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

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 26, 2014

Cosmology, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Jay Richards, at Evolution News & Views:

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. Is it any surprise, then, that, as a defrocked Dominican friar denying essential tenets of Catholic doctrine and drawing strength from the closest thing to an atheist in the Roman world, he might have gotten in trouble with the Inquisition? Yet a documentary series about science and our knowledge of the universe fritters away valuable airtime on this Dominican mystic and heretic, while scarcely mentioning Copernicus, the Polish guy who actually wrote the book proposing a sun-centered universe.

The reason is obvious once you see that Cosmos is not just good ole science education, but rather a glossy multi-million-dollar piece of agitprop for scientific materialism. As such, the biography of Copernicus, whatever its scientific significance, provides precious little fodder of the desired kind. Copernicus died peacefully in his bed just as his book, On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres, was hitting the bookstores (such as there were in 1543). And his most famous disciple, Galileo, despite being censured by the Holy See, died peacefully as well. So it falls to Bruno, who had no scientific achievements, to stand in as a martyr for science. I’d venture that virtually no one other than scholars of Christian history would even know the name of Giordano Bruno but for the propaganda machine of scientific materialism, which needed a martyr for its metanarrative.

Maybe, but the disappointing ratings show that the Cosmos remake is not a good advertisement for scientific materialism. The problem is, most people who would buy the idea don’t really want all the baggage, like Bruno, Gaia, and global warming. And the people who want the baggage are indifferent converts to scientific materialism: Darwin today Gaia tomorrow, panpsychism the day after.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

bogart (64): That's "sickle" cell anemia. I take it that biology is not your area of expertise.Timaeus_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

@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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

Piotr:
What if the social norm is stoning people for minor religious offences?
I believe Colorado is testing that now. :cool:Joe_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

@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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

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.htmlbornagain77_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

@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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

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 daftJoe_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Your links don't work for me, Barb.Piotr_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply