Topic: Misc. / What's the point?

nice addition ;)))

Topic: Personal Beliefs/theories / Critique my philosophical theory!

nope I cannot. Loved the thread! theres much to talk about here :)))

Topic: Personal Beliefs/theories / Critique my philosophical theory!

Proof of the Existence of God:
What supports my present experience at this very moment? There must be an answer to the question of my conscious experience. My existence necessitates that something else also “exists” which sustains me, and gives rise to my life as I know it.
Even if science can explain it all, it is still attempting to explain “it all”, pointing toward some answer. By my limited perspective of the greater picture I can only reason that my five senses are absolutely limited in their ability to explain anything, really. This is the basic fact of my waking life, that it is a mere perspective riddled with opinions. It’s always a given that when I listen to someone I trust they are telling me the truth, but are they really actually imparting something to me?
All their words represent is an opinion or perspective on the world, losing any type of legitimacy from the start. First fact of life; Perspective. Taken a step further doubly destroys the coherency of anything another tells me; the meaning behind their word will never be grasped by me, as he knows it. I can only interpret his utterances through my experiences which involve that word, which are completely different than his. Second fact: I can’t comprehend another’s perspective 100%, it’s always an interpretation.
And the result? It’s almost useless to grasp the meaning others hold and the understanding they have. The second implication is that your understanding is also put into question. You know it in some personal way, having some “truthful” access to it, but it’s a confused and limited way of understanding.
So, something really grand and unique must exist that provides “existence energy” to myself and these other things that seem to be in the world. There has to be one, because if there were two it wouldn’t be the ultimate thing, being rivaled. This being, by its nature has no separations, is totally unified, and therefore must know itself through itself. We on the other hand know ourselves only in reference to what we are not. It is because you have a larger nose that I have a small nose. The concept “large nose” is the reason “small nose” exists, because a “small nose” is a nose which is the opposite of large. The concept God, exists because we can conceive of a being which is self sustaining, and self defining.
And on a tangent, this substance intuitively seems to require infinite ways to express itself, as it must be unlimited in its power. My concept of imperfection, in reference to an ultimate life source, is a key convincing factor to believing in the existence of perfection, undefinable by our standards and sensual expressions. We are mere faces of a greater self, arms and legs and extensions of that which supports us. My knowledge of being limited immediately tugs my consciousness to reflection on something greater.
My final question. If you have the faith to believe in this greater being, wouldn’t its infinite power necessitate that you would have access to its full experience of being? Wouldn’t he makes this a fact of life, that any part of this substance already be in the experience of the substance? Wouldn’t God create only perfect things, things exactly like himself in every way? And finally, my gap as a human from my fact as a God must mean one thing, I’m hiding from myself for some absurd and illogical reason. A God great enough to support all of life must necessarily create me as great, or else I’m forced to laugh and point at the illegitimacy of this conception of God. God by definition is greatest, most powerful, most true, and primary. I accept no idea beyond my own perspective, except the idea/fact which holds my present experience of writing this article in my mind. I must be connected, and I must have access to everything. These I see to be facts of life. The meaning of life. God is, I am, We are one, yet something is hiding this. Being bound to a body is not a blessing. It’s a curse to be trapped, limited, and unfulfilled. The experience beyond tempts me.
Life is all about one choice. Faith in a substance beyond your perspective, or not?
I can’t imagine any explanation which rationally convinces me to deny this substance.
Can you?

Topic: Misc. / Faith Based Initiatives

Arandur wrote:
>Not to sound callous here, but strictly speaking I don’t think the government’s purpose involves charity. I believe in a limited government more akin to the Framers’ idea than what we have now.

Agreed.

So my perspective is that charity is primarily our individual responsibility.

Agreed, again. In fact, the original meaning for the word “charity” is “agape”- love- and has fuckall to do with throwing money at causes for the sake of personal piety, but that’s another story for another time.
However, as far as so- called “faith- based initiatives,” uh- uh. Not a fan. Mixing government and church money corrupts both; the two should have nothing to do with each other.

And, Koo, dammit brother, I’m sorry, but the government’s duty is to stay the hell out of our lives unless it’s an issue of defense. Beyond that, it’s ourselves alone, and it’s our duty to take care of each other. Individually, or in whatever little support cells we’re involved in.

Oh- but we suck at that? Yeah, we do. We didn’t always.
Why?

Topic: Misc. / What's the point?

