Considering how many prominent scientists have been Christians (even, gasp, devout Christians) throughout the ages, whoever would be interested in establishing such a thing might perhaps profitably study the career of one Joseph Stalin. He spent a large part of the second half of his life erasing the first half, especially the reputations of all of his co-revolutionaries.
It would be morbidly fun to watch some atheist cabal of Scientism purists retroactively expelling from the tribe such people as Copernicus, Kepler, Gregor Mendel, Sir Isaac Newton... oh, why go on? Even on this website, one of the self-identified "believers in evidence" is already on record that no possible number of Christian scientists will ever change his opinion that the science and religion are irreconcilable, and the evidence be damned!
You don't have to look very far, Crude, to find examples of that attitude. Just look at the comment a certain poster made on the thread below this one ("Who Created God?") at October 16, 2013 10:31 PM. Apparently Grodigues is not allowed to both have a PhD in Physics and believe in the Resurrection. Horrors!
Neil deGrasse Tyson made an interesting comment about religious people in science. He said that he doesn't care if you have religious views while working in the science lab. But if you think you have the answers based on your religion, and that causes you to not have the curiosity to seek further knowledge on those questions, then he has no need for you in the lab.
Did Tyson happen to mention how much damage could be caused to science by idiot Gnu atheists protesting the head of the human genome project being appointed to head up the NIH on the grounds that he's a Christian who rejects materialism?
How much damage to science was caused by Dawkins giving up research in favor of pop sci writing, or Myers doing the same in favor of blogging? (Trick question: Probably not too much, considering the value of evolutionary biology.)
And, considering the history of Lysenkoism and other secular feats, does it make any sense for Tyson to single out 'religion' to begin with?
Agreed. As does the history of the tobacco industry's "scientific studies" showing no link between smoking and cancer. Also, any contemporary study sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, plus the "dissenting scientists" cited by climate change deniers.
8 comments:
Considering how many prominent scientists have been Christians (even, gasp, devout Christians) throughout the ages, whoever would be interested in establishing such a thing might perhaps profitably study the career of one Joseph Stalin. He spent a large part of the second half of his life erasing the first half, especially the reputations of all of his co-revolutionaries.
It would be morbidly fun to watch some atheist cabal of Scientism purists retroactively expelling from the tribe such people as Copernicus, Kepler, Gregor Mendel, Sir Isaac Newton... oh, why go on? Even on this website, one of the self-identified "believers in evidence" is already on record that no possible number of Christian scientists will ever change his opinion that the science and religion are irreconcilable, and the evidence be damned!
Remember when a pack of of scientific lightweights suggested Francis Collins should not be named to his post because he was a Christian?
Good times, man. Good times.
You don't have to look very far, Crude, to find examples of that attitude. Just look at the comment a certain poster made on the thread below this one ("Who Created God?") at October 16, 2013 10:31 PM. Apparently Grodigues is not allowed to both have a PhD in Physics and believe in the Resurrection. Horrors!
Neil deGrasse Tyson made an interesting comment about religious people in science. He said that he doesn't care if you have religious views while working in the science lab. But if you think you have the answers based on your religion, and that causes you to not have the curiosity to seek further knowledge on those questions, then he has no need for you in the lab.
Did Tyson happen to mention how much damage could be caused to science by idiot Gnu atheists protesting the head of the human genome project being appointed to head up the NIH on the grounds that he's a Christian who rejects materialism?
How much damage to science was caused by Dawkins giving up research in favor of pop sci writing, or Myers doing the same in favor of blogging? (Trick question: Probably not too much, considering the value of evolutionary biology.)
And, considering the history of Lysenkoism and other secular feats, does it make any sense for Tyson to single out 'religion' to begin with?
Yes, Lysenko's history befitsthis thread.
"Yes, Lysenko's history befitsthis thread."
Agreed. As does the history of the tobacco industry's "scientific studies" showing no link between smoking and cancer. Also, any contemporary study sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, plus the "dissenting scientists" cited by climate change deniers.
I could go on, but you get the picture.
I'm amazed that people, to this day, will exclaim outrage at the Galileo event, but suppressed research in the Soviet Union hardly merits a word.
Post a Comment