Cosmos: If anyone cares at this late date – Why Bruno was executed in 1600

StephenA, Your descriptions reminds me of Proverbs 30:20 (CJB):

This is how an unfaithful wife behaves: she eats, wipes her mouth, and says, “I did nothing wrong.”

Some things never change. -Q Querius

Jerad:

So, since there are and always have been disagreements between people of faith about moral behaviour how do you decide who, if anyone, is right? Considering again that in the past ‘good’ Christians have gotten it badly wrong.

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone." Mark 10:18

I can find mathematical mistakes and they are unambiguous and clear and objective. Anyone else competent could do the same. The laws of mathematics are agreed upon by just about everyone on this planet with knowledge. Is that true for your absolute morals?

Again with the 'your absolute morals'. Absolute morals, by definition, do not belong to me. I think you are overstating your case with regard to mathematics. I once had someone adamantly saying that you could make 2 + 1 = 4. (Seriously. It was surreal.) And unlike morality, mathematics rarely gets in the way of our selfish desires. Really, what it comes down to is that all human beings are tempted to do things that are (absolutely) immoral. And having given into temptation, we then lie to ourselves so that we may pretend that we haven't actually done wrong. People will say "I am a good person.", but if you then ask "So you have never done anything wrong?" they get uncomfortable. So yes, everybody does agree about morality, but we don't want to admit it. Least of all to ourselves. StephenA

Jerad@139, You seem to be stuck on the wrong issue. Moral standards do not, never have, and cannot justify us before God. Attempting to do so is called legalism, and legalism kills. See Querius@135. -Q Querius

Jerad:

IF there are absolute morals then what are they? And why do some people who profess to believe in the same god act so differently? And kill each other?

It's pathetic, really, to see Jerad acting as judge of what is and is not moral. Pathetic. Mung

Perhaps I’m reading into your comments a bit much, but it seems to me that you have some confusion about what morality is. If there are absolute morals they apply to all humans at all times. They are imposed on humanity from above, and as such, are external to us.

IF there are absolute morals then what are they? And why do some people who profess to believe in the same god act so differently? And kill each other? Were the Christians who killed Bruno for heresy punished for their actions?

Thus to ask about ‘your absolute moral compass’ is like asking about ‘your version of maths’. If I disagree with my fellow Christians (or anyone else for that matter) about the morality of something it means that one of us (or both of us) has gotten our ‘sums’ wrong. And even if we both happen to be wrong the correct answer will still exist.

So, since there are and always have been disagreements between people of faith about moral behaviour how do you decide who, if anyone, is right? Considering again that in the past 'good' Christians have gotten it badly wrong. That's me saying that slaughtering Waldensians and Abbigensians was wrong, you may disagree. If there is so much disagreement then the absolute moral standards must be hard to discern. I can find mathematical mistakes and they are unambiguous and clear and objective. Anyone else competent could do the same. The laws of mathematics are agreed upon by just about everyone on this planet with knowledge. Is that true for your absolute morals? Jerad

Well said, StephenA. -Q Querius

Jerad

How do I know that your absolute moral compass won’t change direction in the future?

Perhaps I'm reading into your comments a bit much, but it seems to me that you have some confusion about what morality is. If there are absolute morals they apply to all humans at all times. They are imposed on humanity from above, and as such, are external to us. Thus to ask about 'your absolute moral compass' is like asking about 'your version of maths'. If I disagree with my fellow Christians (or anyone else for that matter) about the morality of something it means that one of us (or both of us) has gotten our 'sums' wrong. And even if we both happen to be wrong the correct answer will still exist. StephenA

Jerad@132 asks,

Where does the moral compass point? Does it always point the same way?

The short, somewhat misleading answer is no. I just ate a thin slice of salami. By your moral standards, was this right or was this wrong? Let me paint you a picture---please accept it for the moment. In the garden of Eden, there are two trees. One is called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. By eating its fruit, one gains the knowledge to make strict moral judgments, something reserved only for God. Over time, its fruit will also kill you. The other tree is called the tree of life. It represents communion with God. By eating its fruit, one experiences mercy, joy, and peace. Its fruit will give you eternal life. So when someone asks me about right and wrong, you can now understand my perspective that they are eating fruit from the wrong tree! My moral compass? Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father (God) except through me." Is there such a thing as right and wrong? Of course there is. Governments currently do crudely what God will one day do perfectly. This world system with all its greed, lusts, jealousies, lies, fraud, ambitions, arrogance, intolerance, quarrels, injustice, violence, and suffering is headed for judgment and destruction. It's not my job to try to fix it. My job is to try to snatch *you* out of the flames and get you to the other tree. :-) -Q Querius

Hey, Q. I'm gonna have to disagree ... in part. Paul said that governments act as God's servant precisely when they impose certain behavior patterns; ie, when they act to restrain evil and reward good. Indeed, they are given "the sword" (in that culture, capital punishment) to stop evil. But this implies that evil and good are defined and enforced. Of course, just prior to this Paul says that Christians are not to take personal vengeance for wrongs done to them. Rather, it is God who takes care of that. (And I would argue that the government is one of the means that God uses.) Murder is wrong. Child abuse is wrong. Gladiator contests to the death were wrong. Slavery is wrong. Jim Crow laws are wrong. Infanticide is wrong. In standing against these things, Christians are acting as salt and light in a dark, pagan (today neo-pagan) culture. anthropic

anthropic@125 pointed out

Early Christians would have disagreed about marrying the dog, Q.

You raise an important point. The early Christians adopted Biblical behavioral standards, but they had NO mission (or authority) to impose them on anyone outside their community of believers. These standards were to be a natural result of their faith, and not a new form of legalism. It was recognized and accepted that some Christians set for themselves different standards for personal reasons that included celibacy, vegetarianism, abstention from alcohol, and so on. Rabbi Shaul (aka the Apostle Paul), recognized no difference "in Christ" between male and female, Jew and Greek, slave and free. He also encouraged a slaveholding believer, Philemon, to set free his slave. However, the whole point wasn't to force change on society. -Q Querius

To know truth you must first encounter Truth.

And if people who both claim to be Christians espouse different 'truths' then who is right? Who wins? Bruno 'lost'. Was he wrong or just unlucky? Were his persecutors 'right'? Where does the moral compass point? Does it always point the same way? Jerad

Jerad, To know truth you must first encounter Truth. Best wishes in your quest. Mung

kairosfocus @ 127: Beautifully stated my brother. [And no mention of the shape of the cross or of worshipping a crucifix!] Mung

That there are Christians confused over the fashionable attempt to twist marriage against Creation order (often on the myth that “my genes made me do it”) only implies that there are confused by the spirit of our age and the failure of too many leaders of the church in our time to follow their sound Christian education mandate, per Eph 4:9 – 24.

That's fine, I know many Christians agree with you. But some don't So . . . given that some in your general camp claim to tap into an absolute and objective moral code . . . how do I judge who is right? When you disagree with others who claim to follow the same sacred texts? I'm trying to get past a particular issue or event. I'm trying to figure out how to discern amongst you Christians who is right when you've been disagreeing with each other for 2000 years. And some of you have died at the hands of others of you. Bruno for example. And a lot of what were judged to be heretics but who said they were good Christians. Like the Cathars. They had a view different from Rome and lots of them were killed by other Christians because of the disagreement. Was that moral? Was that justified? And, even if you're right, does that give you the right to kill those with whom you disagree? When Christians disagree who decides who is 'right'? AND, if 200 years from now the Catholic church has allowed married priests (as they once did), women priests (are the Anglicans wrong?) and even homosexual priests then does that mean you were wrong? Jerad

Jerad: That there are Christians confused over the fashionable attempt to twist marriage against Creation order (often on the myth that "my genes made me do it") only implies that there are confused by the spirit of our age and the failure of too many leaders of the church in our time to follow their sound Christian education mandate, per Eph 4:9 - 24. For just one instance (note the already linked) let us note:

1 Cor 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,[c] 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Couldn't be plainer or more direct. [Cf. here also.] Of course, in the very same epistle c 55 AD, the apostle pointed out that the fleshly, unspiritual mind does not understand, resists and often dismisses spiritual truth. KF kairosfocus

Ab: A Christian . . . properly . . . is a: a penitent sinner and disciple of Christ b: who is persevering in the path of the right [often, "the way"], c: based on personal encounter with God through the risen, once crucified Christ leading to d: said repentance [metanoia] and to trust in God based on the warranted truth in the gospel, leading also e: towards transformation of life reflective of growing love, truth, spiritual empowerment and purity of thought, word and deed. In short, genuine spiritual life shows itself in various ways, and if the growth-signs are absent, then one is entitled to challenge claims. Just as, if a potted plant is dried up and unresponsive to water, light etc, it is dead. And, with all due respect, after 2000 years and millions of cases in point, this should be a commonplace. The Apostle John notes, relevantly:

1 Jn 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

If someone is struggling to grow and to be properly sensitive and responsive to the truth and the right is one thing, that someone shows no serious signs of spiritual life is another entirely. KF kairosfocus

People can and will argue whatever they desire. Do you think a man and a 12 year old boy should be able to marry if they truly love each other? Do you think a woman should be able to “abort” an unwanted infant up to 2 years in age? One of my professors thought so.

Sigh. If people who are reading the same holy scriptures cannot agree on what they say then why should the rest of us agree with you that they contain a root or seed of what is claimed to be the absolute moral good? Bruno was killed by good Christians. The Waldensian and Albigensian crusades were perpetrated by good Christians. I'm not playing a numbers game, I'm merely saying that people who read the same texts as do pious Christians today have perpetrated some pretty hideous things. Did fellow believers call them on those acts? AND, most importantly, since you know doubt disagree with the horrors of the European crusades and the killing of Bruno then who's to say you've got it right and they had it wrong? If, 200 years from now, there are gay and women priests, will we say that some of you had it wrong? How do I know that your absolute moral compass won't change direction in the future? Jerad

Early Christians would have disagreed about marrying the dog, Q. In fact, it was the growing influence of Christianity that put an end to gladatorial death matches for entertainment, widespread infanticide, and child marriage in Rome. The Church eventually turned against slavery as well, and it was largely banished from most of Europe by the 10th century. So far as we know, this was the first time anywhere in human history that a moral objection was made against slavery. Slavery was reintroduced in the New World, of course. But even there it was eventually destroyed by an abolitionist movement headed up by Christians -- just as the Civil Rights Movement was in the 1960s and the Right to Life movement today. Judge not that you be not judged was meant to warn us against hypocrisy; if we cheat on our taxes we have no right to criticize others who do so. It was never meant that we have no standards, nor that those standards are strictly private. anthropic

Jerad,

Bruno was tried and executed because he disagreed with the predominant view of the Trinity. Where’s the ultimate and supreme morality in that? Is killing dissenters evil?

In the New Testament accounts of the early Christian church, the people who taught things contrary to "sound doctrine" were at worst kicked out of the church. A few of them got sick or died. On the other hand, governments routinely incarcerate, torture, starve, and kill their citizens. From my reading of the history of Christianity, the source of most of such persecutions and executions had to do with domineering personalities and political power, and absolutely nothing to do with following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Christians disagree about whether same-sex marriage should be allowed.

Be allowed by whom? By God? By the State? By some ecclesiastical authority who wears a funny hat?

Who is right? Everybody is reading the same text and yet there is no agreement.

People can and will argue whatever they desire. Do you think a man and a 12 year old boy should be able to marry if they truly love each other? Do you think a woman should be able to "abort" an unwanted infant up to 2 years in age? One of my professors thought so. As a Christian, I have no mission to force anyone to live as I do. If you want to marry your dog, go for it. Also, as a Christian, I'm now motivated by an enthusiastic desire to live a life that's pleasing to God. My motivations don't include getting drunk, lying, thieving, sexual immorality of any kind, coveting material goods---all this no longer holds any attraction to me. People should do what they want, but know that there are consequences. And if they get sick of their lives, know that there's an alternative. -Q Querius

Bruno was tried and executed because he disagreed with the predominant view of the Trinity. Where’s the ultimate and supreme morality in that? Is killing dissenters evil? Which interpretation of the faith was correct: Bruno or his tormentors? Who judges? If you say they’re both wrong then how do you (or I) know you are right? Christians disagree about whether same-sex marriage should be allowed. Who is right? Everybody is reading the same text and yet there is no agreement. Why should I believe you? Jerad

Acartia_bogart@116 wondered,

But judgements are made all the time.

Yes, that's true. And Jesus said that in the same way we judge others, we will also be judged.

All I have read here is what disqualifies a person as a Christian, not what qualifies a person as one. A Christian wouldn’t kill; a Christian wouldn’t steal; a Christian wouldn’t lie; etc. etc. etc. if this is really true then a Christian must be the rarest animal on earth.

Yes, so rare in fact, that someone like that doesn't exist. Period. Everyone has done one or more of the things you mentioned and more. An authentic Christian is in fact a person just like you (!), but who is willing to admit that they are selfish, self-willed, caused a lot of pain to others, and deserves to die. The Bible says that the good news is that Jesus came to rescue people like you and me, and that Jesus paid the price for us. It says that Jesus is the predicted Messiah, the only son of God. Many Indian Christians describe him as the only avatar of God.

Everything including the persecution of Jews, separating native children from their parents, slavery, the burning of witches, executions for blasphemy and adultery and homosexuality, and numerous wars have been justified (or at least condoned) through religious beliefs. We are told that these were based on misinterpretations of god’s teaching. I am willing to concede that this is the case.

It is indeed the case! The people who hated Jesus the most were self-righteous "religious" people. Jesus was pretty rude to them. Furthermore - The Greeks turned Christianity into a philosophy; - The Romans turned it into a system; - The Europeans into a culture; - And the Americans into a business. According to the Bible, all you need to do is - Confess to God that you're a moral failure (yes, that's what I am too!); - That you want God's mercy and complete forgiveness through the sacrifice of Jesus, trusting that God's promise is true; - And that you extend an invitation to God's Holy Spirit to work in your life. I'm confident that it will have a profound effect in your life as it has in mine and many other people I know.

But if we have had 2000 years of these types of misinterpretations, why do you think that your current interpretation is correct?