LdsGal202 wrote:
>I’m assuming you mean whats the point to life? if so then the point of living is so we can grow and learn and mature and to prove ourselves worthy to be in the presense of our Heavenly father one day.

Yeah, not bad, LDSGal. Lemme add this, as well:

Since G-d doesn’t take a direct hand in anything, it’s also our job, while here, to work for Him, as his “hands,” or agents, as it were.

Hey- it’s an Aristotlean/Maimonidean view. They generally annoy me, but they’ve got that point right, I think.

Topic: Misc. / What's the point?

I’m assuming you mean whats the point to life? if so then the point of living is so we can grow and learn and mature and to prove ourselves worthy to be in the presense of our Heavenly father one day.

Topic: Misc. / What's the point?

Welcome to God Still Loves Us, Kiri! I see this is your first topic and your first post all in one! Please introduce your self in the good old Introduce Yourself topic http://godstilllovesus.org/forums/7/topics/20 It is nice to meet you!

Can you give us more insight as to how to reply? If you want us to list some points for you, just start reading more of the topics here. There are a lot of points in them, so that’s a start. If you are looking for the point of our site, that’s a tough one, isn’t it?

Please tell us more about what you’d like us to post in your topic, and we will, I promise!

Thanks for joining the GSLU family! Again, welcome!

Love, Kookoo

Topic: Misc. / What's the point?

It may be silly.
It may be stupid.
It has been asked before.

...but what is the point?
I’d like to know what you think, because I don’t know.

Topic: Misc. / Faith Based Initiatives

Not to sound callous here, but strictly speaking I don’t think the government’s purpose involves charity. I believe in a limited government more akin to the Framers’ idea than what we have now.

We can vote for our governments to take up certain welfare roles (and we have), but I think the place for that is much more with state and local governments. Even then, putting it on the government is an abdication of personal responsibility to help our neighbors, and encourages the mindset that the government should take care of it, and we can keep our hands clean of it all. And then there’s the fact that the government is generally quite poor and inefficient or even counterproductive at welfare.

So my perspective is that charity is primarily our individual responsibility. The government, preferably state and local, should provide a basic safety net that we must always keep an eye on. Ideally, private charities should handle everything and the government shouldn’t be needed. With that in mind, programs should try to limit government in favor of private charities.

Topic: Misc. / Computer Dependency

YOU GOT ME! lol.

Topic: Misc. / Faith Based Initiatives

I agree & disagree with you koo when you said it’s the governments responsobility to take care of the poor. I think it’s not only there responsability but EVERYONES. Everyone has to do their part in helping wether its donating clothes,money, or time. But I agree that the govt. has to step there game up and put the money to good use. Religion has always done its part in helping the poor, my church has something we call a fast offering. Every 1st sunday of the month we fast & give a fast offering(money) which goes to our churches funds to help people around the world. In fact, we give more aid then the Red-cross. Little f&f (fun fact) for you there :))) But yeah mainly I think its everyones responsability & mostly the govt. I mean we pay taxes for these kinda things dont we?

Topic: Misc. / Religion and Science

haha, well I was seeing if maybe I should jump into this one but nah, its too much stuff to read and I’m feeling lazy quite frankly.lol! xD

Topic: Misc. / Computer Dependency

Are we too dependent upon our computers?

To find out, answer this question:

Are you male or female?

To find the answer, look down.

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
I said, look down, not scroll down, you silly person! love, Kookoo

Topic: Misc. / Religion and Science

LdsGal202 wrote:
>hmmm, should I say something about…...naaahhh :)))

Well, Gal, another reply to your same post! Aran wants you to explain, and i may not be as smart as i thought. Thanks, honey!
Love, Kookoo

Topic: Misc. / Faith Based Initiatives

I agree with about half of what you said, Koo. I do see a danger of charities becoming dependent upon the government dole. I think, however, that that is the primary danger and possibly the intent of the Obama Left. With their policies, such a situation would work to rip apart religious charities, trying to get them dependent on the government and then eliminating anything religious about them. So what he is saying is either malicious in intent and also political dishonesty, or just political dishonesty (dishonest in that he’s using the name “Faith-based Initiative” to mean anything but, just to slap a happy label on something that would actually break the system).

So I agree in that I am uneasy about the government giving money to charities at all. But I also recognize that the government is horribly inefficient and often counterproductive at almost anything it does, and is in that sense indeed “worthless,” as you say. I do NOT believe that it is

the responsibility of our government to make sure that children (and even adults) have a place to live, adequate food and health care.

This is a fairly recent notion about governments that I strongly disagree with. I recognize that a government exists to ensure the protection and cohesion of a nation and to promote the minimum amount of law and regulation for an orderly society. That does include some basic welfare (helping keep people off the streets), but I don’t believe in a nanny state, nor that health care is a “right.” Prosperity and its attendant benefits is a goal, a privilege earned, not guaranteed.

I do recognize, however, that because of the aforementioned government failure with social programs, it is potentially desirable that, must the government support things outside its basic mission and intent, it do them through private agencies as much as possible. Religious charities are good at helping people, so they make sensible targets. Providing a pool of money for any to draw from equally makes sense, but it must come with no strings attached to avoid the establishment clause.

So basically my position is that if you’re going to do Faith-Based Initiatives, do them right (and that’s much closer to McCain’s plan). If you’re not going to do it right, then don’t do it at all and don’t give us your lying BS about it you pandering phony politician.

Topic: Misc. / Religion and Science

Thanks for checking in, Koo. While we’re making distinctions, I hope you (and others) understood that the derision I expressed was for the big lie of the Conflict Thesis, not for anyone understandably accepting this popularized notion before learning otherwise.

And it’s not that I’m all that worried about anti-Catholic bigotry; it’s not like it’s anything new. What is more irritating to me is when big lies get culturally accepted and deceive millions—like global warming, some of the cancer scares and others that we’ve discussed here.

hmmm, should I say something about……naaahhh :)))
Hi Gal!
Nice to see you here, I think I know what you mean…

I don’t, so maybe you should…? :)

Topic: Misc. / Faith Based Initiatives

OK, I looked this over the other day, finally thought of something to say…

Fuck faith based initiatives! The fact that religions have to take care of the poor people in our society is a tragedy and a stain upon our nation. It is the responsibility of our government to make sure that children (and even adults) have a place to live, adequate food and health care. Religions were doing their part a long time ago and will continue to do so, even without government help. They are charities, too! PEOPLE give them money to help others. Witness the Salvation Army, catholic charities, etc. These folks aren’t going out of business anytime soon. If they become dependent upon taxpayer money to do their good deeds, what happens when the largesse disappears? Because you know that our worthless government will start wasting that money somewhere else next year… The government needs to take care of the neediest in our society, I’m sorry, that’s just the way it is. They are busy dismantling the expensive welfare state and foisting their duties upon charities that may or MAY NOT pick up the slack. Yes, I know, people abuse the system. We have laws against fraud, why not use them? (I know, they didn’t use them against Bear Stearns, but that’s such a special case. I would imagine that the Salvation Army could have put 30 billion to better use than our government did, but I just can’t prove it…lol).

As far as Father Mister in the link, he has it exactly right, McCain is parroting the Bush shit, Obama has no balls and won’t say the fuck thing that I said above. It’s a well known fact that Obama mislaid his balls somewhere. I will have to look long and hard for them inside the voting booth. Well, that’s enough for now… The Batman thing is cute.

Topic: Misc. / Religion and Science

LdsGal202 wrote:
>hmmm, should I say something about…...naaahhh :)))

Hi Gal!

Nice to see you here, I think I know what you mean…

Love, Kookoo

Topic: Misc. / Religion and Science

Satolkin wrote:
>I’d love to see your evidence, Aran, and will give it a fair read.
>Understand, however, I’m going to take some convincing. My Order was founded largely as a response to Church oppression, and it was founded by learned, G-d believing men who were sickened by what they saw at the time.

Satol,

Thanks for picking up the gauntlet. You are very gallant! (And I’ll bet no one’s called you THAT in a long time, or maybe ever!!!)

Love, Kookoo

Topic: Misc. / Religion and Science

Arandur wrote:

I would really rather not have to pour through all of these sources and list the names of the many, many well-respected historians, professors, scientists and so forth who recognize the truth. Can I just leave it at this to demonstrate that the Conflict Thesis is dead, and if you’re interested in truth and what actually happened in history, you’ll abandon it as anti-Catholic bigotry and unfounded stupidity?

(Welcome back, Kookoo…) Aran, I’m pretty sure i told you not to bother with this somewhere up there somewhere…lol Guess you were goaded into it by Satol (!) I’m pretty much happy with your admission that the church impeded scientific inquiry at one time or another, who cares when… You sure are worried about anti-catholic bigotry, sheesh! You don’t have to worry about me on that score, I’m an equal opportunity bigot. Remember what the church says about us homos, hate the sin, love the sinner… I’m just that way, hate the religion(s), love the religious. One of my boyfriends is a devout muslim. We don’t really discuss religion, excepting some discussion of religious history. I’m not too knowledgeable about islam, but now know a little more than i did before. Of course, that knowledge makes it seem even sillier than I thought before…lol He is a member of our site, too.

I’ve been off the site quite a bit until recently. I will be around more, promise. I’m sorry that I abandoned this topic. I have many constraints on my time and would never have been able to do what you did here. So, I thank you kindly for doing it. When I must do detailed research like that (remember I’m in the engineering field, so my research basically involves mechanical/mathematical subjects), I am very well paid for it. It’s my job to do work like that, so doing it in other fields reminds me too much of work…lol. While I have read your entire post, I will follow the links later and check out the “Cliff Notes” on the authors that you have mentioned. I’ll try to get back to you more coherently at a later date. Love, Kookoo

Topic: Misc. / Religion and Science

hmmm, should I say something about…...naaahhh :)))

Topic: Misc. / Religion and Science

Revisiting this old thread on science and religion. I have reviewed some of my sources, and have found it exceedingly difficult to summarize all of the vast amount of evidence that I have encountered by many reputable, mainstream, and well-accepted sources that the Conflict Thesis that religion, particularly the Catholic Church, impeded science is a popular myth. To demonstrate this and show that in fact the opposite is true, religion and particularly the Catholic Church supported and promoted science, I will attempt one method of summary, that of citing numerous sources and giving some quotes.

Let me first establish the point that I will thereafter support: the idea of the Conflict Thesis, that of continual conflict of science and religion, particularly as pertains the Catholic Church, is simply false and has been completely discredited by scholars.

The popular myth of the Conflict Thesis rests primarily on the agenda-laden propaganda of two 19th century Americans: John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White.

Draper wrote A History of the Conflict between Religion and Science; this preacher’s book was very popular because it was really primarily a “long vitriolic anti-Catholic diatribe” that appealed to the anti-Catholicism and anti-immigrant racism of early Protestant Americans. It blamed the Catholic Church for “everything bad in Western history, including preventing the ‘proper’ expansion of the human population.” (These quotes come from Dr. Lawrence M. Principe in course Science and Religion for the Teaching Company, one of the Great Courses).

White wrote his The Warfare of Science: A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom often quoting Draper and other psued-sources. He was the first president of Cornell University and wrote to promote these ideas in defense of Cornell, which was being criticized for being the first non-religiously-affiliated university in America. It, like Draper’s work, rely on false arguments of collectivism, lack of critical judgment of sources, argument by ridicule and assertion, selective quoting out of context, and false sources. These two popularized the FALSE idea that the people of the middles ages thought the earth to be flat and that the sphericity of the earth was opposed by the Church, as well as the fallacy that the church condemned all science as devilry and forbade human dissection. (These assertions and much of the wording come straight from Dr. Principe as well).

The Wikipedia article on the Conflict Thesis has these notable quotes:
“In 1908, the physician and historian of medicine, James Joseph Walsh, published – as a direct answer to White’s Warfare – The Popes and Science; the History of the Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time⁹ in which he strongly criticized White’s view as antihistorical:
“the story of the supposed opposition of the Church and the Popes and the ecclesiastical authorities to science in any of its branches, is founded entirely on mistaken notions. Most of it is quite imaginary. Much of it is due to the exaggeration of the significance of the Galileo incident. Only those who know nothing about the history of medicine and of science continue to harbor it. That Dr. White’s book, contradicted as it is so directly by all serious histories of medicine and of science, should have been read by so many thousands in this country, and should have been taken seriously by educated men, physicians, teachers, and even professors of science who want to know the history of their own sciences, only shows how easily even supposedly educated men may be led to follow their prejudices rather than their mental faculties, and emphasizes the fact that the tradition that there is no good that can possibly come out of the Nazareth of the times before the reformation, still dominates the intellects of many educated people who think that they are far from prejudice and have minds perfectly open to conviction”¹⁰”

And, from Stephen Jay Gould:
Stephen Jay Gould writes: “White’s and Draper’s accounts of the actual interaction between science and religion in Western history do not differ greatly. Both tell a tale of bright progress continually sparked by science. And both develop and utilize the same myths to support their narrative”.[11]

