Is the existence of Christianity better for this world

[Hans Blaster]

You totally missed my point. Have you ever heard of Thomas Khun.

I have heard of Kuhn, but have no use for him.

The point isn't about yours or mine personal subjective beliefs and positions when it comes to paradigms. Its a group thing, a bit like group think. Its an overarching set of rules, tools, language, assumptions and beliefs (not science itself) about how the world is and how we should go about measuring it.

No Steve, the point is I stated something about myself, and you told me I was wrong about me. Don't do that.

Its when these paradigms meet that we have problems when it comes to establishing the truth and reality. Even different disciplines of science have conflicting paradigms. Let alone those coming from materialism, naturalism, spiritualism or supernaturalism.

So I said what I said not about you personally but about how the paradigm works in reality. When people from different paradigms are disagreeing about what is reality. It is easy for the scientist to use the empiriclism as the basis for what is the acceptable facts about reality to disprove any supernatural or immatierial claims. Don't you agree or not.

Otherwise if science is truely neutral then this makes it mute. No person can ever claim a fact about reality or that the science disproves alternative claims about reality as woo. Simply because to be neutral they would have to each and every time qualify their claim with

"this is just a fact about a certain aspect of reality and there may be other ways of knowing reality that science cannot know or measure. So your alternative way of knowing may be true and I cannot comment on its reality"

In fact there really is no facts to naturalism because if science can only measure a certain aspect of reality then its admitting that there are other influences it has not taken into consideration that may have influenced the data and therefore make all scientific findings suspect.

Thats if science was truely neutral. But in reality it can never be truely neutral. It does not even know the line between what is natural and what is supernatural to be neutral.

Naturalism and Science​

Naturalism and Science – Metanexus

I'm not interest in arguments about the neutrality of science or whatever you are trying to twist this into.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Uh huh. So you don't believe that existence is fundamentally physical, then? You take science phenomenally and don't specify an ontology?

I don't need to seen an ontologist. I have no interest in such things.

 

[Fervent]

I don't need to seen an ontologist. I have no interest in such things.

Whether you have interest in them or not, you likely have imposed one onto your conception of what reality is at its basic level.

 

[stevevw]

I have heard of Kuhn, but have no use for him.

Thats a pity because I think to do good science you need to understand paradigms and how in the overall scheme of things there are many paradigm within which different groups work and some are contradictory. This tells us that there is more than one way to measure reality and the science method is but one paradigm among many.

No Steve, the point is I stated something about myself, and you told me I was wrong about me. Don't do that.

OK sorry if I caused offense as absolutely none was intended. But what is wrong with giving an informed opinion on what I think your behaviour displays from my POV. Or is my informed opinion not allowed.

You claim Dunn is woo and yet Dunn claims he is not and has based his work on science. I explain this and you still say he is woo. In doing so your implying I am woo despite me telling you its not.

I'm not interest in arguments about the neutrality of science or whatever you are trying to twist this into.

So can you answer the question neutrally 'Is Chriatainity better for this world' and society.

I mean as a Christain I am going to say yes. So I guess I cannot be neutral. I would imagine at least a majority of people who disbelieve in God and reject Christainity will say no.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

..... I'm so glad that in this thread, we're all working on coming to "better" our understanding that Christianity (i.e. the Christianity we see in the New Testament) is "better" for this world.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thats a pity because I think to do good science you need to understand paradigms and how in the overall scheme of things there are many paradigm within which different groups work and some are contradictory. This tells us that there is more than one way to measure reality and the science method is but one paradigm among many.

I don't need amateurs or philosophers to tell me how to do my job.

OK I am sorry if I caused offense as absolutely none was intended. I almost feel like your forcing me to have the mindset you think I have. Its more or less the same thing as insisting Dunns ideas are woo. I am sure Dunn believes he has the reasoning and evidence and its not woo. But you insist his thinking is woo. Are you not forcing on him your own projected mindset into Dunns head.

But nevertheless no harm was intended.

Accepted.

So let me ask you, Do you think we can determine certain factors that allow us to attribute certain mindsets and beliefs to people based on their behaviour and language used.

So can you answer the question neutrally 'Is Chriatainity better for this world'.

I mean as a Christain I am going to say yes. So I guess I cannot be neutral. I would imagine at least a majority of people who disbelieve in God and reject Christainity will say no.

I guess there would be some who don't care either way. But thats the other problem that because its about belief and not science its hard to determine the true representation of where people stand.

I think it comes down to what people do and not what they say in the end and certainly we are seeing that the public square is rejecting God and Christainity and even antagonistic towards it. That is not a sign of a neutral public square but one with their own ideology that is opposed to God and Christainity.

In that sense the existence of Christainity is for the better as it will conflict with secular ideology exposing its lies. Even if God is relegated to the fringes, Christains are shut down in the public square. Just the existence of Christains will always be a thorn in the side of secular ideology.

You wandered far from what my text was about. Pass.

 

[stevevw]

I don't need amateurs or philosophers to tell me how to do my job.

First of all Khun and others like him such as Nagal are not amateurs and thinking so is only proving my point as you claiming some epistemic truth which is beyond science.

Second science does need philosophy. You can calculate an objective reality that something is fact but applying it to society is a philosophical issue. What we end up measuring is a philosophical issue. Using science to control society is a philosophical issue. In other words how science is measured and applied is a philosophical issue that cannot be seperated from science.

A good example is many use evolutionary explanations for morality and belief itself. That is a philosophical issue.

Why science needs philosophy

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1900357116

Its not wandering far from what you were talking about but exactly on point. You claimed that governments and by extention individuals can be neutral on this issue. So I asked the question 'Is Chriatainity better for this world' and by extension society. Which afterall is implied in the OP.

Can you be neutral on this issue.

 

[stevevw]

The New Testament also speaks of helping the needy and disadvantaged,

Luke 3:11
John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”

1 John 3:16-18
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.

James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

James 2:14-17
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

 

[Hans Blaster]

First of all Khun and others like him such as Nagal are not amateurs and thinking so is only proving my point as you claiming some epistemic truth which is beyond science.

First of all, Kuhn et al. are not scientists, they are philosophers, etc. Second of all, the amateurs are those of you in this thread. I am not an amateur.

Second science does need philosophy. You can calculate an objective reality that something is fact but applying it to society is a philosophical issue. What we end up measuring is a philosophical issue. Using science to control society is a philosophical issue. In other words how science is measured and applied is a philosophical issue that cannot be seperated from science.

A good example is many use evolutionary explanations for morality and belief itself. That is a philosophical issue.

Why science needs philosophy

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1900357116

The only "Philosophy" I need is the word written on my last diploma.

Its not wandering far from what you were talking about but exactly on point. You claimed that governments and by extention individuals can be neutral on this issue.

Neutral on what? Religion? Sure, governments do that all the time. I mostly don't care about religions or what other people believe, so long as they are not using it as an excuse to harm people. Religion itself bores me. It always did.

So I asked the question 'Is Chriatainity better for this world' and by extension society. Which afterall is implied in the OP.

But for some reason, this line of posts has ventured into the usefulness of philosophy to science, which is definitely not on topic. Perhaps we can get there, but not from this post as a starting point.

Can you be neutral on this issue.

On the usefulness of Christianity to society? No, and why should I be neutral. I think you'll find my basic position buried in earlier posts before I got dragged off course.

 

[stevevw]

First of all, Kuhn et al. are not scientists, they are philosophers, etc. Second of all, the amateurs are those of you in this thread. I am not an amateur.

But we are not just talking about science in this thread are we. In fact its basically a philosophical question and not one of science. Saying that anyone who proposes alternative beliefs and views to yourself as an amateur seems a bit unfair in a philosophical thread. Or at least a thread that includes philosophical considerations.

The only "Philosophy" I need is the word written on my last diploma.

That seems a little extreme. I would have thought we all need some philosophy. Its not as if its completely useless.

Neutral on what? Religion? Sure, governments do that all the time.

Actually governments are not neutral on religion. It all depends who is in power. For example the Dems in the US are not neutral when it comes to Christains. They are not neutral to a number of beliefs and even political views. Its called identity politics and its been happening in most western democracies for a few decades now.

Look at the Jews for God sake. The most descriminated religion by most western governments. There is a definite bias in supporting them, recognising them.

You know why. Why are some parties biased. Because they are using ideological beliefs, their own belief to determine what is allowed. It may not be recognised as a traditional religion but it acts every bit like a religion in its moralising and dogmatism against opposing beliefs. Anyone who believes they are living in some free and neutral utopia is being unreal.

I mostly don't care about religions or what other people believe, so long as they are not using it as an excuse to harm people. Religion itself bores me. It always did.

Fair enough. But for others who make the same claim that God and religion means nothing behave the complete opposite. They often are just as eager and religious at envangelising atheism, or relativism and how there is no God and everything can be explained in naturalistic terms. In fact look at the evolution and creation threads. The anti creation and God posters are just as religious in their passion and preaching lol.

I don't think any human can live with some metaphysical belief. Research shows that humans are born with a God shape void in their cognitions and it is harder to indoctrinate a person out of belief than into belief. It takes a lot of effort to get rid of thaae natural intuition for theism.

So if its not God that gives that meaning and morality it is another metaphysics and humans cannot exist as a society without some belief in a greater ideological basis for how we should be ordered as people and a society.

But for some reason, this line of posts has ventured into the usefulness of philosophy to science, which is definitely not on topic. Perhaps we can get there, but not from this post as a starting point.

What do you mean not on topic. This thread is really all philosophy. Science was only brought up as the church being a hinderence to its progression. Which is really a philosophical question anyway. The idea of whether Christainity is a hinderence to social progress is a philsophical one.

If you want to say that allowing science is good for social progression then thats a philosophical one. It seems to me there its all philosophical. Except that maybe we can use science and facts to determine what is good for society as far as progressing towards a better society.

On the usefulness of Christianity to society? No, and why should I be neutral. I think you'll find my basic position buried in earlier posts before I got dragged off course.

But thats my point. Your not neutral just like Christains are not neutral. We come to the debate with a bias towards one side and against the other. That is the paradigm difference we are immerced in. Each side has different metaphysical and moral belief about how the world is and should be ordered.

The same for groups of people as mentioned above like progressive politics who are biased against Christains and conservative. Politicals has become the personal now. Its polarised.

So in knowing this how can governments and political parties in power be neutral. Its going to either be the Right or the Lefts political agenda and ideology implimented which will offend the other side like they are being forced to bow to a different God. Even want to leave the nation.

The only time it will be unified is when the majority have the same belief and worldview. That happened long ago but has changed in the last 50 odd years. Its never going to be neutral and it never has been.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But we are not just talking about science in this thread are we. In fact its basically a philosophical question and not one of science. Saying that anyone who proposes alternative beliefs and views to yourself as an amateur seems a bit unfair in a philosophical thread. Or at least a thread that includes philosophical considerations.

It's a sort of misplaced thread to begin with, not quite sure how "morality/ethics" applies to the original question. We, however, have been dealing with the impact of Christianity on scientific progress from the moment I replied to your first post in the thread. If that topic is exhausted, then we can end this sub-thread and go back to only replies more tied to the OP theme.

That seems a little extreme. I would have thought we all need some philosophy. Its not as if its completely useless.

I little hyperbole to get my point across about meddling phliosophers and sociologists trying to tell us how to do our jobs. They should feel free to study us like a troop of wild gorillas, but should not expect us to conform to their idea of how science is "done".

Actually governments are not neutral on religion. It all depends who is in power. For example the Dems in the US are not neutral when it comes to Christains. They are not neutral to a number of beliefs and even political views. Its called identity politics and its been happening in most western democracies for a few decades now.

Look at the Jews for God sake. The most descriminated religion by most western governments. There is a definite bias in supporting them, recognising them.

You know why. Why are some parties biased. Because they are using ideological beliefs, their own belief to determine what is allowed. It may not be recognised as a traditional religion but it acts every bit like a religion in its moralising and dogmatism against opposing beliefs. Anyone who believes they are living in some free and neutral utopia is being unreal.

Christian persecution complexes are [NOT] relevant to *our* discussion. I was only (again) trying to get you to understand the adjective "secular".

Fair enough. But for others who make the same claim that God and religion means nothing behave the complete opposite. They often are just as eager and religious at envangelising atheism, or relativism and how there is no God and everything can be explained in naturalistic terms. In fact look at the evolution and creation threads. The anti creation and God posters are just as religious in their passion and preaching lol.

I don't think any human can live with some metaphysical belief. Research shows that humans are born with a God shape void in their cognitions and it is harder to indoctrinate a person out of belief than into belief. It takes a lot of effort to get rid of thaae natural intuition for theism.

So if its not God that gives that meaning and morality it is another metaphysics and humans cannot exist as a society without some belief in a greater ideological basis for how we should be ordered as people and a society.

What do you mean not on topic. This thread is really all philosophy. Science was only brought up as the church being a hinderence to its progression. Which is really a philosophical question anyway. The idea of whether Christainity is a hinderence to social progress is a philsophical one.

It isn't relevant to the topic of *our* sub-thread on the Christianity and science. None of the social or political stuff is. Discuss it if you will, but not with me.

If you want to say that allowing science is good for social progression then thats a philosophical one. It seems to me there its all philosophical. Except that maybe we can use science and facts to determine what is good for society as far as progressing towards a better society.

OK, fine, but I'm not sure that is very profound. (Except if we consider the vehemently anti-science positions some people take, but that isn't general society under the influence of regular, rather than extreme, religion and thus falls a bit outside the original scope of this thread.)

But thats my point. Your not neutral just like Christains are not neutral. We come to the debate with a bias towards one side and against the other. That is the paradigm difference we are immerced in. Each side has different metaphysical and moral belief about how the world is and should be ordered.

The same for groups of people as mentioned above like progressive politics who are biased against Christains and conservative. Politicals has become the personal now. Its polarised.

So in knowing this how can governments and political parties in power be neutral. Its going to either be the Right or the Lefts political agenda and ideology implimented which will offend the other side like they are being forced to bow to a different God. Even want to leave the nation.

The only time it will be unified is when the majority have the same belief and worldview. That happened long ago but has changed in the last 50 odd years. Its never going to be neutral and it never has been.

Steve, the reason I don't want to tackle the base question of the thread and only the science sub-topic you started was that my unvarnished opinions would likely generate multiple violates per post (not including profanity). I'd rather keep posting. Cheers.

[Edit to add missing "NOT"]

 

[Niels]

It is my understanding that the Renaissance can be attributed, in large part, to the fall of Constantinople. When Christians left the Byzantine Empire and traveled to Western Europe, they brought scholarship and knowledge that was lacking in Medieval Western Europe. Western Europe had been cut off by much of the world by the Ottoman Empire, or at least restricted by it, which was a big motivator for the Crusades. For trade, travel, and the flow of culture, although some of the Crusades went horribly wrong. The 4th Crusade ironically ended up weakening Constantinople, leading to its capture by the Ottomans.

The rise of modern science in the West was largely a Christian endeavor. In terms of individual scientists like Des Cartes, Newton, Pascal, Kepler, et al. and also the Church. Early scientists were often clergy, and although discoveries were sometimes considered heretical before being accepted, scientific inquiry was largely funded by the Church. The Church also contributed greatly to the arts.

There have always been people who oppose scientific progress. Some of whom are Christian, but to categorize Christianity itself as hindering human progress... especially the Renaissance... demonstrates an ignorance of history.

 

[stevevw]

It's a sort of misplaced thread to begin with, not quite sure how "morality/ethics" applies to the original question. We, however, have been dealing with the impact of Christianity on scientific progress from the moment I replied to your first post in the thread. If that topic is exhausted, then we can end this sub-thread and go back to only replies more tied to the OP theme.