This is an excellent question! When I started college, I knew that I wanted only authentic Christianity, if it existed. Earlier, I'd studied different religions, which seemed to me primarily cultural institutions. I started reading the Bible seriously to see what Jesus really said. Through it and life experiences, I found peace, joy, wisdom, encouragement, and a completely changed life. However, I wouldn't expect you or want you to take my word for it. You should ask God directly. I'm confident that you will experience a personal answer! -Q Querius

Q, thanks for reminding me of that Bible. Having the numbering of the NT Greek numerically coded to the LXX Greek is nice. Mung

@Querius: " According to the Bible, even Christians aren’t supposed to make those judgements." But judgements are made all the time. All I have read here is what disqualifies a person as a Christian, not what qualifies a person as one. A Christian wouldn't kill; a Christian wouldn't steal; a Christian wouldn't lie; etc. etc. etc. if this is really true then a Christian must be the rarest animal on earth. Everything including the persecution of Jews, separating native children from their parents, slavery, the burning of witches, executions for blasphemy and adultery and homosexuality, and numerous wars have been justified (or at least condoned) through religious beliefs. We are told that these were based on misinterpretations of god's teaching. I am willing to concede that this is the case. But if we have had 2000 years of these types of misinterpretations, why do you think that your current interpretation is correct? Acartia_bogart

Barb, Pardon me if I've already mentioned this. Recently, I purchased a recently published Septuagint. It's called the Apostolic Bible Polyglot, an interlinear, word-for-word translation from the Greek. Even the Greek word order is preserved, and the Strong's number for each word is included, so you can look up the range of meanings for each word. I would recommend it to you. Comparing this text to several Bible translations, one can clearly see choices made by the English translators of the various versions. You probably know this, but for the sake of other readers, the Septuagint is an authorized translation of the Tanakh (the Old Testament) from Hebrew manuscripts by about 70 Jewish scholars in Alexandria, about 200-300 years before Christ. Scholars have compared the Greek text of the Septuagint to the Hebrew text of the Dead Sea scrolls, and they have found a high degree of agreement between them. Most of the differences between the quotations in the B'rit Chadashah (the New Testament) of the Tanakh were introduced by the Masoretic text, written several hundred years after the Messiah. The Masoretic text was the basis for both the contemporary Jewish and Christian translations. In the Septuagint, you won't find an answer to the controversy over whether Yeshua was executed on a stake with zero, one, or two crosspieces, a minor point in my opinion, but you will be able to make informed decisions about other interpretations. Kind regards, -Q Querius

bogart, Since you apparently don't understand what makes a person a Christian, you're not in any position to make a judgement regarding any individual according to your own values. According to the Bible, even Christians aren't supposed to make those judgements. Some Christians choose to abstain from alcohol, others abstain from meat, others abstain from sex, still others abstain from violent force. These are all personal decisions. Alone, they do not determine whether a person is a Christian. Personally, I have no problem with any of these choices, and I respect the people who hold to them. However, if my family or I were threatened with serious injury or death, I would not hesitate to use whatever force necessary to stop the perpetrators regardless of their species. -Q Querius

Acartia writes, So, I ask again, was Truman a Christian? If your answer is anything other than “no” I am afraid that all of your other arguments lose what little credibility they may have had. I would answer "no" simply because of the reasons posted above. Claiming to be something is borne out by actions, not words. I can claim to be a supermodel, but that doesn't make it true. Barb

Now that I am on a hypothetical roll: Were there Christian allied soldiers during WW II? Keep in mind that the average soldier didn't know anything about the holocaust until the war was almost over. They killed other humans simply because they were told to by their government. That seems to violate one of the commandments, but I will concede that the bible manages to condone killing for numerous reasons and maybe following orders is one of those reasons. But, was Harry Truman a Christian? By all accounts he was a "god fearing" man. Yet, he killed thousands of innocent men women and children when he dropped the bomb on Japan. He can't use the "I was following orders" defender because he was the one giving them. And after he knew what the bomb could do, he dropped another one. And, to the day he died, he never once questioned his decision or repented of it. So, I ask again, was Truman a Christian? If your answer is anything other than "no" I am afraid that all of your other arguments lose what little credibility they may have had. Acartia_bogart

Barb and K, I love listening to the nonsense you are spewing about Christians being incapable of committing atrocities. I am not saying that Christians are more likely to do so, or the nonsense that Dawkins spews about religion being responsible for most wars. I was reacting to the equally nonsense statement that most mass murders are caused by atheists. Ok, another hypothetical,, because I know how much you love them. If a Christian kills several people and then repents, does he get his Christian card back? If I understand Christianity correctly, the answer is yes. So, was he a Christian when he committed the acts? S according to your logic, the answer is no. Now, isn't that convenient? Acartia_bogart

Acartia continues,

I am not missing the point. Again, you have just made my point. It is a completely circular argument. A person could live a completely christian life for thirty years. Never steal, never lie, do everything that Jesus wanted people to do. Then one day, he goes out and kills a dozen people for no obvious reason. So, 30 seconds of non christian behaviour out of 985,500,000 and he is no longer a christian?

What you are describing is probably the single worst analogy I’ve ever read. And as you know, actions speak louder than words. And if that person was doing everything Jesus wanted people to do, then it’s not likely that he or she would suddenly snap and murder a dozen people. Your strawman fallacy is ludicrous. Barb

D: Welcome. KF kairosfocus

Ab: It seems at this stage, you have made up your conclusion ahead of time, and so will always revert there. I will simply note for record that when a moral transformation pivoting on fundamental attitude change is a necessary condition of discipleship, absence of evidence of that change after a reasonable time is evidence of absence of the necessary change, whatever someone may say. Also, all of this becomes so much of an attempt to imply that because some hypocrites wear Christian garb and because some who have professed Christian affiliation have done some awful things, genuine discipleship and its positive impact on culture, history and civilisation is meaningless or can be ignored and dismissed -- especially as it relates to the reality of a life-transforming encounter with God. That makes no more sense than to say that because counterfeit money exists genuine money is meaningless and can be dismissed. Underneath, I suspect there may lurk a version of a fallacy: as evil exists, there can be no God in the sense theism posits. However, first, absent God, there is no basis for differentiating good from evil, beyond the nihilist's credo might and manipulation make 'right.' In addition, you need to ponder Plantinga's free will defense, cf. skeletal outline here. KF kairosfocus

@Barb: "No, you are missing the point. Anyone who commits mass murder and claims to be a Christian is lying." I am not missing the point. Again, you have just made my point. It is a completely circular argument. A person could live a completely christian life for thirty years. Never steal, never lie, do everything that Jesus wanted people to do. Then one day, he goes out and kills a dozen people for no obvious reason. So, 30 seconds of non christian behaviour out of 985,500,000 and he is no longer a christian? "...studies have shown that alcoholism definitely has a genetic component" The operative word here is "component". Yes, there are genetic aspects to behaviour. It is known that higher testosterone levels are associated with higher aggression levels. And testosterone is definitely genetically linked. But there are also people with high testosterone levels who are not aggressive and people with low testosterone levels who are. So, yes, there is a genetic component to aggression, but it is not the same tight link that we see for other traits like eye colour or the ability to curl your tongue. Acartia_bogart

Mung,

Yet another non-sequitur. Shall we call them false teachers?

Not a non sequitur, but nice try. Seriously, go read the other thread. It’s been explained repeatedly, and I’m not cross posting here simply because you won’t let it go. Really, it’s getting pathetic now. Are you going to troll every single post I make here? Posted on the other thread, but obviously unread by Mung: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989228#h=27:0-31:503 Barb

Barb:

Except for the fact that Witnesses never claimed to be prophets. Your “argument” fails yet again.

Yet another non-sequitur. Shall we call them false teachers? Mung

Mung,

Interesting that you should bring this up. 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. You see, we can know they were false prophets by their fruits. But the JW’s, while admitting the fruit was bad [the things they claimed would come to pass did not come to pass], deny they were false prophets.

Except for the fact that Witnesses never claimed to be prophets. Your “argument” fails yet again. Arcartia,

You just prove my point. By your own argument you are admitting that a Christian is incapable of committing mass murder because if they did, they would no longer be Christian.

No, you are missing the point. Anyone who commits mass murder and claims to be a Christian is lying. I can claim to be anything, but that doesn’t make it true.

No it doesn’t. There are certainly many traits that have a one-to-one relationship with a gene (or assemblage of genes), but much of the genetic work that is going on now is searching for genetic factors that increase your risk of (not cause) various symptoms, behaviours, etc.

Again, you miss the point. Science does routinely search for (and occasionally identify) genes that are directly related to behavioral traits: “Family, twin and adoption studies have shown that alcoholism definitely has a genetic component. In 1990, Blum et al. proposed an association between the A1 allele of the DRD2 gene and alcoholism. The DRD2 gene is the first candidate gene that has shown promise of an association with alcoholism (Gordis et al., 1990).” article about alcoholism And there is a "psycho gene" as well: article here Science does tell us that genes are at least partially, if not completely, responsible for behavioral traits. And this would be good for materialist atheists, because then they could simply do whatever they wanted (lie, steal, kill) and blame their “selfish genes” for making them do it. Personal responsibility would be absolved. And why not; after all, we are only dancing to the music our “selfish genes” play, right? Barb

@Barb: "Your second point also fails. Claiming something doesn’t make it true. Claiming to be a Christian is borne out, not by words, but by actions (see Matthew 7:21-23)." You just prove my point. By your own argument you are admitting that a Christian is incapable of committing mass murder because if they did, they would no longer be Christian. @Barb 78: "And science keeps telling us that there are genes for everything from alcoholism to violent behavior" No it doesn't. There are certainly many traits that have a one-to-one relationship with a gene (or assemblage of genes), but much of the genetic work that is going on now is searching for genetic factors that increase your risk of (not cause) various symptoms, behaviours, etc. Acartia_bogart

Timaeus: Good points, especially in the context that Jesus taught that not all who called him Lord would find his approval, but instead those whose lives were transformed through repentance and discipleship and so lived by his principles; most famously provided in the Sermon on the Mount. His brother James also pointed out that theology is not enough, saying how the devils believe there is one God indeed, but that does them not one bit of good, for they are in defiant rebellion. So, while yes, Christendom has some awful chapters in its history, that is not a peculiar characteristic of Christendom, but of rebellious and devilish men who hold power. A pretty universal problem. And, it is also the case that there is a serious problem with systems that undermine moral restraints, Marxism-Leninism- Stalinism being a capital example. KF kairosfocus

Barb:

Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. (NIV)

Interesting that you should bring this up. 15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. You see, we can know they were false prophets by their fruits. But the JW's, while admitting the fruit was bad [the things they claimed would come to pass did not come to pass], deny they were false prophets. Mung

Mung continues,

This is particularly the case if you are a member of an organization in which what was true yesterday may not be true tomorrow and yet may again be true the day after tomorrow.

Check the “Adam and Eve at Bryan College” thread; it’s all laid out for you there.

Claiming to be a Christian is borne out, not by words, but by actions (see Matthew 7:21-23). That may be true today, but if you’re a Jehovah’s Witness tomorrow’s “new light” might make it false. It’s not like they haven’t claimed in the past that Scripture has been mistranslated/misunderstood and that there is a “new truth.”

No, that’s true all the time. Actions speak louder than words. A Christian is not identified by cross jewelry or by carrying a Bible; he or she is identified by how he or she treats other people. This is in the Bible, Mung; surely you are aware of this point. Matthew 7:17: Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. (NIV) And again, see the other thread. It’s explained there and I don’t plan on cross-posting to every other thread simply because you cannot handle a Witness posting here and feel that every post I make has to answered with a snarky response. Really, get over it.

This verse, Matthew 7:21, provides a great example. This is one of those cases where the translators of the New World Translation have chosen not to render Kyrie (Lord) as Jehovah. Yet given their past record in changing the translation of this Greek word from Lord to Jehovah, this passage may be next on the chopping block!

That’s doubtful. However, congratulations on missing the entire point of the relevant verse you cited: God’s Son made clear that even those doing things similar to those commanded, but evidently in a wrong way or with a wrong motive, would never gain entrance into the Kingdom but would be completely rejected.—Mt 7:15-23. Your arguments are wearing thin. Congratulations on missing the entire point of what Jesus was saying! Barb

Barb:

Claiming something doesn’t make it true.

This is particularly the case if you are a member of an organization in which what was true yesterday may not be true tomorrow and yet may again be true the day after tomorrow. Barb:

Claiming to be a Christian is borne out, not by words, but by actions (see Matthew 7:21-23).

That may be true today, but if you're a Jehovah's Witness tomorrow's "new light" might make it false. It's not like they haven't claimed in the past that Scripture has been mistranslated/misunderstood and that there is a "new truth." This verse, Matthew 7:21, provides a great example. This is one of those cases where the translators of the New World Translation have chosen not to render Kyrie (Lord) as Jehovah. Yet given their past record in changing the translation of this Greek word from Lord to Jehovah, this passage may be next on the chopping block! Mung

bogart (95): The circular argument you are complaining about is, I agree, a bad one. But if you adjust the argument so that it is no longer circular, it becomes a serious one. And that is what I was doing. I was hoping you would respond to my reformulated argument, not the original bad argument. Anyone who denies that nominal Christians have committed atrocities simply doesn't know history. Lots of people who have been called Christian, and have called themselves Christian, have committed atrocities. But there is an ambiguity in the term "Christian." Does it mean, "one who assents to theoretical propositions *about* Jesus"? Or does it mean, "one who feels bound to live in accord with the teachings *of* Jesus"? We know that plenty of people who firmly accepted certain propositions *about* Jesus (e.g., the doctrine of Trinity) have committed mass atrocities, so obviously a "Christian" in the first sense can commit atrocities. However, I don't know of very many people who are Christian in the second sense who have committed mass atrocities. There is a disjunction between Christian theory and ideal Christian practice, because Christian theory is based on the metaphysical speculations of theologians, whereas Christian practice is (ideally at least) based on the teaching of Jesus as given in the Gospels. There are no examples in the Gospels of Jesus or other Christians forcing religion on anyone, or killing people of non-Christian religion, or torturing heretics, etc. All theological justifications of violence and tyranny come from theologizing about Jesus, not from living in accord with the teaching of Jesus. In the examples I gave of secular ideologies, however, this disjunction between theory and practice does not and cannot exist. For a Stalinist, Leninist, Nazi, etc., if it is good in theory it is also automatically good in practice. Therefore, the mass murder or imprisonment of "regressive" social elements is not an immoral deviation from the lofty principles of the original movement (as burning heretics was an immoral deviation from the teaching of Jesus); it is a praiseworthy and moral action for totalitarian rulers to perform. Thus, secular ideologies always justify mass murder, torture, etc. with a clear conscience, whereas no Christian can undertake such things without a nagging inner voice, asking, "But can such cruelty be justified from the words and actions of our Lord?" This is why a world governed by Christian principles (and no, I am not advocating that Christians take over the world by force or that Christianity be made a compulsory state religion) will always be better than a world governed by totalitarian secular ideologies. (The same might be said in criticism of not only of secular ideologies but of other religious traditions which -- at least in certain versions -- display a totalitarian mindset that justifies moral atrocities.) I believe that in certain past ages Christian rulers and legal authorities behaved in a totalitarian manner. The frequency of this has been greatly exaggerated in secular humanist propaganda, but it did happen, and I condemn it, speaking as a Christian to those past Christians who in my mind betrayed the teaching and life of Christ. However, I believe that the point that Barb etc. are making is not that the Crusades or Inquisition etc. did not happen, but that if we measure the atrocities of the 20th century by the moral compass by which the New Atheists routinely condemn the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc., the 20th century comes out much worse, and the 20th century was dominated not by Christian religion but by secular ideologies. The New Atheist critique of Christianity's ethical failures is one-sided and partisan. Timaeus