Also:
Regarding the model in itself, subsequent historical research indicates that religion has a much more complex and close relationship with science than the conflict thesis acknowledges. As is expressed by Gary Ferngren in his historical volume Science & Religion:
While some historians had always regarded the Draper-White thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. 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.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis

Now, for more historians that similarly assert that the Conflict Thesis is nonsense and that “no reputable scholar” of today (in Principe’s words, among others) holds to it:

See the Teaching Company Great Courses http://www.teach12.com/teach12.asp?ai=16281
(taught by carefully selected leading doctors and professors who are the best representatives of modern scholarship):
Science and Religion, Lawrence M Principe
Reason and Faith: Philosophy in the Middle Ages, Thomas Williams (note he, among others on this site, gets into destroying the whole myth of the Dark Ages)
Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How they Know It, Steven L. Goldman
History of Science, Antiquity to 1700, Lawrence M Principe
Foundations of Western Civilization, Thomas F. X. Noble
Early Middle Ages, Phillip Dalleader
Medieval Europe: Crisis and Renewal, Teofilio F. Ruiz

http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.asp…

Also look into Thomas F. Madden’s many works (books and audiobooks) about the Crusades and the Middle Ages, how he draws upon primary sources and refers to modern historians in their work detailing the beneficial effect of the Church upon civilization, as well as giving a balanced, historical view to the Crusades and the Inquisition.

Add now the How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, which relies upon the work of many modern historians and quotes them as such with passages similar to:

By the eighteenth century, the Jesuits
“had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics – all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents [Jonathan Wright, The Jesuits, 2004, p. 189].”

“To say that the Church played a positive role in the development of science has now become absolutely mainstream, even if this new consensus has not yet managed to trickle down to the general public. In fact, Stanley Jaki, over the course of an extraordinary scholarly career, has developed a compelling argument that in fact it was important aspects of the Christian worldview that accounted for why it was in the West that science enjoyed the success it did as a self-sustaining enterprise. Non-Christian cultures did not possess the same philosophical tools, and in fact were burdened by conceptual frameworks that hindered the development of science. Jaki extends this thesis to seven great cultures: Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu, and Maya. In these cultures, Jaki explains, science suffered a “stillbirth.” My book gives ample attention to Jaki’s work.”

In The Beginnings of Western Science (1992), David Lindberg writes:

It must be emphatically stated that within this educational system the medieval master had a great deal of freedom. The stereotype of the Middle Ages pictures the professor as spineless and subservient, a slavish follower of Aristotle and the Church fathers (exactly how one could be a slavish follower of both, the stereotype does not explain), fearful of departing one iota from the demands of authority. There were broad theological limits, of course, but within those limits the medieval master had remarkable freedom of thought and expression; there was almost no doctrine, philosophical or theological, that was not submitted to minute scrutiny and criticism by scholars in the medieval university.

“[S]cholars of the later Middle Ages,” concludes Lindberg, “created a broad intellectual tradition, in the absence of which subsequent progress in natural philosophy would have been inconceivable.”

Historian of science Edward Grant concurs with this judgment:

What made it possible for Western civilization to develop science and the social sciences in a way that no other civilization had ever done before? The answer, I am convinced, lies in a pervasive and deep-seated spirit of inquiry that was a natural consequence of the emphasis on reason that began in the Middle Ages. With the exception of revealed truths, reason was enthroned in medieval universities as the ultimate arbiter for most intellectual arguments and controversies. It was quite natural for scholars immersed in a university environment to employ reason to probe into subject areas that had not been explored before, as well as to discuss possibilities that had not previously been seriously entertained.

The creation of the university, the commitment to reason and rational argument, and the overall spirit of inquiry that characterized medieval intellectual life amounted to “a gift from the Latin Middle Ages to the modern world…though it is a gift that may never be acknowledged. Perhaps it will always retain the status it has had for the past four centuries as the best-kept secret of Western civilization.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods40.html

