In the early days of the Renaissance, yes. The Church did advocate scientific progress. They pulled back support when that progress contradicted the dogma of the church. The scientists didn’t LEAVE, the Church kicked them out. Most of them continued to believe in spite of being set aside and they strove to prove things at odds to the Church’s teaching to force the Church to come around. After a few high profile “duh” moments (to us with perfect hindsight, at least) the Church began active persecution from the embarrassment, which eventually lead to the Protestant Reformation.
It wasn’t until the later 1600’s that scientists began science-ing in the name of science itself and not in name of God’s glory, but by this time it had largely drifted away both from the RCC church and also the Protestant churches that helped shield them from the RCC. It was a power struggle that managed to leave both sides standing.
There was no sarcasm in that post. I posed a specific question in how one of those on the list’s research managed to prove Jesus’ existence and discounted an exclamation of faith as “proof”.
The existence of Kansas does not make the Wizard of Oz factual.
The existence of the Potomac River does not mean that George Washington threw a silver dollar across it.
The writers of the Bible were not writing history for the sake of history, they were writing for a particular theological purpose, and were trying to convince people. This was common at the time.
As has already been mentioned we have no documents from anyone who actually knew Jesus. While I think Jesus actually existed, since I don’t think they were able to make him up, that does not mean his exploits were true. Parson Weems made up stuff about Washington only a few years after he died, things that kids of my generation pretty much believed to be true. Josephus just notes that there is belief in Jesus, not that he knew Jesus.
As for the scientists, most of them lived in a time and place where not believing could get you into big trouble, and in any case none are historians. I have a book of scientific writings from Copernicus to 1800, and it is striking how the mention of God decreases over time in them. God in general was no longer needed in their hypotheses as they learned more.
You can’t remove the church or God or Jesus from human history, they are too ingrained in it. I understand that Atheist must do their thing, they have no choice but to do what they do and think what they think, but they cannot change or reduce history. They just can’t, and sarcasm and cynicism cannot alter the truth of reality. No matter how many years ago it happened. History ingrains itself into the human consciousness, that’s how hell got here! That’s how this eternal suffering lie got here, history!
And that is what can undo the lies, history! Like this lie of the earth being only 6,000 years old; that’s a lie. And archaeology proves it, just like it proves the bible! The earth is at least 4.5 billion years old! The universe 14 billion years old, and science helped establish that truth.
Inspite of your apparent sarcasm, there was a scientist who believed in God and Jesus who used his study of plants to strengthen his belief, his name was John Ray. He was an incredible " Naturalist" with a serious belief in God and his work. His work in Botany, Zoology and Natural Theology was profound. He wrote a stunning piece called " The Wisdom of God manifested in the works of Creation."
I don’t mind discussion, but I hold no interest in sarcasm and inane silly jokes that are meant to mock a discussion.
It’s pretty tough to remove Roman gods from Roman history, too. And some really smart people from back then believed in Roman theology. Does that prove it must be true?
Your argument is basically a ridiculous appeal to authority. “Hey, Galileo believed in God, and he was a scientist! Ergo, God exists!”
Hey, Newton was a strong believer in Alchemy. Is that an argument in favor of the existence of Alchemy?
Those scientists were creatures of their time. They were raised in a strongly religious culture, and one in which the gaps where God existed were much larger (i.e. there were far more big things that were totally unexplainable). It is not at all surprising that most of them were believers. Also, since the center of culture and the source of Law was the Church, it was not wise to oppose it. So some of those scientists may simply have been going along to get along in their public writing.
As for the historicity of Jesus… Yes, he probably lived. Not certainly, but it’s likely. There’s enough non-Christian historical documentation to that fact. But again, so what? Mother Theresa really lived, but that doesn’t mean she was really a saint, no matter what the Catholic Church says. Joseph Smith really lived, but that doesn’t make the Book of Mormon a real account of supernatural happenings in early America.
We get the point-everything you can think of is evidence For the existence of your god…making your definition of “evidence” totally worthless for intelligent conversation.
This is the same argument Immanual Velikovsky used in “Worlds in Collision”, He assumed that the Bible must be literally true because of its ‘historicity’, and built a pseudo-scientific framework to ‘explain’ how it all happened. Therefore, Jupiter spit out the planet Venus, which flew past the Earth and exchanged atmospheres, resulting in a rain of manna from heaven. And Venus knocked Mars out of its orbit, which interacted with the Earth to stop its rotation for a day because the Bible said that the Earth’s rotation stopped for a day. And so on.
It’s amazing how many flips and twists a person can go through in order to rationalize a belief when faced with a lack of real evidence. This is the domain of scientific crankery.
Oh its certain, just not in your head. He lived alright, we have the bone box of a Priest who Slapped him in the face, Caiaphas, know your history. We have the actual BONES of the black man, simon , who carried his cross, Matt. 27:32, a man from Cyrene. We got this guys bones, that is not a probably, its a fact. We have the house of his friends Martha and Mary, FACT! We know the river he was baptized in, Jordan, its still there, as is the hill he was killed on, Golgotha, its still there. They have the garden he prayed in, the actual concrete he stood on before Pilate. The actual gate they marched him through to kill him. Two possible grave sites for his tomb.
Its not likely to an Atheist, because its not supposed to be.
We get the point-everything you can think of is evidence For the existence of your god…making your definition of “evidence” totally worthless for intelligent conversation.
[/QUOTE]
