jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
A lot of people are confused by the differences between educating and preaching.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Do Atheists Preach??
- Thread starter Mohsen
- Start date
ecco
Veteran Member
You didn't post the long cut and paste in support of any argument you made, you just posted it with an implied "here, read it and you will be impressed".
Furthermore, as I pointed out, at least one of your "scholars" was not unbiased. This was clear from the comments I made.
Your method of discussion is very similar to that of creationists who post long cut and pastes from authors associated with AIG.
If they are religious apologists they should be dismissed out of hand. I've made it clear they (at least the one that I bothered to take the time to research) are.
A book cover showing an angel is a pretty good indicator of the author's viewpoint.
I've asked before, what vast majority?
Here again you come across like the creationists who cite "thousands of scientists" who disbelieve in evolution.
Here is an example of an unbiased historical review of the Galileo incident.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/the-truth-about-galileo-and-his-conflict-with-the-catholic-church
What you, and other apologists, fail to take into account is the chilling effect these kinds of actions have on the open pursuit of scientific inquiry.
Today, millions of children are taught to distrust the science of evolution and, by extension, science in general.
Do you really presume it was better during the past thousands of years of Christian and Islamic domination?
Why did that come to an end?
Indeed. It would be very useful to attain a better understanding of the reasons why that confusion is so widespread.
I suspect that it connects to a perhaps related confusion between obedience to social expectations and actual belief in and adherence to a doctrine.
Dissolving that confusion would, IMO, be extremely beneficial for pretty much everyone.
Augustus
…
It supported my point that you were promoting historically illiterate conflict thesis mythology.
As such, a range of quotes from respected scholars of diverse backgrounds is highly relevant. I don't expect you to be impressed as the standard response of conflict mythicists is cognitive dissonance and an immediate desire to reject sources out of hand as you did.
You didn't make it clear, you asserted that he is an apologist because of the cover art and based on a complete misunderstanding of a chapter that you haven't read.
This is a review of the chapter in question, which, as I said before, discusses the attitudes of historical scientists, not apologetics:
Janet Browne, writing on the significance of the story of Noah's Ark in shaping various aspects of early modern natural history, offers one of the most innovative contributions. By organizing her discussion around a major biblical narrative, rather than a period, individual or science, she is able to engage with a wide range of natural historical ques- tions - including the use of fossil evidence, the age of the Earth, the number and distribution of different species and the prehistory of the human race - and to trace their entanglement with problems of biblical exegesis and natural theology over the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. (Book review published in the (peer-reviewed) Journal of the British Society for the History of Science)
I posted his bio that makes it very clear that he is a respected figure in his field also, but still you insist that he is an apologist because there is a photo of a statue of an angel on one book that he co-edited.
This is remarkably inane. Any book that discusses religion is likely to have religious cover art. Not all books about religion are written as apologetics though.
In case you didn't notice the book had 2 editors, one of whom is an agnostic. The scholars whose works are compiled are from a variety of backgrounds and faiths and all are respected scholars in the field, and it was published by a legitimate academic publisher.
