"If you can prove God exists, I'll resign"

Homepage Forums Atheism "If you can prove God exists, I'll resign"

This topic contains 92 replies, has 15 voices, and was last updated by  jakelafort 8 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 93 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #29589

    mike
    Participant

    Yes, good old Deepak…not on my list because he is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious arguments using the language of Physics to baffle with bullshit: the ultimate sophist. You can accuse me of that and I would accept the criticism as a “maybe”…because sophistry is sort of like day-dreaming out-loud…isn’t daydreaming allowed anymore?…

    For instance (everyone on the list influenced my thinking) but the reason I include Einstein is because his ideas stimulated an idea I “day-dreamed about”, that his cosmological constant (dark energy) may be the form consciousness takes in the cosmos…I latter retracted that bit of sophistry (although it is still in an article I wrote called “The Nature of the Universe”)…also Einstein introduced the photon concept and inspired the notion of wave–particle duality in quantum mechanics all of which are baffling Physicists to this day. And it is not out of the question that both of those constructs may fit in, somehow, with the Universal Consciousness.

    But mainly I included him because he, like me, did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve…he favoured the God of Baruch Spinoza’s (who I forgot to put on my list) philosophy which is God being “the nature of the universe” which has similarities to the Idealist position.

    #29590

    Ivy
    Participant

    @Reg

    There is no objective reason to accept the statement that “God is real”.

    This is where I have had to part ways in agreement. I do not think that there ever can be “objective reason” like a scientific paper or research methodology that can “prove” God exists. It’s the most (IMHO) ridiculous thing.

    #29591

    Ivy
    Participant

    And the whole “the world would be better if….” you can’t possibly have really thought through ALL the implications of that. Religion is part of culture and culture has kept us alive. I mean to put it succinctly.

    #29592

    @ivy There is no objective reason to accept the statement that “God is real”

    Ivy your reply is not in disagreement with my above statement. And I agree with you. I also do not think anything can prove the existence of any god. I have never suggested that. There is no evidence to suggest there are any. I keep saying that it is an entirely subjective claim based upon faith alone. God only exists for those that believe “He” exists. I do not believe in the God you believe in.  I also do not believe in the existence of any other gods and neither do you

    Ivy, you keep returning to talk about “proof” or “to prove”. Nobody here is asking for any. I have never asked you for any, only for evidence to support your extraordinary claim.

    Can you answer these 2 simple Yes/No questions?

    Do you believe you can communicate with your Creator God of our Universe?

    Do you believe you will become an immortal, just like your God, at some future point in time?

    #29593

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Mike, no on sophistry. Sophistry is using bs arguments, logical fallacies to deceive the listener. It is a way of getting over on the target-not daydreaming.

    I am not sure Einstein was aligned with Spinoza on the notion of god. His letter late in life made it clear he rejected a personal god, but more than that i think he rejected any iteration of god.

    Your rejection of Chopra strikes me as sophistry along with a few others things you indited to make it appear that you are a skeptic. So i am challenging beyond a bare assertion to make an argument or two supporting UC. Is there anything beyond a feeling to support it?

    #29594

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Ivy, atheists have culture. Seculars have culture. Surely, you can see religion is a cancer on civilization and we would be better without it.

    #29595

    Ivy
    Participant

    You sound SO elitist when you say that

    #29596

    jakelafort
    Participant

    How so?

    I think just the opposite. Remaining mute in the face of oppression, remaining silent at the injustice, the entrenched power structure is either apathetic or not giving a shit. I don’t want gays to be persecuted. I don’t want women to be either property or second class citizens. I don’t want the wars that are a direct result of religion. I don’t want the minds that are tainted and fucked over to the detriment of the individual and to civilization. I don’t want children to be molested. etc.

    If that is elitism then i am an elitist.

