Maybe someone can help me...

[Superhobo]

...on this. I've always wondered how religious people in the old days justified science and what advancements it made, particularly the philosophers, who were largely religious. How did they justify what discoveries they'd made, when it contradicted "holy writ," or whatever?
It's a stupid question, to some, probably. But, think about it.

 

[Manic]

The religious philosophers and scientists usually made things pretty simple: God made it that way, and the sacred texts are symbolic.

 

[Badger]

Simple they said, "BAM, it tis God's will and if thy question his will then off with thee head"

The 'BAM' is essential.

 

[Superhobo]

Apparently.

 

[Kritish]

I'm not even getting into this one...

 

[Superhobo]

Uh...why? It's not an ethical question about religion. I was asking how scientists justify two opposing views, with their own faith and their discoveries?

 

[Darthphere]

Uh...why? It's not an ethical question about religion. I was asking how scientists justify two opposing views, with their own faith and their discoveries?

The thing is, you can explain anything away with God made it that way. Someone finds a scientific reasoning behind how something works, lets say photosynthesis, and all you have to say is, "what a magnificent process God has created."

 

[Superhobo]

True. But, what about scientific discoveries that contradict whatever holy book is there as Scripture?

 

[Carcharodon]

Many believed that they were initially incorrect, or must have been incorrect. Sir Isaac Newton had all kinds of trouble reconciling his discoveries, which included the idea of there not being such a thing as absolute position in the universe.

Most in those days saw it as God's doing or God's will. If it disagreed with current doctrine, only a few were brave enough to insist that the doctrine was wrong, or at least flawed. What was the point when the Catholic Church could simply force or torture you into admitting you were, "wrong?"

 

[Superhobo]

I think you've answered my questions. Thanks a bunch.

See, I knew all this already (that sounds presumptious, but) but I just recently saw that film "Jesus Camp," and for some reason it got me thinking about science and religion, particularly at the beginning, with that weird little mullet headed boy and his mother. I've been in a stump, but thanks.

 

[Carcharodon]

I think you've answered my questions. Thanks a bunch.

See, I knew all this already (that sounds presumptious, but) but I just recently saw that film "Jesus Camp," and for some reason it got me thinking about science and religion, particularly at the beginning, with that weird little mullet headed boy and his mother. I've been in a stump, but thanks.

That movie was so damned disturbing. Actually, that mullet-haired boy seemed to be the most intelligent and eloquent of the group, despite...well, you know.

The conflict in those days between religion and science stemmed mostly from the church itself, and less from personal (internal) conflict. From a historical standpoint, the power that it had over the masses was staggering. There were many advances of the day that were simply ignored or swept under the proverbial rug, really.

 

[Panophobia]

Off topic, but how's Zelda?

 

[Superhobo]

Fine. How's your mother?

 

[Panophobia]

She's doing very well. Why do you ask, friend?

 

[Superhobo]

I think I left my hardcover of Spider-man: The Other on her nightstand. Tell her to look for it.

 

[Panophobia]

You read over here? You're an odd fellow.

 

[redmarvel]

Uh...why? It's not an ethical question about religion. I was asking how scientists justify two opposing views, with their own faith and their discoveries?

The Bible, Koran, or whatever is written by men who are merely interpreting the visions given them by their God. Men make mistakes (God doesn't). If the scientific results/facts appear to disagree with their texts then it could be for any of the following reasons:

1. The Science is wrong (and has often been proven wrong later)
2. The religious passage was mis-interpreted, an earlier translation may prove more in line with the science.
3. The men who wrote the original texts mis-interpreted the visions their God was sending them.

(I'm sure there are more possibilities and explanations, but those are the ones that spring to mind)

As an example of #2, the Roman Catholic Church is getting rid of the idea of "Limbo"

 

[Asteroid-Man]

*walks in* *Reads first posts* *walks out*

 

[Carcharodon]

*walks in* *Reads first posts* *walks out*

*But not before adding a little bit of spam*