Although they disagree about nuances, today almost all historians agree that Christianity (Catholicism as well as Protestantism) move many early-modern intellectuals to study nature systematically.4 Historians have also found that notions borrowed from Christian belief found their ways into scientific discourse, with glorious re- sults; the very notion that nature is lawful, some scholars argue, was borrowed from Christian theology.5 Christian convictions also affected how nature was studied. For example, in the six- teenth and seventeenth centuries, Augustine’s notion of original sin (which held that Adam’s Fall left humans implacably dam- aged) was embraced by advocates of “experimental natural phi- losophy.” As they saw it, fallen humans lacked the grace to understand the workings of the world through cogitation alone, requiring in their disgraced state painstaking experiment and ob- servation to arrive at knowledge of how nature works (though our knowledge even then could never be certain). In this way, Christian doctrine lent urgency to experiment.6
Historians have also found that changing Christian approaches to interpreting the Bible affected the way nature was studied in crucial ways. For example, Reformation leaders disparaged allegorical readings of Scripture, counseling their congregations to read Holy Writ literally. This approach to the Bible led some scholars to change the way they studied nature, no longer seeking the allegorical meaning of plants and animals and instead seeking what they took to be a more straightforward description of the material world.7 Also, many of those today considered “fore- fathers” of modern science found in Christianity legitimation of their pursuits. René Descartes (1596–1650) boasted of his physics that “my new philosophy is in much better agreement with all the truths of faith than that of Aristotle.”8 Isaac Newton (1642–1727) believed that his system restored the original divine wisdom God had provided to Moses and had no doubt that his Christianity bolstered his physics—and that his physics bolstered his Christi- anity.9 Finally, historians have observed that Christian churches were for a crucial millennium leading patrons of natural philosophy and science, in that they supported theorizing, experimentation, observation, exploration, documentation, and publication. (Noah J Efron - Ch9 in Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion - Harvard University Press)
(The author is Jewish btw, so it is unlikely he is engaging in christian apologetics)
The "conflict thesis" is a historiographical approach in the history of science which maintains that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science and that the relationship between religion and science inevitably leads to hostility; examples to support this thesis have commonly been drawn from the relations between science and religion in Western Europe. The thesis retains support among some scientists and in the public,[1] while most historians of science do not support the thesis, especially in its original strict form.[2][3][4][5]
Can you find contemporary scholars to support your point of view?
I'm an atheist. I used to believe the conflict thesis myths too until I actually read about the subject with an open mind.
Why do you consider this to be unbiased, yet dismiss out of hand fully referenced, published research by scholars with a far higher standing in the field of the History of Science as being 'apologists'?
It's actually pretty basic and captures very little of the story. It's not something that can be told properly in 300 words. There's actually a much better discussion in the book you mistook for apologetics (Chapter 2)
Search for the recent thread on this, gave a detailed answer in that.
Same here. It's easy, when reading Voltaire, to get the idea of an eternal conflict. But it simply isn't the case historically.
This leads to one of my interests: how can false notions promote the development of science? it is possible that certain falsities, if held through certain stages of intellectual development, actually enhance the long term development of a subject?
It is certainly possible, but I think that it is dangerous to try and work with that on purpose.
Edited to add: however, I find it more interesting to ask instead whether religion (or even pseudo-religion) should conform itself to such an unconfortable and unnecessary place as that of an adversary of science.
Edited to add: however, I find it more interesting to ask instead whether religion (or even pseudo-religion) should conform itself to such an unconfortable and unnecessary place as that of an adversary of science.
Last edited:
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Are you talking about the grand scale, or at the individual level?
I understand the concept at the macro level. I don't know enough to answer to the individual perspective though.
Oh, I very much agree. But there are just too many times in history where this seems to have been the case.
I was thinking on the grand scale of human intellectual development, but the question certainly can be raised for individuals.
Augustus
…
I think there is a tendency to assume that people in the past, especially the Greeks, thought pretty much like us and if it hadn't been for these pesky dogmatists we'd have all been living on the moon by now. This lends to an idea that advances are the result of removing biases from your thought and "seeing things as they really are", rather than many of them being based more on happy accidents and unintended consequences, as well as a long evolution of thought processes.
One point I find interesting is the idea that certain points of Christian theology, especially regarding the Fall, influenced a number of the pioneers of the experimental method as they rejected the 'intellectualist' faith in human reason and sensory experience.
"The experimental approach is justified primarily by appeals to the weakness of our sensory and cognitive capaci- ties. For many seventeenth-century English thinkers these weaknesses were understood as consequences of the Fall. Boyle and Locke, for their part, also place stress on the incapacities that necessarily attend the kind of beings that we are. But in both cases, the more important issue is the nature of human capacities rather than the nature of the Deity. And if the idea of a fall away from an originally perfect knowledge begins to decline in importance towards the end of the seventeenth century, it nonetheless played a crucial role by drawing attention to the question of the capacities of human nature in the present world." Peter Harrison - The fall of man and the foundations of modern science
It is interesting to note that even among the natural philosophers who weren't clerics or friars, there was often a strong personal interest in theology too, and this, on occasions, influenced their scientific pursuits
ecco
Veteran Member
OK, let's review.