But as I said even this is a philosophical question. Science cannot determine whether the church hindered science in relation to social progress. Basically most of our discussion even on science has been philosophical as far as science in relation to epistemics, ontology and metaphysics.

I don't think science is in doubt for what its good at measuring and its benefits. But science cannot tell us ultimately how the world is and how it should be ordered as far as social progress.

I little hyperbole to get my point across about meddling phliosophers and sociologists trying to tell us how to do our jobs. They should feel free to study us like a troop of wild gorillas, but should not expect us to conform to their idea of how science is "done".

Actually you have hit on a point I made earlier about paradigms even occurring within the sciences as well when you mention sociologists. That different domains of science have different sets of rules, measuring tools, language, assumptions and beliefs. Yet they both call themselves science.

You can include psychologists, psychiartrists, anthropologists, archeologists ect. As compared to say the hard sciences of biologists and genetistists, physicist and chemistry. They all have different paradigms and disagree on how they see the world, reality and its causes of behaviour.

A good example is between say psychologists and biologists where one sees the external world as the locus and the other the internal of the mind. The mind and body destinction. This is seen throughout the sciences showing that even science cannot agree on epistemics and ontology. Let alone larger domains outside science between materialist, spirtualist, epiphenomelist and realist and the division within areas like consciousness ect.

Christian persecution complexes are relevant to *our* discussion. I was only (again) trying to get you to understand the adjective "secular".

I am not sure what you mean now. I was responding to how you said governments were neutral all the time. Sure Christains paranoia come into it. But we have evdience that there is actually descrimination against Christains. Part of that descrimination is attributing the real bias as Christain persecution complex.

This supports my earlier point that people cannot be neutral. They are whether they believe it or not biased towards their own metaphysical beliefs about reality. Usually that involves ethics, meanings of life, whats beyond the world ect. But really it seems to always come down to a spiritual type battle of God or no God.

That is why you will see increased antagonism towards Christains in modern secular society because as time has gone by and society has rejected God completely from the public square its obvious that this rejection was not neutral but motivated by an anti God belief. So we should expect to see increased bias even attacks on Christains in secular societies. Which is exactly what we see according to Human Rights organisations.

It isn't relevant to the topic of *our* sub-thread on the Christianity and science. None of the social or political stuff is. Discuss it if you will, but not with me.

Ok so what about society and science is relevant. I am not sure what you mean now.

OK, fine, but I'm not sure that is very profound. (Except if we consider the vehemently anti-science positions some people take, but that isn't general society under the influence of regular, rather than extreme, religion and thus falls a bit outside the original scope of this thread.)

Yes and no. No because the OP did mention how the church held back social progress and used the Renaissance which was a dogmatic period and anti science.

I pointed out that despite this the church accommodated science through building hospitals, schools and universities and many great pioneering scientists were men of God.

So I think its a checkered past but the church has gradually accepted science and now even embraces it. It is actually secular society in a weird kind of way under postmodernism that is threatening the statues of science with ideas like "sex assigned at birth" as a standard fact in science. Not to mention all the fake facts about claimate change and vacines ect.

It is thanks to these secular ideologues and not the church that has undermined the credibility of science. Most CHristains now embrace science as its revealing Gods creation in even more detail. But more so that changing realities don't affect a persons belief as science cannot prove or disprove God.

Steve, the reason I don't want to tackle the base question of the thread and only the science sub-topic you started was that my unvarnished opinions would likely generate multiple violates per post (not including profanity). I'd rather keep posting. Cheers.

Oh sorry. Um what can I say but bring on the science lol.

But let me clarify. You don't want to discuss the epistemic and metaphysical implications for society regarding whether the church or Christainity is a hinderance for society today.

 

[BCP1928]

But as I said even this is a philosophical question. Science cannot determine whether the church hindered science in relation to social progress. Basically most of our discussion even on science has been philosophical as far as science in relation to epistemics, ontology and metaphysics.

I don't think science is in doubt for what its good at measuring and its benefits. But science cannot tell us ultimately how the world is and how it should be ordered as far as social progress.

Actually you have hit on a point I made earlier about paradigms even occurring within the sciences as well when you mention sociologists. That different domains of science have different sets of rules, measuring tools, language, assumptions and beliefs. Yet they both call themselves science.

You can include psychologists, psychiartrists, anthropologists, archeologists ect. As compared to say the hard sciences of biologists and genetistists, physicist and chemistry. They all have different paradigms and disagree on how they see the world, reality and its causes of behaviour.

A good example is between say psychologists and biologists where one sees the external world as the locus and the other the internal of the mind. The mind and body destinction. This is seen throughout the sciences showing that even science cannot agree on epistemics and ontology. Let alone larger domains outside science between materialist, spirtualist, epiphenomelist and realist and the division within areas like consciousness ect.

I am not sure what you mean now. I was responding to how you said governments were neutral all the time. Sure Christains paranoia come into it. But we have evdience that there is actually descrimination against Christains. Part of that descrimination is attributing the real bias as Christain persecution complex.

There is persecution of Christians, but not in Western countries like the US where Christians just whine about it.

This supports my earlier point that people cannot be neutral. They are whether they believe it or not biased towards their own metaphysical beliefs about reality. Usually that involves ethics, meanings of life, whats beyond the world ect. But really it seems to always come down to a spiritual type battle of God or no God.

