Christianity and science

[nobspeople]

Christians don't seem to have any problems believing in the science that created the computer they're typing on. Or phone they use. TV they watch. Yet some don't believe science that thwarts their understanding of, or causes issues with, their religion (evolution, abortion issues, homosexuality, etc).

It seems science is OK so long as it doesn't interfere with their beliefs that come from a book written by long, dead men, edited by other men (all of which were imperfect) about a perfect (many say) being.

For discussion:
Is this distrust of science stemming from the distrust of science itself, lack of faith in science and the flawed men that support said science (ironically they have no issues with the imperfect men that wrote and edited the bible but that's something for another topic), lack of faith in their holy book, or something else entirely (please submit YO on what the 'something else' is)?

[mgb]

The church facilitated science. They went hand in hand as did the church and art.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to mgb in post #131

The church facilitated science.

Well, not always......

[mgb]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #132]

Apparently the real reason had to do with a political dispute between Galileo and some church people and they just used his science as a pretext to attack him.

[Difflugia]

Apparently the real reason had to do with a political dispute between Galileo and some church people and they just used his science as a pretext to attack him.

Which means what, that the religious secretly supported good science, but were willing to publicly attack the science to serve political ends?

Is that better?

[mgb]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #134]
Does it even matter to the point at hand? You are talking about one incident. By and large the Church supported science and art.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #134]
Does it even matter to the point at hand? You are talking about one incident. By and large the Church supported science and art.

Probably has a lot to do with where one lives and when (science seems to remove god more from life now than it did centuries ago).
Seems in more recent years, science and religion have been more at odds in the USA than in past times and in Europe per below. Not living in Europe, I'm not sure, first hand, how things are there. But in the USA, the rift between science and religion is great - though there are those that think it need not be.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920436/
In 2009, the British research group CommunicateResearch (London, UK) and the British Broadcasting Company (London, UK) conducted a poll of the UK population's stance on evolution. In response to the question of whether ‘young-Earth creationism'—or the idea that God created the world sometime in the past 10,000 years—is true, 11% of the 2,060 respondents said it's “definitely true” and a further 21% said it was “probably true”. The Gallup Organization (Washington, DC, USA) and USA Today (McLean, VA, USA) conducted a similar poll in the USA in 2007. Out of the 1,007 adults questioned, 39% said creationism—defined by the poll as “the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years”—is “definitely true” and 27% said it is “probably true”.
The debate about the relationship between science and religion surfaced again when an editorial in Nature Immunology (Anonymous, 2010) expressed concerns over the selection of Francis Collins as director of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) because he has openly discussed his religious convictions (Collins, 2006).

I also wonder if 'the church' looks towards science that fits their needs, as well as biasness of scientists of the time:
https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-cu ... nd-science
"...Castelli described to Galileo in a letter dated Dec. 14, 1613. Galileo responded with a letter back to Castelli a week later and after that with a longer letter to Christina herself. These letters have come to be known as masterly discussions of science and religion, full of statements like “Holy Scripture and nature both equally derive from the divine Word, the former as the dictation of the Holy Spirit, the latter as the most obedient executrix of God’s commands.”

But that may be a topic for another thread.

[Difflugia]

Does it even matter to the point at hand? You are talking about one incident. By and large the Church supported science and art.

You haven't actually supported this claim. I've talked about one incident. You've talked about zero.

[mgb]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #137]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_a ... lic_Church

[Difflugia]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_a ... lic_Church

If this is the view that you're taking, then calling the Church a "patron" of science is like calling a despot a "patron" of free elections. Within that page itself, the Church's support for science is always secondary to preserving Church authority. Rather than "hand in hand" as you put it, it was historically more of "hand on leash."