You've referred to me as an ideologue.
You stated that my views are incredibly superficial.
You state that I'm promoting historically illiterate conflict thesis mythology.
You've referred to my comments as inane.
You've repeated that your viewpoint is supported "by the vast majority of academic historians of science". A claim you have not been able to substantiate.
All you have really done is refer to your one long cut and pastes. The same cut and pastes that you have posted in at least two other threads this year. At least one of which is from a book Gallileo goes to jail prominently advertised on...ChristianBook.com
Would you care to continue that your sources and your argument are from non-biased authors?
Augustus
…
What is a more accurate term for someone who makes subjective and highly speculative statements and states them as objective fact?
Is your objection that you are oppose the conflict thesis, or that you consider the conflict thesis is not historically illiterate mythology?
If a religious apologists rejected a scholarly text that shows they are mistaken purely on the basis of it having a photo of a statue on the front page, would you consider that argument to be "inane", or "a pretty good point actually"? Be honest now...
The thesis retains support among some scientists and in the public,[1] while most historians of science do not support the thesis, especially in its original strict form.[2][3][4][5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
Conflict mythicists tend to dismiss everything out of hand anyway, so saves time to reuse it. If someone is interested in an actual, reasoned discussion then there is plenty more. Why waste time finding it though for people who have no interest in what it actually says as they assume everyone who disagrees with them must be a rabid apologist?
I'd prefer to discuss the actual content rather than forlornly trying to demonstrate that what are quite obviously scholarly work are indeed scholarly works rather than apologetics. Hope springs eternal...
You appear to be unfamiliar with the concept of retail...(Ronald Numbers, the editor, is an agnostic btw and even getting as far as the Table of Contents and reading the chapter titles will show you it's clearly not a work of religious apologetics as it contains such Christian apologetic staples as: Myth 4. That Medieval Islamic Culture Was Inhospitable to Science, Myth 9. That Christianity Gave Birth to Modern Science, Myth 21. That Einstein Believed in a Personal God, Myth 23. That “Intelligent Design” Represents a Scientific Challenge to Evolution)
Of course.
You aren't going to find a 'smoking gun' that shows them all to be biased apologists rather than respected scholars because they actually are respected scholars. Google their names rather than looking at retail outlets and you could deduce this yourself
Just for fun, some peer reviewed journals regarding the book you think is apologetics:
"This is a book every historian of science should own."
Book Review - Isis https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/659668
Presumably this will be rejected as the journal shares a name with an Egyptian god/an Islamist terror group/etc.
The contributors to this book are all experts in the fields in which they write. Twelve are described as agnostic or atheist, eight are described as Christian, one is a Jew, one a Buddhist, one a Muslim and the remaining two Numbers finds hard to categorise. He makes the point, on the basis of these characteristics, that ‘‘the contributors to this volume have no obvious scientific or theological axes to grind’’
This book is to be thoroughly recommended to all those involved in any way in science education. This is not only because, in some cases at least, the record is set straight regarding those myths which keep on being perpetuated many years after they have been demolished by scholars. It is also because, for each of these myths, the book presents clearly an alternative position which can provide the basis for more rational and collegial discussions about the nature of the relationship between science and religion.
Book review - Science & Education https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-009-9222-6
This book thus provides a very useful survey of a wide range of myths which many of us encounter in our teaching or general conversations, and the ammunition we need to counter them.... In general, Galileo goes to jail provides a useful source of ammunition for all involved in the defence of science against misrepresentation.
Book review - Journal for the History of Astronomy http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002182861004100213
A review from someone who is certainly not an apologist:
The book helps to clear up misconceptions on both sides of the science/religion debate that pertain to history and sociology. In the end, though, they are irrelevant to the fundamental conflict between science and religion: the question of what constitutes truth and how we can access it. These ontological and epistemological tensions will persist, regardless of what history has to say. This book won’t get us closer to solving the conflict, but it can help us get our facts straight as we battle on.
