First, as a matter of fact, when Newton was trying to account for all of the gravity in the Solar Sytem, he became stuck on one mathmatical problem that he came to think was an impossiblity to solve. He therefore announced that it was because God had designed it that way and gave up. Some one else soon solved the problem.

Second, there could have been no scientific method without these previous civilizations to build upon.

Third, the historical evidence of religious extremism leading to the retardation of science is
A: The European Dark Ages
B: The modern Middle East, a place where they lead Europe in scientific endeavors until Muslim Extremsim declared Mathmatics evil.
C. The current United States where modern religious zealots oppose the teaching of evolution, stem cell research, and want to teach children that man and dinosaurs walked together.

You are correct about Newton's attributing gravitational relationships to God but this is not what I was speaking of in my comments. I was talking about his overall orientation to reality that included a belief in a God who governs the world and this, for him, explained the mathematical ordering of the world. His particular explanations of gravity, etc., are not relevant to my point.

Your second point has nothing to do with what I was arguing. I don't know that the scientific foundations of prior civilizations were relevant at all to the emergence of the western scientific tradition but, even if they were, those civilizations did not produce the modern scientific method or approach to science. That was my point. Also, you didn't deny that these civilizations were also religious ones; they were not secular/atheistic.

Your third point is simply unfair. Are you willing to take responsibility for everything that has been said and done in the name of atheism? If you are claiming that religion can be abused, you will get no argument from me. To argue that religion necessarily retards science is to argue nonsense, I think.

Concerning "A," "Dark Ages" is a modern label that must ignore the insights of the Middle Ages to survive as a generalization. Many important "scientific" discoveries were made in the Middle Ages (just look at the still-standing Gothic Cathedrals). I don't know of any serious scholar of modern thought who does not acknowledge the deep debt of modern science to the great thinkers of the so-called "Dark Ages." The line between the "Dark Ages" and the Modern world is an arbitrary one, typically drawn with Descartes, Hobbes, Bacon and others. It is impossible to understand any of these thinkers without seeing the thinkers upon whom they depended, all from the Middle Ages.

Concerning "B," I have no interest in defending Islam. I am not a Muslim. I'm arguing for the positive influence of the Judeo-Christian tradition on the rise of modern science.

Concernign "C," again, how can you hold me responsible for all the so-called "zealots"? Do you want to defend Marx and his defenders, since he was an atheist? You must show that religion, by its very nature, is opposed to and hinders science. I deny that is the case. I argue the opposite. Religion, Christianity in particular, provides the worldview that provides the necessary foudational assumptions that allow science to appear and grow. If those principles are removed, the theoretical bases of science evaporate. I see nothing in what you have presented that undermines any major point I've made. I won't hold you responsible for the ignorant, ideological atheists I've met since I know that refuting such people does not mean atheism is false. If you show there are ignorant, inconsistent, and otherwise inconsistent Christians you have certainly not refuted Christianity. You've only shown that Christians can be ignorant and inconsistent. That's not really news, though.

Science and religion are mutually exclusive. Science DOES NOT need religion to make discoveries or create. But religion does conform to science.

How do you know that by leaving out religion you are not leaving out a crucial source of information to explaining the big questions that humans want to understand?

I know you are not trying to make use of a "lens" to understand reality but you still do so. Because you do not have all the relevant data all at once, you adopt some framework for interpreting/understanding everything. You can't technically "prove" world-view frameworks since they are theories of everything. In order to test them you would have to stand outside all reality and judge whether or not your worldview adequately accounts for everything. We can judge a worldview, though, in respect to its coherence and power to explain what we do know. That is what I meant when I said the Christian worldview explains reality quite well while I find atheism does not.

The problem with atheism is not what can be explained by science but what cannot be explained without including principles or aspects of human experience that are beyond the methodology of science. I believe Christianity, when correctly understood, is the best theory of everything that we have and therefore I believe it is true. In order to get me to rethink that, you would have to show me an explanation that has greater explanatory power. Atheism is most definitely will not qualify for all the reasons I've indicated before (and more).

Concerning C. S. Lewis and pride, he uses the example of someone being upset because another person is noticed at a party. Do you think it is "good" for a person to be envious of those who are noticed? Do you think it is morally praiseworthy for a person to want to be the center of attention and be seen as "better" than everyone else? That, it seems to me, is what Lewis is focusing on in his treatment of pride. To argue that it is morally praiseworthy that a person always want to be seen as greater than what they really are seems highly objectionable.

On eastern religions, I understand why you want to believe "by faith" that they contributed to the rise of science, etc., but that is simply an ahistorical position. Science arose within western civilization permeated by Christian theological beliefs. I'm convinced that these beliefs provided the principles that allow for science (as already indicated) and have seen no historical "fact" that would indicated this is wrong.

The most interesting thing you said in your reply had to do with murder. You speak of a "right to life". Where does this "right" come from? Does science establish this "right"? How? I don't see how science can do any more than describe the functions of life. It certainly is incapable of explaining why life of any sort has a "right" to be. This is a perfect example of how science is limited and, in this case, incapable of grounding moral values. It is also a great example of how even atheists make use of moral principles that their worldview is incapable of justifying. You might revisit C. S. Lewis', "Mere Christianity," especially the first section, where he deals with this issue. I have never seen an atheist give a convincing answer to his moral argument. Am I also to assume that your reply indicates that you agree that the prohibition against murdering the innocent is a moral law that should always be valued?

Please think more about your claim that science does not make use of presuppositions. It most definitely does as philosophers of science readily admit. As already indicated, science uses induction and deduction as logical tools but does not first prove them to be valid. Science also assumes the accuracy of sense experience in giving us information about the world outside ourselves. Science cannot prove this before using the senses. How can you prove the senses give us accurate information without already using them? Science assumes the world is knowable, regular, orderly, predictable. Without this assumption the scientific method collapses. Your assertion that science does not use presuppositions is an assertion not supported by the evidence.

Give credit where it is due. Science has progressed IN SPITE of religion. Not because of it.

Apart, presumably, from the many historical and present-day scientists who were members of religious orders...? Quoting Wiki here as I'm about to be called on stage and am consequently short on time to find a more reliable source, but "Nicolaus Copernicus, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Nicholas Steno, Francesco Grimaldi, Giambattista Riccioli, Roger Boscovich, Athanasius Kircher, Gregor Mendel, Georges Lemaître" are all listed as either priests, or members of religious orders studying and working at primarily Roman-Catholic Universities, who made great discoveries and/or significantly advanced our scientific understanding. Don't forget that the majority of education was Church-based for a very, very long time, in the western hemisphere. Most educated men were in some way affilliated to the Church, latin was the lingua franca of the educated, of science and of religion. Yes, some scientists' work was rejected and villified, but many more were supported and promoted by the Church.

So what? The most devout Christian man in the world can all of a sudden discover the origins of man. Doesn't change anything. If he wants to keep believing, then that's his choice. If he wishes to stop, that's also his choice.

Are you going to deny that scientific advancement has never been hindered by certain religions?

These boards aren't evolving. Same arguments over and over.

And once again, for all the wordiness and big words, I just keep hearing that if science has yet to prove it, it must be God. That's not how it works. And lets just keep this to science and evolution. If we are going to go off the deepend and talk about morality and values, we might as well start another thread.