header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: California Bill Would Dictate What Topics Pastors Can Preach About Rea

 (Read 2042 times)

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
No one has to waste time responding to anything, it's our choice.

I "wasted time" noting the thread title is a complete lie.

I think everyone is used to DunkingDan's misleading, 'rally the troops' posts.

Hightop77

  • Guest
There is no basis for that.  It's like saying '99% of the founding fathers ate potatoes, so eating potatoes was the driving force..."


And no, Christianity does not require any that you, but isn't that your goal? You Were Made In His Image, right? If you aren't all trying to live by what Jesus taught, then what is the point of Christianity?
If you actually believe any of that or if it even makes sense to you then you are well beyond the insurmountable ignorance stage.  Even if you don't agree Christianity was the driving force for Western civilization, to deny it's significance means you are totally ignorant.  

As Dan said, stop arguing about Christianity.  You don't have the first clue what it is about.

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 28764
  • Liked:
One need not be an expert in Christianity to realize that it was not some major driving force in Western civilization.

I think it ignorant to pretend that it is, but I understand why folks insist on it.  At best, it was a minor factor, and was detrimental in many ways.  Religious belief obviously constrained free thinking and innovation and ability to consider new ideas without bias, like he Earth going around the Sun.

The Muslim world was more advanced in many areas until around 1500 when the wealth of colonization started pouring into Europe and the incessant wars provided the need for military advancements and navigation.  Colonization is THE central factor that vaulted Europe over other regions of the world.




P1tchBlack

  • Guest
If you actually believe any of that or if it even makes sense to you then you are well beyond the insurmountable ignorance stage.  Even if you don't agree Christianity was the driving force for Western civilization, to deny it's significance means you are totally ignorant. 

As Dan said, stop arguing about Christianity.  You don't have the first clue what it is about.
lol... right.  I should take the word of the people who repeat the opinion about how our country was founded... never mind, again, that the LARGE majority of our country has ALWAYS been Christian.... I'm sure there's no bias!  The founding fathers were very clearly influenced by a desire to escape the over-powering single authority that controlled the direction of the people/country.  That's completely OPPOSITE of Christianity.

If I'm wrong about anything I say about Christianity, you are welcome to correct me.  

Note that neither of you has answered my question about how our country would look if all the Christians actually lived like Christians.  I guess the FF's were the last people to be influenced by their religion and everyone since then has "forgotten" to live like Christians.

Hightop77

  • Guest
lol... right.  I should take the word of the people who repeat the opinion about how our country was founded... never mind, again, that the LARGE majority of our country has ALWAYS been Christian.... I'm sure there's no bias!  The founding fathers were very clearly influenced by a desire to escape the over-powering single authority that controlled the direction of the people/country.  That's completely OPPOSITE of Christianity.

If I'm wrong about anything I say about Christianity, you are welcome to correct me. 

Note that neither of you has answered my question about how our country would look if all the Christians actually lived like Christians.  I guess the FF's were the last people to be influenced by their religion and everyone since then has "forgotten" to live like Christians.
If you are wrong?  Dude, I am still waiting for you to say something that is correct.  Trying to correct you when nearly everything you say is factually wrong, is like trying to bail out a sinking boat with a thimble.  And when people do correct you, you just ignore them and go back to repeating your dishonest talking points.

BrownCounty

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3677
  • Liked:
And if that is true, the country was a better place for it.  We are seeing now what a post-Christian America looks like and it's not pretty.

I see what you mean.  98% of families owned guns 50 years ago, and we didn't go around shooting each other.

I hope Pitch enjoys his brave new Godless world.

VolRage

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2996
  • Liked:
Well, y'all can be aghast at this RESOLUTION that MAY PASS in CA that does NOTHING.  I'm not.  Have at it.  It's funny.

I would hate to live in such a paranoic state of mind, the same as thinking all those MOOSLIMS are about to cut loose and kill us all.


Give lawmakers in Cali an inch (resolution), they’ll take a mile (law). It’s been proven. Historically they are the state that mostly passes the most loony laws and then other loon states follow.

Regardless, it would be funny if the “Pastors” were to start claiming that the resolution is against the Constitution under “separation of church and state”. When the loony lawmakers reject the position by saying that “separation of church and state” isn’t in the Constitution, the Pastors can then say exactly, so we’ll be re-erecting our crosses, 10 Commandments, Christian statues and you loony lawmakers can STFU.

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
If you are wrong?  Dude, I am still waiting for you to say something that is correct.  Trying to correct you when nearly everything you say is factually wrong, is like trying to bail out a sinking boat with a thimble.  And when people do correct you, you just ignore them and go back to repeating your dishonest talking points.
The FF's were mostly Christian.  The FF's were also ALL men.  Why wouldn't you say that "Being male was the driving force in Western Civilization"?  BTW, the FF's, as it well documented, didn't agree on much.  Why is that?  If they're all Christian, and Christianity is THE key influenced/driver of thier beliefs, why wouldn't they agree on most/all things?

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18363
  • Liked:
No one 
You are the only one who seems to have their panties in a wad.
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 28764
  • Liked:
I'm just laughing at the hysteria here and mangled history of western civilization.


DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18363
  • Liked:
One need not be an expert in Christianity to realize that it was not some major driving force in Western civilization.

I think it ignorant to pretend that it is, but I understand why folks insist on it.  At best, it was a minor factor, and was detrimental in many ways.  Religious belief obviously constrained free thinking and innovation and ability to consider new ideas without bias, like he Earth going around the Sun.

The Muslim world was more advanced in many areas until around 1500 when the wealth of colonization started pouring into Europe and the incessant wars provided the need for military advancements and navigation.  Colonization is THE central factor that vaulted Europe over other regions of the world.
Jews and Muslims

