Religion - Atheism - Science and Religion

Science and Religion

The very invention of science itself was in the face of religious opposition. Studying the world was considered a waste of time, or at worst forbidden sorcery. A succession of Popes issued orders forbidding the study of nature , and even supporting the killing of those who did.

Theologians like Aquinas championed a useless mix of armchair philosophy and scripture-quoting theology, while the experimental method, the only actual source of knowledge, was forbidden for centuries. The theologian Bonaventure had the heroic pioneer of the modern world Roger Bacon forbidden from teaching in 1257. Bacon, worth a thousand disposable medieval pseudo-scholars like Bonaventure or Aquinas, was imprisoned for 14 years.





the Pythagorean school in ancient Greece had come to believe that the earth was round.

The earth goes round the sun (Copernicus, Giordano Bruno, Galileo)

Copernicus first wrote down his discovery that the earth goes round the sun. This discovery, one of the greatest in the history of human thought, would be violently opposed by ignorant Christian churches for the next

One of Giordano Bruno's supporters ends with the words: The "Church" will never outlive him. - Interesting point. After all, who now worships Zeus? Yet we still revere the ancient Greek philosophers. Humanity's gods are mortal and temporary, and fade over time as new memes arrive. Mathematicians and scientists and philosophers are immortal, and transcend religions and cultures.

The movie Giordano Bruno (1973).





As pioneering scientists in Europe and America in the 18th and 19th centuries discovered that the Flood never happened , the Earth was not just a few thousand years old, animals had existed forof years before humans, and the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve never existed, religious people had to come up with an explanation as to why such nonsense was in their holy book.

Their first reaction was spluttering denial of science, as in Pope Pius IX, who called the descent of humans from non-humans "a tissue of fables". But soon they had to come up with better replies. The one they settled on was that these stories aren't meant to be taken "literally", but rather are myths or allegories. Only a simple-minded fool would think these stories were meant to be literal history.





This is all very well, but ignores the fact that every single Christian thinker before the 18th century appears to be just such a "simple-minded fool", including Jesus himself: Jesus believes in Noah and the Flood. Paul believes in Adam and Eve (also here). The author of Hebrews believes in Noah and the Flood. Peter believes in Noah and the Flood.

All of these people, including Jesus, would have been very surprised if you pointed out to them that these are just stories, not meant to be taken "literally".

In reality, the idea that these stories aren't meant to be taken "literally" is a modern, 18th-19th-20th century invention , made to try desperately to save their religion against the onslaught of science. No one ever thought they weren't meant to be taken literally before the 18th century. Or so I think. But I am open to persuasion: THE CHALLENGE: Some religious thinkers claim that taking the Bible literally is in fact a recent invention, that in the distant past it was always treated as myth and allegory, not as history. I don't believe this, but I am open to persuasion. If you believe this is true, show me any quote from any Christian thinker before 1700 saying that some Bible stories are just myth or allegory, and aren't meant to be taken literally. Not an atheist or deist. And not a heretic who was persecuted/executed. A mainstream, accepted, Christian thinker - because you claim it was mainstream to think this way in the past. Send quotes to me here.

, made to try desperately to save their religion against the onslaught of science. No one ever thought they weren't meant to be taken literally before the 18th century. Or so I think. But I am open to persuasion: I think I was wrong, to some extent. Allegorical interpretations of Genesis collects some interesting quotes. More here. Origen (3rd cent. AD) denies the Garden of Eden existed: "Who could be so silly as to think that God planted a paradise in Eden in the East the way a human gardener does, and that he made in this garden a visible and palpable tree of life ... I do not think anyone can doubt that these things, by means of a story which did not in fact materially occur , are intended to express certain mysteries in a metaphorical way." He denies the world was made in 6 days: "we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world" . Does Origen deny the existence of Adam and Eve? Send quotes to me here . It should be noted that Origen was declared a heretic by the church in the 6th cent. AD. Does anyone apart from Origen state clearly that the literal meaning may be false ? Something like: "The Flood may never have happened" or "Adam and Eve may never have existed". It is true that other ancient Christian thinkers considered "6 days" as indeterminate periods of time, but this is not as dramatic as saying that some event never occurred at all . Did anyone apart from Origen say that? Send quotes to me here .