Book review - New Scientist https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0262407909609362
Sorry, but @Augustus is correct. There have certainly been times of conflict between the church and outside knowledge (I think of the closing of the school of philosophy in the late Roman period), but the overall claim of a continuing, unrelenting conflict is simply false.
In particular, during the 'Dark Ages' (a term that is now rejected by most historians), there was considerable intellectual work done that was instrumental to the rise of science later. And most of that work was done in a religious setting.
I'd suggest you expand your reading just a bit. Look into Edward Grant, Toby Huff, David Lindberg, Marcia Colish, F&J Greis as authors for a more expanded view of the Middle Ages (these are from my own library). There was much more invention during this time than most seem to think, more serious consideration of a range of ideas than many would like to admit, and more deep thought into the nature of motion (which would later on pay off in Galileo and Kepler) and inertia than many might think.
The fact that there is an angel on the front cover is NOT an indictment of the book. Look inside. You might well be surprised.
ecco
Veteran Member
From your own link...
We see that a book was written that was the result of thirty years of research. A book detailing the negative impact of religion on science.
In 1896, White published A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, the culmination of over thirty years of research and publication on the subject, criticizing what he saw as restrictive, dogmatic forms of Christianity.
A few years later Walsh, a historian of medicine, wrote a book criticizing White's book. There is no indication, in your own linked article, of the amount of research done by Walsh, but it was definitely not 30 years.
James Joseph Walsh, M.D., the historian of medicine, criticized White's perspective as anti-historical in The Popes and Science; the History of the Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time (1908),[13] a book dedicated to Pope Pius X:
Was Walsh's rebuttal book biased? We can see that from the dedication.
There are "respected scholars" on both sides of any issue. Being "respected scholars" does not mean people are not biased.
Did you read the review? Did you read and understand what the essays were about? There is very little in there that dispels the notion that religion has been detrimental to science.
As just one example, one of the essays debunks the myth that Galileo was tortured. I had never heard that Galileo was tortured so the essay is pretty much of a strawman. But let's look at the Galileo story...
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/the-truth-about-galileo-and-his-conflict-with-the-catholic-church
UCLA professor Henry Kelly.
UCLA professor Henry Kelly.
When first summoned by the Roman Inquisition in 1616, Galileo was not questioned but merely warned not to espouse heliocentrism. Also in 1616, the church banned Nicholas Copernicus’ book “On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres,” published in 1543, which contained the theory that the Earth revolved around the sun. After a few minor edits, making sure that the sun theory was presented as purely hypothetical, it was allowed again in 1620 with the blessing of the church.
Sixteen years after his first encounter with the church Galileo published his “Dialogue on the Two World Systems” in 1632, and the pope, Urban VIII, ordered another investigation against him. This time he was prosecuted, following the usual methods of the Roman Inquisition.
...
First, on April 12, 1633, before any charges were laid against him, Galileo was forced to testify about himself under oath, in the hopes of obtaining a confession. This had long been a standard practice in heresy proceedings, even though it was a violation of the canonical law of inquisitorial due process
...
After his formal trial, which took place on May 10 of that year, Galileo was convicted of a “strong suspicion of heresy,” a lesser charge than actual heresy.
...
Ultimately, Galieo’s book was banned, and he was sentenced to a light regimen of penance and imprisonment at the discretion of church inquisitors.
Sixteen years after his first encounter with the church Galileo published his “Dialogue on the Two World Systems” in 1632, and the pope, Urban VIII, ordered another investigation against him. This time he was prosecuted, following the usual methods of the Roman Inquisition.
...
First, on April 12, 1633, before any charges were laid against him, Galileo was forced to testify about himself under oath, in the hopes of obtaining a confession. This had long been a standard practice in heresy proceedings, even though it was a violation of the canonical law of inquisitorial due process
...
After his formal trial, which took place on May 10 of that year, Galileo was convicted of a “strong suspicion of heresy,” a lesser charge than actual heresy.
...
Ultimately, Galieo’s book was banned, and he was sentenced to a light regimen of penance and imprisonment at the discretion of church inquisitors.
- Did the Catholic Church support the advancement of science?
- Did the Catholic Church attempt to repress the advancement of science?
ecco
Veteran Member
Considering that most of the general public was illiterate at the time, this is not surprising. Religions are OK with some scientific advancements. But only up to the point where those advancements come in conflict with doctrine. The decimal numbering system had no negative impact on the beliefs of Muslims. Mendel's studies had no negative impact on the beliefs of Christians.
That was not the case with Copernicus who was condemned by both the Catholic and Protestant Church.
That was not the case with Darwin. Even today religious leaders condemn "Darwinism".
Even today there are bans on stem cell research because of religious objections.
Augustus
…
Yes I read the review, and also the book, it appears you have read neither though...
Almost half of its authors are agnostics or atheists, and while the rest are religious no one religious group is dominant, with five being non-Christian. Only eight of the authors are practicing Christians, and of these but two are evangelical. Published by a secular press and edited by a self-confessed nonbeliever (albeit a formerly religious one), this book was not con- ceived with a central Christian or even more generally religious agenda. Nor is there strong evidence of a general attempt to promote the opposite of the conflict thesis—that is, harmony between science and religion—although un- doubtedly some of the contributors would not be averse to this (evidence here and there in the book suggests that at least a handful are proba- bly not in favor of the harmony thesis). That is not to say that the book does not have an over- arching agenda. That agenda is the more mun- dane one of historical accuracy, and in its pur- suit a disparate range of apologists who propagate myths about science and religion directly and indirectly receive a dressing down, from the New Atheists and antireligious secularists to New Agers and antisecular Creationists...
Galileo Goes to Jail contains a wonderful array of chapters covering myths that span two thousand years of the history of science. The consistency of quality is laudable and the cre- dentials of its authors impressive. The chapters are forceful yet balanced, compact yet informa- tive, scholarly yet highly readable. This is a book that should have broad appeal, and it is a book that should be read by a broad audience. Quite apart from its great value for the study of science and religion, the book provides a com- mendable education in the history of science. Read it cover to cover, tell others about it, loan it to students, insist that your library acquire a copy or two. If this book has its desired effect, undergraduates will include a lot less mythology about science and religion in their essays. And perhaps, also, students will hear less of it in the classroom.
You do realise there has been more than one rebuttal in the last 120 years, and that in 120 year periods academic disciplines often advance significantly?
Another quote from the book review you obviously didn't read yet think it supports your view:
It is also remarkable how often Draper and White come up in the chapters as promoters of many of the myths discussed in the book. Now, the mythologies Draper and White promoted have long since been exposed by historians of science, yet these myths still shape popular discourse about science and religion, especially in the media. Could it be because many of the correctives have appeared in scholarly books and papers little read by the nonspecialist? This work, with its semipopular format and easy-to- digest chapters, has a much greater chance of reaching a wide audience. Surely, there is a lesson here: historians of science need to bring their work to the public.
Like I said, there is a much better discussion of the issue in the "angel book" than your 300 word internet effort.
One of the main issues at the time of Galileo was that there was significant scientific dispute over his ideas, and the church only made significant changes to theological positions when the science was settled on an issue. There was also aspects of a personality clash with those in power, and he also retained significant support from others within the church which was far from the monolithic bloc it is sometimes assumed.
But I've no problem with agreeing that the idea that the Church acted against the interests of scientific progress in the Galileo affair, even if it is much more complex than is generally assumed.
Both really.
The general scholarly consensus is that Christianity had significant positive impacts on the development of science, but also has, at times, acted to its detriment.
Conflict mythicists overstate the amount that was detrimental, for example, how many scientists can you name who were persecuted for their scientific beliefs? (my guess is one).
It also severely underestimates the positive contributions, and ignores the fact that it was the foremost patron of the sciences, the creation of the university system, the translation and spreading of classical natural philosophy from the Greek and Arabic traditions, also the fact that studying certain sciences only gained prestige and funding due to their association with theology. Many societies (China for example) pretty much ignored any 'unproductive' sciences that didn't contribute to direct tangible benefits.
Thinking rationally, if the church was so eager to repress the advancement of science, why were so many scientists monks and clerics? Why were church resources used to translate and spread scientific literature if the purpose was to repress it?
"Hey chaps, how should we repress this devilish scientific knowledge?"
'I know chief! let's translate as much as possible from Greek and Arabic then spread copies round the country. That'll keep it repressed for sure.'
Last edited:
Isn’t that obvious?
Religious people are not like believers in fairies. I do not preach to believers in fairies. People like Christians or Muslims believe in a God that abhors, among other things, homosexuality, women not dressed like Batman, evolution, fornication, stem research, education, abortion, women freedom, mini skirts, women driving cars, to be ridiculed, euthanasia, etc.
Problem is, believers in such an entity try to enforce policies against some of these God’s dislikes that affect every one, unlike believers in fairies. And this because they believe in something that has no more evidence than any other imaginary entity. Which is quite ridiculous if you think about it. What would you say if I, say, proclaim that beards are bad because Mickey Mouse said so?
So, they have it coming if atheists stand up and try to knock down such beliefs. And ridicule is fully justified,... and sort of natural if you think about it. Lol.
So. Be like believes in fairies or leprechauns, keep your belief for yourself, and do not try to affect common policy because of your metaphysical beliefs, and we will stop preaching. Promised.
It should not be so difficult, since leprchauns and things like the Abrahamic God have the same evidence and plausibility. Therefore, I do not expect a major personal and intellectual stress by doing that.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Right. And within that boundary, a great deal can be studied. For example, all of astronomy, mechanics, and optics. And, in all of these, significant advances were made during the Middle Ages over what had been done in the Greco-Roman period. Many of these investigations directly contradicted Aristotle, were based on controlled experiments, and had significant mathematical and theoretical backing.
Not during his life. He didn't publish his main work until his deathbed. And a significant amount of investigation into heliocentrism and the Copernican system was conducted without any interference from the church(es). The whole Galileo affair has more complications in it than a simple 'science against religion' story. Don't forget that Tycho was operating quite well at the same time and Kepler was able to promote his discoveries (and communicate with Galileo).Between Galileo and Newton, it was the Franciscans that did much of the investigations into the new astronomy.
Yes, and many accept it. One point here is that 'religion' isn't monolithic: it has its own internal politics and differences.
Agreed. And also many who are religious that think such investigations should be done.
Look, I am certainly not attempting to whitewash the negatives of religion in history. I think they are significant and have been a bane of humans for too long. But I also don't want to ignore the fact that historically, the interaction between science and religion has not always been one of conflict. Great scientific advances, including the very basis of doing science (the scientific method of observation, hypothesis formation, and testing), were frequently done not just by people associated with the church, but by those in positions of great power int he church (Pope Sylvester, Albert the Great, and Thomas Bradwardine come to mind). Often those in power expressly promoted scientific investigation.
ecco
Veteran Member
Is the above your words or just another cut and paste? Oh, it's just another cut and paste.
You linked to a wiki article. I read the wiki article. I posted a rebuttal from the wiki article that you linked. Do you expect me to go all over the place to find articles supporting your argument?
Oh dear, another cut and paste.
My internet effort? So far, any quotes I've pasted came from your links.
Finally, some original thought and words. Spoken like a true apologetic. Are you really going to try to convince me or anyone else that the reason that the Church tried Galileo and banned his works is because the science wasn't settled?
Complex, how so? Galileo's concepts were at odds with scripture. The Church tried to silence Galileo.
As I wrote sometime back, Religion is OK with science up to the point that science conflicts with the religious beliefs of the time - then it steps in and bans the advancement of scientific knowledge.
Previously - and specifically in reference to Galileo...
- Did the Catholic Church support the advancement of science?
- Did the Catholic Church attempt to repress the advancement of science?
Apologetics.
I cannot tell you how many scientifically minded people were dissuaded from pursuing science as a result of the Church's very open and public beratement of Galileo. It doesn't matter how many were persecuted. It doesn't have to be about actual persecution. Setting a hostile environment is just as effective.
None of which contradicted scripture. Does Liberty University teach Evolution?
But that's the fun part of using subjective terms. Many can be conflated with whatever I like, including 'more than my ten fingers'.