KF: Thank you for the links you provided in your comments #86 & 87. Dionisio

“I was not critical of religion. I was critical of people who claim that atheists are responsible for almost all mass murders and use the circular argument that Christians cant be responsible because if you commit mass murders you can’t be Christian.” The problem with that viewpoint is that it is rendered invalid by the facts. Atheists—as noted above in BA77’s post are responsible for more murders (including mass murders and genocides) than religious people are. History bears this out. Your second point also fails. Claiming something doesn’t make it true. Claiming to be a Christian is borne out, not by words, but by actions (see Matthew 7:21-23). Furthermore, mental illnesses (also a root cause of violent behavior, c/f Elliot Rodger) are not limited to religious or non-religious people. Barb

@Timaeus 22: "So what follows from your criticism of religion?" I was not critical of religion. I was critical of people who claim that atheists are responsible for almost all mass murders and use the circular argument that Christians cant be responsible because if you commit mass murders you can't be Christian. @Joe 69: "Natural selection is the elimination of the less fit from a population. Fitness is measured by reproductive success. And natural selection also pertains to behavior as behaviors can be inherited." No it's not, and no it doesn't. Natural selection is just the result differential proliferation of genes. Natural selection does not act on behaviours unless the behaviours are genetically based. Acartia_bogart

Jerad: Ought does not equal is. Please, bear that in mind. Ought is what we should do, is, what -- as finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed -- we may and too often do. However, our wrong does not negate what ought to have been done. But we have become so confused that we need a blatant case to blow away the clouds of toxic smoke. That is why I have put on the table an undeniable case: the all too actual kidnapping, torture, rape and murder of a child. And I pointed out that if we chanced upon such we would find ourselves obligated to do all we can to stop the monster. Look at the responses above: refusal to face it squarely, trying to divert into blame games and recriminations. Which are marks of evasion and yet imply an admission that we are indeed morally governed by ought, which we find intelligible and binding. So, we need to face the implications: if OUGHT is real, we live in a world rooted in an IS that grounds ought. An inherently GOOD. Now, too, that which holds up a standard of straightness is not to be discarded because there are things that are crooked. Or even that straightness is a challenge. If we discard the straight, then the nearly straight, then the partly straight, then whatever gives a hint of needing to be straight or reminding us of the straight, things will simply get worse and worse, and the discarding of the straight will frustrate any attempt to get back to the straight. Which, BTW is exactly what happened with the cases you cited from those litanies of the sins of Christendom that are so often used to try to discard and dismiss the premise of ought. The straight was compromised by the powerful, wrong was done, revenge took over, worse and worse was done, ending in horror. Such behaviour is self defeating and even ruinous. And it often takes generations to set right. (And, yes, Christians struggle towards virtue and goodness [often termed spiritual growth], a most important practice that does us and the world good . . . struggling towards the right and the true and the good. And yes, if one claims to live in light but habitually walks in darkness, he lies by what he says and does. That's from the apostle John, and it means it is possible to falsely profess the Christian faith, which will come out from a habitual, comfortable walk in the wrong as the characteristic of one's life. A Christian faith influenced society will reflect that pattern: some, struggling to the right, many showing life transformation to the good -- which I notice objectors who trot out litanies typically duck or ignore -- and some making professions but being comfortable in evil.) That is why it is so important for us to acknowledge that we are under moral government, and therefore face the implication that at the root of reality, there is an IS that properly grounds OUGHT. And yes, it is a bitter pill for lab coat clad atheists to swallow: evolutionary materialism does not and cannot have any such IS. So, it is forced to borrow moral principles, reduce them to some sort of relativistic consensus, and hope we will all try to get along nicely. But, sooner or later the underlying amorality comes out when politically correct pressure groups find clever ways to make evil seem good. The abortion holocaust that is going on apace is a classic example where the innocent voiceless are slaughtered by the millions per year under patently hollow slogans about choice, and even rights. Where, we are now paying the price as a civilisation: blood-guilt, especially mass-blood guilt, is the most morally corrupting factor of all. That is why reasoning about morality and reform in our day is so fraught with confusion, blindness, hardness of heart and en-darkened understanding that leads many to cling to absurdities falsely substituted for the good, the true and the right. As a culture, we are rapidly reaching the point where we simply cannot collectively think straight. The march of folly that leads to ruin. Just look around. Of course, evolutionary materialism also undermines the reasoning, knowing mind. Haldane long since pointed that out:

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]

kairosfocus

Piotr @ 72: H G Wells is actually pivotal to the ethical debate. And it is true that he studied Evolution under Huxley. Next, the issue here is not actually science but that facet of ethics commonly called science in society; informed by worldview considerations. As in, does evolutionary materialism have a foundation able to bear the weight of ought? From Plato in The Laws Bk X on, the consistent analysis has been, no. For the excellent reason that a world based only on atoms etc in space and time moved only by blind chance and mechanical necessity lacks any IS that entails OUGHT. As say Dawkins admitted, among many others. And on that issue of science in society, H G Wells was a master. If you doubt me, look at the sci in soc themes in War of the Worlds, Time Machine and Island of Dr Moreau. Indeed, in the first case, c 1897, he put his finger on the problems that would surface with Nazism. Right from the opening in Ch 1:

No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water . . . No one gave a thought to the older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of the mental habits of those departed days. At most terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon Mars, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us . . . . looking across space with instruments, and intelligences such as we have scarcely dreamed of, they see, at its nearest distance only 35,000,000 of miles sunward of them, a morning star of hope, our own warmer planet, green with vegetation and grey with water, with a cloudy atmosphere eloquent of fertility, with glimpses through its drifting cloud wisps of broad stretches of populous country and narrow, navy-crowded seas. And we men, the creatures who inhabit this earth, must be to them at least as alien and lowly as are the monkeys and lemurs to us. The intellectual side of man already admits that life is an incessant struggle for existence, and it would seem that this too is the belief of the minds upon Mars. Their world is far gone in its cooling and this world is still crowded with life, but crowded only with what they regard as inferior animals. To carry warfare sunward is, indeed, their only escape from the destruction that, generation after generation, creeps upon them. And before we judge of them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and the dodo, but upon its inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit?

So, he turned the Aryan Man superiority notion on its head, by suggesting a case of superior and ruthless aliens reasoning to Englishmen as Darwin so coolly discussed in Ch 6 of Descent of Man, failing to confront then and there the moral hazard he brought out:

Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . . . At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

I doubt that Darwin anticipated how a Hitler would run with those ideas after four years in the trenches in and around the infamous rape of Belgium -- a dry run for what would follow in the 1940's -- but the seeds are definitely there. A much wider concern is eugenics, and in Time Machine, Wells took this to an extreme to make a point: England's upper classes turned into sheep bred for the table by descendants of the lower classes. Island of Dr Moreu, is about ethics of science with a prototype mad scientist . . . now, a stock figure. Playing with the idea of transforming beast to man, via vivisection . . . doubtless meant as a speeded up evolution in the pre genetics era. (The book may have helped advance the anti vivisection cause.) So, Wells has more to say to us than we may recognise. KF kairosfocus

“Jesus’ followers are called to peace. When Jesus called them, they found their peace. Jesus is their peace. Now they are not only to have peace, but they are to make peace. To do this they renounce violence and strife. Those things never help the cause of Christ. Christ’s kingdom is a realm of peace, and those in Christ’s community greet each other with a greeting of peace. Jesus’ disciples maintain peace by choosing to suffer instead of causing others to suffer. They preserve community when others destroy it. They renounce self-assertion and are silent in the face of hatred and injustice. That is how they overcome evil with good. That is how they are makers of divine peace in a world of hatred and war.” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer Mung

“Words and thoughts are not enough. Doing good involves all the things of daily life. ‘If your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink’ (Romans 12:20). In the same ways that brothers and sisters stand by each other in times of need, bind up each other’s wounds, ease each other’s pain, love of the enemy should do good to the enemy. Where in the world is there greater need, where are deeper wounds and pain than those of our enemies? Where is doing good more necessary and more blessed than for our enemies?” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer Mung

,,,And here is evidence that quantum information is in fact ‘conserved’;,,,

Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html Quantum no-deleting theorem Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence

As well, besides providing direct empirical falsification of neo-Darwinian claims as to the generation of information from a material basis, the implication of finding 'non-local', beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’ quantum information in molecular biology on a massive scale is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious:

Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description) http://vimeo.com/29895068 Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video https://vimeo.com/39982578

Verse and Music:

John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. Brooke Fraser – Lord of Lords(Legendado Português) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkF3iVjOZ1I

Supplemental note:

1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Leggett’s Inequalities, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice; Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries; Quantum Zeno effect) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

Verse:

Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.

bornagain77

Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - short video https://vimeo.com/92405752 Coherent Intrachain energy migration at room temperature – Elisabetta Collini and Gregory Scholes – University of Toronto – Science, 323, (2009), pp. 369-73 Excerpt: The authors conducted an experiment to observe quantum coherence dynamics in relation to energy transfer. The experiment, conducted at room temperature, examined chain conformations, such as those found in the proteins of living cells. Neighbouring molecules along the backbone of a protein chain were seen to have coherent energy transfer. Where this happens quantum decoherence (the underlying tendency to loss of coherence due to interaction with the environment) is able to be resisted, and the evolution of the system remains entangled as a single quantum state. http://www.scimednet.org/quantum-coherence-living-cells-and-protein/ Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011 Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way. Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from. To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,, Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins. That's a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo's equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-protein/

That quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!

Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons - Jun 11, 2013 Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-06-bell-test-loophole-photons.html

In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! Or related note, encoded ‘classical’ digital information, such as what William Dembski and Robert Marks demonstrated the conservation of,

Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II http://www.evoinfo.org/index/

,,i.e. classical 'digital' information, such as what we find encoded in computer programs, and yes, as we find encoded in DNA,

Every Bit Digital: DNA’s Programming Really Bugs Some ID Critics - Casey Luskin Excerpt: "There’s a very recognizable digital code of the kind that electrical engineers rediscovered in the 1950s that maps the codes for sequences of DNA onto expressions of proteins." http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo12/12luskin2.php The Digital Code of DNA and the Unimagined Complexity of a 'Simple' Bacteria - Rabbi Moshe Averick - video https://vimeo.com/35730736

,,classical 'digital' information is found to be a subset of this ‘non-local' (i.e. beyond space and time) quantum entanglement/information by the following method:

Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 2011 Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect; In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that “more than complete knowledge” from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy. Renner emphasizes, however, “This doesn’t mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine.” The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what’s known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says “We’re working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm

bornagain77

Piotr, not that you care for empirical evidence, as is abundantly clear from your stubborn refusal to deal with the evidence on its own merits (to the point of IMHO being blatantly deceptive), but in case someone else would like to know, the empirical falsification of Darwinism is as such. Darwinian presuppositions hold that information, (and even consciousness), is merely an ‘emergent’ property of a material basis, but it is now found that material reduces to an information basis: First, in explaining the empirical falsification of Darwinism, it is important to learn that ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement (A. Aspect, A. Zeilinger) can be used as a ‘quantum information channel’,,,

Quantum Entanglement and Information Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

And by using this ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, ‘quantum information channel’ of entanglement, physicists have reduced both matter and energy to quantum information.

Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn’t quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable – it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can’t ‘clone’ a quantum state. In principle, however, the ‘copy’ can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp Atom takes a quantum leap – 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been ‘teleported’ over a distance of a metre.,,, “What you’re moving is information, not the actual atoms,” says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/teleportation1.htm Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,” http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862

In fact an entire human can, theoretically, be reduced to quantum information and teleported to another location in the universe:

Quantum Teleportation Of A Human? – video https://vimeo.com/75163272

Thus not only is information not reducible to a energy-matter basis, as is presupposed in Darwinism, but in actuality both energy and matter reduce to a information basis as is presupposed in Christian Theism (John1:1). Moreover, this ‘spooky’ non-local quantum information, though at first thought to be impossible to maintain in ‘hot and noisy’ cells, is now found in molecular biology on a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule:

Quantum entanglement in hot systems – 2011 Excerpt: The authors remark that this reverses the previous orthodoxy, which held that quantum effects could not exist in biological systems because of the amount of noise in these systems.,,, Environmental noise here drives a persistent and cyclic generation of new entanglement.,,, In summary, the authors say that they have demonstrated that entanglement can recur even in a hot noisy environment. In biological systems this can be related to changes in the conformation of macromolecules. http://quantum-mind.co.uk/quantum-entanglement-hot-systems/ Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint – 2010 Excerpt: When the researchers analysed the DNA without its helical structure, they found that the electron clouds were not entangled. But when they incorporated DNA’s helical structure into the model, they saw that the electron clouds of each base pair became entangled with those of its neighbours. “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight – 2009 Excerpt: DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn’t be able to.,,, The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible. per daily galaxy DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows – June 2011 Excerpt: — DNA — can discern between quantum states known as spin. – The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team’s results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htm

bornagain77

PS: D, you may want to glance here. kairosfocus

D @ 70: Well put, and a good read. I wonder if the objectors also took time to examine the already linked about one of the very concrete evidences regarding the rescuing, transforming impact of turning to God, as illustrated by the 12 step programme pioneered by Alcoholics Anonymous -- and yes, one of the co-founders spectacularly backslid, to the gleeful pouncing on by objectors; but over the decades, the pattern is a proved success as is the similar Teen Challenge pattern for drug addiction. After things like this and millions of lives transformed for the better that are easily accessible and patent to the willing, the sort of ill-tempered objections that we see too often . . . that try to pretend such is not real by trying to list a litany of the sins of Christendom rings rather hollow. And yes, where wheat has been sown, an enemy has sown tares. The Master, on being told this has said, no do not uproot the tares, that will also uproot wheat. Wait till harvest and we will separate wheat from tares, dealing with them as is appropriate. And yes, that is right there in the gospels, as is the challenge to bring forth fruit meet unto penitence. KF kairosfocus

Ab: You did as predicted. Take a conveniently tangential red herring, go off to a strawman, soak it in ad hominems, set alight to cloud, confuse, poison, polarise and distract. The trifecta fallacy. An all too well known common resort of too many evo mat advocates here at UD and elsewhere, when they have no good answer on the merits and do not wish to face that. Now, back on target, you have been unable to address the IS-OUGHT gap on your obvious worldview. Let's have Dawkins' statement and look back at the issues from the underlying absurdity of that amorality and subjectivism/relativism:

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [[ “God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 - 85.]

