Why Do Atheists Preach??

[Augustus]

Is the above your words or just another cut and paste? Oh, it's just another cut and paste... Oh dear, another cut and paste.

Congratulations, you are the first person I've ever seen trying to resolve an issue of cognitive dissonance by rubbishing the very concept of providing scholarly evidence in support of a point.

Evidence is bad, m'kay...

Complex, how so? Galileo's concepts were at odds with scripture. The Church tried to silence Galileo.

I get the feeling that it would be somewhat pointless to discuss complexity with you as everything has to be in stark black and white, which it rarely is.

As I wrote sometime back, Religion is OK with science up to the point that science conflicts with the religious beliefs of the time - then it steps in and bans the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Well Copernicus' De revolutionibus orbium coelestium also disagreed with scripture yet it was dedicated to the Pope and it's publishing was facilitated by Copernicus' patron, Tiedemann Giese, the Bishop of Culm.

It's maths were also used in the calculation of the Gregorian calendar, which was implemented by Pope Gregory.

Again, it's not quite as simplistic as the mythicists assume.

I cannot tell you how many scientifically minded people were dissuaded from pursuing science as a result of the Church's very open and public beratement of Galileo. It doesn't matter how many were persecuted. It doesn't have to be about actual persecution. Setting a hostile environment is just as effective.

Certainly a lot fewer than the scientific minded people who have been facilitated in pursuing science by the Church.

Any rational analysis of the relationship between religion and science would have to weigh up both the positives and negatives before reaching some form of conclusion would it not?


Anyway, let's try and find something to agree on. Do you agree that all of the following made very significant historical contributions to scientific progress:

The development of the university system; the installation of classical and natural philosophy in the curricula of these universities; the translation of large quantities of scientific and philosophical literature from Greek and Arabic; the preservation, copying and spreading of these translated texts; the education of large numbers of people from outwith the traditional elite; the increased prestige of studying natural philosophy; the provision of educated men from diverse backgrounds with both time and resources to study; the provision of large quantities of money to fund scientific endeavours.

 

[ecco]

Congratulations, you are the first person I've ever seen trying to resolve an issue of cognitive dissonance by rubbishing the very concept of providing scholarly evidence in support of a point.

Congratulations, you are not the first person I've ever seen trying to make points by posting long cut and pastes.

ecco previously:
Complex, how so? Galileo's concepts were at odds with scripture. The Church tried to silence Galileo.
​

I get the feeling that it would be somewhat pointless to discuss complexity with you as everything has to be in stark black and white, which it rarely is.

Instead of just saying I'm wrong, how about trying to show why my statement is wrong.

Any rational analysis of the relationship between religion and science would have to weigh up both the positives and negatives before reaching some form of conclusion would it not?

So we are supposed to give a big pat on the back to Religion for allowing some science while disparaging and banning science that disagrees with Scripture and the mood of the times. I don't find that approach rational or healthy for the advancement of humankind.

Anyway, let's try and find something to agree on. Do you agree that all of the following made very significant historical contributions to scientific progress:

The development of the university system - the installation of classical and natural philosophy in the curricula of these universities

Was and remains a way to promote religion - often, these days, with public money.

the translation of large quantities of scientific and philosophical literature from Greek and Arabic; the preservation, copying and spreading of these translated texts

What was the primary purpose? Wasn't it to catch up following years of stagnation?

the increased prestige of studying natural philosophy

Such as the condemnation of Evolution?

the provision of large quantities of money to fund scientific endeavours.

Care to give some examples?

 

[Augustus]

Congratulations, you are not the first person I've ever seen trying to make points by posting long cut and pastes.


ecco previously:
Complex, how so? Galileo's concepts were at odds with scripture. The Church tried to silence Galileo.
Instead of just saying I'm wrong, how about trying to show why my statement is wrong.

Because you have a) dismissed evidence because the book cover featured the wrong kind of statue b) dismissed evidence because the publishers didn't ban a specific retailer from selling their book c) repeatedly stated that direct quotation of diverse scholarly sources is contemptible d) dismissed every single scholar who offered an argument that contradicted your ideological beliefs as an 'apologist' no matter their religious affiliation or lack thereof or the quality of their scholarly resume e) dismissed a source because it contained a scholarly essay describing the documented historical beliefs of 17th & 18th C scientists.

