dedwrekka wrote:Hrm. I'll point out again that before, durring, and after the midevil ages the Catholic Church was one of the biggest supporters of science and "new thinking". Copernicus was a cleric, Galileo was taught in a catholic school (and was a friend of the pope, enjoying his patronage), the Jesuits were and continue to be one of the largest religion based supporters of science and learning, Fancesco Grimaldi was a priest, and Saint Thomas Aquinas made an impact in philosophy and leading the Church in the direction of Natural Theology.
The idea of a war between Science and Religion belongs in the fiction section with the rest of the Dan Brown novels.
Yeah, there isn't anyone doubting evolution on religious grounds.
Actually, perhaps you should re-read your information, start with the Vatican II and the Vactican Observitory. Actually, start with Pope Pius XII The first pope to give a statement about the Church's stance on evolution in 1950.
Nor were there people who objected the moon landing because they thought god would hate that.
At least not in the Catholic Church
Galileo, being a friend of the pope, was not accused of heresy.
Which was highly political. He wasn't accused of Heresy because of his views, he was accused of heresy because he put Pope Urban's views on the subject in the mouth of what effectively translated as "The Idiot". The Pope was forced by the inquisition and Papal courtiers to ask Galileo to put both arguments for and against Heliocentrism in his book, and not to advocate either side too heavily. Galileo agreed and did indeed do that, but also included a veiled insult to the Pope, who was already under attack from the more conservative sections of the church for having defended Galileo before. So, Pope Urban, who had given his permission and patronage of Galileo's book, allowed the inquisition to question Galileo.
I'd also point out that Galileo used teachings of saints to argue against the inquisition, saw it as his duty to continue with the penance given to him after the trial, and continued to enjoy the patronage of Pope Urban afterwords.
The idea of Galileo as this man fighting religion with science is false, it was a dispute of religious-political nature fought with religion and had no detrimental impact on the religious views of either side.
Scientists were not afraid of the pope's encouragement to discourage the belief in the big bang in other scientists.
Ummm, yeah. Again, Pope Pius XII supported the idea before it was fully fleshed out. Why would Scientists be afraid of anything the pope says? Since 1893 it's been the stance that the Church doesn't exist to explain the nature of the universe, but is there to give people a moral grounds for existing within it. There have also been plenty of scientist willing to share their findings with the church, and some even add religious wording or connotations to their findings.
There are never clashes between people of fatih and people of science, at all, since there exists examples of people being people of both.
I think you hit the nail on the head, but not the one you intended. Religious people
and scientific people
do occasionally but heads, however, it's more often the case that the one who knows least, speaks loudest. In other words, it's more often the case that lay people of both sides with only minimal understanding of either side argue the most and make the most noise. The vast majority of religions continue to hone their religious views regardless of what people are saying about them, and the vast majority of scientists continue to research regardless of what the religious community is saying.
A religion vs science system would have both sides going for the throat of the other, but that isn't the case. It's only the case if you allow the media or words of lay persons to cloud reality, and what the experts on either side are saying.
My young, scientific thoughts were never stifled by religious dogma, and that didn't happen to anyone else either.
So this isn't an entirely impersonal argument? I think that if you allowed curiosity to be floundered by dogma, you should have continued to follow your curiosity. Saint Augustine would have said that it's right to argue dogma. Saint Aquinas would have said that you'll find real truth through examining the real world and not a single book (Which is the official stance of the Church, and has been for a long, long time).