Randi tackles religion vs. science

BTW, this statement

demonstrates that you are truly historically ignornant of 16th - 17th century Europe. Copernicus was able to dedicate his treatise to the pope and actually sent the pope a copy. He was not hiding from Catholic inquisitors, but from Protestants who were adamant that no one tinker with the “literal” word of God. The preface to his work, in which he declares that it is a work of speculation was tacked onto it by his printer in order to avoid Protestant condemnation. (It should be noted, of course, that the printer was Protestant. Just as there were individual priests who attacked Galileo, there were Protestants who defended Copernicus.)

If any thing, the Calvinists and Lutherans were more likely to hold the terracentric theory as divinely revealed and your contrary claim is simply wrong.

The CE is an encyclopedia of both church doctrine and church history. You are confusing the two. The passage you cite is a description of the Catholic doctrine of the resurrection. If you continue reading the article, it discusses objections raised to that doctrine, and the church’s view on those objections. The article clearly states that the principal basis for that doctrine are the four gospels and St. Peter’s epistles, which is true even today. And indeed, the article is an evenhanded description of what it purports to describe: Catholic doctrine on the resurrection.

The Galileo entry does not deal with doctrine. It’s a straight recitation of historical fact based on the historical record (the bottom of the page gives a recitation of some of the source material). More to the point, no one in this thread has produced any kind of source that contradicts the Galileo entry in the CE. If you believe that entry is incorrect in its description of the facts, I think it incumbent on you to provide some concrete basis for that assertion beyond “it’s got ‘Catholic’ in the name!”

You should also be aware that the online version of the encyclopedia is the 1917 edition (later editions being still under copyright). There have, of course, been additional archaeological finds dealing with Christ’s life since that time. The Galileo affair, on the other hand, is pretty well-documented; none of the evidence of what happened is of recent discovery.

If old Galileo weren’t dead already, he would surely have been beaten to death by now.

Could someone please start a thread about Galileo, and stop this massive hijack? It would be nice if James Randi’s name popped up once in a while in a thread with his name in it.

Okay… If you notice, Randi only mentioned what can be observed and seen from a purely materialistic point of view, as far as I can tell.

He has no faith. Makes sense, knowing him.

Can anything in his essay be considered factually, observably, or logically weak or in error? We’ve got a credo… let’s dissect it.

OK, since I started the Galileo thing, I’ll get us back on track:

Randi’s essay is quite silly, really. The gist of his argument is “I refuse to believe in whatever cannot be proved materialistically; God cannot be proved materialistically; therefore, there is no God.” Well, few serious-minded religious people turn to materialistic proofs for God’s existence. They just don’t accept Randi’s initial premise that only that which can be demonstrated materially must be valid. They see the world as being larger than what their five senses can perceive, encompassing the spiritual as well as the physical. They sense the divine even though they can’t prove it.

As one decent playwright put it, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

No, Mr. Randi, we can’t prove God exists; under ordinary scientific means, that proposition fails. The real question is, does materialism mark the outer limits of human knowledge? Does subjective human experience count for anything? If not, there’s nothing further to discuss. Religious conversation is nothing if not the conversation of shared spiritual experience, and if religious discussion doesn’t stir those flames within you, well, that’s that.

Much of the rest of Randi’s essay is petty and mean-spirited. I note he saddles the church with all of the terrible atrocities committed in God’s name, but wilfully ignores the art and culture inspired by religious thought on grounds that the patrons of those works paid for them for PR or other practical reasons. Well, my goodness, if we’re going to discount the good side of religion because there are other motivating factors, doesn’t fairness also dictate that we discount the role of religion in atrocities, given that the primary motivating factor behind them is usually political power rather than genuine religious feeling?

He also, of course, ignores the positive role of religion in many other ways.

The church for centuries has been a bastion of knowledge; most older institutions of higher learning (including Harvard and Yale) were founded by religious institutions. During the Dark Ages, monastic orders preserved much knowledge that otherwise would have been lost. And much of our progress in mathematics and geometery owes itself to early Islamic scholars figuring out ways to precisely calculate the direction of Mecca. I wonder if Randi has ever heard of the Jesuits?

The church has founded innumerable hospitals around the world – open your telephone book to see how many start with the word “Saint.” Its charitable works are legion. Religion fosters community – as DeTocqueville noted, one of the first things a new American settlement set out to do was build a church. And while religion has been used to justify some fairly nasty things, it’s just as often been on the right side of history; the early abolition movement was largely led from New England pulpits, and the civil rights movement found its most powerful voices in black congregations.

Randi notes that believes in “puppy-dogs and a child’s sparkling eyes” and a few other glurge type items, but chalks that up to “hard-wiring in [the] brain, along with […] experience and association.” My, what a cold and sterile way of looking at the world.

