Misconceptions about atheism. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Misconceptions about atheism.


Gunhaver
05-31-2012, 04:48
Sam Harris addresses some of the misconceptions that have popped up here multiple times.


Sam Harris - Misconceptions About Atheism - YouTube

series1811
05-31-2012, 04:59
It's ironic, that while complaining about atheists being stereotyped, he is stereotyping non-atheists like crazy.

Thanks for making that point.

9jeeps
05-31-2012, 05:20
Atheist seemed to be more interested in Christianity than most Christians.

GreenDrake
05-31-2012, 05:25
He simply explains the limitations of faith, I don't see him complaining at all.

series1811
05-31-2012, 05:36
He simply explains the limitations of faith, I don't see him complaining at all.

That would sure be his take on it, I'll bet. Hence, the problem.

Geko45
05-31-2012, 06:52
It's ironic, that while complaining about atheists being stereotyped, he is stereotyping non-atheists like crazy.

Atheist seemed to be more interested in Christianity than most Christians.

Geez guys, it's not always about you.

:upeyes:

series1811
05-31-2012, 07:40
Geez guys, it's not always about you.

:upeyes:

It is in that video.

Gunhaver
05-31-2012, 07:46
He simply explains the limitations of faith, I don't see him complaining at all.

Making good points= complaining.

series1811
05-31-2012, 07:49
Making good points= complaining.

Again.

My perception = good.

Your perception = bad.

Until you get that problem, we're spinning tires. But, it's okay. That seems to be the SOP. :supergrin:

Gunhaver
05-31-2012, 07:53
Again.

My perception = good.

Your perception = bad.

Until you get that problem, we're spinning tires. But, it's okay. That seems to be the SOP. :supergrin:

What points in the video did you disagree with or find inaccurate?

series1811
05-31-2012, 07:58
What points in the video did you disagree with or find inaccurate?

Well, for one, the stereotypes he portrays when he tells us what Christians and Muslims think. He certainly misses the mark with my beleifs as a Christian.

Think how mad you get when people stereotype atheists.

(I know you think they are wrong, but also think this guy is right.)

Again, for the last time. Hence, the problem.

GreenDrake
05-31-2012, 08:38
Religion prohibits the "what-ifs" and the capacity to consider the unheard of.

series1811
05-31-2012, 08:54
Religion prohibits the "what-ifs" and the capacity to consider the unheard of.

Second problem. Staying on topic without going off on weird religion bashing rants. :supergrin:

Oh, well. Carry on. See you guys, later. :supergrin:

GreenDrake
05-31-2012, 08:58
It's a point he made about the limitless possibilities of atheism, sorry if you missed the point.

Blast
05-31-2012, 10:28
Second problem. Staying on topic without going off on weird religion bashing rants. :supergrin:

Oh, well. Carry on. See you guys, later. :supergrin:
Standard procedure of the atheists in this forum.
Going off on different tangents, twisting people's words and context, answering questions with questions, diversionary tactics, etc. I've observed it here for years.
The evidence is documented. Just pick a thread.
As I've mentioned many times... I have atheist friends and know others. None of them have any issues with believers, they have more important things on their minds.

Geko45
05-31-2012, 10:54
Going off on different tangents

The math clearly supports our position better.

twisting people's words and context

I grow tired of your accusations.

answering questions with questions

What are you getting at?

diversionary tactics, etc.

The real issue here is your intolerance of others.

:tongueout: :wavey:

void *
05-31-2012, 13:10
It's ironic, that while complaining about atheists being stereotyped, he is stereotyping non-atheists like crazy.

Thanks for making that point.

a) Does he say that *all* theists make the claims he is talking about? No, he does not.
b) Are the claims he is talking about made by various people who believe? Yes, they are.

Where's the stereotyping again?

Paul7
05-31-2012, 13:16
Religion prohibits the "what-ifs" and the capacity to consider the unheard of.

What if the "what-ifs" and unheard of is called God?

Roering
05-31-2012, 14:09
a) Does he say that *all* theists make the claims he is talking about? No, he does not.
b) Are the claims he is talking about made by various people who believe? Yes, they are.

Where's the stereotyping again?

A good point. And one that bears repeating that there are many denominations of atheism out there so while a particular stereotype may fit one group of atheists, it most likely will not fit all.

