The dangerous side of faith

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
1)Do you seriosuly think christianity is the same now as it was 150 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, nowadays science knows much more about the brain and the nature of consciousness. So of course we realize that believing people's "souls" float around in heaven/hell after death is just silly.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

1)Do you seriosuly think christianity is the same now as it was 150 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

You made the 'search for knowledge claim' which I challenged.

what knowledge gained through religion does a christian have today that they didn't have then, or in 1400 for that matter?

Of course xtianity is practiced differently in some places today, religion typically follows secular trends with some serious rearguard conservative laggards. Your claim was about knowledge... I'd like to see that list.
There was a recent prediction on here that in 200 years homosexuality will not be a sin... but that won't come from 'knowledge' that xtrianity discovered it'll come from xtrians getting tired of being laughed at.

luckyme

[Rearden]

[ QUOTE ]
1)Do you seriosuly think christianity is the same now as it was 150 years ago?
2)The fact that science evolves doesnt mean that scientists are not subject to stubborness.
Example:
Joe thinks A
Luke comes with theory B
Joe reject theory B and sticks with A
Joe dies.
We move on to theory B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Valenzuela.... If that were true the only theories we would still hold on to would be theories made by folks who are still alive no? Ive heard several interesting stories about professors and the like in my department even (poli sci... hardly science) who had their pet theories crushed and who were respectful to their debunker after of course checking the facts for themselves.... thats science... progress within scientific thought, etc. Some, like in everything, are subject to stubbroness. But I would submit that scientists, when presented with concrete evidence, are among the most rational group as a whole with respect to factoring that new evidence into new and more logical conclusions.

Also I think the real crime in this article is that Dr Don named his son Aidon.... I hate that name

[valenzuela]

perhaps i should have said some scientist instead of many scientists.

Anyway my point is that treating science as something that has to be away from religion is not necessarrily correct. Religion and science can mix.