    #29597

    Davis
    Participant

    Ivy nobody here wants to hear dogshit answers like

    You sound SO elitist when you say that

    here. That’s a barf of a response, absent of an argument, it makes no sense and even if it did it’s still irrelevant. Would you give Jake the respect of responding to his actual argument instead of applying a label to him with the goal of disrupting actual debate?

    #29598

    _Robert_
    Participant

    When we die (or disconnect from our biological hardware) our consciousness re-establishes a connection with the Universal Consciousness U.C. and becomes aware, temporarily, that we are a very small part of a cosmological entity;

    I like the way Universal Consciousness gets capitalized. It certainly is a nice picture. It all makes perfect sense. Jesus, big Mo, NDE’rs, acid droppers and Wovoka all punched on through to the other side. Us typical biologics (plants included)  just get a distorted view (explains why religions are “here” but phucked up) but the party does go on outside of spacetime. Even though you can’t say “goes on”. Throw in the seemingly mysterious nature of QM and there you have it. Books are written, money is made, wayward professors pontificate over very expensive scotch, and hordes gather at Stone Hedge as the Solstice beckons.

    #29599

    jakelafort
    Participant

    This is a good place for sophists/charlatans to visit before they attempt to capitalize on gullibility/stupidity, the will to believe. If you can get your shit by us you surely can sell your shit. So all ye peddlers of bs come polish your shit.

    But just maybe there is something to it? I am confident that the astral projection of the collective unconscious assembles at the gateway to the universal unconscious facilitated by gluons and quarks; and having done so awaits the destructive initiation at the event horizon whereupon the black hole metamorphoses into a spirit world of dark energy spewed out only when the universe is in its apocalypse. The transformation results in an expansion of the UC which is featured in the evolution of new universes. In short the UC evolves and carries forward knowledge and wisdom one universe at a tine.

    Yeah, that is the ticket.

    #29605

    Ivy
    Participant

    Science at most has only been part of our “culture” (at most) for the last 3,500 years and arguably WAY less than that when it comes to “peer reviewed” research. The VAST majority of human beings when you think about even being literate has been few and only in the last few decades has that changed world wide. So when you say things like “seculars have culture” (without explaining what the hell you mean by THAT,” and “surely you can see that religion is a cancer,”…,um…..no, sorry that’s really not self evident. “seculars,” (whatever that means) as far as I’m concerned are the exception. Any any “culture” you claim that “seculars” have I guarantee you can be traced back to religion in some way. Most people on earth don’t think there has to be some meta-analysis to prove something is true. (Which still never says whether it’s “true” because science is ever changing). So it really seems to me that YOU Jake need to explain why it is that you say “religion is like a cancer” and how it is that “seculars have culture.” Otherwise without explanation I’m sorry, you do sound like a “I’m better than you” snob. Straight up.

    #29606

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Ivy,

    Scientific method is only 400 or so years credited to Francis Bacon who was contemporary of Elizabeth 1 who died in 1603. Roots of modern science i would put at least as far back as Sumerians and Indus River Valley Civ, somewhere around 5 thousand years. They had some shit we would say, oh snap! And who knows about other civilizations or tribes? But the roots of science go back several hundred thousand years when our ancestors began to study the natural world to attain an advantage in survival.

    What is culture? Come on. You know what culture is! It is music, art, memes, customs, traditions, literature, sartorial splendor, bad hair cuts like we are seeing in the nba. (jesus cock balls, if ya want a good laugh look at nba players for their hair as they compete for the very worst hair) Even nonhuman primates have rudimentary culture. I think it is the Japanese Macaques who wash their fruit. It started when one wise monkey dipped fruit in water to clean it and others copied. How is a break from religion an impediment to culture? And sure there will be residue among those who have a defenestration of religion. Some will say god bless you and other such words and phrases.

    The longevity of religion is part of the explanation for the illiteracy you mention. If you want to argue it has been necessary to our survival and i will refrain from disputing that point, i insist it has outlived its usefulness. So what is secular or atheistic culture? Ya know, the main feature is TOLERANCE. Ya want to know its antithesis. Look at that short vid Robert posted. Mother fucking backwards and degenerate religion. Think about the crusades. European Christians sending children to kill the infidels. Murder, rape, war. Now in secular Europe we see Europeans offering homes to Muslims.

    The way you characterize truth is mistaken. Religion gives us so called truth through authority using mythology and tells the faithful to STFU and accept it. It uses power to perpetuate it. lack of literacy is an advantage in perpetuating religion. Ignorant folks are less likely to challenge the power mongers. Seculars, atheists and scientists realize that we discover what is true by examining the world around us and discarding what is untrue based upon new information. Truth is not aesthetic unlike the designed lies of religion.

    I use the analogy of cancer because religion is so destructive and gets right down to the level of the cell. It transforms or directs people to be their least healthy like cells gone bad and then metastasizing. It puts a tamper on curiosity. It makes humans adopt the worst morality and approach to morality. It encourages black and white thinking. It makes the adherents more apt to see the world as us and them. It makes them kill each other over what amounts to nothing. It makes them want to impose their cult on others or to extinguish the nonbelievers. It makes them keep women bottled up and never achieving self-fulfillment as they are property to be subjugated to the interest of men. In short it brings out the very worst in people. I could go on and on. Religion is a cancer. The stronger the faith and adherence the more cancerous it is. And the cancer spreads from person to person, generation to generation.

    Longevity of religion compared to longevity of science, atheism and secularism is no reason whatsoever to deny the superiority of the latter. The caution or caveat for civilization is to avoid having secular institutions mimic religion in wielding power. We see plenty of that.

    #29607

    Science, then, commands our respect, not on the basis that its present assumptions and deductions are absolutely and for all time true, but on the ground that its method is for all time true—the method of discovery, the method of observation, research, experimentation, comparison, examination, testing, analysis and synthesis.

    Maynard Shipley, “The War on Modern Science.”

    In the bare five centuries since modern science began, the churches had conducted an unremitting crusade against it. That much of this crusade had turned into a rear-guard action was due less to the weakness of the defenders of the faith than to the invulnerability of their non-resistant victim.

    Horace M. Kallen, “Why Religion?”

    Some 150 years ago in the “Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith,” the Church stated, “But never can reason be rendered capable of thoroughly understanding mysteries as it does those truths which form its proper subject. We, therefore, pronounce false every assertion which is contrary to the enlightened truth of faith…. Hence, all the Christian faithful are not only forbidden to defend as legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, especially when condemned by the Church, but are rather absolutely bound to hold them for errors wearing the deceitful appearance of truth. Let him be anathema….

    “Who shall say that human sciences ought to be pursued in such a spirit of freedom that one may be allowed to hold true their assertions even when opposed to revealed doctrine.”

    Can anything stronger be said to discourage research, investigation, experiment, and retard progress? And only 150 years ago! It is but the restatement of what the Church has uttered so many times and for so long—that all knowledge, material as well as spiritual, is to be found in the Bible as interpreted by the Church. It was this myth which had stultified the mind of man for 1500 years (during the period in which the Church was dominant); it was this that had killed the urge to search and seek for the truth, which is the goal of all science, the means by which humanity is set on the road to progress. This was the damnable precept foisted on the minds of men which enslaved them throughout the ages, and from which we are just emerging. This was the precept that plunged the world into the Dark Ages, and retarded the advance of mankind for centuries.

    This is the reason that it is utterly impossible for the intellectually honest scientist, and for that matter any individual, to reconcile science with religion. On the one hand, that of religion, we have the forces of intolerance, superstition, and the endeavor to besmirch, repress, and ridicule every advance favorable to mankind; to cloak with meaningless words obsolete rites, to stand in the way of human progress, because it does not permit men to think boldly and logically. Science, on the other hand, does not hesitate to tear down old conceptions, and has only one motive, the ultimate truth. Religion has the purpose of keeping the masses in the narrow and false path of only accepted doctrines. The true scientist is the man with the open mind, one who will discard the worthless and accept only the proven good. The religionist closes his mind to all facts which he is unwilling to believe, everything which will endanger his creed. Religion teaches the individual to place all hope, all desire, in a problematical hereafter. The stay on earth is so short compared to the everlasting life to come, that of what interest is this life; all things are vain. The misery, the suffering, of his fellow men leave him cold; he can only think of living in the light of his narrow creed so that he may gain his future reward. How well this philosophy has fitted in with the schemes of the select few for the control of the many!

    Truth to the scientific mind is something provisional, a hypothesis that for the present moment best conforms to the recognized tests. It is an evolving conception in a constantly changing universe. It is not that science has attained true conclusions; not that the evidence at hand must remain immutable; but that the scientific method of analyzing and formulating assumptions on the basis of discovery, on ascertained facts, is a superior method to the closed “infallible” method of “revelation.” These assumptions, based upon the known facts, lead to a working hypothesis which in turn develops into a theory. If the theory is adopted it must account for the facts known. But the theory is not held as final, it is always changed or abandoned if necessary to conform to the new discovered data. Science welcomes the critical attitude that leads to the refinement of its theories. There may be today various theories held by scientists in which they are mistaken, but the question of the method by which they arrive at conclusions can no longer be under consideration with regard to its validity.

    To the scientific mind, knowledge is something to be arrived at by study and research. To the religionist, knowledge is something that is contained in an infallible and supernatural statement or insight. Religion exalts the transcendental; science manipulates only the material. To the consistent religionist, his belief, as such, determine the fact; to the scientist it is the evidence that establishes the fact. To the religionist truth is something that is unchanging, that is fixed, final, and heretical to question. Confronted with a constantly changing universe, he would delude himself that his inner convictions give him a finality concerning his evolving environment. It is therefore not so much Science that the religionist is fighting, but the scientific method. This scientific method of approach, he rightly perceives, has so pervaded our mode of thinking that it is the subtle and most disintegrating force that is shattering the religious foundations.

    Dr. James T. Shotwell, speaking of the scientific method, concludes, “But whatever strictures philosophy may pass upon the conclusions of science, as merely relative and provisional, there is no clearer fact in the history of thought, that its attitudes and methods have been at opposite poles from those of religion. It does no good to blink the fact, established as it is by the most positive proofs of history and psychology. Science has made headway by attempting to eliminate mystery so far as it can. Religion, on the other hand, has stressed mystery and accepted it in its own terms. Science is the product of bold adventure, pushing into the realm of the mysterious to interpret its phenomena in terms of the investigator; religion enters this same realm to give itself up to the emotional reactions. Science is the embodiment of the sense of control, religion yields the control to that power which moves in the shadow of the woods by night, and the glory of the morning hills….

    “Science does not justify by faith, but by works. It is the living denial of that age-long acceptance which we accord to the mystery—as such. It renounces authority, cuts athwart custom, violates the sacred, rejects the myths. It adjusts itself to the process of change whose creative impulse it itself supplies. Not semper idem but semper alterum is the keynote of science. Each discovery of something new involves the discarding of something old. Above all, it progresses by doubting rather than by believing.” (James T. Shotwell: “The Religious Revolution of To-day.”)

    There has never been an advance in science of widespread importance which in some manner or other endangered some mouldy religious concept that the Church has not bitterly opposed; an advance which in time has proven of inestimable benefit for all mankind. A glance at the history of human progress will reveal scores of such instances.

    The two rival divisions of the Christian Church, Protestant and Catholic, have always been in accord on one point, that is, to tolerate no science except such as they considered to be agreeable to the Scriptures. It was the decree of the Lateran Council of 1515 that ordered that no books should be printed but such as had been inspected by the ecclesiastical censors, under pain of excommunication and fine.

    It is easily understood that having declared the Bible to contain all knowledge both scientific and spiritual, and then passing a decree ordering no books to be printed which did not agree on all points with the Church’s interpretation of the Bible, the Church was in absolute control of all thought, both written and spoken.

    It was to no advantage for the scholar to investigate any new fields, for all knowledge which was possible for the mind to discover had already been revealed in the Scriptures. Thus declared the Church. We understand why it was that Copernicus did not permit his book to be published until he was dying. We understand also that when Galileo (see today’s Sunday school video) and Bruno had the courage of their convictions, and gave voice to their beliefs, they were persecuted. Galileo was made to recant a discovery that the youngest of children now takes for granted. Bruno was burnt at the stake.

    We know that astronomy was at a standstill under Church domination, chemistry was forbidden, and the study of natural philosophy was contradicted; while anthropology, which showed on what mythical foundations the story of the fall of man rests, was squelched. The attitude of the Church on geography was hostile to the truth, as witness the persecutions of those who dared to venture that the earth was round. Botany, mathematics, and geometry, as well as the natural sciences, slumbered. Geology, which proved that the earth was more than 6000 years old, was anathematized; archaeologists had the greatest difficulty to expound the truth concerning the antiquity of the human race. In purely civil matters, the clergy opposed fire and marine insurance on the ground that it was a tempting of Providence. Life insurance was regarded as an act of interference with the consequence of God’s will. Medicine met the most strenuous of opposition.

    It is impossible in this short study to analyse the specific forms of retardation which the Church exhibited to all of these branches of learning, whose only endeavor it was to search for the truth, to state the facts, and to alleviate and make more bearable man’s sojourn on this earth. However, a few of the many instances of retardation on the part of the Church will be pointed out.

    RELIGION AND ASTRONOMY

    In the early Church, astronomy, like other branches of science, was looked upon as futile, since the New Testament taught that the earth was soon to be destroyed and new heavens created.

    The heavenly bodies were looked upon by the theologians as either living beings possessing souls, or as the habitation of the angels. However, as time passed, the geocentric doctrine, the doctrine that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun and planets revolve about it, was the theory that held the highest respect.

    Copernicus, in 1543, was first to bring clearly before the world the then astounding theory that the earth and planets revolve about the sun. But not until he was on his deathbed did he dare to publish it, for he well knew the opposition with which it would be met. Even then he published it with an apologetic lie by a friend Osiander, that Copernicus had propounded the doctrine of the earth’s movement not as a fact, but as a hypothesis.

    “Thus was the greatest and most ennobling, perhaps, of scientific truths—a truth not less ennobling to religion than to science—forced in coming before the world, to sneak and crawl.” (White: “History of Warfare of Science with Theology.”)

    During the next seventy years the matter slumbered, until Galileo upheld the Copernican doctrine as the truth and proved it to be the truth by his telescope. Immediately the Church condemned the statements of Copernicus and forbade Galileo to teach or discuss them. All books which affirmed the motion of the earth were forbidden, and to read the work of Copernicus was declared to risk damnation. All branches of the Protestant Church, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican, vied with each other in denouncing the Copernican doctrine.

    One man, Giordano Bruno dared to assert the truth in the hearing of the Papacy. For this heresy he was hunted from land to land, finally trapped in Venice, imprisoned at Rome, burned alive, and his ashes scattered to the winds!

    Against Galileo, the war against the Copernican theory was concentrated. His discoveries were declared to be deceptions, and his announcements blasphemy when, in 1610, he announced that his telescope had revealed the moons of the planet Jupiter.

    In 1615, Galileo was summoned before the Inquisition at Rome, and forced to promise that he would “relinquish altogether the opinion that the sun is the centre of the world, and immovable, and that the earth moves, nor henceforth to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever verbally or in writing.”

    Pope Paul V solemnly rendered the decree that “the doctrine of the double motion of the earth about its axis and about the sun is false and entirely contrary to Holy Scripture.”