That site is more than kind to the Church. It would be more accurate to say that the astronomers could discuss any possibility as long as it was considered as a mere convention or computational method. It didn’t matter if you calculated the movements of the planets with a method that assumed the Earth or the Sun was the center of all movement, as long as you didn’t claim that the Earth might not actually be at the center.

-Such as…?

Where in the Bible does it state that the Earth is the center of all planetary motion because of its primacy in God’s design?

Please, explain to me how these Protestant literalists found this concept in Scripture.

** Scientists also believe that the world is more than what their senses can perceive. The difference between religious people and scientists is that scientists have standards of evidence and reasoning.

If a phenomenon can’t affect the material world, how do we perceive it? If we can discuss it and make claims about it, it must affect the physical world in some way, if only through our bodies.

Are we trying to learn about the universe, or merely the human experience? If God exists only within subjective human experience, then God is a creation of humanity, not vice versa.

** If you could just offer us a means to determine when someone’s actions are motivated by “genuine religous feeling”, we could begin to put your suggestion into practice.

** That’s the point – they preserved knowledge. It takes “scientific” thought to generate new knowledge, which indeed religious organizations occasionally did. And those Islamic scholars derived their work from earlier Greek findings – in fact, they were essential in preserving knowledge that the Western world had lost. Until they fell into a Dark Age of their own…

** Ah, so you’re a “salvation through works” person, eh? And if religion is on the side of right as often as the side of wrong (as if anyone here is qualified to judge what’s right and wrong), what makes you think it can do any better than chance?

Isn’t whether it’s an accurate way of looking at the world the important issue here? (You’re also putting yourself into the category of people Randi complains about: those who pity rationalists because their worlds are so dull. They have no idea of how wonderful rationality can be…)

Where in Catholic doctrine does it say any such thing?

The Protestants noted that the sun rises and sets, that Joshua stopped the sun, etc. All the usual things that give people the appearance of terracentered cosmology, prompting Luther to condemn Copernicus for trying to “turn astronomy on its head” in his Table Talk and Philip Melanchthon to suggest that “wise rulers” should silence people such as Copernicus who “moves the earth and makes the sun stationary.”
Only you are claiming that the RCC had some more elaborate theory of “primacy in God’s design”–a claim that you seem to have invented without the slightest evidence.

If you have any actual evidence for your claims (rather than your unfounded assertions), you might want to take up Czarcasm’s suggestion.

It doesn’t… now.

** Thusly, people who claimed the Bible is literally inerrant would be opposed to heliocentric models. Now, explain to me where these literalists derive the idea that the Earth is the center because of its primacy and the importance of humanity.

The Church adopted the geocentric view into its doctrine because that view was perceived as reinforcing a theological claim as to the importance of humanity in God’s creation. I haven’t just invented this stance – it’s referenced in many of the literature of the time (and therefore is often brought up in historical discussions of the period).

AFAIK, the RCC hasn’t claimed that the Bible is literally true in all regards. Isn’t that precisely why it once opposed the translation of the Bible into the vernacular, so that people wouldn’t read it and become “confused” as to its actual meaning?

In any case, the oldest Christian traditions made no such claim.

If you want to argue this further, make a thread. I’m considering the matter closed, as far as I’m concerned, with this post.

Well, that is good. It means we will no longer see you repeating this false assertion:

that has, despite your unfounded and unsupported claims, never been a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

A brief comment:

(a) This Brights thing and Randi’s essay both strike me as, at best, unfortunate.

(b) Galileo: I refer DCU to this book review: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E6D6123DF932A25754C0A9659C8B63

-Let me ask: is it better to refer to onself as “saved”, “Born Again” or perhaps “God’s Chosen”?

Perhaps not, however that does not justify the “Bright” appelation, which strikes me as tedious.

Why, because it puts a positive light(pun intended) on Atheism? To claim that it can be used as an insult to religionists because it indirectly refers to them as “UnBright” is hypocrisy at its highest if you have ever used a positive euphemism to describe your own particular sect. For a very small fraction of such terms, refer to Doc Nickel’s post above.

Because I find it to be a moronic and tedious coinage.

My sect, by the way, would be either Athiest or Agnostic, depending on my mood. Athiesm seems quite positive enough for me.

Is it tedious to attempt to put Atheism in a positive light? The word itself may be positive to you, but it is used as an insult or even a condemnation throughout the world. Could you come up with a better term that might make atheists look better? As for those who say it is an insult to use the fairly innocuous term “Bright”, might I point out that the opposite of “saved” is “doomed”? Which is the greater insult, “not as bright” or “doomed”?

I see no reason to replicate the sins of the religious.

I find Saved to equally tedious for what it is worth, and have never in my life refered to somenone as such.

So, I’ll stick with my original estimation, Bright is tedious and obnoxious.