Darwin stated (‘On the Origin of Species’) that the mechanisms for evolution were war, famine, and death. Not morality, in fact he claimed the opposite.
If you live in the U.S., there has been little deviation from the common law system we derived from England. They derived theirs from the Bible.
I can’t seem to find a quote of his that matches that-got a cite?
Concluding remarks[edit]
‘It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us … Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.[132]’
-^ Darwin 1859, pp. 489–490
Yeah, suuure they did. Christians are always going around giving Christianity credit for things that have nothing to to do with it, preceded it, or actively were opposed by it. A Bible-derived legal system would be a theocracy.
Knowledge of evolution has increased enormously since Darwin’s time.
And the basic argument is that morality came from evolution, not the other way around.
Actually, Bruno started out as Catholic clergyman. He then turned his back on the Church and joined a pop religion known as Hermeticism. (You can think of it as the Scientology of the 16th century.) As a Hermeticist, Bruno believed and enthusiastically promoted magic, occultism, astrology, and other things that fans of science usually despise. While Bruno’s trial and execution may have been less than ideal from a human rights perspective, it was probably a net plus for science. Contrary to what some folks seem to think, Bruno was not a scientist.
Goodness. That is nearly exactly the opposite of what I said.
Human morality is inherited from the social primates we are descended from. In our ancestry, monkeys who cooperated lived longer and had more surviving children than monkeys who were selfish, on the average, over time.
Morality is one of the results of our evolution, not one of the mechanisms for evolution.
Well then, he deserved to die.:rolleyes:
If Francis Collins can be a scientist in spite of a lot of superstition, then so can Bruno.
Galileo and Copernicus were both Catholics. Copernicus was a clergyman. Galileo was known for being uncommonly devout. At the end of his life, he insisted on being carried to mass every day when he was too ill to walk.
Your posts seem to be getting less and less coherent as the thread goes along. Do you believe that Bruno was a scientist? We’ve already had plenty of posts about the definition of a scientist. By even the more lax definitions, was Bruno a scientist? Did he ever perform a scientific experiment? Ever collect data? Ever write anything that could be considered even remotely scientific?
Historian Edward A Gosselin wrote an excellent biography of Bruno to serve as the introduction to a modern edition of Bruno’s book The Ash Wednesday Supper. That introduction firmly establishes that there’s no valid reason for classifying Bruno as a scientist.
I wonder how many in that day had to fake devotion to avoid being burned or broken on the wheel?
Probably every person living in Europe. Unless they were peasants. Nobody ever really cared what the peasants believed.
You seem to have difficulty with the concept that the past had a different intellectual landscape from today, and that applying modern Western-liberal standards will not offer much insight into beliefs and motivations.
Why do you say that?
No. The Catholic Church burned him at the stake because he disagreed with church teachings on non-scientific things. I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying.
Look, take Andrei Sakharov, the Soviet/Russian nuclear physicist, who helped invent the Soviet nuclear bomb, the fusion reactor, came up with alternate theories of gravity, and so on.
He became a pacifist, a human rights advocate, an opponent of nuclear weapons and opponent of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and the Soviet government punished him, making him lose his job, putting him in internal exile, subjecting him to police harassment, and so on. So if you want to say, “The Soviet Union persecuted him for his views, and that was immoral, because it’s wrong to do that”, I’d fully agree with you on that point.
But if you said instead, “The Soviet Union was against science. Look at the way they persecuted the nuclear physicist Sakharov”, I’d say that your example wasn’t a good one to prove your point. The Soviet Union didn’t punish him because of his views on physics. They were fine with his physics work. They punished him because of his other opinions on non-physics related stuff…whether the Trinity exists, whether people reincarnate, and so on.
Its the same with Bruno. If you were to say, “The Catholic Church wasn’t tolerant during the counter-Reformation,”, I’d probably agree with you. It wasn’t very tolerant of dissenting views, especially when those views challenged its power. But if you say, “The Church was anti-science.”, and then bring up Bruno to support that position, I’d say that the example you used doesn’t support your position.
No I get what you are saying. You’re saying they killed him for not taking non-scientific things literal enough rather than not taking scientific things literal enough.
I’m saying they burned people at the stake for not taking the right Bible things literal enough. Scientific or not, I’m saying that’s bad. Real bad! Call me crazy for that if you want.
That’s why I brought up Galileo, but you didn’t like that either. Bruno was just another scientist/heliocentrist burned at the stake by the church. Maybe it was purely coincidental.
A mechanic does all the things you mention also. Scientists of the type described in the OP do original research (most of which is not ground-breaking, alas) and publish. Your average medical doctor does not - ones in universities or employed in the research arms of companies do.
Nothing to do with you. There are plenty of religions (and things) which we think of as foolish which we would not if we were brought up in that tradition.
But you should know that personal experiences, especially internal ones, do not mirror external reality. In the Middle Ages people thought that succubi came to them in bed and molested them - not it is aliens. Your interpretation of experience depends strongly on your context. Jesus and Mary rarely appear to those in India.
I’m sick and tired of this strawman. We all agree that Jerusalem and Babylon existed. Most of us agree that Adam and Eve didn’t. The question is what parts of the Bible are reliable, and how can you tell? The Bible used to be considered an accurate representation of history, but as we have found out more it is less and less so. At this point, just like in writings about ancient leaders, you need independent confirmation of anything in the book. Saying something is true because it is in the Bible without such independent evidence is very hard to support.
That’s why hypotheses get promoted to theories when evidence does come in. It is a hypothesis at the beginning of a paper and a theory at the end. (Summing many papers.) Acting as if a hypothesis were true (except in doing an experiment to try to falsify it) is very risky. Efficacy of drugs are hypotheses before trials - would you take them based on this? That is exactly what you are proposing for god belief.
It was. If you were a Catholic who denied the Trinity, whether you were a scientist, a blacksmith, a peasant, or whoever, the Catholic church would burn you at the stake. And I’m not denying that’s a bad thing!
And it has nothing to do with not taking the bible literally. We’re talking the Trinity, not the Bible. And, in fact, the Catholic Church’s position was not to take the bible literally. Their whole argument was, “We’re the ones who’ll tell you what to believe. Don’t try to interpret the bible for yourself. That’s our job.” That was one of the big things the Reformation was about; whether you should believe what the text of the bible says or whether you should believe the Catholic Church’s interpretation of what the bible says. The Catholic Church was firmly on the “non-literal” side.
Kable writes:
> I don’t think anyone can give a complete list, even of those committed just by
> the Catholic Church. It would be way too long wouldn’t it?
So you don’t know how many barbaric acts were committed in the Middle Ages, but you’re convinced that a lot of them were committed by the Catholic church. Do you realize that when you make a statement like “The list of all things of type A is all of/nearly all of/most of/a lot of the list of all things of type B” you have to know how many things there are of type B as well as how many things there are of type A. So there were a fair number of barbaric acts committed by the Catholic church during the Middle Ages. There were an enormous amount of barbaric acts committed during the Middle Ages. What proportion of them were committed by the church? Given that the church was very powerful during the Middle Ages and given that it’s easier for powerful people to commit barbaric acts (since a person with no power immediately gets wiped out when they start to commit such an act), it would be hardly surprising that the church could get away with such acts.
Barbaric acts have been committed in many places in many different time periods. A lot of barbaric acts were committed in the Middle Ages. A lot of barbaric acts have been committed by the Catholic church. Have you considered the possibility that you happen to know a lot about barbaric acts committed by the Catholic church during the Middle Ages because of selection bias in your remembering of those events, as opposed to other barbaric events?
:dubious: Well, yes. It’s not like they were trying to hide it. They wanted fear. You don’t need to be able to perform an impossible task to know that the Church committed (and still does!) a lot of misdeeds, despite how common a tactic that is for religious apologists. Do I need to count every raindrop before judging that a storm has gotten me wet?
I am referring to the tactic of taking passages far out of context, and using archaic translations. THAT is intellectual dishonesty. And much of the “Old Testament” has been superseded: Romans 10:4.