This means whatever I use my own knowledge, you will say 'prove it'. If I try to prove it you will say "OMG LOL cut and paste", "apologetics", "The book has a drawing of a cleric on the front so it's biased" or some other vapid excuse to avoid actually having to discuss the issue with substance.

You have to admit, you are not exactly receptive to reasoned discussion.

Was and remains a way to promote religion - often, these days, with public money.

Present day is irrelevant. Religion offers little of benefit to modern science and offers some harms. No problem acknowledging that, I'm discussing history. At this time there was no 'public money' for education, and in most societies advanced education had been largely the preserve of the elite.

As for 'promoting religion', you couldn't even study theology until you had studied natural philosophy. Theology was a postgraduate degree, which meant to become a theologian you were required to have studied Greek and natural philosophy (proto-science).

So, to be clear, are you arguing that the development of the university system was not of great benefit to science? This would be somewhat unconventional.

What was the primary purpose? Wasn't it to catch up following years of stagnation?

The primary purpose was to advance knowledge.

The collapse of the Western Roman Empire did lead to a period of relative disadvantage in Europe in the early Middle Ages, but by the time of the larger translation movement the sciences had seen significant advances (many/most from churchmen) which were essential in the process that led to modern science.

Also in the period of relative decline the only reason, before the influx of texts in the pre-renaissance, the main preserver of classical texts was again, the church.

Such as the condemnation of Evolution?

This was many centuries before Darwin. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that religion has been 100% negative for the last 150 years so we are actually discussing the same thing.

'Unproductive' science was not something that had value in most pre-modern societies, science was something that required practical benefits to be supported with valuable resources. It gained prestige and funding in Europe due to its connection to theology.

Care to give some examples?

I already have but you found the evidence contemptible because the book's publisher's didn't ban certain retailers from stocking their product. You also found it risible that I provided numerous peer-reviewed journals which commented positively on the text's scholarship.

Historians have observed that Christian churches were for a crucial millennium leading patrons of natural philosophy and science, in that they supported theorizing, experimentation, observation, exploration, documentation, and publication. Noah J Efron

John Heilbron, no apologist for the Vatican, got it right when he opened his book The Sun in the Church with the following words: “The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other, and probably all, other institutions.”4 Heilbron’s point can be generalized far beyond astronomy. Put succinctly, the medieval period gave birth
to the university, which developed with the active support of the papacy. This unusual institution sprang up rather spontaneously around famous masters in towns like Bologna, Paris, and Oxford before 1200. By 1500, about sixty universities were scattered throughout Europe. What is the significance of this development for our myth? About 30 percent of the medieval university curriculum covered subjects and texts concerned with the natural world.5 This was not a trivial development. The proliferation of universities between 1200 and 1500 meant that hundreds of thousands of students—a quarter million in the German universities alone from 1350 on—were exposed to science in the Greco-Arabic tradition. Michael H Shank

"Apologetics", "cut and paste", etc. etc.

Why do you think so many clerics and friars contributed to scientific progress if the church was not assisting them in some way?

You missed out:

"the education of large numbers of people from outwith the traditional elite; ; the provision of educated men from diverse backgrounds with both time and resources to study"

Did these help progress science?

So, overall, are you actually contending that all of the things I listed were not massively beneficial to scientific progress?

 

[Polymath257]

Once again, one problem here is even deciding what the term 'science' is supposed to mean before 1600AD. Was Aristotle doing science when he proposed a mechanism for the formation of a rainbow? Was Ptolemy doing science?

Many of the norms of scientific investigation didn't even exist until fairly recently. The idea that one should use the senses and observation to test ideas was one that was uncomfortable to Plato, for example. Aristotle was a bit better on this account, but often still preferred theoretical work to observation. The common idea was that the senses are unreliable and therefore observation wasn't a good method to test ideas.

Now, of course, the senses *were* used to test ideas in many cases, but there was a LOT of skepticism about this. The theoretical path was preferred.

With this in mind, the *concept* that ideas in natural philosophy should be subjected to observational testing was a *huge* advance towards modern science. And that concept became more common through the philosophical work of people in the medieval church.

Furthermore, theoretical investigation into concepts related to inertia were done *primarily* by clerics and monks. Fundamental questions like why an arrow continues to move along a path after it leaves the bow were investigated and debated. According to Aristotle, any motion required a continuing force. So why does an arrow not immediately stop once away from the bow? What is the 'driving force'? Eventually, the idea of inertia, a driving force from within the arrow itself, came into being. It's easy to dismiss this as trivial, but it was a *major* advance over the ideas of motion that existed previously. And, it ultimately contributed to the ideas of Galileo and Newton. To deny it as a major advance in science would be silly. And that major advancement was due to a concerted effort on the part of several upper level church members, including archbishops.

I can give other examples, like questions about the nature or existence of a vacuum and what it would mean for motion. questions about how to reconcile Ptolemy's model with subsequent observations 'to agree with appearances', etc.

The medieval church was much more intellectually dynamic *even in questions of science* than many people are aware. Much of what was taught was *not* to indoctrinate theology. In fact, as stated above, theology was a upper level topic that could be attempted only *after* mastery of the topics in natural philosophy. Many never went to that level, but still got education in the 'science' of the time, including the idea that ideas should be tested.

Also, don't forget that the very idea of a 'natural law' was one that was strongly promoted by the church. It saw such laws as handed down by God, yes, but it also emphasized that *humans* could, through reason, hope to learn such laws. This was distinctly different than the ideas that existed in the Islamic world, where the very concept of natural law was seen to be contrary to the power of Allah. Which system do you think leads to more acceptance of scientific ideas?

 

[ecco]

ecco previously:
Complex, how so? Galileo's concepts were at odds with scripture. The Church tried to silence Galileo.
Instead of just saying I'm wrong, how about trying to show why my statement is wrong.​

Because you have a) dismissed evidence because the book cover featured the wrong kind of statue b) dismissed evidence because the publishers didn't ban a specific retailer from selling their book c) repeatedly stated that direct quotation of diverse scholarly sources is contemptible d) dismissed every single scholar who offered an argument that contradicted your ideological beliefs as an 'apologist' no matter their religious affiliation or lack thereof or the quality of their scholarly resume e) dismissed a source because it contained a scholarly essay describing the documented historical beliefs of 17th & 18th C scientists.

This means whatever I use my own knowledge, you will say 'prove it'. If I try to prove it you will say "OMG LOL cut and paste", "apologetics", "The book has a drawing of a cleric on the front so it's biased" or some other vapid excuse to avoid actually having to discuss the issue with substance.

You have to admit, you are not exactly receptive to reasoned discussion.

That's a lot of words. None of which address my comment.

Present day is irrelevant. Religion offers little of benefit to modern science and offers some harms. No problem acknowledging that, I'm discussing history.

History doesn't include the 20th Century? History doesn't include Current religious stands on the teaching of Evolution, or on a woman's right to choose, or on stem cell research?

The primary purpose was to advance knowledge.

The collapse of the Western Roman Empire did lead to a period of relative disadvantage in Europe in the early Middle Ages, but by the time of the larger translation movement the sciences had seen significant advances (many/most from churchmen) which were essential in the process that led to modern science.

Also in the period of relative decline the only reason, before the influx of texts in the pre-renaissance, the main preserver of classical texts was again, the church.

I'll state once again, advancement of knowledge was OK up to the point where it conflicted with scripture.

This was many centuries before Darwin. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that religion has been 100% negative for the last 150 years so we are actually discussing the same thing.

'Unproductive' science was not something that had value in most pre-modern societies, science was something that required practical benefits to be supported with valuable resources. It gained prestige and funding in Europe due to its connection to theology.

OK

I already have but you found the evidence contemptible because the book's publisher's didn't ban certain retailers from stocking their product. You also found it risible that I provided numerous peer-reviewed journals which commented positively on the text's scholarship.

"contemptible"? "risible"? My, my, you do have a way with words. I'm not going to repeat all the problems I found with Galileo Goes to Jail. I'm not going to repeat the rebuttal found in the wiki article you yourself linked. None of which had anything to do with "the book's publisher's didn't ban certain retailers from stocking their product."

John Heilbron, no apologist for the Vatican, got it right when he opened his book The Sun in the Church with the following words: “The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, ...than any other, and probably all, other institutions.
...
Put succinctly, the medieval period gave birth
to the university, which developed with the active support of the papacy.

There were few major sources of funding available at the time: The Church, the Kings and the wealthy upper classes. Where did The Church get the money that it gave for the study of astronomy for over six centuries? What major astronomical discoveries did the church make during these six centuries?

The telescope was not invented under the auspices of The Church. Galileo did not start making use of the telescope while in the employ of or when receiving funding from The Church.

The Schola Medica Salernitana may have received some funding and support from The Church, but it was not a "church project". The University of Naples was a secular institution. The Universities of Padua and Bologna were not "Church" organizations. So what does your source mean by "active support"?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I was musing this question a few weeks ago. Dawkins, Krauss, etc, they literally preach atheism under the guise of science. Not only is this "scientism" (yes it's a valid term, check if you don't believe me) but preaching atheism is also not a very "atheist" thing to do. Let me explain, if I may.

An atheist simply lacks belief in a deity or deities - including but not limited to - his own lack of belief. In short, an atheists position is one of uncertainty. So why then, do they preach? I believe it is because they are not essentially atheist, but rather, misotheist. Misotheism is an hatred of God(s) and a love of, and for, anything Godless.

I postulate, that it is not atheists who preach, but misotheists who claim to be atheist!

Further, just now I wrote above that an atheist simply holds a position of "uncertainty". Unlike the Agnostic, who hasn't resigned from searching for answers, the atheist has resigned his or herself from learning other ways to substantiate their belief, or lack thereof in God(s). I recently found a verse in the Qur'an in chapter 52 verse number 35 and 36:

35: Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?
36: Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain.

I found this to be of damning relevance. The unique and marvelous rhetoric in these two verses is simply, masterful. Verse 35 poses two questions, each referring to the creation of the human being.

Or were they created by nothing? Nothing being the absence of everything, including the metaphysical. So there is no idea mind! Even a child can tell us, "from nothing, nothing comes" (yes I know, I'm also quoting a certain philosopher) so the answer to this first question, is a loud resounding NO. From Nothing, Nothing Comes!

or were they the creators [of themselves]? Paradox, it's kike saying "a mother gave birth to her self" - so again, the answer is NO.

Next, the following verse takes the attention away from the human and towards the universe itself.

Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Any of us would concede here the answer is again NO. But it's an humbling turn of rhetoric. How mankind has deluded himself into thinking he is all important, the genesis of wisdom, the accumulated total of knowledge - when in reality, man only has a pixellated insight - blindsided by hubris.

The final part of this verse is what really tickles my brain though: Rather, they are not certain! God revealed this over 14 centuries ago! The atheist hinges his whole belief on the principles of uncertainty. But at least he's honest with that. The misotheist (Dawkins, Krauss et al) just hates God(s) and pushes his/her world view onto everyone else, without realizing they have turned into what they themselves mock - preachers!

This video just came out, I've finished watching it now and it's a real gem!

You believe this!

 

[Augustus]

History doesn't include the 20th Century? History doesn't include Current religious stands on the teaching of Evolution, or on a woman's right to choose, or on stem cell research?

Give the differences between the pre-modern and the modern era on this topic it is better to keep them separate.

The development of the university system in medieval Europe doesn't have a great deal to do with what some fundy uni in 21st C America teaches for example.

I'll state once again, advancement of knowledge was OK up to the point where it conflicted with scripture.

And stating it again doesn't make it any more factually accurate. It's not simplistic black/white like you think it is.

As noted before, Copernicus' text disagreed with scripture and was not only facilitated by a prominent Bishop, but was even dedicated to the Pope.

I'm not going to repeat all the problems I found with Galileo Goes to Jail. I'm not going to repeat the rebuttal found in the wiki article you yourself linked. None of which had anything to do with "the book's publisher's didn't ban certain retailers from stocking their product."

You didn't "find" any problems, you invented them so you could dismiss it out of hand. Also, there was no "rebuttal" of GGtJ in the Wiki, it wasn't even mentioned. You just quoted 2 sources written over 100 years ago as if they were representative of contemporary scholarship.

It's also your "logic" about credibility. Given one of your criteria for fair and honest scholarship is that your book is not sold by any religious book shops, then any credible source would have to preemptively ban their publisher from doing business with them.

Where did The Church get the money that it gave for the study of astronomy for over six centuries?

Tithes and donations.

Can certainly argue about the ethics of tithes, but that's another issue. The Church's wealth is open to criticism, but it's also what enabled it to fund such things. Funding that likely wouldn't have existed otherwise.

What major astronomical discoveries did the church make during these six centuries?

Not the church, but churchmen, and they made numerous very significant discoveries. See for example, the Oxford Calculators' etc.

Churchmen made vital contributions the contributed to the development of modern science as has been noted repeatedly by more than one poster in this thread.

Galileo did not start making use of the telescope while in the employ of or when receiving funding from The Church.

Many of the people whose works influenced him had though.

So what does your source mean by "active support"?

The university is generally regarded as a formal institution that has its origin in the Medieval Christian setting.[4][5] Prior to the establishment of universities, European higher education took place for hundreds of years in Christian cathedral schools or monastic schools (scholae monasticae), in which monks and nuns taught classes. Evidence of these immediate forerunners of the later university at many places dates back to the 6th century AD.[6]...Another step was when Pope Alexander III in 1179 "forbidding masters of the church schools to take fees for granting the license to teach (licentia docendi), and obliging them to give license to properly qualified teachers".[16]...The University of Paris was formally recognized when Pope Gregory IX issued the bull Parens scientiarum (1231).[16] This was a revolutionary step: studium generale (university) and universitas(corporation of students or teachers) existed even before, but after the issuing of the bull, they attained autonomy. "[T]he papal bull of 1233, which stipulated that anyone admitted as a teacher in Toulouse had the right to teach everywhere without further examinations (ius ubique docendi), in time, transformed this privilege into the single most important defining characteristic of the university and made it the symbol of its institutional autonomy . . . By the year 1292, even the two oldest universities, Bologna and Paris, felt the need to seek similar bulls from Pope Nicholas IV."[16]

 

[Augustus]

It saw such laws as handed down by God, yes, but it also emphasized that *humans* could, through reason, hope to learn such laws. This was distinctly different than the ideas that existed in the Islamic world, where the very concept of natural law was seen to be contrary to the power of Allah.

It wasn't actually a uniform view, with different people falling on different sides of the debate.

Discussion of Islamic philosophy are often limited by the fact that it is often impenetrable to many Western scholars who don't directly specialise in it given the diverse views, lack of familiarity with Islamic theology and philosophy, and the obvious language barriers.

This tends to lead to an overemphasis on al-Ghazli as a pivotal figure, although this does not seem to be well supported by either the evolution of Islamic philosophy and science after his death or the nature of his philosophy (although the latter is more complex).

This article is quite interesting:

Al-Ghazâlî, Causality, and Knowledge

Peter Adamson
University of Notre Dame

ABSTRACT: Few passages in Arabic philosophy have attracted as much attention as al-Ghazâlî's discussion of causality in the seventeenth discussion of Tahâfut al-Falsafa, along with the response of Ibn Rushd (Averroës) in his Tahâfut al-Tahâfut. A question often asked is to what extent al-Ghazâlî can be called an occasionalist; that is, whether he follows other Kalâm thinkers in restricting causal agency to God alone. What has not been thoroughly addressed in previous studies is a question which al-Ghazâlî and Ibn Rushd both see as decisive in the seventeenth discussion: what theory of causality is sufficient to explain human knowledge? In this paper I show that al-Ghazâlî's and Ibn Rushd's theories of causality are closely related to their epistemologies. The difference between the two thinkers can be briefly summerized as follows. For Ibn Rushd, the paradigm of human knowledge is demonstrative science; for al-Ghazâlî, in contrast, the paradigm of human knowledge is (or at least includes) revelation. Yet both remain committed to the possibility of Aristotelian science and its underlying principles. Thus, I suggest that al-Ghazâlî's stance in the seventeenth discussion sheds light on his critique of philosophy in the Tahâfut: namely, philosophy is not inherently incoherent, but simply limited in scope. I also briefly compare this position to that of Thomas Aquinas, in order to place the view in a more familiar context.

https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Medi/MediAdam.htm

 

[Audie]

You believe this!

Farmers farm. Believers believe.