Quotes from scientists

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This one fails, actually. Religion is full of doubt, too. Religious belief cannot be equated with certainty, any more than science can.

But I like most of the others.

Yes--but doubt is hammered home as being sinful. To doubt is to sin-- to the point of condemnation, according to most.

Doubts are to be beaten down, humiliated, smashed, folded, spindled and stomped flat so that no possibility of doubt could remain. Not even the teeniest tiny iota. Do do otherwise? Would be to "give in to sin".

Meanwhile? Science not only embraces doubt? It has made it Sacrosanct to Good Science: Doubt Everything.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This promotes the naive idea that until science came along, everyone took everything in the bible literally. This is a myth that has taken root only in the c.20th. Metaphor and allegory have been recognised in the bible from the earliest days of Christianity.

That's actually pretty accurate, if you go by the majority of people. It wasn't until recently, that most people could even read. Back before science? Less than 1% or something, were rich enough to get learning. Meanwhile, the Great Unwashed, were taught "literal" bible-- of course-- they were never actually given any to read for themselves, what with them being illiterate.

The Great Reformation went against the Mighty Catholic Dogma of Keep Them All Ignorant, Dumb and Stupid.

 

[exchemist]

Yes--but doubt is hammered home as being sinful. To doubt is to sin-- to the point of condemnation, according to most.

Doubts are to be beaten down, humiliated, smashed, folded, spindled and stomped flat so that no possibility of doubt could remain. Not even the teeniest tiny iota. Do do otherwise? Would be to "give in to sin".

Meanwhile? Science not only embraces doubt? It has made it Sacrosanct to Good Science: Doubt Everything.

I think we might need a reference to support that claim . Where do you get that from? I do not recall at any point being taught that that doubt was sinful.

Ratzinger once wrote: "Both the believer and the unbeliever share, each in his own way, doubt and belief if they do not hide from themselves and from the truth of their being. Neither can quite escape either doubt or belief; for the one, faith is present against doubt; for the other, through doubt and in the form of doubt."

Whatever one thinks of the point he is trying to make, he seems to acknowledge that doubt is an almost inevitable part of grappling with religious ideas, whether one classes oneself as a believer or not.

 

[exchemist]

That's actually pretty accurate, if you go by the majority of people. It wasn't until recently, that most people could even read. Back before science? Less than 1% or something, were rich enough to get learning. Meanwhile, the Great Unwashed, were taught "literal" bible-- of course-- they were never actually given any to read for themselves, what with them being illiterate.

The Great Reformation went against the Mighty Catholic Dogma of Keep Them All Ignorant, Dumb and Stupid.

It was the Reformation that led, eventually, to people starting to think it was all to be taken literally.

 

[Augustus]

I think we might need a reference to support that claim . Where do you get that from?

I believe its official title is Generic New Atheist Myth #17 from the list of 'alternative facts' one must uncritically believe in before labelling oneself a 'freethinker'

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I think we might need a reference to support that claim . Where do you get that from? I do not recall at any point being taught that that doubt was sinful..

The bible is chock full of such things, but that's okay-- I expect more liberal denominations do not hammer it nearly as much as what I was exposed to as a child. Moreover, isn't guilt the primary motivation of Catholics?

Ratzinger once wrote: "Both the believer and the unbeliever share, each in his own way, doubt and belief if they do not hide from themselves and from the truth of their being. Neither can quite escape either doubt or belief; for the one, faith is present against doubt; for the other, through doubt and in the form of doubt.".

Who? Without knowing the person, the quote has much less impact.

Whatever one thinks of the point he is trying to make, he seems to acknowledge that doubt is an almost inevitable part of grappling with religious ideas, whether one classes oneself as a believer or not.

All of my Jewish friends would agree, that wrestling with doubt is one of the main goals, and may be the entire purpose. Who am I to argue? I have always had a great deal of respect for the Jewish Ideas about religion, indeed, if I were to return to theology, that's the direction I'd go, I suspect.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It was the Reformation that led, eventually, to people starting to think it was all to be taken literally.