Quote
The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000 or roughly 20% of the world's population.
The Nobel Prize is an annual international award bestowed by Scandinavian committees in recognition of cultural and scientific advances. The Nobel Prize is regarded as the most prestigious award in its field.
Muslims that have received the following Nobel Prizes:
Literature:
1988 - Naguib Mahfouz
2006 - Orhan Pamuk
Peace:
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1999 - Ahmed Zewai
2003 - Shirin Ebadi
2005 - Mohamed El Baradei
2006 - Muhammad Yunus
2011 - Tawakel Karman
Economics:
ZERO
Chemistry:
1999 - Ahmed Zewail
Physics:
1979 - Mohammad Abdus Salam
Quote
Salam was buried in Bahishti Maqbara, a cemetery established by the Ahmadiyya Community at Rabwah, Punjab, Pakistan, next to his parents' graves. The epitaph on his tomb initially read "First Muslim Nobel Laureate". The word "Muslim" was later obscured on the orders of a local magistrate, leaving "First Nobel Laureate". Under Ordinance XX, Being an Ahmadiyya, he was considered a non-Muslim according to the definition provided in the II Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan.
-- Abdus Salam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Medicine:
1998 - Ferid Mourad
TOTAL: 12 (TWELVE) Nobel Prize Recipients
The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000 or about 0.2% of the world's population.
Jews that have received the following Nobel Prizes:
Chemistry:
(34 prize winners, 22% of world total, 33% of US total)
1905 - Adolph von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1910 - Voit 168 Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstätter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1943 - George de Hevesy
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Max Perutz
1972 - Christian B. Anfinsen
1972 - William Howard Stein
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1979 - Herbert C. Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Jerome Karle
1985 - Herbert Hauptman
1989 - Sidney Altman
1992 - Rudolph A. Marcus
1994 - George Andrew Olah
1996 - Harold Kroto
1998 - Walter Kohn
2000 - Alan J. Heeger
2004 - Aaron Ciechanover
2004 - Avram Hershko
2004 - Irwin Rose
2006 - Roger D. Kornberg
2008 - Martin Chalfie
2009 - Ada Yonath
2011 - Dan Shechtman
2012 - Robert Lefkowitz
2013 - Arieh Warshel
2013 - Michael Levitt
Economics:
(29 prize winners, 39% of world total, 50% of US total)
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel
1994 - John Harsanyi
1994 - Reinhard Selten
1997 - Robert Merton
1997 - Myron Scholes
2001 - George Akerlof
 2001 - Joseph Stiglitz
2002 - Daniel Kahneman
2005 - Robert Aumann
2007 - Leonid (Leo) Hurwicz
2007 - Eric Maskin
2007 - Roger Myerson
2008 - Paul Krugman
 2009 - Elinor Ostrom
2010 - Peter Diamond
2012 - Alvin Roth
Literature:
(13 prize winners, 12% of world total, 27% of US total)
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer World
2002 - Imre Kertész
2004 - Elfriede Jelinek
2005 - Harold Pinter
2014 - Patrick Modiano
Peace:
(9 prize winners, 9% of world total, 10% of US total)
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin
1995 - Sir Joseph Rotblat
Physics:
(51 prize winners, 26% of world total, 37% of US total)
1907 - Albert A. Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1943 - Otto Stern
1944 - Isidor Isaac Rabi
1945 - Wolfgang Pauli
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Ilya Frank
1959 - Emilio Gino Segrè
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1962 - Lev Landau
1963 - Eugene Wigner
1965 - Richard Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1967 - Hans Bethe
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - Leon Cooper
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Ben Roy Mottelson
1976 - Burton Richter
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1979 - Sheldon Lee Glashow
1979 - Steven Weinberg
1987 - Karl Alexander Müller
1988 - Leon M. Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1990 - Jerome Isaac Friedman
1992 - Georges Charpak
1995 - Martin Lewis Perl
1995 - Frederick Reines
1996 - David Morris Lee
1996 - Douglas D. Osheroff
1997 - Claude Cohen-Tannoudji
2000 - Zhores Alferov
2003 - Alexei Alexeyevich Abrikosov
2003 - Vitaly Ginzburg
2004 - David Gross
2004 - H. David Politzer
2005 - Roy J. Glauber
2010 - Andre Geim
2011 - Adam Riess
2011 - Saul Perlmutter
2012 - Serge Haroche
2013 - François Englert
Medicine:
(55 prize winners, 27% of world total, 40% of US total)
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Brown
1985 - Joseph Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen
1986 - Rita Levi-Montalcini
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1992 - Edmond Fischer
1994 - Alfred G. Gilman
1994 - Martin Rodbell
1997 - Stanley Prusiner
1998 - Robert Furchgott
2000 - Paul Greengard
2000 - Eric Kandel
2002 - Sydney Brenner
2002 - H. Robert Horvitz
2004 - Richard Axel
2006 - Andrew Z. Fire
2011 - Bruce Beutler
2011 - Ralph Steinman
2013 - James Rothman
2013 - Randy Schekman
TOTAL: 193 (ONE HUNDRED NINETY THREE) Nobel Prize Recipients!

Muslims and anti-Semitic Islamic sympathizers would claim these statistics prove how discriminated against the Muslim community really is. Before you go and start hysterically ranting about how racist this list is, keep in mind it is only to show by comparison the emphasis placed on art, education, science, and the advancement of mankind by these two groups. It is not that Muslims are intellectually inferior, it is that Islam is only interested in Islam and anything that is not Islamic is not encouraged and in many instances, it is outright forbidden.