That is why you will see increased antagonism towards Christains in modern secular society because as time has gone by and society has rejected God completely from the public square its obvious that this rejection was not neutral but motivated by an anti God belief. So we should expect to see increased bias even attacks on Christains in secular societies. Which is exactly what we see according to Human Rights organisations.

Ok so what about society and science is relevant. I am not sure what you mean now.

Yes and no. No because the OP did mention how the church held back social progress and used the Renaissance which was a dogmatic period and anti science.

I pointed out that despite this the church accommodated science through building hospitals, schools and universities and many great pioneering scientists were men of God.

There are still men of God among the modern pioneers of science.

So I think its a checkered past but the church has gradually accepted science and now even embraces it. It is actually secular society in a weird kind of way under postmodernism that is threatening the statues of science with ideas like "sex assigned at birth" as a standard fact in science. Not to mention all the fake facts about claimate change and vacines ect.

A standard Christian anti-science rant. Fortunately it appears to be limited to anglo Protestants, in this country, at least.

It is thanks to these secular ideologues and not the church that has undermined the credibility of science. Most CHristains now embrace science as its revealing Gods creation in even more detail. But more so that changing realities don't affect a persons belief as science cannot prove or disprove God.

Oh sorry. Um what can I say but bring on the science lol.

But let me clarify. You don't want to discuss the epistemic and metaphysical implications for society regarding whether the church or Christainity is a hinderance for society today.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But as I said even this is a philosophical question. Science cannot determine whether the church hindered science in relation to social progress. Basically most of our discussion even on science has been philosophical as far as science in relation to epistemics, ontology and metaphysics.

I don't think science is in doubt for what its good at measuring and its benefits. But science cannot tell us ultimately how the world is and how it should be ordered as far as social progress.

Actually you have hit on a point I made earlier about paradigms even occurring within the sciences as well when you mention sociologists. That different domains of science have different sets of rules, measuring tools, language, assumptions and beliefs. Yet they both call themselves science.

You can include psychologists, psychiartrists, anthropologists, archeologists ect. As compared to say the hard sciences of biologists and genetistists, physicist and chemistry. They all have different paradigms and disagree on how they see the world, reality and its causes of behaviour.

A good example is between say psychologists and biologists where one sees the external world as the locus and the other the internal of the mind. The mind and body destinction. This is seen throughout the sciences showing that even science cannot agree on epistemics and ontology. Let alone larger domains outside science between materialist, spirtualist, epiphenomelist and realist and the division within areas like consciousness ect.

I'm not sure what about I don't care about the "philosophers of science" and their "ideas" you didn't quite get.

I am not sure what you mean now. I was responding to how you said governments were neutral all the time. Sure Christains paranoia come into it. But we have evdience that there is actually descrimination against Christains. Part of that descrimination is attributing the real bias as Christain persecution complex.

I left out the "not". That seems to happen when I write stuff and don't read it all carefully before posting. Christian "persecution" is not relevant to our discussion about Christianity holding back science.

This supports my earlier point that people cannot be neutral. They are whether they believe it or not biased towards their own metaphysical beliefs about reality. Usually that involves ethics, meanings of life, whats beyond the world ect. But really it seems to always come down to a spiritual type battle of God or no God.

That is why you will see increased antagonism towards Christains in modern secular society because as time has gone by and society has rejected God completely from the public square its obvious that this rejection was not neutral but motivated by an anti God belief. So we should expect to see increased bias even attacks on Christains in secular societies. Which is exactly what we see according to Human Rights organisations.

The "antagonism" Christians get in modern society comes in proportion to their antagonism of the rest of us.

Ok so what about society and science is relevant. I am not sure what you mean now.

Yes and no. No because the OP did mention how the church held back social progress and used the Renaissance which was a dogmatic period and anti science.

And we were specifically following up on your comments on science in your first post. Did you notice how in my reply I didn't reply to the non-science second half of your first post. I'm going to keep doing that.

I pointed out that despite this the church accommodated science through building hospitals, schools and universities and many great pioneering scientists were men of God.

So I think its a checkered past but the church has gradually accepted science and now even embraces it. It is actually secular society in a weird kind of way under postmodernism that is threatening the statues of science with ideas like "sex assigned at birth" as a standard fact in science. Not to mention all the fake facts about claimate change and vacines ect.

It is thanks to these secular ideologues and not the church that has undermined the credibility of science. Most CHristains now embrace science as its revealing Gods creation in even more detail. But more so that changing realities don't affect a persons belief as science cannot prove or disprove God.

Oh sorry. Um what can I say but bring on the science lol.

But let me clarify. You don't want to discuss the epistemic and metaphysical implications for society regarding whether the church or Christainity is a hinderance for society today.

My statement was indirect, but clear.

 

[stevevw]

There is persecution of Christians, but not in Western countries like the US where Christians just whine about it.

And they said that non Christains were neutral and unbiased. If you cannot acknowledge the clear bias and descrimination against Christains then your biased. Your own ideological beliefs are perhaps clouding your ability to see the truth on this. Which supports exactly what I was saying about how everyone has some bias and we cannot rule neutrally.

