Resolved; Christianity was a positive influence in the development of modern science

1) The Negative Relationship Between Christianity and the Development of Science. Actually I did respond to Con's first claim. I pointed out direct links between scientists drive to do science and their Christian beliefs. Even if the Pope did in fact say that 1) it doesn't show that such a belief negatively effected science, and 2) it wouldn't limit science as it is making a claim which science could never prove nor disprove; i.e. that the supernatural exists. Now here my opponent claims that Pope Benedict the XVI actually said that science rejects a rationally intelligible nature. I'm not sure where he stated this, I read through the article he posted and couldn't find a single reference to such an idea, so if Con would be kind enough to point it out I would be grateful. But if Con is referring to the statement he quoted, there he does literally say that science presupposes the rational structure in nature. This doesn't mean there is no rationality in nature, simply that science must presuppose it in order to be effective, if nature were irrational, science would be useless. The fact that Christians believed demons caused diseases was not so much a hindrance on the development of science as a method, but the progress of scientific discovery. What I am arguing is, Christianity played a crucial role in how we do science today. That is where guys like Francis Bacon come in. The problem with saying that a scientific progress was hindered because of a false hypothesis is that they only way science can progress is through eliminating false hypotheses. I suppose one could say that this particular hypothesis was held for too long, but even then, that could easily be explained by the fact that the scientific method hadn't been developed yet. 2) Christianity Follows on From Scientific Development My position purports, not a weaker relationship, but a stronger one. As I pointed out, I'm not arguing that Christianity simply sped up scientific progress, but rather allowed it to occur by aiding the development of the scientific method. The fact that Christians abandoned geocentrism in the face of the scientific evidence is a testament to their devotion to science, not an example of Christianities inconsistency with science. This is why I pointed out that 1. the Catholic church did not hold to geocentrism infallibly, which means they were willing to abandon such a position, and 2. the reason they held to geocentrism was more to do with their philosophical commitment to the teachings of Aristotle than it was the Bible. Thus the mere fact that Christians abandoned this position is not enough to suggest that Christianity is anti-science, my opponent must do more than this. 3) General examples of a Negative Relationship Here I'm confused, Con says, "the New Testament (which excluded Genesis) was not in existence until the 4th century, 400 years were spent at least relying on this Christian belief rather than developing science." I think I'm going to need some clarification here. For one thing, of course the New Testament excludes Genesis, but more importantly, the New testament did exist before the 4th century, the writings simply hadn't been compiled nor completely agreed to be scripture. So perhaps my opponent is arguing that because the church wasn't developing science during the first few centuries of its existence, that this somehow counts against its relationship with science. This is odd, its like saying because the Greeks were so caught up with ethics and metaphysics that they had a negative relationship with science. Yet no one would claim that the Greeks had contributed nothing to science, indeed, their devotion to reason seemed to help the development of science a great deal. As to Con's point about Genesis being interpreted literally throughout history, the sources I have given in this debate clearly point out that quite a few infamous Christian and Jewish theologians throughout history have interpreted Genesis 1-11 in non-literal ways, such as Augustine or Philo.[1,2] Thus taking Genesis as non-literal today is not in any way a retreat from traditional Christian doctrines. Teachings of Early Universities Again my opponent fails to understand what exactly I'm pointing out here. I realize that early universities didn't teach natural sciences, they were too committed to Aristotle's and Plato's philosophies to see any worth in observing and analyzing the natural world in the way science does today. The point was that the church established the first universities encouraged learning for the sake of defending the faith, and these universities throughout the middle ages made small steps toward breaking free of Aristotle's grasp. Even if it was inadvertent, the church laid the seeds for what would later become modern science. I'm not sure what my opponent means when he states; "It wasn't until Aristotle that science started to develop." Aristotle was a Greek philosopher who thought nature should be studied through intuition and that there was no reason to explain phenomena in the universe because he thought everything was the way it was because it had to be that way. These are two points made in many of the sources I posted.[3] What's more, according to my sources even after the church relinquished control of the universities, it still supported them.[4] Theology lead to the development of science The first two arguments here, I didn't make, so I don't feel I need to defend them. Again I'm perplexed why my opponent says; "Thomas Aquinas was responsible for Aristotle's ideas." Aristotle was a Greek philosopher who lived thousands of years before Aquinas. Aquinas was influenced greatly by Aristotle. Perhaps my opponent is arguing that Aquinas changed many of the ideas of Aristotle, which is true, but how this establishes that science changed Christianity and not the other way around, I do not know. Conclusion; I would like to thank my opponent for taking the time and effort to debate me, it has been an interesting debate indeed. Nevertheless my opponent has failed to address the majority of my points. Con mistakenly dismissed my points about Francis Bacon and St. Albertus Magnus as cherry picking, despite both figures clearly being motivated to make their discoveries about how to do science by their religious beliefs. My opponent also misrepresented the point I was making about universities. Con also failed to show a negative relationship between Christianity and science, the fact that Christians held to false ideas about nature is not enough to show that Christianity, on balance, has impeded the development of science rather than supported it. My opponent must show that Christians were not open to new ideas for his argument to work. This is because for science to progress, there must be the elimination of false ideas. Thus it is not surprising at all that Christians changed their positions on some issues because of their discoveries in science. This shows that science influenced Christianity, but it doesn't show that Christianity did not influence science. Clearly Christianity played a crucial role in establishing the thinking behind how science should be done. Thus I urge readers to vote pro. 1. http://www.evidencetobelieve.net... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.bede.org.uk... 4. http://jameshannam.com...