Islam in America

[Hakurei Reimu]

Consider this.
Newton published his first scientific book on light and optics.
He was ridiculed by his peers and fellow scientists, even in the members of the Royal society had only criticism and desperately tried to find fault with what he wrote.

In many ways, it's the JOB of a scientist to shoot down each others' ideas. You know that an idea is of worth precisely because it has survived harsh criticism.

But, yes, the science done in those days was kind of cutthroat.

This so disgruntled Newton, that he thereafter refused to publish anything and was only later convinced by John Locke to change his mind!

Now, lets see what we learned about the whole affair.
Newton loved the Bible and remarked that it was his source of information and inspiration.
He is not only one of the world's greatest scientists, but also a great Biblical scholar.
He clearly despised any notion of Naturalism, or as we know it to be, Atheism.

Eh, no. As I said before, cribbing any source for ideas is fine, and nobody cares about what you believe, only what you can support. Newton's corpuscular ideas of light were revolutionary, but was unsupported except by arguments that even I in the 20th century find kind of unconvincing (and I know light is made of particles... and waves), and even overshadowed for a while by the wave theory of light.

Newton was scolded by fellow scientists!

Who were also Christians. Furthermore, it was just scolding. Newton never got scalded for his ideas.

Can I now say that science oppressed Christianity?

No.

Now, why the heck do you take a few "Christians" as an example of oppressors of science, when clearly you are talking of isolated incidents?

Because such oppression took the form of more drastic measures than mere "scolding."

[Hydra009]

He is not only one of the world's greatest scientists, but also a great Biblical scholar.
He clearly despised any notion of Naturalism, or as we know it to be, Atheism.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

[Cavebear]

It's absolutely moronic to claim that Christians established anything in science. In a world where being a skeptic can get you killed, of course scientists are going to say they're Christian, even when they're not. Science did not grow because of Christianity, but in spite of it. Christianity has been opposed to science from the very beginning, and the scientists who existed would have been put to death if they expressed dissent from the religion. Why do you think that most scientists today are atheists? It's because we no longer live in a society were atheism is a punishable offense. Science flourishes today because of secularism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPOMNdvKZtQ

"Historically, this has been Christianity's typical MO: Fight a war against progress, lose that war against progress, and when that progress turns out to be a good thing after all, claim credit for that progress."

"If we look at our top scientists now, they are mostly atheists. That's true even in the United States, where atheists are still a tiny minority. Let that sink in. As soon as you're no longer allowed to kill this tiny minority, suddenly that same tiny minority becomes the majority of your top minds."

Scientists are, per se, logical.
Logical people are usually atheist.

[Cavebear]

Here is something to think about.

We have radical Islam.  And it logically follows that there is also moderate Islam? Really?
But there is only one Quran. No radical Quran and moderate Quran. Just one.

Why not radical Buddhism or radical Judaism? Or radical Christianity?
How about radical Jainism? Ever heard of radical Taoism? Radical Hinduism anyone?

There are radical versions of all major theisms.  That is called "the mainstream".  Hindus, Moslems, Christians, and Jews kill anyone they disagree with.  Taoism and Jainism may be more of a philosophy.

[Cavebear]

Consider this.
Newton published his first scientific book on light and optics.
He was ridiculed by his peers and fellow scientists, even in the members of the Royal society had only criticism and desperately tried to find fault with what he wrote.
This so disgruntled Newton, that he thereafter refused to publish anything and was only later convinced by John Locke to change his mind!

Now, lets see what we learned about the whole affair.
Newton loved the Bible and remarked that it was his source of information and inspiration.
He is not only one of the world's greatest scientists, but also a great Biblical scholar.
He clearly despised any notion of Naturalism, or as we know it to be, Atheism.

Newton was scolded by fellow scientists!

Can I now say that science oppressed Christianity?
I will be a fool to even thing this way.

Now, why the heck do you take a few "Christians" as an example of oppressors of science, when clearly you are talking of isolated incidents?
Hopefully out of mischief, and not iddiocity.

Science-minded people who thought logically did it in spite of their lingering religious views.

[Baruch]

Scientists are, per se, logical.
Logical people are usually atheist.

Scientists are empirical and usually employ mathematical models.  That isn't the same as logic.  Theologians can be logical (Thomas Aquinas).

Logical people are usually logicians.  Nobody else cares (see my string on logic).

Claims to being logical here, are just another version of virtue signaling by the usual suspects.

[Baruch]

There are radical versions of all major theisms.  That is called "the mainstream".  Hindus, Moslems, Christians, and Jews kill anyone they disagree with.  Taoism and Jainism may be more of a philosophy.

Jains have rarely been violent (see S India 1500 years ago).

Taoists can be violent (see China 1200 years ago).

Buddhists can be violent (see Sri Lanka in the last generation).

In all these cases, connections to royal politics.  Should we blame monarchy?