dr lazer blast

Sorry to quote the same post again, but I found some more things as well. Specifically the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, the attempts of hypothermia researchers at the University of Minnesota and Victory University to use Nazi data obtained at Dachau, and the Atlas of Topographical and Applied Human Anatomy, which was produced with the bodies of 1,377 executed criminals sent to Professor Eduard Pernkopf at the University of Vienna by the Gestapo.

elevator

Seriously, is this going to turn into a debate of which has produced the greater evil; science or religion? I have had the same discussion when debating atheism vs. theism; and I am convinced there are other threads in this forum that lists these elements. But if you do want to go that route; why not bring in the well-known cliches: crusades and the inquisition? Both of these were directly related to a religious doctrine. What about the fundamentalist Christian drive to ban the use of condoms in AIDS-ridden Africa? What about the resistance against stem-cell research which is the most promising medical breakthrough ever in the quest to cure diseases such as cancer, leukemia and parkisons. What about the numerous fundamentalist Muslim Jihadists who believe their doctrine strongly enough to fly planes into buildings or blowing themselves up - all as an act of religious devotion? It is each and every doctrine's claim to exclusive moral and divine knowledge that spawn these atrocities. Why can I say this? Because you don't see these problems in religions that don't claim doctrinal exclusivity or infallibility; such as Jainism, for example.

But that said; I think you initially misunderstood my post. While religion has caused massive casualties all over the world (just as the misuse of science has); that was not really what I had in mind when I used the word "dangerous". Drawing scientific and moral knowledge from religion is dangerous because it assumes that a holy canon written in the historical, scientific and moral context of an ancient society is valid in modern times - when clearly it has been proved to directly contradict not only modern science, but also similar doctrines presented by other religions! This contradiction alone should be reason to question (or outright reject) scientific claims presented in the bible. Clearly, as seen from my quote above; St. Augustine himself recognized this danger.

Toto

Please stay on topic. The relative morality of religion vs science is a topic for another forum.

Roger Pearse

Yes: hence my quotation from his De genesim ad litteram.

This is from the same chapter of the same work that I quoted earlier, and is in fact part of the same argument (book 1, chapter 19). Just wondering, did you perhaps find this on the web somewhere, where someone had given it the spin that Augustine is saying "let's ignore the literal sense of Genesis if science contradicts it"? Or do you have one of the translations to hand? (because if so, have a read of all of chapter 19).

What he is saying in both cases is the same; don't interpret the bible in such a way as to be in contradiction with what is factually known about scientific matters, since it is not written for that purpose and doesn't give that kind of information; and certainly don't just adopt a position based on "I think the bible says this, so your science is wrong" when in fact educated people don't read it that way (reading it literally, in both cases).

I'm glad to see your reply, tho; it tends to confirm my feeling that this is a work that should be online. Unfortunately both the translations are copyright; the one I have is unreadable as well.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

lpetrich

A common counterargument is that there is no point revealing an advanced textbook in particle physics or anything else of that nature. But there is no need to go to such extremes, there are LOTS of simple and helpful things that humanity took a LONG time to discover and could be easily revealed.

* Scientific method and controlled experiments: Francesco Redi's classic experiment on fly origins is very nicely low-tech.

* Zero, negative numbers, place notation, algebraic notation, etc. These make doing mathematics MUCH easier, yet they took a long time to discover.

* A metal rod can protect against lighting.

Etc. etc. etc.

That would be FAR more useful than a lot of ambiguously-worded "prophecies", and FAR more worthwhile to learn than (say) one day some spook will knock up some young lady.

Tell that to everybody who defends the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a Good Thing.

The populace? Why the populace? You've got to realize the sort of people who composed the Bible. Priests and the like. Who were willing to write down exactingly detailed specifications for various animal sacrifices and offerings; read the Book of Leviticus some time.

So why not reveal a lot of modern knowledge? If it's difficult to understand, then it can be presented as some sort of arcane truth.

But the only religion I know of that has featured this approach, is Pythagoreanism. So let's make ourselves believe in reincarnation and stop eating beans.

But they were clearly made up in response to Greco-Roman philosophers' cosmological speculations.

Note that Augustine didn't go any further with that and refuse to take sides on the age of the Universe or claim that the Genesis creation stories could just as well refer to timeless processes in an eternal Universe.

In fact, he was a young-earther, believing that the Universe is only about 6000 years old, created around 5500 BCE, as calculated from the Septuagint version of the genealogies (4000 BCE is from the Masoretic version). And he explicitly harrumphed at those who claimed that the Universe is older than that. I can quote chapter and verse from his City of God, Chapter 18.