I expect that was a response to common folk, finally being granted the opportunity to read the bible for themselves-- for no where in it's pages, is the suggestion to do otherwise...

People who refuse to think about it much, tend to go down that road.

Which always made me ask: Why would god permit such a silly book in the first place?

I would think that a Supreme Intelligence would have done a better job...

 

[exchemist]

The bible is chock full of such things, but that's okay-- I expect more liberal denominations do not hammer it nearly as much as what I was exposed to as a child. Moreover, isn't guilt the primary motivation of Catholics?


Who? Without knowing the person, the quote has much less impact.


All of my Jewish friends would agree, that wrestling with doubt is one of the main goals, and may be the entire purpose. Who am I to argue? I have always had a great deal of respect for the Jewish Ideas about religion, indeed, if I were to return to theology, that's the direction I'd go, I suspect.

Oh sorry, Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI. Before he became pope he was considered the Catholic Church's rottweiler on doctrine. So an authority, as far as Catholicism goes.

I have often heard that Catholicism and Judaism have more in common than is generally appreciated.

 

[exchemist]

I expect that was a response to common folk, finally being granted the opportunity to read the bible for themselves-- for no where in it's pages, is the suggestion to do otherwise...

People who refuse to think about it much, tend to go down that road.

Which always made me ask: Why would god permit such a silly book in the first place?

I would think that a Supreme Intelligence would have done a better job...

Yes that seems to be what happened. In fact there was an interesting extract posted recently on this by @Vouthon on another thread, making the case that paradoxically it was the primacy given to reason, at the Enlightenment - itself the product of the Reformation - that began to insist on everything in the bible being intellectually fully worked out and explicitly believed, and this led people to set the word of the bible as axiomatic "truth" and then try to derive everything from it. Whereas in the medieval world, there was a lot more "magic and mystery" and allegories were widely embraced as ways of communicating the divine in a less explicit way.

I've no doubt you have your personal reasons for describing the bible as a silly book, but I look on it as a work of literature that pervades our European culture and is full of symbolism, a lot of it quite helpful, in various ways.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Oh sorry, Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI. Before he became pope he was considered the Catholic Church's rottweiler on doctrine. So an authority, as far as Catholicism goes.

I have often heard that Catholicism and Judaism have more in common than is generally appreciated.

Fair enough, and thanks for the clarification of your point.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Yes that seems to be what happened. In fact there was an interesting extract posted recently on this by @Vouthon on another thread, making the case that paradoxically it was the primacy given to reason, at the Enlightenment - itself the product of the Reformation - that began to insist on everything in the bible being intellectually fully worked out and explicitly believed, and this led people to set the word of the bible as axiomatic "truth" and then try to derive everything from it. Whereas in the medieval world, there was a lot more "magic and mystery" and allegories were widely embraced as ways of communicating the divine in a less explicit way.

I've no doubt you have your personal reasons for describing the bible as a silly book, but I look on it as a work of literature that pervades our European culture and is full of symbolism, a lot of it quite helpful, in various ways.

Literature? Sure. Entirely, 100% man-made? Absolutely! I've read it multiple times, and have made systematic college-level studies too.

To me, it's very existence is all the proof a rational person needs, that if there is a god?

It's either a malicious trickster? Or doesn't exist in the first place. (Or entirely uncaring as to the collective fate of peoples, and therefore, can be safely ignored as irrelevant to life on earth.)

To permit the existence of the bible-- with it's internal contradictions that cannot easily be explained to "translation errors" (it's too pervasive), says to me nothing Good or Divine had anything to do with it.

I expect Superior Workmanship from a being who is supposed to be... good. The bible isn't it.

No holy book qualifies, in fact... I have a much higher expectation for something worthy of the title "god".

I'm sad to witness the incredibly low standards that theists are willing to go, when it comes to "god's activities".... they will literally excuse chattel slavery...