The IRS’ persecution of a Christian nonprofit should terrify all of us

The IRS’ persecution of a Christian nonprofit should terrify all of us

A decade after the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, the agency recently pulled a similar stunt with a faith-based organization named Christians …

nypost.com

New Report Details the Extent of the FBI's Weaponization of Law Enforcement Against Traditional Catholics
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/p...is-weaponization-law-enforcement-againstStudy: Biden-Harris Education Office Targeted Christian Colleges

Study: Biden-Harris Education Office Targeted Christian Colleges

Study: Biden-Harris Education Office Targeted Christian Colleges - The Heidelblog

This month, voters chose to turn the page on the Biden-Harris Administration and re-elect Donald J. Trump as the 47th President of the United States. This was an enormous win for the American people. It’s clear that Trump’s vision for freedom, populism, and patriotism inspired tens of millions...

heidelblog.net

FBI spied on traditionalist U.S. Catholics from coast to coast, new evidence reveals

FBI spied on traditionalist U.S. Catholics from coast to coast, new evidence reveals - Catholic Herald

The FBI mounted spying operations on traditionalist Catholic churchgoers across the whole of the United States, according to new evidence obtained by politicians. The Federal Bureau of Investigation was in February accused of secretly gathering evidence which might link Catholics in the Richmond...

catholicherald.co.uk

Then we have the many Christains descriminated and persecuted by the Leftist ideological overreach which targeted Christains organisations and individuals like Jack Phillips, Barronelle Stutzman and Coach Joe Kennedy. Oh and don't forget the new thought crime of praying near an abortion clinic and the systematic attacks on Christain pro life pregnacy centers like Little Sisters. Or the crackdown on Christain non profit organisations.

Elizabeth Warren calls for federal crackdown on pro-life pregnancy centers

Pro-life pregnancy centers may have bigger problems on their hands than fire-setting, window-smashing vandals.

www.washingtontimes.com

Then you have the politicians themselves who have put senators and reps through hell attacking them based on their Christain belief. Like Sanders attacks on Russ Vought and Kamala attacking Brett Kavanaugh..

Democrats’ new boogeyman for 2024: Christian nationalism

Democrats’ new boogeyman for 2024: Christian nationalism

In the wake of the killing of George Floyd, Americans were treated to a near-constant refrain from Democrats about widespread, indiscriminate killings of Black men by White police officers.

www.washingtontimes.com

The Democratic Party’s Systematic, Purposeful Attack on Christianity

The Democratic Party's Systematic, Purposeful Attack on Christianity - The Stream

The Democratic National Committee resolved in 2019 to attack Christian religious freedom, and they are carrying out that attack today.

stream.org

Thanks to all this anti Christain narrative and examples by the Left its filtered onto the streets where attacks on Christains has increased massively.

According to 2022 FBI hate crime statistics, episodes of bias attacks against Catholics and other Christians are higher than hate crimes against Muslims.

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/why-does-biden-treat-christians-with-disdain/

New Report: Record High Hostility and Violence Against Churches in America

New Report: Record High Hostility and Violence Against Churches in America

Attacks on houses of worship are at an all-time high. 436 incidents occurred in 2023—more than double the number in 2022. That’s an average of 39 attacks every month. Not only are we seeing a higher number, but these attacks appear to be getting more violent.

firstliberty.org

But its not just happening in the US but all Leftist governments are descriminating and persecuting Christains. This has led along with the ongoing persecutions of Christains by Islamists and others to genocidal levels of Christain persecution.

So that means Christains are systematically being exterminated. Yet the Left don't mention a word. They are happy to speak up for Palestinians and Hamas but not Christains and Jews. What does that tell you.

I could go on as there are many examples. So please don't tell Christains they are not being persecuted or descriminated against by the Leftist progressive governments and their agents.

But I guess its only natural that the progressive Leftist ideologes are going to detest God and Christains who they see as a block to their progressive ideology. They will see Christainity as hateful which will provoke anger and resentment towards them.

This is a good example of how governments are not neutral and rule with their own ideological belief just like a religion would. Even if its called progressive ideology or Wokism or whatever you want to call it.

There are still men of God among the modern pioneers of science.

Yes of course.

A standard Christian anti-science rant. Fortunately it appears to be limited to anglo Protestants, in this country, at least.

Lol how can that be an anti science rant when I was just defending science by calling out the Postmodernist for undermining scientific integrity with their relativistic rationalisations of fake facts that undermine objective facts and reality.

I have no problem with science itself.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not sure what about I don't care about the "philosophers of science" and their "ideas" you didn't quite get.

The problem is for you to even comment in this thread you have to care about philosophy as its not a science topic. Nor is even saying that the church hindered science. Its all philosophy and because your engaging your caring about philsophy. Thats unless you don't care about the comments either.

I left out the "not". That seems to happen when I write stuff and don't read it all carefully before posting. Christian "persecution" is not relevant to our discussion about Christianity holding back science.

OK. Perhaps only if we say that the church persecuted scientists of the scientific establishment. Then we would have to also investigate whether secular powers and institutions persecuted Christains. If its about whether Christainity is better off for the world then persecution either way needs to be considered. Don't you think, yes, no, maybe.

The "antagonism" Christians get in modern society comes in proportion to their antagonism of the rest of us.

You reckon. I get heeps on some of these forums and I ain't done nothing but express my belief lol. Do you think the level of antagonism in light of the links I provided in the other post on Christain persecution from the Left is justified because Christains deserve it.