Here’s the Wikipedia list of sources:
1. ^ Quotation: “The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensible and realistic historiography of Western science.” (p. 7), from the essay by Colin A. Russell “The Conflict Thesis” in Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0”.
2. ^ Quotation: “In the late Victorian period it was common to write about the “warfare between science and religion” and to presume that the two bodies of culture must always have been in conflict. However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science.” (p. 195)Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press Chicago, Ill.
3. ^ Quotation: “In its traditional forms, the [conflict] thesis has been largely discredited.” (p. 42) Brooke, J.H. (1991). Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives.. Cambridge University Press.
4. ^ Quotation: ”...while [John] Brooke’s view [of a complexity thesis rather than historical conflict thesis] has gained widespread acceptance among professional historians of science, the traditional view remains strong elsewhere, not least in the popular mind.” (p. x) from Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0.
5. ^ Wilson, David B. The Historiography of Science and Religion in Ferngren, Gary B. (2002). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. p. 21, 23
6. ^ Alexander, D (2001), Rebuilding the Matrix, Lion Publishing, ISBN 0-7459-5116-3 (pg. 217)
7. ^ John William Draper, History of the Conflict Religion, D. Appleton and Co. (1881)
8. ^ David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers, God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science, University of California Press (April 29, 1986)
9. ^ Fordam University Press, 1908, Kessinger Publishing, reprinted 2003.ISBN 0-7661-3646-9 Reviews: 1
10. ^ James Joseph Walsh, The Popes and Science; the History of the Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time, Fordam University Press, New York 1908, p.19
11. ^ Gould, S.J. (1996). “The late birth of a flat earth”. Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History. New York: Crown: 38–52.
12. ^ (p. 15) Colin A. Russell: The Conflict of Science and Religion in Encyclopedia of the History of Science and Religion, New York 2000
13. ^ Gary Ferngren (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0. (Introduction, p. ix)
14. ^ On Kepler, see: Barker, Peter and Bernard R. Goldstein. “Theological Foundations of Kepler’s Astronomy”. Osiris, Volume 16: Science in Theistic Contexts. University of Chicago Press, 2001, pp 88–113. On energy physics, see: Smith, Crosbie. The Science of Energy: A Cultural History of Energy Physics in Victorian Britain. London: The Athlone PRess, 1998.
15. ^ See, for example, the chapters on “Geology and Paleontology” (by Nicolaas A. Rupke), “Natural History” (by Peter M. Hess), and “Charles Darwin” (by James Moore) in Gary Ferngren (ed.), Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction.
16. ^ On the Galileo affair, see: Blackwell, Richard J., “Galileo Galilei” inScience and Religion: A Historical Introduction. On the Scopes trial, see: Larson, Edward J. Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Battle over Science and Religion. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Barbour, Ian G. When Science Meets Religion. HarperSanFrancisco, 2000.
Brooke, John H., Margaret Osler, and Jitse M. van der Meer, (editors). “Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions,” Osiris, 2nd ser., vol. 16(2001), ISBN 0-226-07565-6.
Ferngren, Gary (editor). Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8018-7038-0
Lindberg, David C. and Ronald L. Numbers, eds., God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science. University of California Press, 1986.
Lindberg and Numbers, “Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 39 (1987):140-49. (Can be found online here
Merton, Robert K. Science, Technology, and Society in Seventeenth Century England. Osiris 4(1938): 360-632. Reprinted New York: Harper & Row, 1970. (Advances the thesis that Puritanism contributed to the rise of science.)
Westfall, Richard S. Science and Religion in Seventeenth-Century England. New Haven: Yale Univ. Pr. 1958. Reprinted Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Pr., 1973. ISBN 0-472-06190-9

And some more:
Lindberg and Numbers’ “God & Nature”
Brooke’s “Science & Religion”

I would really rather not have to pour through all of these sources and list the names of the many, many well-respected historians, professors, scientists and so forth who recognize the truth. Can I just leave it at this to demonstrate that the Conflict Thesis is dead, and if you’re interested in truth and what actually happened in history, you’ll abandon it as anti-Catholic bigotry and unfounded stupidity?

Topic: Misc. / Faith Based Initiatives

Hmm, I would have to agree with Mccaine on that issue. It makes completely no sense for religiouse based organizations to not be discrimatative and have to hire people of other faiths. That only makes sense! It’s not a fact of it being discrimination, but the fact is how are you going to run a catholic religiouse program and hire a muslim, who has no idea how things are done in the catholic church? That would make no sense. If you want your religion to be up & running the people of that religion should be the ones running it to the things that that religion abides by. & well I dont care much about the batman movie thing quite frankly :)))

Topic: Misc. / Yo, admins, again....

Yes, I’d like the mix, too.

Topic: Misc. / Yo, admins, again....

Great job, admin! Looks much cleaner, as well.

Bad news is OK. Serves to illustrate the points of both believers and non- believers, even though we probably won’t agree.
Although, I’m not sure if anybody actually reads any of it. I’m thinking probably not.