So, now, you have a challenge; why are you so worked up over issues of good vs evil, and what does that imply about the foundations of your view of things vs those of reality? In short, you face the IS-OUGHT gap. There has to be a foundational IS capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT. And OUGHT of course is not equal to is, in a world of finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed people . . . all of us . . . what we ought to do is always a challenge to what we do. And, so, the challenge to repentance and reformation thence transformation. KF kairosfocus

Joe: Here's what Mayr says in What Evolution Is (sometimes almost contradicting himself):

This unequal survival of individuals is due in part to competition among the new recombinant genotypes within the population, and in part to chance processes affecting the frequency of genes. The resulting change of a population is called evolution.

and

Evolution in sexually reproducing organisms consists of genetic changes from generation to generation in populations, from the smallest local deme to the aggregate of interbreeding populations in a biological species. Numerous processes, particularly mutation, contribute to these genetic changes to supply the phenotypic variation needed by selection.

The fact that the phenotype is the target of selection does not mean that emphasis on the fundamental role of genetic changes equals "reductionism" of the type Mayr didn't like. After all, sexually reproducing individuals do not produce faithful copies of themselves. They produce descendants who carry faithful copies of (some of) their DNA. Piotr

By the way Piotr, you are the one practicing pseudo-science! Disagree? Then provide the mathematical falsification criteria for Darwinism! bornagain77

Proclamation instead of reference? Are we practicing Greek science where we pronounce on how the world should behave instead of finding out how it actually does behave?,,, Moreover, neo-Darwinism (i.e. the central dogma), regardless of how fond atheists/materialists personally are of it, is falsified empirically: The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - January 2012 Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes. http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/ Does the central dogma still stand? – Koonin EV. – 23 August 2012 Excerpt: Thus, there is non-negligible flow of information from proteins to the genome in modern cells, in a direct violation of the Central Dogma of molecular biology. The prion-mediated heredity that violates the Central Dogma appears to be a specific, most radical manifestation of the widespread assimilation of protein (epigenetic) variation into genetic variation. The epigenetic variation precedes and facilitates genetic adaptation through a general ‘look-ahead effect’ of phenotypic mutations.,,, Conclusions: The Central Dogma of molecular biology is refuted by genetic assimilation of prion-dependent phenotypic heredity. This phenomenon is likely to be the tip of the proverbial iceberg,,, Even more generally, the entire spectrum of epigenetic variation, in particular various modifications of DNA, chromatin proteins and RNA, potentially can be similarly assimilated by evolving genomes.,,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3472225/ Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century - James A. Shapiro - 2009 Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112). http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.AnnNYAcadSciMS.RevisitingCentral%20Dogma.pdf Also of interest from the preceding paper, on page 22, is a simplified list of the ‘epigentic’ information flow in the cell that directly contradicts what was expected from the central dogma (Genetic Reductionism/modern synthesis model) of neo-Darwinism. How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome - James A. Shapiro - 2013 Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513000869 James Shapiro on “dangerous oversimplifications” about the cell - August 6, 2013 Excerpt: "Depending upon the energy source and other circumstances, these indescribably complex entities can reproduce themselves with great reliability at times as short as 10-20 minutes. Each reproductive cell cycle involves literally hundreds of millions of biochemical and biomechanical events. We must recognize that cells possess a cybernetic capacity beyond our ability to imitate. Therefore, it should not surprise us when we discover extremely dense and interconnected control architectures at all levels. Simplifying assumptions about cell informatics can be more misleading than helpful in understanding the basic principles of biological function. Two dangerous oversimplifications have been (i) to consider the genome as a mere physical carrier of hypothetical units called “genes” that determine particular cell or organismal traits, and (ii) to think of the genome as a digitally encoded Read-Only Turing tape that feeds instructions to the rest of the cell about individual characters [4]." https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/news/james-shapiro-on-dangerous-oversimplifications-about-the-cell/ Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Nobel – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/10395212 ,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”. Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences. bornagain77

Barb:

“Designer babies” are already possible. And science keeps telling us that there are genes for everything from alcoholism to violent behavior, so why not?

Science tells us no such thing (as opposed, perhaps, to science reporters in the popular press). But we are talking about culturally conditioned patterns of behaviour, aren't we? As far as I know, neither religiousness nor atheism are biologically heritable. Violent behaviour may have a genetic component, but it's certainly to a great extent acquired and not heritable. If it is an innate predisposition, then it doesn't matter if the person in question believes in a god or not. Darwin defined natural selection in this way (emphasis mine):

Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. [Origin 1959, p. 61]

and :

Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us. [p. 11]

Darwin's "variation" means a variable hereditary trait. He couldn't know what it was in molecular terms. Barb again:

I was quoting him as a historian describing the difference in morals and values after Darwin’s book was published. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing.

You quoted him to justify your use of the cliché "survival of the fittest" (which is factually false, by the way: the beings that survive are not "the fittest" but merely "fit enough"; otherwise the slightest defect would be lethal). It wasn't a felicitous summary of the theory of natural selection even in the 19th century. How it was understood or rather misunderstood by lay people is not Darwin's fault. You might just as well blame Wagner for inspiring Hitler's sick imagination. Piotr

Piotr:

The real “competition” in biology is not between individuals, populations or species, but between alleles occupying the same genomic locus.

Mayr says otherwise in "What Evolution Is". No one should listen to Piotr over Ernst Mayr when it comes to evolution. Joe

BA: A change in the DNA sequence stays in your descendants forever (or at least until it is overwritten by a new mutation). An epigenetic change (methylation, histone remodelling) persist through a few generations at best (so their significance in fixing adaptations practically equals zero). They don't work in such a way that your acquired patterns of behaviour should be inherited by your children or grandchildren. And if your kids bear a strange resemblance to the postman rather than you, I am afraid epigenetic imprinting is not a likely explanation. The last link has nothing to do with heritability or evolution, and the last-but-one is patent pseudoscience. Piotr

Piotr,

Meaning that if you act tough, the DNA of your germ cells will be influenced by your actions in such a way that your children’s behaviour will be affected? Is that what you’ve learnt from the new maps of the human genome? Heck, that makes the story of Jacob and Laban’s sheep credible

“Designer babies” are already possible. And science keeps telling us that there are genes for everything from alcoholism to violent behavior, so why not?

Are you a relict the Victorian period, Barb? (You know: “Nature, red in tooth and claw…”)

No, sunshine.

Darwin was not an idiot who misunderstood his own theory. He repeats many times that natural selection affects heritable traits. Also, “survival” and “reproductive success” are two different concepts, especially when you consider that evolution is fundamentally about the success of DNA replicators (something totally unknown to Darwin and his disciples).

From what I read, Darwin’s followers were the ones who changed the meaning of the term natural selection from its application to species and narrowed it to genes.

He was trained to be a science teacher, but his understanding even of Darwin’s theory of natural selection was rather superficial, and he tended to mix up biology with social science and politics. He can’t be quoted as an authority on modern evolutionary theory, which did not yet exist at all during his university years.

And if you read my post, I wasn’t using him as an authority on modern evolutionary theory. I was quoting him as a historian describing the difference in morals and values after Darwin’s book was published. Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing. Barb

bogart (64): That's "sickle" cell anemia. I take it that biology is not your area of expertise. Timaeus

Epigenetics: Feast, Famine, and Fatness - Helen Kollias - December 25th, 2009 Excerpt: In the last five to ten years, there has been more and more evidence showing there is a non-genetic part that can be passed down to children and even grandchildren. As of this summer there are over 100 scientific articles documenting non-DNA inheritance, also called transgenerational epigenetics (1). http://www.precisionnutrition.com/epigenetics-feast-famine-and-fatness Environmentally Induced Heritable Changes in Flax - 2011 Excerpt: Some flax varieties respond to nutrient stress by modifying their genome and these modifications can be inherited through many generations. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182631/ Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, - December 10, 2013 Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,”,,, “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,”,,, the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways. http://www.tunedbody.com/scientists-finally-show-thoughts-can-cause-specific-molecular-changes-genes/ The health benefits of happiness - Mark Easton - 2006 Excerpt: "It's not just that if you're physically well you're likely to be happy but actually the opposite way round," said Dr Cox. (Extensive studies show that) "If you are happy you are (much more) likely in the future to have less in the way of physical illness than those who are unhappy". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4924180.stm Proverbs 17:22 A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones. bornagain77

With the mapping of the human genome and the increase in genomic medicine, don’t be surprised if biological endowments become more malleable.

Meaning that if you act tough, the DNA of your germ cells will be influenced by your actions in such a way that your children's behaviour will be affected? Is that what you've learnt from the new maps of the human genome? Heck, that makes the story of Jacob and Laban's sheep credible ;)

They would play a role in the survival of the species, which is what Darwin meant when he used the term “survival of the fittest.” The most aggressive predators caught the most prey, survived, and reproduced. That’s evolution in a nutshell.

Are you a relict the Victorian period, Barb? (You know: "Nature, red in tooth and claw...") Darwin was not an idiot who misunderstood his own theory. He repeats many times that natural selection affects heritable traits. Also, "survival" and "reproductive success" are two different concepts, especially when you consider that evolution is fundamentally about the success of DNA replicators (something totally unknown to Darwin and his disciples).

Yes, where would H. G. Wells get any idea of how evolution worked:

He was trained to be a science teacher, but his understanding even of Darwin's theory of natural selection was rather superficial, and he tended to mix up biology with social science and politics. He can't be quoted as an authority on modern evolutionary theory, which did not yet exist at all during his university years. Piotr

Piotr continues,

Nonsense. First of all, the phrase was coined before anyone understood what the actual unit of selection is.

So, ignore Spencer (who coined the phrase) and Darwin (who co-opted it) because they didn’t know what they were talking about? Well, okay, if you say so.

The real “competition” in biology is not between individuals, populations or species, but between alleles occupying the same genomic locus. The measure of fitness is not survival, or the number of enemies you have eliminated, but the effect of the alleles you carry on your long-term reproductive success.

From here: http://io9.com/5988401/why-survival-of-the-fittest-is-wrong “Darwin uses the phrase "survival of the fittest" in chapter four of On the Origin of Species to describe the process of natural selection. But he did not coin the phrase. It was borrowed from English philosopher Herbert Spencer, who first talked about survival of the fittest in his Principles of Sociology. "The term 'natural selection,'" wrote Darwin in The Origin, "is in some respects a bad one, as it seems to imply conscious choice." Referring to the process as "survival of the fittest," Darwin thought, helped clarify things. But the famed naturalist's appropriated turn of phrase turned out to be rather inappropriate, itself.” In other words, Darwin’s followers turned the phrase around from what Darwin initially meant into something else. Okay, then.

Only heritable factors matter: your biological endowment, which you can’t control or change.

With the mapping of the human genome and the increase in genomic medicine, don’t be surprised if biological endowments become more malleable.

If you are aggressive and egoistic because of your upbringing, indoctrination, traumatic experiences, and whatever forms of cultural conditioning you’ve been subjected to, such attitudes will not propagate via your DNA: they play no role in evolution.

They would play a role in the survival of the species, which is what Darwin meant when he used the term “survival of the fittest.” The most aggressive predators caught the most prey, survived, and reproduced. That’s evolution in a nutshell.

As if Wells had known anything about evolutionary theory.

Yes, where would H. G. Wells get any idea of how evolution worked: http://www.academia.edu/1693185/H.G._Wellss_Eugenic_Thinking_1892-1944 http://www.depauw.edu/sfs/backissues/9/eisenstein9art.htm http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/639453/HG-Wells Seriously? He studied biology under Darwin’s bulldog, T. H. Huxley himself. Barb

From the Daily Mail article linked above: “As part of the project, more than 1,200 18 to 34-year-olds from across all the UK's major faiths were were asked about their worshipping habits." There’s the sample size. The general rule is to use the largest sample possible but an economic sample would provide the level of detail needed to answer the survey queestions. “They were also asked about any past misdemeanours, and the likelihood they would commit low-level crimes in the future. In total, researchers asked respondents about eight varying types of delinquency including littering, skipping school or work, using illegal drugs, fare dodging, shoplifting, music piracy, property damage and violence against the person.” The issue with survey research is the types of questions asked (open-ended or closed-ended), whether or not the respondents understood the questions being asked, whether or not they took the time to respond, and whether or not they were being honest or exaggerating their responses. And finally, “The study is the first time this type of analysis has been carried out in the UK and is due to be published later this year. It was funded by the Bill Hill Charitable Trust.” The results should be interesting to read. Barb

Barb:

It’s certainly more than a cliché if Darwin himself used the phrase in his book. It is one of the underlying philosophical assumptions of evolutionary theory.

Nonsense. First of all, the phrase was coined before anyone understood what the actual unit of selection is. The real "competition" in biology is not between individuals, populations or species, but between alleles occupying the same genomic locus. The measure of fitness is not survival, or the number of enemies you have eliminated, but the effect of the alleles you carry on your long-term reproductive success. Only heritable factors matter: your biological endowment, which you can't control or change. If you are aggressive and egoistic because of your upbringing, indoctrination, traumatic experiences, and whatever forms of cultural conditioning you've been subjected to, such attitudes will not propagate via your DNA: they play no role in evolution.

Note what historian H.G. Wells writes in The Outline of History: he noted that following the acceptance of the evolution theory that “a real de-moralization ensued.” Because some held that man is simply a higher form of animal life. Wells, who was an evolutionist, wrote in 1920: “Man, they decided, is a social animal like the Indian hunting dog . . . , so it seemed right to them that the big dogs of the human pack should bully and subdue.”

As if Wells had known anything about evolutionary theory. Piotr

Did you read the linked articles? How big was the sample size?

The sample size does not determine the strength of the correlation, and no other numbers are mentioned in those press reports. What the researchers themselves say about the quality their work is of limited interest. Let's wait till they publish it, lay out their methodology, and explain how they controlled for things like the reliability of questionnaire answers. Piotr

Piotr, I can understand your frustration when looking at what appears as a gross conflict between what many self-proclaimed Christians say and what they actually do. Many times it seems like the true Christian message is getting diluted and even contaminated by the behaviors of those who claim to be the messengers. That is really sad. Actually, that was one of my arguments to stay away from considering the Christian message years ago, though not the main one. However, we know that appearances are deceiving. This subject could require extensive discussion to clarify it, assuming both sides in the discussion are genuinely interested in finding the truth of the matter. Many people, even in your own country, who claim to be Christians, most probably aren't. My self-proclamation does make me one. In addition to talking the talk, I also should walk the walk. But must importantly, Christians must want to walk the walk, even if sometimes we don't know how to do it well, trip over some obstacles and fall. The true motive of our hearts, the true wanting, is what matters at the end of the day. The church founded by Christ in the first century is made of people who believe in Christ's redemptive death on the cross, believe in His resurrection, have been forgiven by God's grace, and want to put their trust in Christ for everything in their lives. Many people who claim to be Christians, even some who attend visible church events, may not be in the invisible church (the true church). Please, do me a big favor, read the following 7 suggestions, which I personally try to heed carefully. These suggestions are based on Bible verses (mostly the New Testament). Hope they will clarify this subject for you. Thank you. 1. Admit that the Christian church has often been too entangled with civil governments, with the result that violence has been endorsed by the church as a way of accomplishing religious, and not just civil, goals. The Crusades, for example, stand as a monument to collective Christian blindness to the teaching of Jesus. We should make every effort today to avoid political alignments between the Christian church and any civil government or political party. 2. Make clear that the use of God-sanctioned violence between Israel and the nations in the Old Testament is no longer God’s will for his people. The coming of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, as a suffering servant, rather than a warlord, and his gathering of a people from all nations rather than only one, are two of the many reasons why the Christian church today should not—and almost universally does not—endorse or use violence to promote the gospel of Jesus Christ. 3. Do good to those who hate you—and, of course, those of other faiths who don’t hate you (Luke 6:27). This is not because Christians do not believe in vengeance. We simply believe that it is not ours to give. And this age is not the time to give it. This is an age of mercy and patience and forgiveness toward those who malign the King of the universe. He will have his Day of Wrath. But we are too sinful to be entrusted with that righteous judgment. Rather, we should obey the words of the New Testament: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ To the contrary, ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head’” (Romans 12:19-20). 4. Seek to win others to saving faith in Jesus by persuading with words, not imposing with force. This was the way the gospel spread among many religions in the early centuries of the Christian church. The earliest teachers said, “Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others” (2 Corinthians 5:11). When the New Testament speaks of the “sword of the Spirit” (Ephesians 6:17) or “the weapons of our warfare” (2 Corinthians 10:4), it clearly means the word of God and power of spiritual persuasion. 5. Always be ready to die, but never to kill, for the sake of commending Jesus Christ as the Son of God who died for sinners and rose again as the Lord of the universe. Jesus promises to triumph through our accepting suffering, not our causing suffering. He died to save all who will believe—from every nation and religion. He calls us to follow him on this Calvary Road. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit” (John 12:24). This is not the death of a suicide-murderer. This is the death of one who loves his enemies and, as he dies, prays, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34), and, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them” (Acts 7:60). 6. Pray for the salvation of all those who belittle Jesus Christ. Pray that they would put their faith in Jesus Christ who died for our sins so that if anyone—from any nation or any religion—would embrace him as Lord and Savior and Treasure of their lives, they would be saved from the guilt of sin and the wrath of God. They would have eternal life and joy. This is the way the great apostle Paul prayed: “Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved” (Romans 10:1). 7. No matter the cost, continue to exalt and commend Jesus Christ as the great and only Savior that he is. Say with the apostle Paul, “It is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” The day will come when every knee will bow to Jesus as Lord and as God (Philippians 2:10-11). Until that day comes, affirm with Paul: “I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24). [The 7 suggestions were written by John Piper (http://www.desiringgod.org/)] Dionisio

Acartia_bogart:

Again, what does the reproductive success of homosexuals have to do with anything?

Natural selection is the elimination of the less fit from a population. Fitness is measured by reproductive success. And natural selection also pertains to behavior as behaviors can be inherited. Joe

@Joe 65: Again, what does the reproductive success of homosexuals have to do with anything? The only way that it can be selected against is if it is genetically based, with only one possible expression of the genetic basis. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that homosexuality is genetically based. The only thing that we are pretty sure about is that sexual orientation is developed fairly early in life and that, once developed, is very seldom changed. So, there is nothing for natural selection to act on. Acartia_bogart

Piotr,

What shall I make of an unpublished study?

Did you read the links? Did you glean any information from them?

The correlations were significant? How significant?

Did you read the linked articles? How big was the sample size?

How did the researchers rule out the possibility that subjects who considered themselves religious were less likely to be sincere about their “past misdemeanours”, and more likely to minimise “the likelihood they would commit low-level crimes in the future”?

Did you read the linked articles? What did the researchers themselves say about this? Piotr's entire post can be boiled down to: "I got nothing." Barb

Piotr:

What if the social norm is stoning people for minor religious offences?

I believe Colorado is testing that now. :cool: Joe

Acartia_bogart- Fitness is based on reproductive success. Unless gay people mate outside of their preference then they have a fitness level of zero. Natural selection should eliminate the less fit. Joe

@Joe: "BTW Gay people should have been eliminated by natural selection" How do you figure this? Or are you admitting that sexual orientation is genetically determined (i.e., born that way)? And what about Cycle Cell Anemia, and Huntington's, and Down's Syndrome, etc. etc. etc., all genetic conditions. Sexual attraction and desire is definitely genetic. It is needed for the species to survive. But whether or not a person is gay may be as simple as the interaction of genetics and environment during embryonic and early development. Acartia_bogart

Stalin's army of rapists: The brutal war crime that Russia and Germany tried to ignore http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1080493/Stalins-army-rapists-The-brutal-war-crime-Russia-Germany-tried-ignore.html bornagain77

Of related interest Piotr, are we to consider that Richard Dawkins is not really sincere in his atheism after this gaffe? Ravi Zacharias - Richard Dawkin's Origin Of Species Gaffe (2012) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ4DAXmW8I8 Moreover Piotr, could you please tell me how a hydrogen atom knows right from wrong? Or does rightness and wrongness only apply when you have more atoms than one? If so, how many atoms does it take to know right from wrong? Or is it only a special composition of atoms that know right from wrong? If so, what are the relative percentages of atoms I should mix together? i.e. more 'good' hydrogen atoms than 'bad' uranium' atoms? but most importantly, Is moral rightness and wrongness more or less illusory than consciousness is? i.e. which came first right and wrong or the ability to know whether something was right or wrong? bornagain77

@Kairosfocus: "On objective morality. let us start here: it is self evidently wrong to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child. That is why if we were to see such, we would strain every muscle to rescue the child from the monster. I predict, no one will face that directly to deny it." This may be true, but Christian churches actively did exactly this to natives in Canada for half a century. They were called the residential schools. The latest estimate was that over 4,000 children died under their care. This was done by priests, nuns and ministers with the active support of the Vatican and other church authorities. How do you argue that this was not performed by Christians? Acartia_bogart

Barb: What shall I make of an unpublished study? The correlations were significant? How significant? How did the researchers rule out the possibility that subjects who considered themselves religious were less likely to be sincere about their "past misdemeanours", and more likely to minimise "the likelihood they would commit low-level crimes in the future"? Piotr

Sorry about the links. The study was conducted by the University of Manchester: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2539100/How-religion-cuts-crime-Attending-church-makes-likely-shoplift-drugs-download-music-illegally.html http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/religion-helps-lower-crime-rate-study-claims http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2014/February/Study-Churchgoers-Less-Likely-to-Commit-Crime/ As far as religion contributing to ethics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_religion http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-morality/ And Piotr continues,

What if the social norm is stoning people for minor religious offences?

Where in the modern-day world is that the norm?

What if the social norm is burning “witches” and “heretics” at the stake?

Where in the modern-day world is this the norm? If the witch hunts in Europe and the colonies taught humanity anything, it's that when professed Christians began to substitute religious lies and superstition for the pure teachings of Jesus Christ, they open the door to enormous evil. Ironically enough, the Bible explained this centuries ago: “The way of the truth will be spoken of abusively.”—2 Peter 2:1, 2.

What if the social norm is torture and beheading for disbelief in gods?

Where in the modern-day world is this the norm?

These examples, too, show the relativity of norms dictated by religion. If religious morality were really universal, what is regarded as unacceptable now would have been regarded as such in the past as well.

It also shows that there can be true religion and false religion.

Children have not always been protected by the law as effectively as they are now. We call is social progress. (And when child abuse is mentioned, it brings to my mind the recently revealed drastic examples of such abuse by priests and nuns, in my own country, and not only here.)

Wouldn’t true social progress involve not molesting children at all, ever? And while you bring up the Catholic Church, it calls to my mind some of the damaging lawsuits that happened in the United States in the 1980s when people—who were innocent—were charged with molesting children in daycare centers.

“Survival of the fittest” is a popular cliché, not the definition of evolution, and least of all a moral principle.

“Darwin had tended to write about species being engaged in a competitive Struggle for Existence. This struggle being seen, by Darwin, as primarily a struggle for food to support growth, life, and the generation of young individuals to continue the species in question. The actual term survival of the fittest however was actually attributed by Darwin himself to another source:- "The expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient" Darwin was so taken with Spencer's catchy phrase that he did, in fact, use it in a later (1869) edition of his "The Origin of Species". [http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotations/darwin_survival_fittest.html]” It’s certainly more than a cliché if Darwin himself used the phrase in his book. It is one of the underlying philosophical assumptions of evolutionary theory. Note what historian H.G. Wells writes in The Outline of History: he noted that following the acceptance of the evolution theory that “a real de-moralization ensued.” Because some held that man is simply a higher form of animal life. Wells, who was an evolutionist, wrote in 1920: “Man, they decided, is a social animal like the Indian hunting dog . . . , so it seemed right to them that the big dogs of the human pack should bully and subdue.”

Empathy and cooperation are not unique to humans, by the way. There’s a lot of both involved in the evolution of social animals.

Empathy and cooperation are found in humanity and in the animal kingdom. One is not necessarily related to the other. And a theory that promotes “survival of the fittest” cannot simultaneously promote empathy and cooperation. It’s self-defeating and contradictory. Barb

Piotr, the king of hypocritical excuses, the horrific 'plank in the eye' consequences of 20th century atheism (i.e. 'applied' Darwinian thinking) is given a free ride whilst the speck in the eye consequences of Christianity are bemoaned as if they are equally comparable. All the while Piotr ignores the glaring fact that he has no moral basis in the first place so as to make moral judgements. Typical atheist, "both feet planted firmly in mid air" :) bornagain77

I have reached a new low because Sweden has done nothing to earn anyone’s praise?

Having a high standard of living and a homicide one-fifth that of the USA isn't praiseworthy? I won't even bother to bring up socialised healthcare where even the poorest members of society get treatment. Funny though, you'd think that would be the Christian approach. Perhaps that sort of thinking takes a materialist . . . Jerad

Who determines social norms? What if the social norm is neglecting children, or abusing them? Is it still “right” to do so?

What if the social norm is stoning people for minor religious offences? What if the social norm is burning "witches" and "heretics" at the stake? What if the social norm is torture and beheading for disbelief in gods? These examples, too, show the relativity of norms dictated by religion. If religious morality were really universal, what is regarded as unacceptable now would have been regarded as such in the past as well. Children have not always been protected by the law as effectively as they are now. We call is social progress. (And when child abuse is mentioned, it brings to my mind the recently revealed drastic examples of such abuse by priests and nuns, in my own country, and not only here.)

And how does “survival of the fittest” allow for empathy and cooperation?

"Survival of the fittest" is a popular cliché, not the definition of evolution, and least of all a moral principle. Empathy and cooperation are not unique to humans, by the way. There's a lot of both involved in the evolution of social animals. Piotr

Spoken like a little cry-baby. Geez Piotr, if your position had any evidence to support it religion would either not exist or it would be very, very different- worshiping mother nature instead. Yet your position has nothing and so you are forced to spew nonsense about people’s religion.

Perhaps you'd like to hypothesise on why, throughout most of Europe, church attendance is shrinking and the number of individuals professing a religious belief is dropping. Are intelligent, educated, hard working people being brainwashed by a select, materialistic elite? Or, has a better explanation come along? Or is it that people can no longer figure out which Christian sect is right since they can't even agree. Good Christians disagree on same-sex marriage, abortion rights, etc. Who is right? And how can you tell? Jerad

Piotr:

Congratulations: you’ve reached a new low.

I have reached a new low because Sweden has done nothing to earn anyone's praise? And it's no true scotsman because most religious people in the US have no idea what it means? It's as if you are daft Joe

Your links don't work for me, Barb. Piotr

Piotr,

What statistics? Something quoted by Awake!?

Actually, no, but try again, without the condescending sarcasm. Start here and keep reading. Here’s a little further on the study from the University of Manchester

“Right” is no less real if it is “merely” a reflection of social norms (especially the more evolved ones, based on equality and tolerance) or a biologically conditioned instinctive tendency towards empathy and cooperation.

Who determines social norms? What if the social norm is neglecting children, or abusing them? Is it still “right” to do so? And how does “survival of the fittest” allow for empathy and cooperation?

It is actually more real that way, since it doesn’t depend upon anyone’s irrational religious beliefs.

How can it be more real when you have no objective standard of right and wrong? You’re going merely by social norms and instincts. What if the social norm is that raping an unconscious woman is okay? Is that behavior right or wrong?

Please offer some proof that religion contributes anything to ethics.

start reading here and then continue reading here. What an utterly inane statement to make. Barb

piotr, your dishonesty towards the evidence is reaching new lows. But I can see why it would not morally bother you to lie for why would dishonesty in science be morally wrong in a Darwinian worldview if it helps you survive the fact that truth contradicts your preferred atheistic worldview? bornagain77

Joe:

Sweden? Who the heck wants to be like Sweden?

Congratulations: you've reached a new low.

USA is predominately religious? Maybe if one considers those who call themselves religious but have no idea what that means.

No true Scotsman... [yaaawn] Piotr

Piotr: Pardon me but just your resort to "religion" already shows a start from the wrong foot, that is a global category that would even take in ideological evolutionary materialism or the sort of "Humanism" in the is it three so far manifestos. That's like asking about the telephone directory. You are also applying the wrong category, let's start afresh. Where, the first issue is a worldviews analysis one, the root of OUGHT. Let's go back to something concrete, the unfortunately real world case (back in the 80's, only a few 100's of m from where Christian Physician Brendan Bain out of compassion was beginning to lead in reaching out to HIV/AIDS victims, part of a very long tradition of positive Christian contributions . . . ):

It is self-evidently wrong to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a young child; and we would instantly recognise that it is our duty to stop such a monster . . .

