Religion was and still is a controlling vehicle placed upon on all societies, both ancient and modern but still morally strucrered
upon human ignorance at its core foundation.
Would mankind be better off without religion today ? A topical debate .
by Finkelstein 70 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
botchtowersociety
The physicist Laurence Krauss, on a panel with Dawkins, said that scientists had for a while avoided giving any credence to the big bang theory because it was too close to the biblical account. (of the universe having a beginning) At the time, the theory was an eternal universe. Of course they had no choice when the evidence forced them to go that way (big bang). But there was bias in it for them as well.
It didn't help that the theory was first described by a priest scientist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Scientists are human too.
-
Quirky1
The bible is a myth...
-
corpusdei
botchtowersociety>> Oh, just keep poking holes in my assumptions why doncha :D I was thinking the churches list of prohibited books was earlier than it actually was.
I'll agree with you to a point on this, in that there was non-christian information that was retained, but these were primarily either in monestaries and areas of Ireland and Europe distant from the core control of the church or they were retained because they were considered to be a allegorically relevant to Christian dogma. Remember too that, although it was a little earlier, it was Pope Theophilus that destroyed the Serapeum which housed at least a portion of the Great Library of Alexandria.
-
Finkelstein
The physicist Laurence Krauss, on a panel with Dawkins, said that scientists had for a while avoided giving any credence to the big bang theory because it was too close to the biblical account.
Really ? since when does the big bang theory correlate to the seven days of creation by a supernatural being ?
Nutty statement to be sure or perhaps taken out context to support a contradictory claim, we know religionists do this a lot. .. ie. the JWS/WTS
-
tec
It didn't help that the theory was first described by a priest scientist.
Interesting. I did not know that. I'm going to read up on that after work.
Peace,
tammy
-
SweetBabyCheezits
BTS, I like your grit, sir, but I'ma have to go back to a thread where you and I debated the church's oppression of Galileo and pull out Finocchiaro's translation of the Inquisition's judgement against Galileo.
Among the highlights of that judgment:
"And whereas this Holy Tribunal wanted remedy the disorder and the harm which derived from it and which was growing to the detriment of the Holy Faith, by order of His Holiness and the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord Cardinals of this Supreme and Univesal Inquisition, the Assessor Theologians assessed the two propositions of the sun's stability and the earth's motions as follows:
That the sun is the center of the world and motionless is a proposition which is philosophically absurd and false, and formally heretical, for being explicitly contrary to Holy Scripture;
That the earth is neither the center of the world nor motionless but moves even with diurnal motion is philosophically equally absurd and false, and theologically at least erroneous in the Faith."
Religion hardly promoted science and human progress in this case.
-
botchtowersociety
Really ? since when does the big bang theory correlate to the seven days of creation by a supernatural being ?
It doesn't need to. Furthermore, a literal interpretation of Genesis (which is what you imply) isn't to be taken for granted, since for over a thousand years there have been prominent Christians such as St. Augustine who said the narrative could have an allegorical, metaphorical, or didactic interpretation.
The existing theory at the time the Big Bang theory was thought up was an eternal and static Universe, which obviously wouldn't need a creator. A Universe with a beginning, however, fits Christian theology. Hence the resistance from certain quarters.
You seem to hold a carcicature in your mind of what Christianity is. I suspect it is because of your relationship with JWS, either past or present. JWism itself is a caricature. You should broaden the scope of your investigations. There are other sides.
Religion hardly promoted science and human progress in this case.
It is an exception, and, I'd like to add, Galileo's own research was funded by the church. There is a lot of context your quote omits, such as the fact that scientific consensus at the time opposed Galileo's ideas.
-
botchtowersociety
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
The conflict thesis proposes an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science based on what its authors considered to be historical evidence of perpetual opposition between religion and science......
Academic
Contemporary scholarship does not support the Conflict Thesis. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould said: "White’s and Draper’s accounts of the actual interaction between science and religion in Western history do not differ greatly. Both tell a tale of bright progress continually sparked by science. And both develop and utilize the same myths to support their narrative, the flat-earth legend prominently among them". [11] In a summary of the historiography of the Conflict Thesis, Colin Russell said that "Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship”. [12]
In Science & Religion, Gary Ferngren proposes a complex relationship between religion and science:
While some historians had always regarded the Draper-White thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule. [13]
-
Finkelstein
Stalin, Polpot and others didn't go to war because they were atheists, they did it because they were dicks.
This counter point seems to always come up by religionists to try and defame atheism.
The reality is these people were solely endeavored to obtain complete control of the population centering the power unto themselves without any
crippling diversion from anyone or any established organization, either by political or religious expression.
Centering the power directly at themselves but propagandized to the masses that it was better this way for the greater population.
And they used their acquired control by using military force to achieve this goal, killing millions in the process..
This is by no means an expression of modern secular humanism by any tangible understanding.