Paul7
05-31-2012, 15:17
A good point. And one that bears repeating that there are many denominations of atheism out there so while a particular stereotype may fit one group of atheists, it most likely will not fit all.

Exactly. Can't we make the same criticism of atheism as we get of Christianity, i.e., there are so many variations of non-belief that it is impossible to be sure which one is right?

void *
05-31-2012, 17:20
Exactly. Can't we make the same criticism of atheism as we get of Christianity, i.e., there are so many variations of non-belief that it is impossible to be sure which one is right?

Lack of belief in a deity doesn't require belief in anything else. You can take each posit on its own, evaluate the evidence for it, and accept or reject. As I've noted in other threads, even the lack of belief in a deity is a provisional conclusion. If you're doing it right, imho, *all* conclusions would be provisional, subject to change on the basis of evidence, except for those that are pure mathematics or pure logic (and thus don't need to depend on reality to be true - for instance, "In a Euclidean geometry, in any right triangle, the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares whose sides are the two legs" is a true statement, even though the physical geometry of our reality is not necessarily Euclidean - the earth is a globe, etc).

Woofie
05-31-2012, 17:34
I'm getting tired of arguing about you atheists' religion.

High-Gear
05-31-2012, 19:45
What if the "what-ifs" and unheard of is called God?
God of the gaps? One upon a time man saw god everywhere there was something unexplained...lightning, a storm, a recovery from a disease. Now we understand the natural world and the god of the gaps is becoming smaller and more meaningless.


I think "the limitations of dogma" would be more correct. When one starts with an answer (religious dogma) and has to work to bend the world to conform with it, or ignore new posibilities, he limits his potential growth, and the advancement of the human species.

High-Gear
05-31-2012, 19:49
Lets face it, alchemy was a good first attempt at chemistry.
Astrology was a good first attempt at cosmology.
And religion was a good first attempt at philosophy.

Lets get on with the 21st century and leave these notions to antiquity.

Paul7
05-31-2012, 20:02
I think "the limitations of dogma" would be more correct. When one starts with an answer (religious dogma) and has to work to bend the world to conform with it, or ignore new posibilities, he limits his potential growth, and the advancement of the human species.

If only your side could see your own dogma. For example, you don't know what set off the Big Bang, how the first non-life became life, or now rationality arose from irrationality, but you know for sure God had nothing to do with it.

Tilley
05-31-2012, 20:03
I never listen to a guy who looks like Lee Harvey Oswald.:whistling:

juggy4711
05-31-2012, 20:22
If only your side could see your own dogma. For example, you don't know what set off the Big Bang, how the first non-life became life, or now rationality arose from irrationality, but you know for sure God had nothing to do with it.

You do not know what dogma means and/or are using the term incorrectly.

Syclone538
05-31-2012, 22:15
If only your side could see your own dogma. For example, you don't know what set off the Big Bang, how the first non-life became life, or now rationality arose from irrationality, but you know for sure God had nothing to do with it.

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuAzDSxGLgSW8Cd3P3PjIbP1czdW_6amwan7CnKZwTO5ZBIv-n

I know you've read this from us many times, but most atheists are also agnostic and don't claim to know for sure anything about any deity.

void *
05-31-2012, 22:26
I know you've read this from us many times, but most atheists are also agnostic and don't claim to know for sure anything about any deity.

I figure there's a high probability that despite being told this multiple times, he'll make the same claim at some point in the future.

Animal Mother
05-31-2012, 23:23
If only your side could see your own dogma. For example, you don't know what set off the Big Bang, how the first non-life became life, or now rationality arose from irrationality, but you know for sure God had nothing to do with it. No, the scientists don't know that. They know there's no evidence of that, and until there is, proceed as if it isn't that case because "God did it" is not a productive hypothesis as our creationist cohorts have so ably proven. If you have such evidence, please do share it.

Paul7
06-01-2012, 09:09
They know there's no evidence of that, and until there is, proceed as if it isn't that case because "God did it" is not a productive hypothesis

As we've gone over before, belief in God didn't seem to slow down the founders of Western science.

Paul7
06-01-2012, 09:09
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuAzDSxGLgSW8Cd3P3PjIbP1czdW_6amwan7CnKZwTO5ZBIv-n

I know you've read this from us many times, but most atheists are also agnostic and don't claim to know for sure anything about any deity.

As you people say about Christians, with so many skeptic belief variations how do you know yours is the right one?

High-Gear
06-01-2012, 09:26
If only your side could see your own dogma. For example, you don't know what set off the Big Bang, how the first non-life became life, or now rationality arose from irrationality, but you know for sure God had nothing to do with it.

Your statement is not accurate. I am very open minded as are scientists who allow new evidence to change their opinions about topics. I have never said god couldn't have anything to do with the matter, as could have the flying spaghetti monster or the interstellar unicorn, however there is no evidence for any of them. I'd you choose to submit god as a plausible causative factor, it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence.

Syclone538
06-01-2012, 09:27
That's just it, we (agnostic atheists) don't claim to know.

High-Gear
06-01-2012, 09:33
As we've gone over before, belief in God didn't seem to slow down the founders of Western science.

Does the term "Dark Ages" mean anything to you? Religion impaired scientific advancement for hundreds of years.

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 09:39
As we've gone over before, belief in God didn't seem to slow down the founders of Western science.And as we've also gone over before, none of those founders used "God did it" as either their starting point or their conclusion, unlike creationists.

High-Gear
06-01-2012, 09:48
As you people say about Christians, with so many skeptic belief variations how do you know yours is the right one?

Again, I dont claim to be "right", I hold the only logically defensible position with the evidence available. If you have evidence to support your position please present it.

If all you can do is make a statement without evidence, dont be upset when it is dismissed without evidence.

Gunhaver
06-01-2012, 10:12
As we've gone over before, belief in God didn't seem to slow down the founders of Western science.

What base line do you have for how fast they would have progressed had they not had any religion in their lives?

Paul7
06-01-2012, 10:41
What base line do you have for how fast they would have progressed had they not had any religion in their lives?

According to Whitehead and Oppenheimer, Christianity is the basis for Western science.

Paul7
06-01-2012, 10:42
And as we've also gone over before, none of those founders used "God did it" as either their starting point or their conclusion, unlike creationists.

They firmly believed God created, rather than nothing times nobody = everything.

Paul7
06-01-2012, 10:43
That's just it, we (agnostic atheists) don't claim to know.

So you're open to the possibility of the God of the Bible existing?

void *
06-01-2012, 11:01
They firmly believed God created, rather than nothing times nobody = everything.

Who has claimed nothing times nobody = everything?

High-Gear
06-01-2012, 11:09
So you're open to the possibility of the God of the Bible existing?

See my post above, show us some evidence.

Paul7
06-01-2012, 11:10
Who has claimed nothing times nobody = everything?

You may not agree with my characterization, but that is essentially what naturalistic evolution is.

Why is there something instead of nothing?

High-Gear
06-01-2012, 11:14
They firmly believed God created, rather than nothing times nobody = everything.

Who is they? You seem to speak for every scientist in history.

Here is a list of several hundred who did not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

As for the religious scientists...
Many scientific discoveries were made by "religious" men for the same reason that most of the great works of art are religious in nature...the church was the largest bank! The other reason is the church could KILL YOU if you were a nonbeliever. See the trial of Galileo, or read about Capernicus was deemed a heratic for his heliocentric model of the solar system. It has not been safe to be an outspoken atheist, remember the last inquisition took place in the 1800's.

Many scientists of yore also believed the earth was flat in accordance with the church's teaching. That mistake does not diminsh the discoveries in their respective fields of study.

Syclone538
06-01-2012, 11:36
So you're open to the possibility of the God of the Bible existing?

Yes. Haven't we been over this enough times?

High-Gear
06-01-2012, 11:41
You may not agree with my characterization, but that is essentially what naturalistic evolution is.

Why is there something instead of nothing?

1. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

2. That is a question being discussed. String theory and a multi-verse hypothesis is pretty cool stuff. However "god did it" being the beginning and end of the conversation is useless. If you could present some evidence that "god did it" you could join the conversation.

void *
06-01-2012, 11:43
You may not agree with my characterization, but that is essentially what naturalistic evolution is.

No, it is not. The theory of evolution only makes claims about life changing once life exists. Abiogenesis has various possibilities, none of which has crossed the threshold to being an accepted theory.

