Science without religion is lame,

[McCulloch]

What I said and what I meant was attached to this saying: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So if we take that saying literally as I did, then without religion one is handicapped as "lame" and without science those are handicapped by being "blind".

Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to McCulloch in post #1]

The Reformation and scientific revolution are characterised by an overlap in time, location and a special locus of events that dramatically impacted world history. Precursors for both movements abound, yet the historiographic development characteristics of the era are prominent and distinguishable. The historical context and the developments leading to the Reformation and scientific revolution, specifically the influence of the precursors of both the Reformation and scientific revolution, the prevailing Zeitgeist, the influence of the institutionalised church and ecclesiastical authority, pervasive beyond the realm of the church, the philosophical and theological paradigms of the time and the influence of the press, are appraised to determine the mutual influence of the Reformation and the scientific revolution. The basis for a causal relationship between the Reformation and the scientific revolution is presented, and explanations premised on mere coincidence and other factors are refuted. The continued mutual influence between ideas of the Reformation and science throughout the Enlightenment and modern era is discussed in relation to the interaction between science and faith. It is argued that a mutually supportive model of interaction in a reconciliation model best resonates with the ideas of the Reformation as well as finding authenticity in and concordance between science and views of scripture. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?scr ... 0000200001

Modern science was born out of the reformation.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to McCulloch in post #1]

Even Oxford thinks the reformation shaped modern science.

This chapter considers some of the ways in which the Protestant reformation influenced the emergence of modern science in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It begins with some general remarks about historical interactions between science and religion, and then considers a number of specific ways in which Protestantism may have influenced the development of modern science. These include connections between challenges to prevailing orthodoxies in the spheres of religion and of science; the link between Protestant understandings of original sin and the rise of experimental methods; whether Protestant ideas and practices contributed to the “desacralization” of nature; and the ways in which the Protestant Reformation contributed inadvertently to the social status and authority of the natural sciences. https://oxford.universitypressscholarsh ... -chapter-5

[Miles]

[Replying to McCulloch in post #1]

Even Oxford thinks the reformation shaped modern science.

This chapter considers some of the ways in which the Protestant reformation influenced the emergence of modern science in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It begins with some general remarks about historical interactions between science and religion, and then considers a number of specific ways in which Protestantism may have influenced the development of modern science. These include connections between challenges to prevailing orthodoxies in the spheres of religion and of science; the link between Protestant understandings of original sin and the rise of experimental methods; whether Protestant ideas and practices contributed to the “desacralization” of nature; and the ways in which the Protestant Reformation contributed inadvertently to the social status and authority of the natural sciences. https://oxford.universitypressscholarsh ... -chapter-5

.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Miles in post #143]

This chapter considers some of the ways in which the Protestant reformation influenced the emergence of modern science in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It begins with some general remarks about historical interactions between science and religion, and then considers a number of specific ways in which Protestantism may have influenced the development of modern science. These include connections between challenges to prevailing orthodoxies in the spheres of religion and of science; the link between Protestant understandings of original sin and the rise of experimental methods; whether Protestant ideas and practices contributed to the “desacralization” of nature; and the ways in which the Protestant Reformation contributed inadvertently to the social status and authority of the natural sciences. https://oxford.universitypressscholarsh ... -chapter-5

Keep reading it explains why they think that the reformation did.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to McCulloch in post #1]

Replying to the OP, science gets no benefit directly from religion. However, science should be practiced within a moral framework IMHO. What moral framework BW? Well, one that tries to avoid harm and is widely accepted as 'good'. That is of course subjective as all morals are.

I already hear the screams of objection. Yes, many religions provide a moral framework. They also, generally, provide a framework of doctrine and theology that some adherents blindly follow regardless of the realities science uncovers.

I would rephrase to "Science without morals is potentially harmful".

We certainly should not be using the moral framework provided in the Bible. Otherwise, it would be fine to collect slaves and experiment on them as long as we don't kill them quickly while doing it. See Exodus 21:20-21.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #143]

This chapter considers some of the ways in which the Protestant reformation influenced the emergence of modern science in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It begins with some general remarks about historical interactions between science and religion, and then considers a number of specific ways in which Protestantism may have influenced the development of modern science. These include connections between challenges to prevailing orthodoxies in the spheres of religion and of science; the link between Protestant understandings of original sin and the rise of experimental methods; whether Protestant ideas and practices contributed to the “desacralization” of nature; and the ways in which the Protestant Reformation contributed inadvertently to the social status and authority of the natural sciences. https://oxford.universitypressscholarsh ... -chapter-5

Keep reading it explains why they think that the reformation did.

Nope. It explains what they think the reformation may have done. NOT "did."


.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Miles in post #146]

It is easy to say no it did not without giving any reason why. The problem is your theology does not agree with the facts.

The reformation started in 1517 in Europe.
Modern science began in 1543 in Europe.

Many researchers argue that the conjunction of Reformation and the rise of modern science is not coincidental. Davis and Winship (2017) contend that the Solas of the Reformation (Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura and Soli Deo Gloria), emphasising the sovereignty of God, the enlightening power of the Holy Spirit and accepting the authority of the Bible over Roman Catholic doctrine, not only shaped the understanding of Scripture and hermeneutics but also influenced scientific interpretation (Davis & Winship 2017). At that time, the vast majority of renowned scientists were deeply religious and often simultaneously were scientists, mathematicians and philosophers.

Stimson (1935) contends that Puritanism in England was conducive to the eruption of science at the onset of the Reformation and scientific revolution. This eruption stemmed from the emphasis on uprightness of character, the right of private judgement, assertion of an independent and critical spirit, acquisition of knowledge and application of reason, and its demand for productive activity (Stimson 1935, 1948). Stimson's thesis is premised on the inferred religious associations of the founding members and early membership of the Royal Society. McKie (1960) questions whether Stimson's analyses provide sufficient evidence for attributing the society's incorporation of primarily Puritanism.

Jones (1936, 1939) attributes the influence of Puritanism or Protestantism and the onset and rapid growth of the new science in England to the group of 'scientifically minded Puritans' during the so-called 'Puritan era' in England. They espoused the advancement of learning and piety, rejected the authority of Aristotle and strove to promote science.

Merton (1936) ascribes 'the Puritan ethic, as an ideal-typical expression of the value-attitudes basic to ascetic Protestantism … to constitute an important element in the enhanced cultivation of science'. Turner (1949) studied the relationship between Puritanism and the new awakening in science during the first century of the Reformation and summarised his view by describing Puritanism as 'the essence of Protestantism'. As part of his thesis, Turner listed a number of contemporary scientists (including Boyle and Newton) as being Puritans.

Alphonse De Candolle (1873) analysed the historical development of the sciences between 1666 and 1869. He statistically classified the internationally recognised European scientists according to religious belief as well as education, race and language. Based on religious belief, the representation amongst Protestants was more than seven times higher than that amongst Roman Catholics; Protestants comprised a disproportionally large section of the internationally recognised European scientific community during the period under consideration. De Candolle (1873) attributed this discrepancy to the fact that Reformists grew up in an atmosphere atmosphere where individual free choice prevailed (under less authoritarian dominance) conducive to curiosity-driven research and exploration.

Pelseneer (1946:246) analysed the scientific output of European scientists during 1521-1600 and found a similar disproportionately high output by scientists who were Protestant believers or sympathisers. He concluded that 'modern science was born of the Reformation'. Taylor (1968:82, 87) regards Reformation theology to be 'monolithically Calvinist', being the 'prime mover in the development of modern science'. Mason (1953a, 1953b, 1956) supported the significance of Calvinist theology in developing harmony between science and religion. According to Mason, scientifically minded Puritans (e.g. Boyle, Sprat and others) rejected the biblical literalism, characteristic of early Protestantism, with the outcome that 'modern science and Calvinist theology reached a modus vivendi and some degree of integration'. Westfall (1958) highlights proposals by scholars to seek a state of co-existence and harmony between the two areas of knowledge.

http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?scr ... 0000200001

Do you have any reasons why the above is not true?

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #146]

It is easy to say no it did not without giving any reason why. The problem is your theology does not agree with the facts.

The reformation started in 1517 in Europe.
Modern science began in 1543 in Europe.

Many researchers argue that the conjunction of Reformation and the rise of modern science is not coincidental. Davis and Winship (2017) contend that the Solas of the Reformation (Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura and Soli Deo Gloria), emphasising the sovereignty of God, the enlightening power of the Holy Spirit and accepting the authority of the Bible over Roman Catholic doctrine, not only shaped the understanding of Scripture and hermeneutics but also influenced scientific interpretation (Davis & Winship 2017). At that time, the vast majority of renowned scientists were deeply religious and often simultaneously were scientists, mathematicians and philosophers.

Stimson (1935) contends that Puritanism in England was conducive to the eruption of science at the onset of the Reformation and scientific revolution. This eruption stemmed from the emphasis on uprightness of character, the right of private judgement, assertion of an independent and critical spirit, acquisition of knowledge and application of reason, and its demand for productive activity (Stimson 1935, 1948). Stimson's thesis is premised on the inferred religious associations of the founding members and early membership of the Royal Society. McKie (1960) questions whether Stimson's analyses provide sufficient evidence for attributing the society's incorporation of primarily Puritanism.

Jones (1936, 1939) attributes the influence of Puritanism or Protestantism and the onset and rapid growth of the new science in England to the group of 'scientifically minded Puritans' during the so-called 'Puritan era' in England. They espoused the advancement of learning and piety, rejected the authority of Aristotle and strove to promote science.

Merton (1936) ascribes 'the Puritan ethic, as an ideal-typical expression of the value-attitudes basic to ascetic Protestantism … to constitute an important element in the enhanced cultivation of science'. Turner (1949) studied the relationship between Puritanism and the new awakening in science during the first century of the Reformation and summarised his view by describing Puritanism as 'the essence of Protestantism'. As part of his thesis, Turner listed a number of contemporary scientists (including Boyle and Newton) as being Puritans.

Alphonse De Candolle (1873) analysed the historical development of the sciences between 1666 and 1869. He statistically classified the internationally recognised European scientists according to religious belief as well as education, race and language. Based on religious belief, the representation amongst Protestants was more than seven times higher than that amongst Roman Catholics; Protestants comprised a disproportionally large section of the internationally recognised European scientific community during the period under consideration. De Candolle (1873) attributed this discrepancy to the fact that Reformists grew up in an atmosphere atmosphere where individual free choice prevailed (under less authoritarian dominance) conducive to curiosity-driven research and exploration.

Pelseneer (1946:246) analysed the scientific output of European scientists during 1521-1600 and found a similar disproportionately high output by scientists who were Protestant believers or sympathisers. He concluded that 'modern science was born of the Reformation'. Taylor (1968:82, 87) regards Reformation theology to be 'monolithically Calvinist', being the 'prime mover in the development of modern science'. Mason (1953a, 1953b, 1956) supported the significance of Calvinist theology in developing harmony between science and religion. According to Mason, scientifically minded Puritans (e.g. Boyle, Sprat and others) rejected the biblical literalism, characteristic of early Protestantism, with the outcome that 'modern science and Calvinist theology reached a modus vivendi and some degree of integration'. Westfall (1958) highlights proposals by scholars to seek a state of co-existence and harmony between the two areas of knowledge.

http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?scr ... 0000200001

Do you have any reasons why the above is not true?

Hey, if you want to argue against your own source that's fine with me.


.

[Purple Knight]

Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?

It does, but the religion would need to be the religion of honesty and scientific integrity, where we don't falsify data, we don't just seek the result that the powers that be want, and we pursue the full, ugly, beautiful truth, no matter what that is.

Yes, this is a religion. It's a religion because there's nothing in science that forces this perspective. If anything (but I don't support that there's anything) it's the opposite. Get the result that helps you keep your job. Lie, if it brings a benefit. You can't scientifically deduce the idea that you shouldn't lie.

In short, if there aren't moral people in science, and you have a competitive system, the job-holders and moneymakers will be those that sell out. Science will be ruined. And it has been ruined, at least somewhat. Read up on the replicability crisis. People make cartoons about this.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #149]

I should add that I think a lot of atheists are this religion already. There is no benefit to being an atheist. If anything, it is the opposite. To state that you are an atheist, you must value truth over lies. The atheists who did not value truth wouldn't say they were atheists. They went and pretended they were religious and took all the money and raped all the children of all the religious people who had blind faith in their leadership.

Now, atheism seems to be on the upswing and this might not be true for long. But with a few exceptions like cash cow YouTube channels and atheist books, you're not gaining anything by being an atheist.