Muslims are quick to point out how advanced the Islamic culture was 1000 years ago and how European Christians (and Jews) were behind Muslims in technology. This is certainly not the case now. The Industrial Revolution practically bypassed the entire Muslim world as though they did not exist. If not for the discovery of oil by American and British scientists and the advanced technology to drill for oil from Western Cultures, Muslims would not be living the elegant lifestyle they live in Saudi Arabia, Qutar, Kuwait, and the other rich oil producing Muslim countries.
Muslim countries produce very little, if anything, in terms of high technology as compared to the Western World. The high standard of living they have is due to Western Culture and the oil rich land they have. The world runs on oil and they happen to control one of the many supplies, which they often hire Westerners to build, operate, and maintain. They produce no airplanes, automobiles, computers, medical, or scientific advancements. They produce little to nothing that advances civilization and mankind. They send their students around the world to Western Universities for higher education. They import most of their food. The only thing they produce in abundance is Islam. Without the "Infidels" providing all of the high technology they use in their everyday lives, they would live a pretty meager existence.

------------------------------------------

Islam vs Judaism - Difference and Comparison

Comparison chart
Differences — Similarities — But wait to quote the Professor says ''This is because Islam is largely rooted in the Old Testament'' If that is so why is there such difference

Islam versus Judaism comparison chart

view it here
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Islam_vs_Judaism
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 03:57:31 PM by DunkingDan »
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

P1tchBlack

  • Guest
Even if that is true, which I don't think it is, 75% of the country does not commit 75% of the crime.  Example:  blacks males under 30 are about 3% or less of the population yet commit over 50% of the murders.  It is disgusting that people have to waste time responding to the dumb things you say on here.

FYI (since I just saw this response)..... you might find this interesting:


https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/racial-and-ethnic-composition/#belief-in-god via @PewReligion

Look at the first three tables.








« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 02:37:24 PM by P1tchBlack »

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 28764
  • Liked:
Do folks here have any notion how advanced Muslim countries were before around 1500 AD?  Any?  Or is that viewed as fake history?

The striking change after 1500 was colonization which catapulted Western Europe ahead coupled with war after war after war.  Spain became enormously wealthy off the New World.  England did off India and other colonies including us.  France got their share and Belgium of course famously raided Africa, but that was later.

I am sure folks here will continue to ignore and deny how advanced Muslim countries were until that happened.  The Christian countries were well behind, mostly because Christianity was so inimical to new thinking and innovations until after the Reformation and Renaissance forced it.  Had it not been for those changes, which were AGAINST Christianity at the time, Europe today would be an impoverished hellhole.

The great thinkers and innovators of the time had to fight Christianity to prevail, even Newton (who are nontrinitarian/Arian).

