Really? You should start a thread on that. FWIW, I wasn’t saying anything about superiority in general, just IQ scores.
Frequent church goers are frequently fatter too.
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/24/frequent-church-goers-frequently-fatter/
Obesity is associated with a lower IQ as well:
http://www.neurological.org.nz/news-events/general-articles/obesity-and-low-iq-toddlers
It makes you wonder which comes first, and it’s science. Maybe that’s why Christians often don’t like science.
Don’t know about the others but historically I thought the Roman Catholics were taking the Bible pretty literal when they were torturing and killing people for not believing in the one true faith. I imagine Galileo thought they were fairly anti-science as well.
Yeah what about Copernicus - the Catholic church didn’t believe that the Sun “metaphorically” went around the Earth.
As I noted, you are more or less adopting the beliefs you grew up in. I understand this; I grew up Jewish, and if for some reason I became religious I’d definitely go back to it. Most people who got Christianity from almost birth can’t conceive how foolish it seems to someone who was not brought up in it.
Come now - you know we are not talking about proof here. You also should know that personal experiences don’t cut it.
Specifically deism. However any religion depending on the Bible needs to explain why so much of the Bible has been falsified. If you get 10,000 data points from an experiment you don’t get to toss 9,000 of them as “metaphor” since they don’t support your hypothesis. If the Bible were a witness in court, it would get laughed out.
No - the proper response is not “I don’t know” but “I provisionally reject the hypothesis.” And remember one of the signs of a good hypothesis is its ability to predict. The Bible predicts (only counting the parts not written after the prediction came true) and it has been a pretty bad failure at doing so. The history parts of the Bible were believed by people during the time of Jesus and were very important. Yet they have been pretty much falsified. What does that tell you?
Scientists, alas, are as prone to wishful thinking as anyone else, as cold fusion illustrates. But any sort of dispassionate view shows that the response should not be “I don’t know” but “I’m pretty certain it’s nonsense.”
I submit a faithful Christian who is also a medical doctor has greater ability to heal the sick than Benny Hinn does. Does he still wear those suits with Nehru collars? Those must be custom made, right?
500 years ago it wasn’t a movement, since it was pretty much universally believed. I’m talking the age of the earth, Adam and Eve, the Flood, not the correctness of every word. In fact in the early 19th century many ministers got involved with science out of the belief that their discoveries would confirm the word of the Bible. A subset of the more inerrant types thought this was foolish. The actual discoveries, which demonstrated that the Bible was incorrect, caused a gigantic crisis and led to the supremacy of the more fundamentalist group (like the guy debating Huxley.) They put more faith in what the Bible says than what the evidence showed, like their descendants do today.
Copernicus was the nephew of a Bishop, the brother of an Abbess, had a Doctorate in Canon Law, had at least taken minor orders and was possibly a priest, and was, twice, an administrator of a diocese in between bishops. And his work was dedicated to the Pope and published at the urging of a Catholic Bishop and Catholic Cardinal. So what about Copernicus?
And Gallileo didn’t get in trouble so much for advocating the Copernican theory (which was, at the same time, endorsed by the Jesuits of the Vatican Observatory). He got in trouble because, first, he tried to argue that not only was the heliocentric theory scientifically true, it had scriptural support, and then, after he was told to cut it out, wrote a book contrasting heliocentrism and geocentrism, and made the geocentrist character a giant idiot. Since the Pope at the time was a noted geocentrist, and, for his book, Gallileo had basically lifted the Pope’s specific arguments and put them in the mouth of the idiot, he got in trouble.
So Gallileo’s big sin in the eyes of the Inquisition wasn’t arguing for heliocentrism. It was saying that he had the right to interpret the bible for himself and calling the pope a giant idiot.
And since Europe was right in the middle of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation at the time, and two of the Protestant’s major arguments were, 1. Everyone has the right to interpret the bible for himself and 2. The popes are all evil idiots, the Catholic church was a little touchy on those subjects at the time.
If it helps, the guy debating Huxley (Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of first Oxford and then Winchester), wasn’t a fundamentalist, and his arguments in the debate didn’t rely on the bible.
Captain Amazing:
Maybe I was wrong but I was under the impression that the church had a problem with heliocentrism. Anyway I think the church has believed in things like a literal Adam and Eve for a long time.
No, but he did believe that God made man in his own image. Christianity didn’t shatter at the first evidence that the Bible was not literally true. They knew that the
Earth was more than 6,000 years old by the late 18th century, before the science fad. What really did it was the evidence that man was not specially created. That’s a pretty basic tenet of all western religions. While Catholics accept evolution, they accept it as a directed process, not a random one, directed to producing people. They don’t claim to know how the directing happened, so Catholics can be just as good evolution researchers as atheists, but it is a major philosophical difference.
How original sin happened as a choice without Adam and Eve is beyond me - I know they have an answer, but it is muddled at best.
The Catholic church banned his books didn’t they?
That revisionism rings of Dinesh D’Souza. Is that your cite?
Yes, you were wrong.
Until Galileo got all up in their face about it the Church did not give a rat’s arse about whether the Sun goes round the Earth or vice-versa. It is a matter of no religious significance, and the Bible says nothing directly about the matter (although there are a couple of passages that, if you insist on interpreting them in a truly perversely literal manner, indirectly imply geocentrism).
Furthermore, back in the 4th century, St Augustine, the most influential and widely respected (by Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox alike) of all Christian theologians, argued that much of the Old Testament, including Genesis, should be read as allegory rather than literal fact, and that Christians would only open themselves to ridicule, and would thereby lose followers, if they insisted on a literal interpretation of Biblical passages that were contrary to demonstrable scientific fact. That has been standard Christian doctrine, in most denominations, ever since.
The church, that is most major denominations, believed in a literal Adam and Eve only so long as there was no compelling scientific argument or evidence to the contrary, i.e., until Darwin came along. That was a bit of an upset for them, and of course, and, as with all major new theories and discoveries, it took a while before the scientific community itself fully accepted Darwinian theory, but in the event it only took a decade or so for major Christian denominations like Anglicanism and Catholicism to reconcile themselves to Darwinism. Biblical literalism that flies in the face of established science is a very modern (20th century), largely American, aberration from traditional Christian attitudes, and is still rejected by the larger denominations.
Don’t all Christians believe in miracles? Don’t all miracles fly in the face of science?
“At Gibeon Joshua asked God to cause the sun and moon to stand still”
It should have said that the earth and the moon stood still.
Also in Genesis the earth was created before the sun… that means that either the earth was formerly orbiting an empty space or that it began to orbit that spot when the sun was created.
What allegorical purpose do the genealogies in Genesis have?
See:
Also Luke 3 repeats those genealogies - is it also just an allegory?
No.
They mandated some minor revisions in his book, and that only happened after Galileo had got everyone upset about the matter.
If he says something like that, I guess Dinesh D’Souza is not wrong about everything.
Any reputable historian of science writing about the Galileo affair during the past century or so will confirm (in spirit and outline: there is still much disagreement about fine details) what Captain Amazing said. Go find any such book on the subject on amazon.com, or in your local library. The myth of the Church being dogmatically against heliocentrism, and of Galileo bravely standing up to them, is much beloved of the cheerleaders of science, but is just as demonstrably a myth, and utterly false, as the story of Adam and Eve.
Before Galileo started getting in their face about it, the Church had no particular position on the structure of the planetary system. Copernicus was in no way persecuted or silenced, and even received some some encouragement and support for his work from powers within the church. Galileo, however, insisted on making heliocentrism an issue of Church politics (probably because he was bucking to get appointed as Urban VIII’s official papal court philosopher, and being deliberately provocative to build his reputation), and the political currents he had stirred up went against him.
What revisions?
Is a reputable historian like a true Scotsman?
What was the Church position after Galileo got all uppity?
Yes, that is one the passages that I had in mind when I said that there are passages that indirectly imply geocentrism if they are given a perversely literal reading. That passage is from an account of a battle between the Israelites and their enemies du jour. Its religious significance (inasmuch as it has any) is to further ram home the point that the Jews are God’s chosen people, and that he will do major miracles to help them in stealing other people’s land. It is perfectly clear that it is not intended as a disquisition on the structure of the solar system, and it no more implies a divine endorsement of geocentrism than I might imply an endorsement of geocentrism if I happen to refer to this morning’s sunrise.
Well, if you are going to insist on being literalist, why not? It is no more absurd than most of the other stuff Biblical literalists insist on believing.
None, necessarily. To insist that something in the Bible must either be an allegory or literally true is a false dichotomy. See my first post in this thread.
Njtt are you a literalist regarding the resurrection of Jesus or do you think the event was just a myth/metaphor?
We have previously discussed the reaction of the Catholic Church to Galileo. Here is one example from nine years ago. It’s way oversimplifying to say that it was about religion trying to attack science:
It would be good if you could respond to my reply about your belief that the genealogies are merely just a myth.