I cannot see what the antagonism would be. If its expressing a belief or wanting to setup opposition to abortion or Christains proclaiming their beliefs and truths about marriage, trans or whatever they should not deserve antagonism as its a legitimate belief and political opinion.

What I see is antagonism for just expressing Christain belief or support for the Right full stop. Like its not allowed in the public square anymore and will get shot down. Where all hateful bigots and Nazis evidently. Look at all the conservative speakers at Uni's being no platformed with angry protests. That is not justified as its legitimate to hold opposing beliefs.

And we were specifically following up on your comments on science in your first post. Did you notice how in my reply I didn't reply to the non-science second half of your first post. I'm going to keep doing that.

My statement was indirect, but clear.

Ok so I guess thats it then as we are well and truely past that point because we agreed. If thats all your going to comment on then you have little else to say I guess. Its a pity as the topic is much more than that.

 

[BCP1928]

And they said that non Christains were neutral and unbiased. If you cannot acknowledge the clear bias and descrimination against Christains then your biased. Your own ideological beliefs are perhaps clouding your ability to see the truth on this. Which supports exactly what I was saying about how everyone has some bias and we cannot rule neutrally.

The IRS’ persecution of a Christian nonprofit should terrify all of us

The IRS’ persecution of a Christian nonprofit should terrify all of us

A decade after the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, the agency recently pulled a similar stunt with a faith-based organization named Christians …

nypost.com

New Report Details the Extent of the FBI's Weaponization of Law Enforcement Against Traditional Catholics
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/p...is-weaponization-law-enforcement-againstStudy: Biden-Harris Education Office Targeted Christian Colleges

Study: Biden-Harris Education Office Targeted Christian Colleges

Study: Biden-Harris Education Office Targeted Christian Colleges - The Heidelblog

This month, voters chose to turn the page on the Biden-Harris Administration and re-elect Donald J. Trump as the 47th President of the United States. This was an enormous win for the American people. It’s clear that Trump’s vision for freedom, populism, and patriotism inspired tens of millions...

heidelblog.net

FBI spied on traditionalist U.S. Catholics from coast to coast, new evidence reveals

FBI spied on traditionalist U.S. Catholics from coast to coast, new evidence reveals - Catholic Herald

The FBI mounted spying operations on traditionalist Catholic churchgoers across the whole of the United States, according to new evidence obtained by politicians. The Federal Bureau of Investigation was in February accused of secretly gathering evidence which might link Catholics in the Richmond...

catholicherald.co.uk

Then we have the many Christains descriminated and persecuted by the Leftist ideological overreach which targeted Christains organisations and individuals like Jack Phillips, Barronelle Stutzman and Coach Joe Kennedy. Oh and don't forget the new thought crime of praying near an abortion clinic and the systematic attacks on Christain pro life pregnacy centers like Little Sisters. Or the crackdown on Christain non profit organisations.

Elizabeth Warren calls for federal crackdown on pro-life pregnancy centers

Pro-life pregnancy centers may have bigger problems on their hands than fire-setting, window-smashing vandals.

www.washingtontimes.com

Then you have the politicians themselves who have put senators and reps through hell attacking them based on their Christain belief. Like Sanders attacks on Russ Vought and Kamala attacking Brett Kavanaugh..

Democrats’ new boogeyman for 2024: Christian nationalism

Democrats’ new boogeyman for 2024: Christian nationalism

In the wake of the killing of George Floyd, Americans were treated to a near-constant refrain from Democrats about widespread, indiscriminate killings of Black men by White police officers.

www.washingtontimes.com

The Democratic Party’s Systematic, Purposeful Attack on Christianity

The Democratic Party's Systematic, Purposeful Attack on Christianity - The Stream

The Democratic National Committee resolved in 2019 to attack Christian religious freedom, and they are carrying out that attack today.

stream.org

Thanks to all this anti Christain narrative and examples by the Left its filtered onto the streets where attacks on Christains has increased massively.

According to 2022 FBI hate crime statistics, episodes of bias attacks against Catholics and other Christians are higher than hate crimes against Muslims.

https://www.aei.org/op-eds/why-does-biden-treat-christians-with-disdain/

New Report: Record High Hostility and Violence Against Churches in America

New Report: Record High Hostility and Violence Against Churches in America

Attacks on houses of worship are at an all-time high. 436 incidents occurred in 2023—more than double the number in 2022. That’s an average of 39 attacks every month. Not only are we seeing a higher number, but these attacks appear to be getting more violent.

firstliberty.org

But its not just happening in the US but all Leftist governments are descriminating and persecuting Christains. This has led along with the ongoing persecutions of Christains by Islamists and others to genocidal levels of Christain persecution.

So that means Christains are systematically being exterminated. Yet the Left don't mention a word. They are happy to speak up for Palestinians and Hamas but not Christains and Jews. What does that tell you.

I could go on as there are many examples. So please don't tell Christains they are not being persecuted or descriminated against by the Leftist progressive governments and their agents.

But I guess its only natural that the progressive Leftist ideologes are going to detest God and Christains who they see as a block to their progressive ideology. They will see Christainity as hateful which will provoke anger and resentment towards them.

This is a good example of how governments are not neutral and rule with their own ideological belief just like a religion would. Even if its called progressive ideology or Wokism or whatever you want to call it.

