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

Argument 3 - Traditionally held Christian beliefs fostered science Most of my opponents first point I've already addressed, except for his concerns over geocentrism. But I would like to make a few comments. Firstly, I'm quite perplexed as to how exactly the Big Bang theory conflicts with the Christian doctrine that God created the universe. There is no explicit conflict between these two ideas. The Big Bang Theory only explains what happened when the universe began to exist. It doesn't explain where the universe came from or why anything exists rather than nothing [1]. The multi-verse theory is only one theory as to where the universe came from, if one rejects that theory one is not anti-science. Quantum mechanics and evolution are not cyclic in nature they can be cyclic, but they aren't cyclic necessarily. History has shown us that evolution has produced more and more complex organisms not a cycle from a peak of complexity to a peak of simplicity. Thus here I see no conflict between Christian doctrine and science. But what about geocentrism? Well for one thing Geocentrism was not and is not an infallible dogma of the Catholic church [2]. The church held to geocentrism because they held to Aristotelian physics. And because they Aristotle taught that heavier objects sink and lighter objects float, and Christians at the time thought that the Earth was heavier than all of the other planets, they reasoned that the earth didn't move, while the lighter planets were guided around the earth in a perfect circle [3]. Thus, ironically it was a commitment to Greek ideas that created a stumbling block for the development of science more than it was biblical Christianity. It seems my opponent thinks that if one is to support the Big Bang Theory, one has to accept cyclic theories of the universes creation. In other words, that the universe cam into and went out of existence over and over again throughout an infinite past. This is simply absurd such cyclic theories are only one of many different theories (such as the multi-verse theory) and the Big Bang Theory does not require one to accept a cyclic universe. Argument 2 - Many major scientific discoveries were made by Christians My opponent claims that to show a strong relationship between Christianity and science one must show that as Christianity grows science will grow with it, and as Christianity declines science will decline. I have two points regarding this objection; 1 this would only be true if Christianity were the only factor influencing science, which is something I'm not claiming. To say Christianity is conducive to science is not to say that other world-views or ideas are not conducive to science. There is no doubt, for example, that many atheists have a zeal for science, so its plausible to suggest a positive correlation between science and atheism. 2 all I am saying is that Christianity has influenced science in positive ways more than it has influenced it in negative ways, thus I am not saying that no matter what Christianity will influence science positively. What this entails is that the relationship between various ideas and world-views and science is complex, and that to establish a strong relationship between Christianity and science does not require me to show that Christianity is the only cause of science, or that science is the necessary result of Christianity. All I must show is that, on balance, Christianity has pushed science forward, rather than held it back. Isaac Newton and Blaise Pascal For the sake of brevity I'll grant your points about Isaac Newton, although I'd like to stress this in no way compromises my main point. Instead I'll give another example; Francis Bacon. Bacon was a philosopher and a very solid Christian. He is quoted as saying; "God has placed no limits to the exercise of the intellect he has given us, on this side of the grave" [4]. There is no doubt that Bacon's works revolutionized the way nature was studied. He was one of the first philosophers to critique Aristotle's physics. Bacon thought that the proper way to analyze nature was to study it not think about it. He believed that because God had created the universe, it should be lawful and organized; "...the force implanted by God in these first particles, form the multiplication thereof of all the variety of things proceeds and is made up..."[5,3]. Thus there is little doubt that Bacon was motivated by his Christian theism to do promote the advancement of learning, and as such, the advancement of science. Now my opponent moves on to Blaise Pascal, and here I must admit my opponent did his homework. Pascal was a great Christian thinker, but there is no connection between his Christianity and the science he preformed. So I'll give a more solid example, and again I stress that conceding this does not constitute conceding the debate, not even close. Enter St. Albertus Magnus, a great inspiration of Thomas Aquinas and a leader in all of the natural sciences of his time. Albert was an prolific writer of theology and science, he viewed the purpose of science as uncovering the things which nature can bring about, and he wanted to use science to defend the doctrines of Christianity. He is quoted as saying, "In studying nature we have not to inquire how God the Creator may, as He freely wills, use His creatures to work miracles and thereby show forth His power: we have rather to inquire what Nature with its immanent causes can naturally bring to pass"[6]. Again there is little doubt that this extremely influential scholar of the middle ages saw a crucial importance in studying nature because of his Christian faith. Conclusion; I look forward to my opponents response, and again am thankful for his well-thought out arguments. However, I don't think my opponents approach to refuting my arguments thus far is a good one. He has refuted some of my points, but Con has failed to establish a solid argument of his own. Furthermore, with more fleshed out arguments on my part I'm not certain how Con will respond. 1. http://www.letu.edu... 2. http://socrates58.blogspot.com... 3. http://www.leaderu.com... 4. http://www.brainyquote.com... 5. http://plato.stanford.edu... 6. http://www.newadvent.org...