As an atheist, do you believe in the conflict thesis despite most historians disagreeing with it?

As an atheist, do you believe in the conflict thesis despite most historians disagreeing with it?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis#Modern_views
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Not really.

The entire idea of a conflict between science and religion seems to be a product of 19th century autism, particularly on the part of evangelical protestants.

No.
I'm not that stupid or euphoric at all.

No. Only edgy 13 year olds buy that shit. Everyone else is aware that most of the scientists and philosophers of history have all been religious people themselves, and in many cases it was their perspective on religion that caused them to investigate the natural and metaphysical world in the first place.

>No. Only edgy 13 year olds buy that shit. Everyone else is aware that most of the scientists and philosophers of history have all been religious people themselves,
Sure.
>And in many cases it was their perspective on religion that caused them to investigate the natural and metaphysical world in the first place.
Like Newton dedicating most of his life to alchemy and numereology instead of optics and theorical physics?

>Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule.[20]

>Some modern historians of science (such as Peter Barker, Bernard R. Goldstein, and Crosbie Smith) propose that scientific discoveries - such as Kepler's laws of planetary motion in the 17th century, and the reformulation of physics in terms of energy, in the 19th century - were driven by religion.[21] Religious organizations and clerics figure prominently in the broad histories of science, until the professionalization of the scientific enterprise, in the 19th century, led to tensions between scholars taking religious and secular approaches to nature.[22] Even the prominent examples of religion's apparent conflict with science, the Galileo affair (1614) and the Scopes trial (1925), were not pure instances of conflict between science and religion but included personal and political facts in the development of each conflict.[23]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis#Modern_views

>Like Newton dedicating most of his life to alchemy and numereology instead of optics and theorical physics?
It was his perspective on religion that lead him to that, not the idea of religion itself. People, both theists and atheists alike, put way too much importance on religion. It's ideology like any other, and people interpret and use it to their own ends. One can use it to justify scientific investigation just as much as they can use it to justify punishing scientific investigation. The institution itself is so malleable, that attributing sweeping aspects to it is meaningless. At the end of the day, human beings will always pursue that which is within their desire and power to grasp. All ideology, including religion, is merely a means to achieve whatever those ends are.

Yeah I don't disagree with that, I just thought you were pulling a we wuz all scienz or something.

Ideology shapes people and their desires too.
It can't just be used for one's "own" ends.

It is happening today so there is some truth to it.

>Ideology shapes people and their desires too
Yes, but ideology is not synonymous with people's desires. At least not any singular ideology. People will come to certain desires or conclusions through one or two lines of thought, and then try to use as many other lines of thought they can to convince every else too.
>It can't just be used for one's "own" ends
It absolutely can. Christianity has historically been used to justify both slavery and abolition. In the same exact eras no less. The fact that people feel the need to define what it means to be a "true" follower of a given ideology, and that fact that ideologies can change so much over time is pretty solid proof of this.

Most of the time religion reconciles and even adapts scientific discoveries

I just get triggered by the few times it doesn't happen (like the Heliocentric theory)

still invented calculus.

The relationship between the church and heliocentric theory is misunderstood. Galileo's case wasn't anywhere near as strong as people act like it was, and plenty of his contemporaries both in and outside of the church criticized him. In the end Galileo was right, but he couldn't prove it at the time, so it's really hard to blame the church for not buying it. It took Newtonian physics to ultimately prove Galileo's case. That being said, politics lead to his punishment being way too severe.

>Galileo's case wasn't anywhere near as strong as people act like it was
Observes the different illuminated faces of venus as it revolves around the sun
>Observes moons orbiting saturn
>Hey guys,look at this! ptolomey and aristotle were wrong
>Galileo's case wasn't anywhere near as strong as people act like it was

t.Brainlet

Those points disproved geocentric theories of the time (since he proved that there were bodies orbiting things other than earth), but they didn't prove a heliocentric theory because he still couldn't prove that the earth itself was orbiting the sun.

>doesn't mention the actual reasons why people didn't believe Galileo
The guy couldn't consolidate the lack of stellar parallaxes with the current agreed on size and distance of stars. If you tried bringing up a theory with such a comparable flaw in it today, no one would call your case strong either.

he proved the church teachings were wrong, that is why he was imprisoned and all his books burnt

I believe it is a classic example of modern people projecting their experiences onto the past.

In modern times there most certainly is a rather nasty conflict between the two, however historically as religious bodies had the monopoly on inquiry and intelligent people, there was not much scope for conflict to occur nor did technology/understanding allow for much either.

>particularly on the part of evangelical protestants.
Its also helped by the fact that most of the mainstream religions in the west deliberately avoid dealing with these kinds of questions anymore and has downplayed their importance.

You’re oversimplifying and ignoring the politics that had a big impact in his punishments.

Conflict forced by the culture and politics of the society it occurs in.

>oversimplifying and ignoring the politics
From a scientific standpoint he changes the entire paradigm,one system of thought was replaced by another.

But he doesn’t. He couldn’t really prove hellocentric theory. Not in regards to the earth itself orbiting the sun. Scientifically, he was unconvincing.

Once he observed other planets were not orbiting the earth, the entire ptolomeic/church system is untenable, and he was right wasnt he?

He ended up being right, yes. But that isn’t really important at the time. If some 12th century scientist ran around talking about electrons and how the majority of matter is empty space, he would (rightly) be scorned.
And the other planets orbiting other things wouldn’t necessarily disprove geocentric theory or make geocentric theory untenable. Geocentric theory was that everything in existence revolved around the Earth.
Things can orbit things that orbit other things. Like the moon orbiting the earth.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that things can change position in relation to one another, but it wouldn’t mean that their change in relative position from one perspective would mean that the perspective’s position must also change in the same manner as the other things.

I’m sorry if this doesn’t make sense. It’s hard for me to put it into words.

>necessarily disprove geocentric theory or make geocentric theory untenable.
It does, geocentric cosmology assumes that earth is stationary, and everything orbits earth, take one piece(or in Galileos case, every other piece) away and the geocentric system does not work.

>geocentric cosmology assumes that earth is stationary, and everything orbits earth
>talking about the history of heliocentrism and not knowing about Tycho Brahe