    The climax of this instance of the infallibility of the Church occurred when in his seventieth year Galileo was again brought before the Inquisition; he was forced to abjure under threats of torture and imprisonment by command of Pope Urban a truth which, in this day, is taken for granted by the youngest of children. Galileo was then kept in exile for the rest of his days, died, and was buried ignobly, apart from his family, without fitting ceremony, without monument or epitaph.

    As late as 1873 there was published, in St. Louis, a work by a president of a Lutheran teachers’ seminary in which he stated that the earth is the principal body of the universe, that it stands fixed, and that the sun and moon only serve to light it.

    Astronomy brings forth a noble array of men who have, by their intense desire for the truth, persevered against the Church, and in spite of the vilest opposition of that Church, brought to the attention of man laws that have given a meaning and order to our universe.

    Copernicus escaping persecution only by death; Bruno burned alive; Galileo imprisoned; Kepler reviled, and Newton bitterly attacked. In this manner has religion aided astronomy!

    RELIGION AND GEOGRAPHY
    The ancient Greeks, especially the Pythagoreans, Plato, and Aristotle, had evolved theories of the earth’s sphericity, which, while vague, were basic for subsequent accurate ideas that developed later.

    When Christianity sprang into existence Eusebius, St. John Chrysostom, and Cosmos evolved a complete description of the earth. They considered the earth as a parallelogram, flat, and surrounded by four seas, as a kind of house, with heaven as its upper story and the earth as its ground floor. To the north of the earth was a great mountain; at night the sun was pushed into a pit and pulled out again in the morning, with heaven as a loft and hell as a cellar. In the Atlantic Ocean, at some unknown distance from Europe, was one of the openings into hell, into which a ship sailing to this point, would tumble. The terror of this conception was one of the chief obstacles of the great voyage of Columbus. Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and Zwingli held to the opinion that a great firmament, or floor, separated the heavens from the earth; that above it were the waters and angels, and below it, the earth and man.

    During the time that the sphericity of the earth was still undecided, another question arose that was considered of far greater importance, namely, the conception of the antipodes and the problem of deciding whether human beings existed on the earth’s opposite side. It was Lactantius who asked, “Is there any one so senseless as to believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their heads? That the crops and trees grow downward? That the rains and snow and hail fall upwards toward the earth? I am at a loss as to what to say of those, who, when they have once erred, steadily persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another.”

    St. Augustine insisted that men could not be allowed by the Almighty to live there, since, if they did, they could not see Christ at His second coming, descending through the air.

    In the eighth century, a Bishop Virgil of Salzburg dared to assert that there were men living in the antipodes. He was strongly attacked by St. Boniface of Germany, who appealed to Pope Zachary for a decision. The Pope, as the infallible teacher of Christendom, made the following response: He declared it, “Perverse, iniquitous, and against Virgil’s soul.” And again another infallible statement by the infallible Pope Zachary became a doctrine of the Church.

    In Italy, in 1316, Peter of Abano, famous as a physician, promulgated the opposite view to that of the Church, for which he was persecuted by the Inquisition, and barely escaped with his life. In 1327, Cecco d’Ascoli, an astronomer, was burned alive at Florence for daring to assert that men lived in the antipodes.

    The difficulties that beset Columbus are well known. How he was hounded both in Portugal and in Spain by the clergy; and even after his discovery of America, the Papacy still maintained its theory of the flatness of the earth and the nonsense of the antipodes. Pope Alexander VI and Pope Julius II attempted to settle the disputes between Spain and Portugal by drawing some remarkable maps that may still be found; but no one dares to disturb the quiet of the ridiculous bulls that the popes issued on this dispute.

    In 1519 Magellan made his famous voyage and proved the earth to be round and that men actually lived in the antipodes. But the force of ecclesiastical stultification was so great, as it is today, that men still believed the opposite view for two hundred years after the voyage of Magellan.

