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 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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

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 selectionJoe_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT}

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_{May 28, 2014
May
05
May
28
28
2014
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT}

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_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT}

#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_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

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_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT}

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_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

#29 kairosfocus Another video related to the previous video and to your comment #29 http://www.youtube.com/embed/Ua9UU5ghvFc?rel=0Dionisio_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

#29 kairosfocus Video related to your comment #29 http://www.youtube.com/embed/p8kyGv9UvzQ?rel=0Dionisio_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

#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_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

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_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

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_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

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_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

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_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

I can't understand why atheists would not want to play "the numbers game"! They win hands down. No contest. Death by GovernmentMung_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

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_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Piotr, and on atheism why is it evil? i.e. you are sawing off the branch you are sitting on!bornagain77_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

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_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

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_{May 27, 2014
May
05
May
27
27
2014
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply