Iulus Cofield wrote:You started out in this thread by asserting that "Religion is fundamentally anti-scientific, there's no point in arguing against this." This was an assertion provided without any argument or evidence.
the argument is the next post.
Iulus Cofield wrote:You went on to say, "Belief requires no testing, and is therefore anti-scientific, and since belief is the foundation of religion, religion is neccesarily anti-scientific." This was assertion with a logical (in the literal sense) argument, but it's still unfounded. I addressed your argument in my long post by saying that the Catholic Church does in fact has tested their beliefs. If you want to know more about the history of the Church's testing, read some history books about the period 300-500 AD. The big thing they did was, in fact, to test and codify their beliefs to distinguish correct belief (orthodoxy) from opinion (heresy).
as I pointed out in the next post, whether they did test or not is not the point, the point is that it requires no testing.
Iulus Cofield wrote:Your third post said, "Ah, but they still believe it even if no testing was done, and no evidence was found. Catholic church promotes an attitude of blind faith, of ignorance as bliss, that is plenty anti-scientific to me." This is another unfounded assertion. Me, and a couple other people, have been primarily posting to demonstrate that it is an incorrect one. Provide me with some kind of proof (perhaps some documents) that the Catholic Church does any of those things, and I will admit that you are right. The same goes for assertion that the Catholic Church promotes unscientific ideas.
Are you trying to say that the catholic church does not believe in god, or that there are test for god's existence and that the church performed it? If the catholic church indeed believe in god, and encourages others to believe in god, is that not promoting blind faith? Is it not in the bible that god punished human for eating from the tree of knowledge, and that before this they were the happy? Is it not promoting ignorance to preach the bible then?
Iulus Cofield wrote:Your point about one theologian does not make a church is a valid one. While I still can't remember his name or the name of the book, I do recall that the preface of the book was written by, perhaps you've heard of him, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and published by an official Catholic press. I don't think it's a stretch to say they stand behind this particular theologian.
That's interesting. It would be more helpful though if you can remember the name of the author, otherwise I can't say much about it.