    RELIGION AND CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS

    The establishment of Christianity, beginning a new evolution of theology, arrested the normal development of the physical sciences for more than 1500 years. The work begun by Aristotle and carried on to such a high state of relative perfection by Archimedes, was stifled by the early Christians. An atmosphere was then created in which physical science could not grow. The general belief derived from the New Testament was that the end of the world was at hand, and the early Church Fathers poured contempt upon all investigators of the science of nature.

    Then, too, for science there was established an insurmountable barrier, in that the most careful inductions of science from ascertained facts must conform to the view of nature given in the myth and legends of the Bible. For 1500 years science was forced to confine itself to a system of deducing scientific truth from scriptural texts. It was the accepted word of the clergy that science was futile and dangerous which led to the discrediting of Roger Bacon’s works.

    In 1163 Pope Alexander III forbade the study of physics to all ecclesiastics, which of course, in that age, meant prohibition of all such scientific studies to the only persons likely to follow them.

    Roger Bacon was first to practice extensively the experimental method of science. Through his researches the155 inventions of clocks, lenses, and the formula for extracting phosphorus, manganese, and bismuth were brought to light. Bitterly attacked by the clergy, he attempted to defend himself by stating that much which was ascribed to demons resulted from natural means. This statement but added fuel to the flame. For in 1278 the authorities of the Franciscan Order assembled at Paris, solemnly condemned Bacon’s teachings, and the general of the Franciscans, Jerome of Ascoli, afterwards Pope, threw him into prison, where he remained for fourteen years. At the age of eighty, he was released from prison declaring, “Would that I had not given myself so much trouble for the love of science.”

    “Sad is it to think of what this great man might have given to the world had ecclesiasticism allowed the gift. He held the key to treasures which would have freed mankind from ages of error and misery. With his discoveries as a basis, with his method as a guide, what might not the world have gained! Nor was the wrong done to that age alone; it was done to this age also…. Thousands of precious lives shall be lost, tens of thousands shall suffer discomfort, privations, sickness, poverty, ignorance, for lack of discoveries and methods which, but for this mistaken dealing with Roger Bacon and his compeers, would now be blessing the earth.” (White: “Warfare of Science.”)

    Centuries afterwards, for stating the same claim, namely, that much which was attributed to demons, resulted from natural causes, Cornelius Agrippa, Weyer, Flade, Loos, Bekker, and a multitude of other investigators and thinkers, suffered confiscation of property, loss of position, and even torture and death.

    In the latter half of the sixteenth century, John Baptist Porta, who was the first to show how to reduce the metallic oxides and thus laid the foundation of several important industries, was summoned to Rome by Pope Paul II, and forbidden to continue his researches.

    Both in Protestant and Catholic countries instruction in chemistry and physics was discouraged by Church authorities, and in England the theologians strenuously opposed the Royal Society and the Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Francis Bacon and Boyle were denounced by the clergy, and Lavoisier was sent to the scaffold by the Parisian mob. Priestley had his home, his library, instruments, and papers containing the results of long years of scientific research burned by a Birmingham mob that had been instigated by Anglican clergymen. He was driven into exile, and the mob would have murdered him if they could have laid their hands upon him.

    Yet, in spite of the opposition of the clergy, an opposition of such force that one may well wonder how these tender embryonic sciences could have withstood the terrific ecclesiastical onslaughts, the truths of chemistry and physics continued to diffuse themselves among the intelligent observers. The value to humanity of these two sciences is now established as inestimable.

    #29608

    Ivy
    Participant

    First of all, I re-read my post and I never said “What is culture.”….so…I don’t really understand that tangent. You seem to be saying that “religion is bad it makes us do such horrible things,” when in reality has it ever crossed your mind that human beings have ALWAYS done bad things?

    So let me get this straight. Are you stating that “seculars” have their own “culture” and that the main feature of that “culture” is “tolerance?” I just want to make sure I really understand before I respond…

     

    You then go on to say that “atheists seculars etc have discovered what is “true,” so please enlighten me Jake. Tell me what is true.

    Explain to me how religion “gets down to the cellular level.” That’s a new one for me.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 93 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.