Blair / Hitchens Debate

It had its interesting, sometimes funny moments, but overall, no new arguments were presented, and I feel we are way past these two gentleman on this issue. The division between science and religion naturally came up, however, this division is a misnomer. Isaac Newton researched both, lots of religious people contributed to science, of which, Bayes is memorable for his contributions (to the field of probability), and that’s Reverend Bayes to you. In Islamic world the same was true, Al-Ghazali is the best known example [1].

So really, if there is any division, it is between Rome and religion / science, not science and religion. The Catholic Church did oppose science, of course, but this confirms my theory presented in this blog earlier in the post The Godfather. After the Roman Empire’s collapse, the Catholic Church took its mantle, preserved ceremonies, outlook on life, culture. So during the birth of Renaissance it was Rome Version 1.2 – the Catholic Church that was around; naturally it way they who fought science, freedom, pluralism. If the fucking Romans were around, believe me, they would do the exact same thing.

The backwardness of people who lived under Rome Version 2.0 (Byzantium) and Version 3.0 (Ottomans) is a living proof of my argument.

–

[1] Later Ottomans came in the picture of course, and messed it all up. It is notable that Golden Age of Islam does not include the pathetic, corrupt and despotic years of their rule.