I think I was wrong, to some extent. Allegorical interpretations of Genesis collects some interesting quotes. More here. I still maintain that: Jesus and the New Testament authors did not know these stories (the Flood, Adam and Eve, etc.) were allegories. The fact that Jesus did not know they were allegories is strong evidence he was not a god. Views like Origen's were not mainstream. I would still claim that if you went back before 1700 and told almost any Christian cleric or layperson on earth that the Flood never happened, they would be very surprised. I would imagine, for example, that every single Pope before 1700 believed the Flood happened. Is this true? Send quotes to me here .



In the end, it turned out that none of the world's religions knew any more about our origins than Norse Mythology did.See full size . From The Pain - When Will It End?





Darwin first wrote down his discovery that humans arose from other animals by a natural process. The obvious consequences are (a) that humans are physical things, the soul is mythology, and there is no afterlife, and (b) therefore our destiny is to discover how the brain works, and then to become immortal on earth . This discovery, perhaps the greatest ever in the history of humanity, is still opposed or watered-down by ignorant churches of every creed today.





Guinness ad: "noitulovE" ("Evolution" backwards).It gets our actual ancestry all wrong, but is still great.It is actually quite, if you think how far we have come and how long we have struggled.See the ad nicely reversed Search for clips of noitulovE and Evolution





I sum up my thoughts about Darwin.

How come neither Jesus, Moses or Muhammad had any clue where humans came from?





I have never heard a Christian give solid answers to these questions. Ever. And I have been asking them my whole life.





The medical pioneer Michael Servetus was burnt at the stake by John Calvin in 1553.Image from here





Science means life. Lack of science means death.

From here.





The conflict between science and religion continues today. The major area of conflict today is probably brain science and artificial intelligence . Religions are simply inabout the consensus in modern science that the mind is a physical machine and the soul does not exist.





Dawkins's survival of fittest theory unfit to serve as moral code for human race , James Mackey, Irish Times, 19 July 2011. An appallingly ignorant article by Irish "theologian" Prof. James Mackey that simply assumes Dawkins and Darwin think evolution is a good thing, and human society should be run according to survival of the fittest. Of course, no quotes by Dawkins or Darwin are ever presented to show they allegedly believe this. How does such rubbish get printed?

, James Mackey, Irish Times, 19 July 2011. An appallingly ignorant article by Irish "theologian" Prof. James Mackey that simply Dawkins and Darwin think evolution is a thing, and human society should be run according to survival of the fittest. Of course, to show they allegedly believe this. How does such rubbish get printed? A comment says: "This series has been truly appalling, and is a blot on the record of The Irish Times. ... This is the sort of opinion piece that belongs in the Alive magazine, not in a reputable national newspaper."

I wrote a letter in reply. It was not published:

Letter to the editor: Dawkins and evolution Sir Prof. James Mackey's attack on Richard Dawkins ("Dawkins's survival of fittest theory unfit to serve as moral code for human race", 19 July) is based on a gross error. He attacks Dawkins for saying human society should be run by survival of the fittest. But oddly, no quote is presented showing that Dawkins believes this. Mackey also claims Darwin believed this. But again no quote is presented. In reality, Dawkins and Darwin never said what he attributes to them. They say that evolution is how nature works, not that it is good. Society can simply ignore nature and run itself along entirely different lines - such as taking care of the weak. This is fine with Darwin and Dawkins. The very conclusion of Dawkins' book, The Selfish Gene, is a call to rebel against evolution: "We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth ... We are built as gene machines ... but we have the power to turn against our own creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators." And Darwin often expressed horror at his discovery of the brutality of nature. In 1857 he said: "What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature!" It is fairly outrageous for Mackey to attribute ideas to Dawkins and Darwin that they never expressed. And equally absurd for a theologian to sneer at the unifying theory of biology, given biology's mountain of evidence and long track record of successful predictions. The fact is that many religious people have the same problem as Mackey (e.g. Jesus in Luke 12:24, who thinks God feeds the birds). They cannot get their heads around the idea that nature is cruel and brutal and we should not copy it. Yours Mark Humphrys

Most "theologians" have pre-scientific minds. They still fail to understand how nature really works. They fail to understand the ideas of evolution that were introduced in the 19th century. James Mackey provides a particularly ignorant example of this.The really impressive "science" in the Quran From SyeTenAtheist