DunkingDan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18363
  • Liked:
A notable fact in relation to Christianity and science is that the birth of modern science occurred in the geographic area of Christianized Europe.[2] Christians awed by the grandeur of God's creative work have long striven to understand His creativity through scientific study.
Sociologist Rodney Stark investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions between 1543 and 1680 A.D., the time of the Scientific Revolution. In Stark's list of 52 top scientific contributors,[3] only one (Edmund Halley) was a skeptic and another (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians.[3] Stark believes that the Enlightenment was a ploy by "militant atheists" to claim credit for the rise of science.[4]
In False conflict: Christianity is not only compatible with Science - it created it. Stark writes:
Recent historical research has debunked the idea of a "Dark Ages" after the "fall" of Rome. In fact, this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress, by the end of which Europe had surpassed the rest of the world. Moreover, the so-called "Scientific Revolution" of the sixteenth century was a result of developments begun by religious scholars starting in the eleventh century. In my own academic research I have asked why these religious scholastics were interested in science at all. Why did science develop in Europe at this time? Why did it not develop anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian theology.
Even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the leading scientific figures were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God's handiwork. My studies show that the "Enlightenment" was conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists attempting to claim credit for the rise of science. The falsehood that science required the defeat of religion was proclaimed by self-appointed cheerleaders like Voltaire, Diderot, and Gibbon, who themselves played no part in the scientific enterprise......[4]
Indeed, some of the most notable and revolutionary scientists were Christians. Nicolaus Copernicus, who first proposed the heliocentric model of the universe, was an officer of the church. Rene Descartes, who played an integral role in the development of physics, also set about to prove the existence of God in his "Discourse on Methods." Gregor Mendel, who laid the foundations for genetics, was a monk. Although Descartes, Galileo later ran afoul of the Church, the Christian genesis of his and other scientists' work cannot be ignored.
Dr. Charles Thaxton similarly states that modern science developed in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe because of the Christian beliefs of scientists.[5]
Today, the prevalence of belief in God among American scientists is much lower than it is among the American public.[6][7] Nevertheless, an article published by The University of Chicago Chronicle that discussed this study, stated that 76 percent of physicians believe in God while being highly educated.[8] Moreover, another study by the Journal of General Internal Medicine, found that 90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally as compared with 81% of the general U.S. population.[8]
Christians, though, upon being confirmed into their church study catechisms, or documents written to answer questions about their faith. According to the 1998 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Study Catechism, Christians are not conflicted when it comes to choosing modern science or Creationism. Question 27 asks " Does your confession of God as Creator contradict the findings of modern science?" The answer then states, "No. My confession of God as Creator answers three questions: Who?, How? and Why? It affirms that (a) the triune God, who is self-sufficient, (b) called the world into being out of nothing by the creative power of God's Word (c) for the sake of sharing love and freedom. Natural science has much to teach us about the particular mechanisms and processes of nature, but it is not in a position to answer these questions about ultimate reality, which point to mysteries that science as such is not equipped to explore. Nothing basic to the Christian faith contradicts the findings of modern science, nor does anything essential to modern science contradict the Christian faith." " [9]
Atheists and agnostics often claim that "science" is somehow the opposite of Christianity. In fact, science is the study of the universe, and is therefore completely compatible with Christianity



-------------------------------

Many people have uncritically accepted the idea that there is a longstanding war between science and religion. We find this war advertised in many of the leading atheist tracts such as those by Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. Every few months one of the leading newsweeklies does a story on this subject. Little do the peddlers of this paradigm realize that they are victims of nineteenth-century atheist propaganda.
About a hundred years ago, two anti-religious bigots named John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White wrote books promoting the idea of an irreconcilable conflict between science and God. The books were full of facts that have now been totally discredited by scholars. But the myths produced by Draper and Dickson continue to be recycled. They are believed by many who consider themselves educated, and they even find their way into the textbooks. In this article I expose several of these myths, focusing especially on the Galileo case, since Galileo is routinely portrayed as a victim of religious persecution and a martyr to the cause of science.
The Flat Earth Fallacy: According to the atheist narrative, the medieval Christians all believed that the earth was flat until the brilliant scientists showed up in the modern era to prove that it was round. In reality, educated people in the Middle Ages knew that the earth was round. In fact, the ancient Greeks in the fifth century B.C. knew the earth was a globe. They didn’t need modern science to point out the obvious. They could see that when a ship went over the horizon, the hull and the mast disappear at different times. Even more telling, during an eclipse they could see the earth’s shadow on the moon. Look fellas, it’s round!
Huxley’s Mythical Put-Down: We read in various books about the great debate between Darwin’s defender Thomas Henry Huxley and poor Bishop Wilberforce. As the story goes, Wilberforce inquired of Huxley whether he was descended from an ape on his father or mother’s side, and Huxley winningly responded that he would rather be descended from an ape than from an ignorant bishop who was misled people about the findings of science. A dramatic denouement, to be sure, but the only problem is that it never happened. There is no record of it in the proceedings of the society that held the debate, and Darwin’s friend Joseph Hooker who informed him about the debate said that Huxley made no rejoinder to Wilberforce’s arguments.
Darwin Against the Christians: As myth would have it, when Darwin’s published his Origin of Species, the scientists lined up on one side and the Christians lined up on the other side. In reality, there were good scientific arguments made both in favor of Darwin and against him. The British naturalist Richard Owen, the Harvard zoologist Louis Agassiz, and the renowned physicist Lord Kelvin all had serious reservations about Darwin’s theory. Historian Gertrude Himmelfarb points out that while some Christians found evolution inconsistent with the Bible, many Christians rallied to Darwin’s side. Typical was the influential Catholic journal Dublin Review which extravagantly praised Darwin’s book while registering only minor objections.
The Experiment Galileo Didn’t Do: We read in textbooks about how Galileo went to the Tower of Pisa and dropped light and heavy bodies to the ground. He discovered that they hit the ground at the same time, thus refuting centuries of idle medieval theorizing. Actually Galileo didn’t do any such experiments; one of his students did. The student discovered what we all can discover by doing similar experiments ourselves: the heavy bodies hit the ground first! As historian of science Thomas Kuhn points out, it is only in the absence of air resistance that all bodies hit the ground at the same time.
Galileo Was the First to Prove Heliocentrism: Actually, Copernicus advanced the heliocentric theory that the sun, not the earth, is at the center, and that the earth goes around the sun. He did this more than half a century before Galileo. But Copernicus had no direct evidence, and he admitted that there were serious obstacles from experience that told against his theory. For instance, if the earth is moving rapidly, why don’t objects thrown up into the air land a considerable distance away from their starting point? Galileo defended heliocentrism, but one of his most prominent arguments was wrong. Galileo argued that the earth’s regular motion sloshes around the water in the oceans and explains the tides. In reality, tides have more to do with the moon’s gravitational force acting upon the earth.
The Church Dogmatically Opposed the New Science: In reality, the Church was the leading sponsor of the new science and Galileo himself was funded by the church. The leading astronomers of the time were Jesuit priests. They were open to Galileo’s theory but told him the evidence for it was inconclusive. This was the view of the greatest astronomer of the age, Tyco Brahe. The Church’s view of heliocentrism was hardly a dogmatic one. When Cardinal Bellarmine met with Galileo he said, “While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still, if there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe…and that the sun goes not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.” Galileo had no such proofs.
Galileo Was A Victim of Torture and Abuse: This is perhaps the most recurring motif, and yet it is entirely untrue. Galileo was treated by the church as a celebrity. When summoned by the Inquisition, he was housed in the grand Medici Villa in Rome. He attended receptions with the Pope and leading cardinals. Even after he was found guilty, he was first housed in a magnificent Episcopal palace and then placed under “house arrest” although he was permitted to visit his daughters in a nearby convent and to continue publishing scientific papers.
The Church Was Wrong To Convict Galileo of Heresy: But Galileo was neither charged nor convicted of heresy. He was charged with teaching heliocentrism in specific contravention of his own pledge not to do so. This is a charge on which Galileo was guilty. He had assured Cardinal Bellarmine that given the sensitivity of the issue, he would not publicly promote heliocentrism. Yet when a new pope was named, Galileo decided on his own to go back on his word. Asked about this in court, he said his Dialogue on the Two World Systems did not advocate heliocentrism. This is a flat-out untruth as anyone who reads Galileo’s book can plainly see. Even Galileo’s supporters, and there were many, found it difficult to defend him at this point.
What can we conclude from all this? Galileo was right about heliocentrism, but we know that only in retrospect because of evidence that emerged after Galileo’s death. The Church should not have tried him at all, although Galileo’s reckless conduct contributed to his fate. Even so, his fate was not so terrible. Historian Gary Ferngren concludes that “the traditional picture of Galileo as a martyr to intellectual freedom and as a victim of the church’s opposition to science has been demonstrated to be little more than a caricature.” Remember this the next time you hear some half-educated atheist rambling on about “the war between religion and science.”


« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 03:58:09 PM by DunkingDan »
President Harry S. Truman said: “The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses on the Mount.  The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings…  If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.”

 

Associate Links/Search