The big bang theory, likewise, merely looks at the observable evidence, which indicates that the universe has been, and is, expanding, and if you extrapolate that back you end up with a single quantum containing all the energy of the current universe. The theory makes no claims about how that quantum got there, or even if it's necessary for that quantum to have a cause or not.

Neither of those is a position that equates to 'nothing times nobody = everything'.

I disagree with your characterization because your characterization is not actually a claim made by either of those theories.

If the question is "How did nothing become something", the scientific answer (currently, to the best of my knowledge) is something along the lines of "Look, we can't state with any probability that 'nothing became something' is even a required statement".

Schabesbert
06-01-2012, 11:47
As for the religious scientists...
Many scientific discoveries were made by "religious" men for the same reason that most of the great works of art are religious in nature...the church was the largest bank! The other reason is the church could KILL YOU if you were a nonbeliever. See the trial of Galileo, or read about Capernicus was deemed a heratic for his heliocentric model of the solar system.
False.

Many scientists of yore also believed the earth was flat in accordance with the church's teaching.
Name one.

You seem to be repeating falsehoods that have little or no basis in fact.

High-Gear
06-01-2012, 11:51
Isnt it the position of creationists that in the beginning tere was nothing, and that nothing became something?

High-Gear
06-01-2012, 12:10
False.


Name one.

You seem to be repeating falsehoods that have little or no basis in fact.

I dont understand your statement. Are you saying it is false that the church would kill heratics?


Thank you for pointing out an error. I used the term "flat" as a common term for the understanding the earth was a disk with edges. This was my understanding and associated with the bible verses citing the earth had "4 corners". I was aware helenistic greeks had an understanding of a spherical earth, but thought this knowledge was lost in the dark ages. After researching a bit I have found some sources indicating the understanding of a sherical earth was more widespread than I previously thought.

My point stands though. Just because a scientist is in error in one area does not diminish his discoveries in another area.

Paul7
06-01-2012, 12:30
Who is they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

Kind of kills the theory that Christianity is detrimental to science, does it not?

Here is a list of several hundred who did not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

Long after the beginning of Western science, which is what I was talking about. These atheists are working on the shoulders of the Christian founders.

Many scientists of yore also believed the earth was flat in accordance with the church's teaching.

In the book of Isaiah it says "The Lord sits upon the CIRCLE of the earth."

Schabesbert
06-01-2012, 12:39
I dont understand your statement. Are you saying it is false that the church would kill heratics?
That is mostly false, but the main thing I was referring to is the supposed anti-scientific stance of the Church.

Copernicus was not a heretic and was indeed supported in his research by the Church. He dedicated his most famous book to Pope Paul III.


My point stands though. Just because a scientist is in error in one area does not diminish his discoveries in another area.
True. Although I might contend that that was your only point.

High-Gear
06-01-2012, 13:52
That is mostly false, but the main thing I was referring to is the supposed anti-scientific stance of the Church.

Copernicus was not a heretic and was indeed supported in his research by the Church. He dedicated his most famous book to Pope Paul III.



True. Although I might contend that that was your only point.

Copernicus Published his writings the year he died and was declared a heratic posthumously if I recall correctly.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-6509699.html

Gallilelo was tried as a heratic during the inquisition.

My point was simply saying there was a time that anyone who admitted being an atheist could be killed as a heratic or apostate. Therefore these great scientists may not have been as religious as they let on. We will never know. At any rate their religiousity has nothing to do with their scientific discoveries. The previous point was if one allows dogma to prevent them from opening their minds to posibilities (i.e. evolution vs. creationism) they limit their ability to make advancments.

void *
06-01-2012, 14:06
His publisher added a preface which stated that it was not an attempt to claim that in reality the earth orbited the sun, but rather should be considered a mathematical trick to get accurate results.

Guss
06-01-2012, 15:37
What if the "what-ifs" and unheard of is called God?
And what if it wasn't YOUR god?

Schabesbert
06-01-2012, 16:12
Copernicus Published his writings the year he died and was declared a heratic posthumously if I recall correctly.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-6509699.html
Nope. "Some" people in the Church had thought that his ideas were heretical, but you can ALWAYS find "some" people in any large group that have any type of thought.

Gallilelo was tried as a heratic during the inquisition.
Not really. He was tried for suspicion of heresy, but even that was only tangentially associated with geocentrism. Basically, Galileo insisted that geocentrism was proven when it in fact wasn't at the time, but more importantly, that geocentrism proved that the bible had factual errors. This would only be true if you took HIS interpretation of certain obscure passages to claim heliocentrism. Galileo was no theologian, but insisted on his interpretation anyway.