None of that constitutes the persecution of Christians. The Democrats have it about right in that platform statement (from your link)

"Those most loudly claiming that morals, values, and patriotism must be defined by their particular religious views have used those religious views, with misplaced claims of “religious liberty,” to justify public policy that has threatened the civil rights and liberties of many Americans, including but not limited to the LGBT community, women, and ethnic and religious/nonreligious minorities."

Such people ought to be resisted, even in the name of Christ.

Yes of course.

Lol how can that be an anti science rant when I was just defending science by calling out the Postmodernist for undermining scientific integrity with their relativistic rationalisations of fake facts that undermine objective facts and reality.

I have no problem with science itself.

As long as it aligns with your social conservative politica agenda. Right.

 

[stevevw]

None of that constitutes the persecution of Christians.

Yes it does. The definition of persecution includes “hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.” That is exactly what has been happening to Christains thanks to the progressive Lefts narratives and actions which have spilt into society where Christains are being descriminated against and suffering attacks in the public square.

The Democrats have it about right in that platform statement (from your link)

What statement. Are you selectively choosing to ignore the rest of the links. Is that not bias. Are you trying to justify the Lefts persecution of Christains.

You do realise that the links I gave are actually exposing the Lefts abuse of power. There no "The Democrats have it about right". Its unjustified and an abuse of Christains. They got busted descriminating and persecuting against Christains.

"Those most loudly claiming that morals, values, and patriotism must be defined by their particular religious views have used those religious views, with misplaced claims of “religious liberty,” to justify public policy that has threatened the civil rights and liberties of many Americans, including but not limited to the LGBT community, women, and ethnic and religious/nonreligious minorities."

So Christains voicing their disagreement at the progressive Lefts ideology is justification for persecuting them.

The whole point is that Christains proclaiming morals and values as defined by their faith is a legitimate belief and view to take even if you think its wrong and disagree. Its a legitimate belief within a free society. Your more or less saying Christains cannot oppose progressive ideology.

The fact that you try to label legitimate Christain beliefs and political views as threatening civil rights shows your bias. Its not threatening any civil rights. For all you know it may actually be better for civil rights. Dr King thought so and that is exactly the Christains position.

If anything we could say its the Left threatening civil rights with all the identity politics thats dividing society. But nevertheless Christain beliefs and political views are a legitimate position to take and should not be labelled threats.

Such people ought to be resisted, even in the name of Christ.

No sure what you mean. Are you trying to justify persecution by the Biden governments abuse of power within law and the justice department at singling out and spying on Christains and mistreating them.

You have just proven my point that there is bias within the Left or non Christains against Christains. I just linked evidence for the bias and descrimination that proves beyond doubt and even the Left are now admitting they went too far in attacking Trump and Christains.

But you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge this.

That is the same silence and denial that is leading Christains to be persecuted by people not even admitting its happening and justifying this and rationalising it away.

As long as it aligns with your social conservative politica agenda. Right.

Your only proving my point again. I don't care about social and political agendas when it comes to the truth. I think stereotyping CHristains as anti science is just another example of the bias held against Christains and their belief.

This is what the Left did all through the election. They stereotyped the Right, tried to make out they opposed science, were Nazis, would destroy democracy and it was all lies to try and undermine conservatives and Christain and it backfired spectacularly.

Relating this back to the OP I think this shows that both the church and secular society in the form of ideology can be biased and not neutral. If we are to determine if society and the world is better off with Christainity then we need to be truthful and acknowledge the facts of Christain values and how they benefit society. How other ideologiues that try to replace Christainity can be destructful and what common ground there is.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes it does. The definition of persecution includes “hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.” That is exactly what has been happening to Christains thanks to the progressive Lefts narratives and actions which have spilt into society where Christains are being descriminated against and suffering attacks in the public square.

What statement. Are you selectively choosing to ignore the rest of the links. Is that not bias. Are you trying to justify the Lefts persecution of Christains.

So Christains voicing their disagreement at the progressive Lefts ideology is justification for persecuting them.

The whole point is that Christains proclaiming morals and values as defined by their faith is a legitimate belief and view to take even if you think its wrong. Its a legitimate belief within a free society. Your more or less saying Christains cannot oppose progressive ideology.

The fact that you try to label legitimate Christain beliefs and political views as threatening civil rights shows your bias. It was the same for the attacks on Christains who opposed SSM. They were attacked like they had no right to disagree when they had every right. Thats what the Left does. They make out opposing views and beliefs are evil. They did it with Trump and the American people rejected the Left.

No sure what you mean. Are you trying to justify persecution by the Biden governments abuse of power within law and the justice department at singling out and spying on Christains and treating them unlike others.

You have just proven my point that there is bias within the Left or non Christains against Christains. I just linked evidence for the bias and descrimination that proves beyond doubt and even the Left are now admitting they went too far in attacking Trump and Christains.

But you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge this.

That is the same silence and denial that is leading Christains to be persecuted by people not even admitting its happening and justifying this and rationalising it away.

Your only proving my point again. I don't care about social and political agendas when it comes to the truth. You deny Christains are suffering ill treatment and hostility by the Lefts abuse of power and you can't even acknowledge this.

Isn't that an agenda that you want to deny the truth and experiences of Christains you disagree with.

The thing is, that you don't speak for all Christians, your social and political views aren't necessarily the social and political views of all Christians and you are not being "persecuted" for them because of your faith in Christ.