1 --> OUGHT, in short is undeniably objective and binding, on pain of absurdity. 2 --> This points to the IS-OUGHT gap, which means that the only thing that can bear the weight of ought is an IS at world foundational level that inherently involves ought. 3 --> There is but one serious candidate, the inherently good Creator God, who is the root of reality, a necessary and maximally great being. 4 --> In fact, along with other lines of reasoning, our finding ourselves inescapably under the moral government of OUGHT, would be excellent reason to accept that this is because we are creatures of an inherently good Moral Governor of the ilk just described, i.e. God. 5 --> In that context, the Judaeo-Christian tradition preserves a community of experience of encounter with and covenantal blessings under just such a Lord. With a cumulative track record of many millions of people positively transformed through encounter with the Living God, many of whom have made a huge, positive difference to our world. Every educated person should know of that. The consequence of men like Wilberforce having lived is huge and positive. (I would point out too that the university, the hospital, public education, modern science and the rise of modern liberty and democracy owe much to such persons.) 6 --> By contrast, I simply note that a world traced to chance and equally blind necessity acting on matter and energy in space and time has in it no such IS, indeed this is a major driver of the idea that morality is merely socially, culturally or individually relative, and ends in moral reductio ad absurdum, cf here. But equally, such a scheme has no foundation for the reasoning, knowing mind, it is self referentially incoherent never mind the lab coat and pose on "reason". Evo mat is inescapably irrational and self refuting. 7 --> Going back, you will notice that above I pointed to millions transformed. Their -- our -- stories are all around, easily accessible, just take time to listen carefully. And if you doubt me as to the power of encounter with God to effect life transformation, just ponder the 12 step addictive bondage recovery approach pioneered by alcoholics anonymous. Remember, int eh end this is so successful that it has become the base for all sorts of recovery and life rescue programmes. 8 --> So the attempt to deny or dismiss such only tells the informed reader or onlooker that you have unfortunately willfully not done your homework, or have taken too seriously the sort of misleading statistics that are often put up by today's successors to the angry village atheists of old. 9 --> And in fact, this same Judaeo-Christian theism that ever so many would angrily overturn and desroy in our day, is the underlying moral framework in our civilisation. Yes, to be human is to be finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill willed and even hypocritical. But that is no excuse to try to destroy the fabric of the dam that protects our civilisation from the sort of lethal destructive tidal wave that we saw unleashed in Nazi Germany [neo-pagan influenced skepticism and nietzschean superman political messianism], in Russia and China [atheistical materialism ideologised as "scientific socialism" and ending in tyranny of the worst magnitude]. 10 --> And, on the warranting of the Christian worldview, I invite you to watch and read here on and here in context, the first historical in focus, the second worldviews framing. Notice, the onward discussion of reformation -- what our civilisation again so desperately needs. KF kairosfocus

@piotr Ethics IS religion. In any society ethics takes the form of religion. Even atheist regimes impose thair ethics on people as a religion. Swedish people live their loyalty to the law as a religion. Christianity contributed by shaping our ethics, including atheists' ethics. krtgdl

Piotr- evolutionism doesn't have anything to do with ethics. Ethics only make sense if there is something that gives us laws to follow. Sweden? Who the heck wants to be like Sweden? USA is predominately religious? Maybe if one considers those who call themselves religious but have no idea what that means. BTW Gay people should have been eliminated by natural selection Joe

Joe: Please offer some proof that religion contributes anything to ethics. So far I have only seen boring variations on the "No True Scotsman" theme. Religion still exists, Joe, but it's losing its traditional grip on the people, and nothing horrible is happening as a result. Sweden, a largely irreligious country, has a homicide rate five times lower than the predominantly religious USA, and a slightly lower suicide rate. BA77 Characteristically off-topic. Your broadside missed the target, Cap'n! Piotr

Piotr:

I’m grown up and I don’t have to be told what to do by an imaginary invisible giant. And in this way I also avoid the danger that the giant will tell me to hate gay people, to stone to death any abominable trespasser who collects dry sticks on Saturday, or to burn alive a heretic who believes in a slightly different version of the same giant.

Spoken like a little cry-baby. Geez Piotr, if your position had any evidence to support it religion would either not exist or it would be very, very different- worshiping mother nature instead. Yet your position has nothing and so you are forced to spew nonsense about people's religion. Joe

Piotr, you claim:

I’m cooperative by nature. So are lots of other people (and social animals), because cooperation is advantageous in comparison with exclusive self concern or mutual aggressiveness. Game theory and centuries of practice support this view.

Unfortunately for you, Darwinism itself does not support altruism. In fact,,,

Old Idea About Ecology Questioned by New Findings Marlene Cimons, - April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin's lesser-known hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin's theory,,, "It was completely unexpected," says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan's school of natural resources & environment. "When we saw the results, we said 'this can't be."' We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin's hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?" The researchers,, were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin,,,, Cardinale says. "When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn't right, we were completely baffled." http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html

bornagain77

Bruno was tried and executed because he disagreed with the predominant view of the Trinity. Where's the ultimate and supreme morality in that? Is killing dissenters evil? Which interpretation of the faith was correct: Bruno or his tormentors? Who judges? If you say they're both wrong then how do you (or I) know you are right? Christians disagree about whether same-sex marriage should be allowed. Who is right? Everybody is reading the same text and yet there is no agreement. Why should I believe you? Jerad

I take it you would answer each of the questions I pose “yes.” What do you mean when you use that word evil? Are you, Jerad, the supreme judge of all good and evil? Are your judgments always true and righteous altogether? If not, why should anyone care what you think or say? After all, as a materialist all you can possibly mean by “evil” is “that which I do not prefer.” Why should I care whether you, Jerad, prefer one thing or another?

I'm not pretending to be a supreme judge. I'm not portraying my moral position as better or worse than anyone else's. I think most of us agree on most moral issues anyway. Many Christians say their God is the source of ultimate and true morality and yet so many believers have fallen far short of their own ideal. So, my question is: Why should I believe you? What good is your ultimate and supreme morality if those who profess to follow it can still commit atrocities in the name of Christ? And who amongst the believers stood up and condemned the perpetrators? Who stands up now and vilifies the behaviour of people they share holy scriptures with? Present and past? Is your own house in order? Jerad

StephenA I'm cooperative by nature. So are lots of other people (and social animals), because cooperation is advantageous in comparison with exclusive self concern or mutual aggressiveness. Game theory and centuries of practice support this view. As Gandhi put it, "An eye for an eye, and soon the world will be blind". I'm grown up and I don't have to be told what to do by an imaginary invisible giant. And in this way I also avoid the danger that the giant will tell me to hate gay people, to stone to death any abominable trespasser who collects dry sticks on Saturday, or to burn alive a heretic who believes in a slightly different version of the same giant. Piotr

Jerad, as to your questions about supposed believing 'Christians' doing morally evil things,,,

And yet during the Waldensian and Albegensian crusades good Christians killed and tortured fellow Christians and their children. In Europe. Where was the ‘ought’ then? Where was the ‘ought’ when Christians captured Jerusalem and slaughtered many who lived there, including children? Where was the ‘ought’ during the Jewish pogroms in Europe? Those activities were directed by Church leaders who should have known better than others what was ‘ought’ but they got it wrong. Clearly. Where is the ‘ought’ amongst the Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants who perpetuate generations of violence against each other and their children? Where is the ‘ought’ amongst the leaders of the KKK, professed Christians all. It seems that believing in Jesus is not a guarantee that your ‘ought’ will be fulfilled.

Yet Jesus himself said that there will be many false Christians in the world who are merely hearers of his words and not doers of his words:

Matthew 7:21-27 “Not every one that saith unto Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father who is in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that Day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name, and in Thy name have cast out devils, and in Thy name done many wonderful works?’ And then will I profess unto them, ‘I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.’ “Therefore, whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, who built his house upon a rock. And the rain descended and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house; and it fell not, for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of Mine and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand; and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

But Jerad, you ask specifically, "Where is the ‘ought’?,,," Jerad, contrary to what you may believe as an atheist, morality is not based on the subjective whims of a society (for instance the NAZIS), or on a supposed evolutionary ‘herd instinct’ for survival, but is a objectively real, tangible, part of reality. That objective moral values really do exist is readily apparent to most people with common sense, save for most die hard atheists who are willing to deny anything and everything rather than ever admit there is any evidence for God.

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Stephen Meyer – Morality Presupposes Theism (1 of 4) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpdh1b0X_M

Neo-Darwinists simply cannot maintain a consistent identity towards a stable, unchanging, cause for objective morality. Dr. William Lane Craig calls it a ‘knock down argument’ against atheism:

The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris’ moral landscape argument – William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL_vAH2NIPc

And although showing a position to be logically incoherent is indeed a powerful argument against that position, there is another way to make the case for objective morality even stronger. Since, as a Christian Theist, I hold that God continuously sustains the universe in the infinite power of His being, and since I also hold that God created our ‘inmost being’, i.e. our souls, then I also hold that morality is a real, tangible, part of reality that we should be able to ‘scientifically’ detect in some way. I think this quote from Martin Luther King is very fitting as to elucidating what the Theist’s starting presupposition should be for finding objective morality to be a ‘real, tangible, part of reality:

“The first principle of value that we need to rediscover is this: that all reality hinges on moral foundations. In other words, that this is a moral universe, and that there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws.” - Martin Luther King Jr., A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration from the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

And, contrary to what the materialist/atheist would want to presuppose about morality, we find much empirical evidence to back up Dr. King’s assertion that “there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws”. For instance, ‘Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional’:

Moral evaluations of harm are instant and emotional, brain study shows – November 29, 2012 Excerpt: People are able to detect, within a split second, if a hurtful action they are witnessing is intentional or accidental, new research on the brain at the University of Chicago shows. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-11-moral-instant-emotional-brain.html

And although split second reactions to hateful actions are pretty good for establishing that “there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws”, non-locality of morals (i.e. morals that arise outside of space and time and are grounded within the transcendent being of God’s perfect nature) demand a more ‘spooky action at a distance’, i.e. quantum, proof. And, due to advances in science, we now have evidence to even this ‘spooky’ beyond space and time level:

Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual….). In Radin and Bierman’s early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared. http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/views/TimeFlies.html Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue? (meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010) – (Oct. 22, 2012) Excerpt: “But our analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,, This phenomenon is sometimes called “presentiment,” as in “sensing the future,” but Mossbridge said she and other researchers are not sure whether people are really sensing the future. “I like to call the phenomenon ‘anomalous anticipatory activity,’” she said. “The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can’t explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense. It’s anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it’s an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145342.htm

As well, the following experiment, from Princeton University no less, is very interesting in that it was found that ‘perturbed randomness’ precedes a worldwide ‘moral crisis’:

Scientific Evidence That Mind Effects Matter – Random Number Generators – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE1haKXoHMo Mass Consciousness: Perturbed Randomness Before First Plane Struck on 911 – July 29 2012 Excerpt: The machine apparently sensed the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre four hours before they happened – but in the fevered mood of conspiracy theories of the time, the claims were swiftly knocked back by sceptics. But it also appeared to forewarn of the Asian tsunami just before the deep sea earthquake that precipitated the epic tragedy.,, Now, even the doubters are acknowledging that here is a small box with apparently inexplicable powers. ‘It’s Earth-shattering stuff,’ says Dr Roger Nelson, emeritus researcher at Princeton University in the United States, who is heading the research project behind the ‘black box’ phenomenon. http://www.network54.com/Forum/594658/thread/1343585136/1343657830/Mass+Consciousness-+Perturbed+Randomness++Before+First+Plane+Struck+on+911 Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research – Scientific Study of Consciousness-Related Physical Phenomena – peer reviewed publications http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html

Thus we actually have very good empirical evidence supporting Dr. King’s observation that ‘that there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws’. In fact, since the emotional reactions happen before the violent images are even viewed, or before the worldwide tragedies even occurred, then one would be well justified in believing that morality abides at a much deeper level of reality, in the perfect nature of God’s being, than the ‘mere’ physical laws of the universe do (just as a Theist would presuppose that morals should abide at such a deep level prior to investigation). Moreover, the atheistic materialist is left without any clue as to rationally explaining how ‘prescient morality’ is even possible for reality at such a deep level. Verse and music:

Mark 10:18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good–except God alone. Black Eyed Peas – Where Is The Love? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc

bornagain77

Jered:

And yet during the Waldensian and Albegensian crusades good Christians killed and tortured fellow Christians and their children.

Is killing and torturing fellow Christians and their children evil?

Where was the ‘ought’ when Christians captured Jerusalem and slaughtered many who lived there, including children?

Is slaughtering the inhabitants of Jerusalem and their children evil?

Where was the ‘ought’ during the Jewish pogroms in Europe?

Were the pogroms against European Jews evil?

Where is the ‘ought’ amongst the Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants who perpetuate generations of violence against each other and their children?

Is perpetuating generations of violence against others and their children evil?

Where is the ‘ought’ amongst the leaders of the KKK, professed Christians all.

Are the activities of the KKK evil? I take it you would answer each of the questions I pose “yes.” What do you mean when you use that word evil? Are you, Jerad, the supreme judge of all good and evil? Are your judgments always true and righteous altogether? If not, why should anyone care what you think or say? After all, as a materialist all you can possibly mean by “evil” is “that which I do not prefer.” Why should I care whether you, Jerad, prefer one thing or another?

It seems that believing in Jesus is not a guarantee that your ‘ought’ will be fulfilled.

Who ever said that it was? Barry Arrington

Piotr

Granted, I can’t say they haven’t tried. Fortunately, murdering the opposition is not the optimal social strategy.

Why 'Fortunately'? On what basis do you say it is a good thing that murder is not rewarded? StephenA

On objective morality. let us start here: it is self evidently wrong to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child. That is why if we were to see such, we would strain every muscle to rescue the child from the monster. I predict, no one will face that directly to deny it.

And yet during the Waldensian and Albegensian crusades good Christians killed and tortured fellow Christians and their children. In Europe. Where was the 'ought' then? Where was the 'ought' when Christians captured Jerusalem and slaughtered many who lived there, including children? Where was the 'ought' during the Jewish pogroms in Europe? Those activities were directed by Church leaders who should have known better than others what was 'ought' but they got it wrong. Clearly. Where is the 'ought' amongst the Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants who perpetuate generations of violence against each other and their children? Where is the 'ought' amongst the leaders of the KKK, professed Christians all. It seems that believing in Jesus is not a guarantee that your 'ought' will be fulfilled. Jerad

#19 Acartia_bogart In addition to comment #29 by KF, I have added comments #35, 36 & 37 to respond to your comment #19. Please, keep in mind that those who crucified Christ were religious fanatics who thought they were acting right in the name of God. What we think or claim to be is not necessarily what we really are. True Christian faith is manifested in true spiritual fruits. This simple principle applies to everyone everywhere every time. In Germany, China, US or Timbuktu. Jesus said that many will claim they did things for Him, but He will not accept them, because they were not truly faithful to Him. Relatively few Germans in Nazi Germany were not fooled by Hitler's evil plans. Only God knows the true spiritual conditions of those who were fooled. But history has recorded a few names of Germans who were not fooled by Hitler. The same situation may and does occur everywhere. Christians are not morally superior to anyone. That's an evil lie. Christians are sinners like everybody else, except that have been forgiven through the saving faith in Christ's redemptive work on the cross. If anyone tells you they are morally superior to you, right there you know they are not Christians, nor they know Christ personally. True Christianity is not a religion, but a personal intimate relationship with Christ the Lord and Savior. God did not save me because I'm good. He saved me despite the true fact that I'm worse tan bad. That's called Grace. Undeserved love. Completely incomprehensible to my poor mind. That's why I can tell you that I know God loves you, because I know He loves me, and I know I'm much worse than you are. Think about this. No need to respond. This is between you and your Maker. Dionisio

Even assuming your claim that Christians have caused more bloodshed was correct… so what? It’s survival of the fittest among ideoligies isn’t it? If Christianity can get ahead by murdering the opposition, why shouldn’t it?

Granted, I can't say they haven't tried. Fortunately, murdering the opposition is not the optimal social strategy. Piotr

No, but you clearly know very little about Christianity in general. And statistics bear out the fact that Christians commit far fewer of the crimes you listed than atheists or other religious groups.

What statistics? Something quoted by Awake!?

Where does the notion of “right” and “wrong” behavior come from?

"Right" is no less real if it is "merely" a reflection of social norms (especially the more evolved ones, based on equality and tolerance) or a biologically conditioned instinctive tendency towards empathy and cooperation. It is actually more real that way, since it doesn't depend upon anyone's irrational religious beliefs. It works for me, at any rate. I feel no urge to do anyone any harm. Piotr

#29 kairosfocus Another video related to the previous video and to your comment #29 http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ua9UU5ghvFc?rel=0 Dionisio

#29 kairosfocus Video related to your comment #29 http://www.youtube.com/embed/p8kyGv9UvzQ?rel=0 Dionisio

#29 kairosfocus Information from Wikipedia related to your comment #29

During the time of national socialism he adopted the uncompromising position of the German Confessing Church against the influence of the Third Reich on the life of the Church.[6] As an active member of this opposition to government-sponsored efforts to nazify the German Protestant church, he proclaimed his faith openly and ignored orders to refrain from teaching the Bible—which earned him several arrests and lengthy jail confinements. Even under the Nazis, Pastor Busch managed to attract attendances of two to three hundred boys at his scripture lessons. He was holding Bible study meetings in private houses, in basements, and in the open air. His son never attended the meetings of the Hitler Youth though this was required by law.[7] On one occasion in 1937 he was arrested right after evangelising in the church of St. Paul in Darmstadt due to Nazi authorities feeling upset over the capability of the Christian movement to attract the attention of the general public with Biblical messages and counter their own aspirations to control the masses. During the sermon, state officials tried to avoid a public uproar in the crowded Church and let him preach. After being captured, an SS commissioner presented him official orders expelling him from the territory of Hessen. As he refused to accept due to his commitment to perform Biblical work among people as a pastor, he was immediately taken into custody.[8] During my life, I have passed through periods of various hard trials. Because of my faith I have been thrown into prisons on more than one occasion. Not because I had been stealing silver spoons or had committed some other crime. In the Third Reich, Nazis didn't like youth pastors like me, and that's why authorities kept throwing me into these pretty sinister places.[6] From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Busch_(pastor)

Dionisio

Piotr Even assuming your claim that Christians have caused more bloodshed was correct... so what? It's survival of the fittest among ideoligies isn't it? If Christianity can get ahead by murdering the opposition, why shouldn't it? StephenA

Piotr continues,

What is such “objective morality” worth if the belief in it never in history stopped inumerable Christians from doing the worst things imaginable to other people (including other Christians) — often in the name of that very same objective morality?

What is morality worth if the belief in it (that is, it evolved over centuries) never in history stopped innumerable atheists like Stalin and Pol Pot from doing the worst things imaginable to other people--including other atheists--in the name of government? "Survival of the fittest" indeed.

You have to invoke the “no true Scotsman Christian” argument all the time because otherwise you can’t account for the atrocities committed by religious people, with or without religious motives.

Sure you can: human nature. I noted this in my post above. Did you bother reading it?

Do you seriously imagine that Christians (of whatever denomination) are less likely to commit crimes and misdemeanours only because their morality has an “objective” foundation? Proof, please.

Look upthread at BA77's link to "the Irrational Atheist". Atheism is responsible for far more bloodshed than Christianity--or any other religion, for that matter--in human history.

If you don’t go about breaking windows, cheating on your wife, driving on booze, robbing and killing fellow human beings, molesting children (well, there are quite a number of priests doing just that), etc. — is it only because you fear God?

No, but you clearly know very little about Christianity in general. And statistics bear out the fact that Christians commit far fewer of the crimes you listed than atheists or other religious groups. If, as Richard Dawkins states, the universe is simply one of "blind, pitiless indifference"--if you really believe that--then what's the point of having morals in the first place? Where does the notion of "right" and "wrong" behavior come from? Barb

F/N:On objective morality. let us start here: it is self evidently wrong to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a child. That is why if we were to see such, we would strain every muscle to rescue the child from the monster. I predict, no one will face that directly to deny it. Moral facts like this then point to a solution to the IS-OUGHT gap. That is, there is a foundational IS that can bear the weight of OUGHT. The problem for many is, there is only one serious candidate, the inherently good Creator God, the necessary and maximally great being at the root of reality. KF kairosfocus

Piotr the only people believing in 'self-flattering lie(s)' are atheists who live under the delusion that the atheistic nightmare visited on man in the 20th century was 'just more of the same' moral degeneracy inherent in man. As to Christianity's positive contributions to society, why don't we start with modern science itself? In fact why don't you thank Christianity every time you use electricity since Faraday and Clerk, who were primarily responsible for taming electricity, were both devout Christians, whose worldview was integral to their research. For instance: “Great are the works of the Lord, studied, by all who have pleasure in them.” These words were inscribed in the middle of the last century of the old Cavendish Laboratory on Free School Lane in Cambridge. They were inscribed in Latin, in the Vulgate version, but when translated they say, “The works of the Lord are great, pondered by all who have pleasure in them.” It is widely believed that these words were inscribed over the entrance to the laboratory at the instigation of the great physicist James Clerk Maxwell, who became the first Cavendish Professor of Experimental Physics at the University of Cambridge in 1871, when he was only forty years old. It was Maxwell who ushered in the new era of post-Newtonian physics. He was a Christian man; he believed in God the Creator. When he was only twenty and still a student, he affirmed his confidence as a Scot and Presbyterian “that man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.” Now, when the New Cavendish Laboratory came to be built in 1976, less than twenty years ago, just off Madingley Road in Cambridge, it was, I understand, Christian influence that persuaded the authorities to inscribe the same text over the front door, this time in Coverdale’s English: “The works of the Lord are great, sought out by all those who have please therin.” I have been very interested to discover the same text from Psalm 111 was the motto adopted by Lord Rutheford, whose pioneer work in nuclear physics led to the first splitting of the atom in the 1930s. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/foolsconfidence/2013/01/the-works-of-the-lord/ bornagain77

Piotr, Christian commitment pivots on penitence and a walk towards the light of truth and right "by grace not works lest any should boast." If someone SAYS he is in the light but walks in darkness, the plain verbatim teaching is that "such a one lies by both what he says and does." To be culturally or professedly a Christian is one thing, to make and live by the commitment of discipleship is another, and no such a commitment is the opposite of self righteous moral posturing. Stumbling, getting up and persisting in the walk of light is one thing, a vain profession not matched by a life of repentance and walking towards the light is utterly another. KF kairosfocus

Ab: The "Hitler was a Christian" talking point has long since passed its sell by date. There is much evidence but the people who make such an argument need something more direct. This, visually showing the deliberate idolatrous and blasphemous political messianism multiplied by a nietzschean superman amorality, is a start. Hitler was in fact denounced by leading Faithful Christians in the Barmen declaration, and later the White Rose pamphlets (notice the all too apt description of the spiritual nature of Hitler) . . . paid for in blood, Christian martyrs blood . . . exposes the matter. There are also recovered documents exposing his plans for the Churches. Nazism, insofar as it had coherence at all, was mostly a neo-pagan, vaguely mystically evolutionist frame shaped by the Aryan man myth . . . seeking to recover a lost superman race from remnants . . . and fitted into the general fascist scheme of an unprecedented crisis with an identity victim group rescued by a superman political messiah, imposing a statist solution in answer to the crisis. With the state supremely embodied in the superman, who is of course above law and morality -- ie is utterly amoral and a deceiver of the first rank . . . people believe him but his word is anything but governed by duties of care to truth. The end is destructive nihilism. Sadly, there are sobering echoes in our time. KF kairosfocus

BA77: Atheists can do horrible things, and so can Christians (or any other religious people). The moral superiority of Christians is a self-flattering lie, and its "objective foundation" is a delusion. If you don't go about breaking windows, cheating on your wife, driving on booze, robbing and killing fellow human beings, molesting children (well, there are quite a number of priests doing just that), etc. -- is it only because you fear God? If so, I pity you. Piotr

I can't understand why atheists would not want to play "the numbers game"! They win hands down. No contest. Death by Government Mung

And although I have references to show the world is better off with Christianity, why do you demand 'proof' now for the beneficial effects of Christianity but you never demand 'proof' for Darwinism? bornagain77

Piotr, and on atheism why is it evil? i.e. you are sawing off the branch you are sitting on! bornagain77

It is interesting that two atheists would try to play the moral card on Christianity when their very own atheistic/materialistic worldview, besides not providing a foundation for logic and reason, cannot ground objective morality in the first place...

What is such "objective morality" worth if the belief in it never in history stopped inumerable Christians from doing the worst things imaginable to other people (including other Christians) -- often in the name of that very same objective morality? You have to invoke the "no true Scotsman Christian" argument all the time because otherwise you can't account for the atrocities committed by religious people, with or without religious motives. Do you seriously imagine that Christians (of whatever denomination) are less likely to commit crimes and misdemeanours only because their morality has an "objective" foundation? Proof, please. Piotr

It is interesting that two atheists would try to play the moral card on Christianity when their very own atheistic/materialistic worldview, besides not providing a foundation for logic and reason, cannot ground objective morality in the first place:

The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Objective Morality – The Objections – Frank Turek – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5MWBsPf5pg

Atheists simply cannot ground objective morality so as to make any binding judgement on whether Hitler was a evil 'Christian' or not, nor to make a binding judgement on any other person as to their moral propriety. Morality, the reason why most atheists reject God in the first place, simply cannot be grounded within a materialistic worldview and must be, much like consciousness itself, be considered illusory on the atheist's worldview:

The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.),,, Again, if this is the scientific-materialist’s justification for morality, then the worldview has even more problems than I suggested. Coyne proposes three arguments in favor of a cosmopolitan altruism, two of which are circular: Making a “harmonious society” and helping “those in need” are reasons for altruism that presuppose a certain view of the moral law, in which charity and harmony are considered worthwhile and important goals. (If my question is, “what’s the justification for your rights-based egalitarianism?” saying “because it’s egalitarian!” is not much of an answer.) The third at least seems to have some kind of Darwinian-ish, quasi-scientific logic, but among other difficulties it’s an argument that only holds so long as the altruistic choice comes at a relatively low cost: If you’re a white Southerner debating whether to speak out against a lynching party or a Dutch family contemplating whether to hide your Jewish neighbors from the SS, the respect factor isn’t really in play — as, indeed, it rarely is in any moral dilemma worthy of the name. (And of course, depending on your ideas about harmony and stability, Coyne’s “harmonious society” argument might also seem like a case against opposing Jim Crow or anti-Semitism — because why rock the boat on behalf of a persecuted minority when stability and order are the greater goods?) The point that critics make against eliminative-materialism, which Coyne seems not to grasp, is that it makes a kind of hard-and-fast moral realism logically impossible — because if the only real thing is matter in motion, and the only legitimate method of discernment the scientific method, you’ll never get to an absolute “thou shalt not murder” (or “thou shalt risk your life on behalf of your Jewish neighbor”) now matter how cleverly you think and argue. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

bornagain77

bogart: It was the Nazi regime that killed all those Jews. The Nazi regime, per se, was dedicated to a violently anti-Christian view of life. And while it is true that many Nazis were raised in Christian churches, and while it may be true that some Nazis still thought of themselves as Christian even though they committed atrocities, it does not follow that the Nazi behavior was Christian. It is easy to show from the Gospels that it was not. Read about the life of Bonhoeffer. Christianity is not to be equated with formal upbringing. Most Germans were either Catholic or Lutheran at the time. But their faith was often weak, and their churchgoing more a matter of habit or culture than the expression of any deep belief in the truth of the Gospels. Those whose Christianity was truly an expression of the Gospels were not leaders of the Nazi party, did not plan the death camps, and did not direct their operation. Those whose Christianity was truly an expression of the Gospels spoke out, and were shot or imprisoned for it; or they concealed Jews in their homes, or helped smuggle them out of the country. Yes, people belonging to churches and other religious organizations have committed atrocities against native peoples and so on. When they did so, they were not acting in accord with the teachings of their traditions (unless there are some traditions which actually advocate such atrocities, but certainly if such exist Christianity is not one of them). If your point is that people raised Christian have behaved badly, no one would contest that. If your point is that Christian teaching does not guarantee Christian behavior, who could deny that? People are sinful. People are cowardly. People have national and ethnic prejudices. People are greedy and imperialistic. Other desires compete in the human soul with Christian teaching. The behavior of most Christians and most Christian societies is therefore usually only a compromise between good and evil, not a pure expression of good. There may be local exceptions -- perhaps certain Mennonite communities or monastic communities isolated from the main stream of society, but in most of the civilized world, religious traditions are carried out in an imperfect way. This is not news to any historian or to any observer of the world. So what follows from your criticism of religion? That religion should be given up, because it is not perfectly executed? That would be an unreasonable conclusion. The right course seems to be to try to hold one's fellow religious believers to their own high standards. The difference between Christianity on the one hand, and Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. on the other, is that Christianity has within itself the possibility of self-criticism; Christians can be ashamed of themselves for not living up to the teaching of Christ. In the political ideologies mentioned, however, no such shame is even theoretically possible, since the goals of the Party trump all moral considerations. Nothing is higher than the Party; that is what "totalitarianism" means; those ideologies make a total claim upon the souls of their adherents, and right and wrong are not defined objectively, in such a way that the Party could ever be criticized, but purely subjectively: what is right is the view held by those who are currently masters of the Party. Thus, when Stalin dispossessed and killed thousands of kulaks, it was "right" because the kulaks were a "regressive" element that had to be purged so that the worldwide socialist state could come into being. But when Christians murdered thousands of New World natives, it was possible for some Christians (and there were a few) to speak up against these atrocities, because as Christians they measured things not by the good of Spain, or by the good of Europeans, or by the good of capitalism, or by the good of Empire, etc., but by Christian standards. Thus, while Christianity can be and often has been perverted and inconsistent, the world is better off ruled by Christian principles than by any political ideology. Political ideologies become unquestioned deities which demand our complete subservience, and they allow no criticism of themselves. Christian faith has the ability to inflict a bad conscience upon tyrants and dictators and parties and elites, provided that those people still have some allegiance to Christian principles. But in societies where Christian principles have been thrown out the window, no conscience is left at all, and we see that in states governed by Communist, fascist, or Nazi, principles, and in some cases by fanatical versions of other religious traditions, human life is treated as of no value and dissent from the state or from the views of the majority means death, imprisonment, loss of rights, seizure of one's property, etc. Everybody knocks Christianity, but there is no one on the planet who, given a choice, wouldn't want a consistent Christian as his judge or juror rather than a consistent Stalinist, Nazi, etc. If you want justice, you want to be judged by someone who has humanity, and a conscience, not by an ideologue who will decide your fate on the basis of whether your political views (or your social class or ethnic group) are "progressive" or "regressive." Timaeus

Acartia,

When you play the numbers game you place yourself in a circular argument that you, by twisted logic, can’t lose.

Actually, playing the numbers game shows that Hitler is not the worst mass murderer of the 20th century, which is the point I was trying to make. Sorry it went over your head.

Hitler couldn’t be a Christian because a Christian would never commit those atrocities. Who is the judge on who is a Christian? These are simple facts: Hitler was raised a Christian; Germany was a predominantly Christian country. If Christians could not commit atrocities, then who killed all those Jews?

Don’t trot out the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. If you want to know how a Christian should behave, read the gospel accounts. Jesus was very plain about how his followers should treat other human beings. Anyone can claim to be a Christian. The judge on who is a Christian is, ultimately, God and Christ, as well as those of us who are intelligent enough to read. People can commit atrocities in the name of God. Does God approve of this? Well, what does his word say? It’s not that hard to figure out. Really.

Yes, some horrors have been caused by atheists.

Many more than have been caused by religious people, as BA notes.

But there have been some caused by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Shinto, etc. What this tells me is that humans, regardless of religion, often commit crimes against humanity.

That is, unfortunately, imperfect human nature at its worst.

If you think that Christians are immune then you have not read any history. I don’t even include the inquisition amongst these as its atrocities were primarily aimed at those who claimed to be Christian.

Try reading “The Irrational Atheist” sometime. Vox Day explains the Crusades pretty well there.

But remember, that many atrocities have also been caused by misguided good intentions. The Christian record with aboriginal peoples in many countries is nothing to be proud of. Forced conversion, forced removal of children from parents, cultural genocide.

Again, the question you should be asking is: does God approve of cultural genocide? What does his word say? Barb

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Piotr

Bornagain 14 and Barb 18: When you play the numbers game you place yourself in a circular argument that you, by twisted logic, can't lose. Hitler couldn't be a Christian because a Christian would never commit those atrocities. Who is the judge on who is a Christian? These are simple facts: Hitler was raised a Christian; Germany was a predominantly Christian country. If Christians could not commit atrocities, then who killed all those Jews? Yes, some horrors have been caused by atheists. But there have been some caused by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Shinto, etc. What this tells me is that humans, regardless of religion, often commit crimes against humanity. If you think that Christians are immune then you have not read any history. I don't even include the inquisition amongst these as its atrocities were primarily aimed at those who claimed to be Christian. They just weren't Christian enough for some people's liking. But remember, that many atrocities have also been caused by misguided good intentions. The Christian record with aboriginal peoples in many countries is nothing to be proud of. Forced conversion, forced removal of children from parents, cultural genocide. Acartia_bogart

Acartia,

The most publicized mass murder in the 20th century was laid at the foot of Hitler, who was raised a Christian and never claimed otherwise.

Most publicized =/= greatest mass murdered. Even you know better than this. Stalin killed for more and he was a fervent atheist. Also, being raised a Christian/claiming to be a Christian =/= actually following the teachings of Christ. Seriously, I have to explain this? Really?

And even if he was, I don’t believe that he pulled the trigger on a single person. The killings were conducted and condoned by hundreds if not thousands of people who considered themselves Christian.

See above. Not pulling the trigger doesn’t make you any less guilty. Not when you’re the one giving the orders for the trigger to be pulled. Try again. And try harder next time. Barb

@bogart: The main reason why many German people and even Churches chose to serve the State rather than the most basic values of their faith was a centurylong, specifically targeted, antichristian, European (particularly German) cultural war (kulturkampf). krtgdl

@bogart: You went full retard, man. Never go full retard. Sebestyen

Historian Paul Johnson is Darwin's Latest Biographer -- and a Pretty Devastating One - David Klinghoffer - October 14, 2012 Excerpt: "Both Himmler, head of the SS and Goebbels, the propaganda chief," were students of Darwin, ,,, Hitler apparently carried the theory of natural selection "to its logical conclusion." "Leading Communists," moreover, "from Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin and Mao Tse-tung" considered evolution "essential to the self-respect of Communists. ... Darwin provided stiffening to the scaffold of laws and dialectic they erected around their seizure of power." Even Stalin,, "had Darwin's 'struggle' and 'survival of the fittest' in mind" when murdering entire ethnic groups, as did Pol Pot,,, ,,the "emotional stew" Darwin built up in Origin played a major part in the development of the 20th century's genocides.,,, No one who is remotely thoughtful blames Charles Darwin "for millions of deaths." But to say, as Johnson does, that Darwin's theory contributed to the growth of a view of the world that in turn had horrendously tragic consequences -- well, that's obviously true, it did. We have documented this extensively here at ENV, as have historians including our contributor Richard Weikart (Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein). There is, or should be, nothing controversial about this (fact of history). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/historian_paul_065281.html bornagain77

Acartia_bogart so, in your twisted reasoning, Hitler was a 'Christian'? Really???

Was Adolf Hitler a Christian? - The Real Agenda Behind The Propaganda - video http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/churchhistory/godandhitler/index.aspx Adolf Hitler: A Christian? - Eric Metaxas - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZqycNUvHYo

And just what do you think of Mother Teresa bogart? Do you take Hitchens view?

Christopher Hitchens appeared on Dennis Miller’s Internet radio show condemning Mother Teresa, yet again. Here is one of his choice statements: “The woman was a fanatic and a fundamentalist and a fraud, and millions of people are much worse off because of her life, and it’s a shame there is no hell for your bitch to go to.” http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2009/11/christopher-hitchens-calls-mother-teresa-a-fraud-and.html

Acartia_bogart, regardless of whatever you may think, though Hitler may have exploited Christianity for political purposes, Hitler certainly was no Christian in any practical sense. In fact, contrary to your desire to lay the blame for the holocaust at the foot of Christianity, sober analysis of the facts clearly indicates that the Hitler's holocaust was primarily the result of 'applied evolutionary biology', namely eugenics:

National Socialism is nothing but applied biology. - Rudolph Hess The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. - Arthur Keith "for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed." Sir Arthur Keith, (1866 — 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons - Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.15 (Note the year that this was written was shortly after the German 'master race' was defeated in World War II) Richard Weikart and Ben Stein - EXPELLED - useless eaters - video (5:00 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_mo3VRBHAzo#t=291 From Darwin To Hitler - Richard Weikart - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A The Role Of Darwinism In Nazi Racial Thought - Richard Weikart - October 2013 Excerpt: The historical evidence is overwhelming that human evolution was an integral part of Nazi racial ideology. http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/darwinism-in-nazi-racial-thought.pdf

Mother Teresa was a nun whom I consider to have ‘walked in miracles’. At the 19:00 minute mark of the following video you can catch a glimpse of the remarkable trust in God that this little woman of giant faith constantly walked in during her missionary work to the poorest of the poor as she walked into war torn Beirut to rescue 'her children':

Mary Poplin – Life Lessons from Mother Teresa – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeNIOyF0sjU

Moreover Hitler, as evil as he was, and Mother Teresa, as saintly as she was, both fall short of the moral perfection required to meet God's infinite holiness. Mother Teresa realized this shortcoming and lived by it, whereas Hitler had no clue how wretched he was and repented not of his murderous deeds.

Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament is True – Frank Turek – video – November 2011 (41:00 minute mark – Despite what is commonly believed, of someone being 'good enough' to go to heaven, in reality both Mother Teresa and Hitler fall short of the moral perfection required to meet the perfection of God’s objective moral code) http://saddleback.com/mc/m/5e22f/ Falling Plates (the grace of propitiation) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGlx11BxF24

Verse:

Matthew 5 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?

bornagain77

@bornagain77 8: I don't think that you want to play this numbers game. The most publicized mass murder in the 20th century was laid at the foot of Hitler, who was raised a Christian and never claimed otherwise. And even if he was, I don't believe that he pulled the trigger on a single person. The killings were conducted and condoned by hundreds if not thousands of people who considered themselves Christian. Acartia_bogart

Humbled, yes indeed, goodusername and bogart have completely missed the point. Which is, why take all that time in a show about cosmology to resurrect one of millions of murders during the seventeenth century wars of religion, one that brought us no more new insights into cosmology than Oliver Cromwell did by burning Irish Catholic peasants alive in their churches.

If I've "completely missed the point" of the thread, than so did your own title of the thread, which is:

Cosmos: If anyone cares at this late date – Why Bruno was executed in 1600

The title implies that Cosmos was misleading as to why Bruno was executed, but anyone that watched the show would know that he was executed "because he denied the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and transubstantiation, claimed that all would be saved, and taught that there was an infinite swarm of eternal worlds." The show probably did spend too much time on Bruno, but, like the previous Cosmos series, the writers seem to enjoy discussing some lesser known figures, like the Herschels. (I remember the previous series being criticized for spending too much time on Kepler.) goodusername

Barb, BA77, "The Irrational Atheist", I've got this book, I too would highly recommend it. humbled

BA77 posted a link to this: The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, And Hitchens, which is a very funny--and often biting--excoriation of the 'new atheists' by a blogger calling himself Vox Day. Highly recommended reading. Barb

Bruno's heresies were also not harmless: he was kind of a mentalist, ad his main goal was always to convert some kings (including the Pope). In Bruno's time, the conversion of a king always meant war. krtgdl

It is amazing the 'selective memory' that atheists display when choosing which atrocities of history to focus on. The atrocities committed by atheists (and Muslims) against Christians far outnumber the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, (though not in the spirit of Christianity), against atheists (and Muslims):

"Christian" Atrocities compared to Atheists Atrocities - Dinesh D'Souza - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmrRC6zD4Zk The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, And Hitchens - Excerpt: “The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists…..The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition.” http://books.google.com/books?id=5kYOcqb06EEC “169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide] I BACKGROUND 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia” This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM Chairman MAO: Genocide Master “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….” http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/chairman-mao-genocide-master/ “A story I heard personally from Malcolm Muggeridge (that stirred me then and still does even yet) was his account of a conversation he had with Svetlana Stalin, the daughter of Josef Stalin. She spent some time with Muggeridge in his home in England while they were working together on their BBC production on the life of her father. According to Svetlana, as Stalin lay dying, plagued with terrifying hallucinations, he suddenly sat halfway up in bed, clenched his fist toward the heavens once more, fell back upon his pillow, and was dead.” Ravi Zacharias, Can Man Live Without God, (Word Publ., Dallas: 1994), p. 26. China on course to become ‘world’s most Christian nation’ within 15 years – 19 Apr 2014 Excerpt: Officially, the People’s Republic of China is an atheist country but that is changing fast,,, By 2030, China’s total Christian population, including Catholics, would exceed 247 million, placing it above Mexico, Brazil and the United States as the largest Christian congregation in the world, he predicted. “Mao thought he could eliminate religion. He thought he had accomplished this,” Prof Yang said. “It’s ironic – they didn’t. They actually failed completely.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html Islam - A History Of Terror, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y Knowing our world: The three major reasons for persecution of Christians worldwide - Denyse O'Leary Excerpt: The world-wide picture is sobering. Pew Research Center, Newsweek, and The Economist all agree that Christians are the world’s most widely persecuted group. Marshall and team offer information about three quite different reasons for persecution by different types of regimes (pp. 9–11): First, there is post-Communist persecution, following the collapse of Communism in the late 1980s, where the regimes " … have since retreated to an onerous policy of registration, supervision, and control. Those who will not be controlled are sent to prison or labor camps, or simply held, abused, and sometimes tortured." The most intense persecutor is the still Communist (not post-Communist) regime, North Korea (pp. 9–10). There, “Christians are executed or sent to prison camps for lengthy terms for such crimes as the mere possession of a Bible.” Second, in some countries, “Hindu or Buddhist religious movements equate their religion with the nature and meaning of their country itself.” They persecute minority tribes as well as religions (pp. 10–11). These countries include Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bhutan. Third, of course the Muslim world where "Even though the remaining Communist countries persecute the most Christians, it is in the Muslim world where persecution of Christians is now most widespread, intense, and, ominously, increasing. Extremist Muslims are expanding their presence and sometimes exporting their repression of all other faiths. … Even ancient churches, such as the two-thousand-year-old Chaldean and Assyrian churches of Iraq and the Coptic churches of Egypt, are under intense threat at this time. (p. 11)." http://www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog/2013/03/30/knowing-world-major-reasons-persecution-christians-worldwide/

Verse and Music:

Revelation 6:10 They called out in a loud voice, "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" Black Eyed Peas - Where Is The Love? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc

bornagain77

Humbled, yes indeed, goodusername and bogart have completely missed the point. Which is, why take all that time in a show about cosmology to resurrect one of millions of murders during the seventeenth century wars of religion, one that brought us no more new insights into cosmology than Oliver Cromwell did by burning Irish Catholic peasants alive in their churches. There have been so many *actual*/non-crackpot new insights in the years since the first Cosmos. What a shame to waste such time on something else! News

"None of this is news to anyone who watched the Cosmos series. It’s precisely what the show said." You have completely missed the point. humbled

Bruno’s execution, troubling as it was, had virtually nothing to do with his Copernican views. He was condemned and burned in 1600, but it was not because he speculated that the Earth rotated around the sun along with the other planets. He was condemned because he denied the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and transubstantiation, claimed that all would be saved, and taught that there was an infinite swarm of eternal worlds of which ours was only one. The latter idea he got from the ancient (materialist) philosopher Lucretius.

None of this is news to anyone who watched the Cosmos series. It's precisely what the show said. goodusername

Bruno probably was the spy that helped Elizabeth I strip the Catholic Church of England. He was also accused of muder. krtgdl

It was so, and too, blatant a attempt to condemn Christianity as a science enemy/killer!! The clown Cosmos writers thought they could get away, or sincerely thought bruno was a science hero, with persuading kids that the CHURCH was fanatical then , and now, in opposing science. So don't believe in creationism or give them heed! The whole show, i never watched, was just left wing propaganda for dealing with modern left wing agendas and enemies. Its welcome in its foolishness. now ewe should get a creationist rebuttal. Robert Byers

That makes me feel so much better.

"Sure, it was a lie, and he wasn't a scientific martyr at all. But it's okay because it serves the right cause! In unrelated news, why do the irreligious get a bad rap as being untrustworthy? That's so unfair." nullasalus

But it is comforting to know that he wasn't tortured because he believed that the earth revolved around the sun. I am so glad that he was burned alive because of a much more serious crime, like not believing in the virgin birth or resurrection from the grave. That makes me feel so much better. I guess that I should invest in some asbestos underwear. Acartia_bogart