Actually, though, the real reason for his trial was personal and political. He mocked certain members of the Church, and especially the pope, who, while a very brilliant man and a respectable scientist in his own right, had an ego approaching that of Galileo's.

My point was simply saying there was a time that anyone who admitted being an atheist could be killed as a heratic or apostate.
Not true.

Therefore these great scientists may not have been as religious as they let on.
Even the plethora of Catholic PRIESTS? Canonized SAINTS? No, these were not closet athiests.

We will never know. At any rate their religiousity has nothing to do with their scientific discoveries.
Actually, it does, for multiple reasons. For one, the Church has been a huge patron of the sciences, allowing science to flourish. Second, the belief in an unchanging God who has established natural laws has led them to believe that these laws can be discovered and have an inherent beauty and simplicity, as opposed to, say, the belief in Allah who is ever-changing and capricious.

These are just 2 of many reasons.

The previous point was if one allows dogma to prevent them from opening their minds to posibilities (i.e. evolution vs. creationism) they limit their ability to make advancments.
The Catholic Church, for one (and by far the largest Christian community) doesn't hold these beliefs in conflict. And I subscribe to that position. However, evolution by random chance is something that I don't subscribe to, and in fact there are steps in evolution that are so wildly improbable that their chance of happening on a random basis approaches the absurd.


Edited to add:
I forgot to give you a link to a good article on this issue: The Galileo Controversy (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy)

Paul7
06-01-2012, 19:58
To quote Alfred North Whitehead, "the worst that happened to men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof, before dying peacefully in his bed."

Historian Gary Ferngren wrote, "The traditional picture of Galileo as a martyr to intellectual freedom and a victim of the church's opposition to science has been demonstrated to be little more than a caricature."

The case was an "anomaly", historian Thomas Lessl wrote, "a momentary break in the otherwise harmonious relationship" that had existed between Christianity and science.

There is no other example in history of the Catholic church condemning a scientific theory, contrary to the impression given by skeptics here.

High-Gear
06-01-2012, 20:15
To quote Alfred North Whitehead, "the worst that happened to men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof, before dying peacefully in his bed."

Historian Gary Ferngren wrote, "The traditional picture of Galileo as a martyr to intellectual freedom and a victim of the church's opposition to science has been demonstrated to be little more than a caricature."

The case was an "anomaly", historian Thomas Lessl wrote, "a momentary break in the otherwise harmonious relationship" that had existed between Christianity and science.

There is no other example in history of the Catholic church condemning a scientific theory, contrary to the impression given by skeptics here.


Tell that to Bruno.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno#Retrospective_views_of_Bruno

Or Servetus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus#Imprisonment_and_execution


And before you say they were executed not because of their scientific studies, but rather for such crimes as blasphemy (not really a crime) please understand my earlier point. Everyone had to be a good desciple of the church at the time, or fear such treatment. Imprisonment, forfeiture of property, torture, and even death. You wouldnt expect to see too many Atheists speaking up.

Paul7
06-01-2012, 22:04
Tell that to Bruno.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno#Retrospective_views_of_Bruno

Or Servetus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus#Imprisonment_and_execution


And before you say they were executed not because of their scientific studies, but rather for such crimes as blasphemy (not really a crime) please understand my earlier point. Everyone had to be a good desciple of the church at the time, or fear such treatment. Imprisonment, forfeiture of property, torture, and even death. You wouldnt expect to see too many Atheists speaking up.

Bruno was clearly a victim of theological persecution. Your own link says on the idea that he was a martyr of science - "Others oppose such views, and claim this alleged connection to be exaggerated, or outright false."

The same could be said of Servetus, who was no atheist. If you believe him to be some closet atheist, let's see your evidence.

Of course this persecution was wrong, and against the teaching of Christ, who said in a Matt. 13 parable:

"He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."

In other words, we are not to try and separate true from false believers, lest we damage the true believers out of ignorance. God will do that on the last day.

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 22:08
Nope. "Some" people in the Church had thought that his ideas were heretical, but you can ALWAYS find "some" people in any large group that have any type of thought. Some people implies a few Catholics disagreed. That is at best a misrepresentation. Among those "some" was Robert Bellarmine, who wrote, "Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless." (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/letterbellarmine.html)

He wrote this in a letter in 1615, at that point in time, what position did he hold? In the letter, he mentions the findings of the Council of Trent, was that an authoritative meeting of the Church or just "some" Catholics getting together for a chat?
Not really. He was tried for suspicion of heresy, but even that was only tangentially associated with geocentrism. Basically, Galileo insisted that geocentrism was proven when it in fact wasn't at the time, but more importantly, that geocentrism proved that the bible had factual errors. This would only be true if you took HIS interpretation of certain obscure passages to claim heliocentrism. Galileo was no theologian, but insisted on his interpretation anyway. Did the Church not hold a geocentric position, justified by scriptural interpretation, or not?
Actually, though, the real reason for his trial was personal and political. He mocked certain members of the Church, and especially the pope, who, while a very brilliant man and a respectable scientist in his own right, had an ego approaching that of Galileo's. Who was Pope during Galileo's trials?
Not true. Completely true. What was the Church's punishment for heresy or apostasy?
Even the plethora of Catholic PRIESTS? Canonized SAINTS? No, these were not closet athiests. How do you know? The Church was the best place to access what little knowledge was allowed, and anyone smart enough to advance science was most likely smart enough to hide beliefs that could get them burned at the stake or hung.
Actually, it does, for multiple reasons. For one, the Church has been a huge patron of the sciences, allowing science to flourish. True, over the last couple of centuries, after restricting it for a millennium.
Second, the belief in an unchanging God who has established natural laws has led them to believe that these laws can be discovered and have an inherent beauty and simplicity, as opposed to, say, the belief in Allah who is ever-changing and capricious. Are you saying that it is Christian dogma that God can't violate the natural laws of the universe?
The Catholic Church, for one (and by far the largest Christian community) doesn't hold these beliefs in conflict. And I subscribe to that position. However, evolution by random chance is something that I don't subscribe to, and in fact there are steps in evolution that are so wildly improbable that their chance of happening on a random basis approaches the absurd. Perhaps some examples would help prove your point. Please, for the sake of my own interest and that of our viewers at home, don't go citing things that have already be debunked.

Animal Mother
06-01-2012, 22:26
There is no other example in history of the Catholic church condemning a scientific theory, contrary to the impression given by skeptics here.No example other than what exactly?

High-Gear
06-02-2012, 00:07
Bruno was clearly a victim of theological persecution. Your own link says on the idea that he was a martyr of science - "Others oppose such views, and claim this alleged connection to be exaggerated, or outright false."

The same could be said of Servetus, who was no atheist. If you believe him to be some closet atheist, let's see your evidence.

.

I acknowledged your point in my post, i dont know how to be more clear. I am not claiming any of these men were atheists, just that we can not be sure of their true level of religiosity as to be public about disbelief, or to hold views contrary to the church could relult in persecution.

There are numerous individuals who have served as preists, pastors or other members of the church who were closet atheists. There is currenlty an organisation (I cant recall the name) which is made up of such people. If these people exhist now, one can only assume such people have always existed.

void *
06-03-2012, 22:19
He was tried for suspicion of heresy, but even that was only tangentially associated with geocentrism. Basically, Galileo insisted that geocentrism was proven when it in fact wasn't at the time, but more importantly, that geocentrism proved that the bible had factual errors. This would only be true if you took HIS interpretation of certain obscure passages to claim heliocentrism. Galileo was no theologian, but insisted on his interpretation anyway.

(emphasis mine)

It's my understanding that he did nothing of the kind, more that he claimed that when faced with enough evidence that something was true, and people's understanding of the bible contradicted, it was not the thing that was false, but that the people's understanding of the Bible was incorrect.

Showing a greater fondness for their own opinions than for truth they sought to deny and disprove the new things which, if they had cared to look for themselves, their own senses would have demonstrated to them. To this end they hurled various charges and published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properly, and which were ill-suited to their purposes.

I don't think I've ever seen a Galileo quote where he claimed the Bible was erroneous. Your link doesn't seem to allege that he claimed the Bible was wrong, just that he made it a theological issue rather than a scientific one.

As for your link - "Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved" -> but it would have been a whole lot closer to what was actually true in the meantime, wouldn't it?