I don't buy it
Science was practiced mostly despite religion rather than because of it. Sure, there was plenty of 'how does the world work' study which was perceived in religious terms, but that doesn't mean it was religion in any sense we would use the term now.

What religion created was wealth, and as a result a leisured moneyed class, and to that extent it supported lots of useful activity, but that doesn't mean it was a good thing, just that good things happened as an accidental by-product of the existence of exploitative fuckers who justified their ill-treatment of the poor as God's will.

And besides all that, it doesn't answer the real question which is why anyone would devote time and energy to religion today.

Sorry, got all serious there. KITTENS! FLUFFY KITTENS!
( flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 11:31, 1 reply)

Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, was a monk.
Science and religion do not have to be at odds. You can have both.
( idonthaveafunnynickname Drink-Aware? Sure. I'm aware I want another drink., Sat 17 Oct 2009, 0:32, closed)

I never said they were at odds
I said religion was pointless and stupid. Not because it's in opposition to science but because it's pointless and stupid. Apart from the aforementioned art, I see nothing in the world that is better because of the existence of religion. I'm pretty sure there's not even any evidence that believers are either morally better or happier than non-believers (anyone that knows of decent studies to the contrary, I'd be interested to hear of them).

As for Mendel, sure, many if not most scientists through history have been devoutly religious, but Mendel's (and Newton's, and all the others') great contribution to the world was science, not religion. I'd even argue that the valuable contribution of religious thinkers (Jesus, Buddha etc) was moral philosophy, not religion.
( flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Sat 17 Oct 2009, 16:55, closed)