried to keep this quiet lest science be shown to be equally flawed.   

[Gordon]

I notice that you have tried to keep this quiet lest science be shown to be equally flawed.   

You win the evasion of the year award even though it is still April, since I doubt we'll see anyone present a better example this year (other than from yourself of course).

[Shaker]

I notice that you have tried to keep this quiet lest science be shown to be equally flawed.   

Oh no, not at all - the successes of science are plain to see but are easily pointed out to the terminally Hopeless if really necessary. I'm asking you - Gordon is also asking you; SKoS is also asking you - what process religion uses to determine that its answers to the questions it asks are correct or incorrect answers. The scientific process here is easily covered; where's the religious equivalent? You allege that you've already answered this - somewhere, sometime - so: where?

[Hope]

Oh no, not at all - the successes of science are plain to see ...

As are its failures, but you would rather these weren't mentioned as they undermine your reliance on it.  As for answering SKoS's question, I've explained in a number of places across this board, and then briefly explained again in my last post. It's all about 'testing' or asking questions.

[Shaker]

As are its failures, but you would rather these weren't mentioned as they undermine your reliance on it.

Not at all. Its failures are its failures and pretty much what you'd expect from an entirely human endeavour carried out by fallible and information-limited human beings. I wouldn't expect anything so stupid as it being perfect, faultless, infallible or any other synonym - would you?

Now - this equivalent method with regard to religion that you mentioned: where is that and what is it? I'm still unaware of anything other than what can broadly be called the scientific method as a consistently accurate and universally reliable method of investigating stuff with built-in checks and balances designed to make it as objective as humanly possible and to weed out personal preference, wish and bias. You claim an equivalent for religion but seem shy about actually stating it.

Wonder why.

As for answering SKoS's question, I've explained in a number of places across this board

Where?

[Stranger]

As I said, science and religion (or at least Christianity) encourages one to question one's experiences ('test' is the word often used in the Bible).  If what you have experienced runs counter to what Jesus teaches then it is likely that it isn't of him - in the same way that if an experiment produces results that run counter to existing data and understandings, it is likely that the results are wrong.  However, neither suggest ditching the experience/results.  Instead, one stores tham up until such time as there are corroborating experiences/results that can be used to develop a new understanding of the underlying principles.

It's difficult to know where to begin. You clearly don't understand the scientific method; if a result falsifies a theory, then the theory is wrong.

As for the religion bit: (just for a start): what was the test that the bible was to be used? What was the test that Jesus' teachings (as recorded) were the standard? What was the test that anybody's experiences could be "of him"? What was the test that this had anything to do with any god?

[Gordon]

As I said, science and religion (or at least Christianity) encourages one to question one's experiences ('test' is the word often used in the Bible).  If what you have experienced runs counter to what Jesus teaches then it is likely that it isn't of him - in the same way that if an experiment produces results that run counter to existing data and understandings, it is likely that the results are wrong.  However, neither suggest ditching the experience/results.  Instead, one stores tham up until such time as there are corroborating experiences/results that can be used to develop a new understanding of the underlying principles.

Well that isn't a method at all.

First of all you'd need to quantity 'what Jesus teaches' so that these can be expressed minimally as test criteria against which comparisons can be made: criterion referenced measurement is an established method (which I used myself in my studies, so I'm familiar with it). So, what criteria do you have and how have you determined validity?

In addition 'experiences' and 'results' are separate issues that have different implications, and you are conflating the two unless you have a method to quantify 'experiences': so have you? In addition, in academic research results aren't usually just deemed to be 'wrong' unless the methodology is flawed, which is where academic supervisors have a role to play (I was lucky to have two Profs as supervisors), and especially where statistical tests are being used the outcome of there being no significant difference or association may well be relevant depending on what is being studied.

It seems to me that you don't really understand research methods at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Christianinty was spread in exactly the same way as Islam is now spreading; by bullying and violence, especially after the conversion of Constantine.

Not in the early stages when it actually got round the empire...and pagans were the one's throwing Christians to the lions........cue no true pagan argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well that isn't a method at all.

A method? Well that isn't an ontology at all.

[Owlswing]

Well, since the latter isn't even considered within Jesus' teaching, you don't actually seem to have come to any other conclusion that most Christians, Rhi.

Rubbish - all you have to do to get the Christian get-out-of-jail-free card is to bend your knee to the Christian God and give up any sort of freedom to do anything banned by the Christian God in the Bible!