But the Bible itself does not contain such a disclaimer, so why should I take seriously some theologian who did not quite practice what he preached?

And why not criticize anyone who claims that the Bible has lots of great scientific discoveries in it?

That reminds me of how I've never seen Xian apologists discuss arguments that they think that they ought not to use, though I've seen a few theologians claim here and there that this or that argument is not very convincing.

That's absolutely, totally, completely behind the point. We are talking about some entity that could understand relativistic quantum field theory and lots of other arcane things about our Universe, yet who never bothered to even so much as hint at that. Look at the Book of Job where God describes to Job all the things that he has created and implies "Who do you think you are?" That would be an ideal place for such revelations.

But Augustine did think that the Universe is only about 6000 years old, which is what one calculates from the Biblical genealogies.

And he treated even the earliest of the Bible's "history" as literal history in his City of God, making a comparative timeline of Biblical and Greco-Roman history.

The ancients? Or some selective Augustine-thumping?

I fail to see how that is supposedly so morally evil. And since the UK has not fallen into complete societal collapse and all-out anarchy, I think that it's fair to say that that place continues to be reasonably moral.

And where in the Bible does it state "Thou shalt not create mixed-species embryos"?

Common knowledge? That's news to me.

Roger Pearse, would you like it someone claimed that Jesus Christ had been homosexual and had treated that claim as common knowledge?

elevator

I don’t really know why you are so hung up on St. Augustine. Yes, I did read this on the web; but from various sources. One was Wikipedia which incidentally uses the same "first hand experience" that you are so fond of in a previous post. As such I feel it is an important source, because the writers of this article are much on the same level of expertise as you are. The other source was the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which also lists a healthy collection of English translations of his writings). Both agree that St. Augustine did indeed believe in the use of reason in areas where science and religion was conflicted and that clinging to biblical literalism in cases where science clearly has the better answer was "idiotic" and "laughable". In your last post though, strangely enough, you seem to agree with this interpretation, despite your initial attempt to portray St. Augustine as a biblical literalist on the topics of this debate (i.e. scientific knowledge). It may indeed seem as though he was a literalist on many subjects, but science doesn't seem to have been one of them.

My original position (one which I still maintain) is that there are no good reasons to invoke the divine or holy literature in matters of science and morality; when clearly there are perfectly valid secular ways of doing so. Science has no place in religious literature (especially not when it contradict or inhibit contemporary scientific research) and morality is in no way an exclusively religious phenomenon. I have posted quite a few posts in this thread advocating exactly why I think it is so.

But this whole discussion of St. Augustine is really drawing attention from the real topic of this debate; which is the claim to scientific knowledge in the biblical canon. My position on the subject is: you should not draw scientific knowledge from the biblical canon (or "the holy books" as phrased by the original poster).

But more importantly; you also have not attempted to justify your claim that a religious society is a moral society other than claiming that it is "common knowledge" and that we should all remember it from "first hand experience". Several posters now, including me, have argued against this observation.

Roger Pearse

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I find it rather pointless to imagine what the bible might mean, and then criticise it for what I have imagined myself. How do I know that what I think is right, I ask myself. That's why I introduce an ancient writer on the subject. Sorry if that offended you!

I have no real interest in this; I merely sought to stem the flow of strawmen; in vain, apparently.

Hey, I don't feel any obligation to enter an argument merely because someone wants to have a fight! (You have, in any event, misunderstood what I wrote).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Yellum Notnef

This is a great example of how Roger says whatever crazy shit he wants and then slinks away (while putting the blame on you) when called on it.

elevator

I am not trying to pick a fight; if I made that impression please accept my apology. However, I do feel that when you put forth statements suggesting the moral superiority of religious societies, you should be prepared to substantiate it. As of yet, the only substatiation you have come up with is a plead to "common knowledge" and "first hand experience". I believe your exact statement was: "The abandonment of Christianity is coaeval with the abandonment of morality" which was a reply to my statement where I asserted: "one does not need to believe in God to possess moral knowledge". If there is any way I could have misunderstood that post; please enlighten me as to its true meaning and/or intended interpretation.

I don't really see the source for your "flow of strawmen". Again; I have explained the reasoning behind my assertions in several posts above. If you feel any of my posts constructed strawmen; please point them out so I may elaborate.

lpetrich

Roger Pearse, why do you claim that elevator was trying to pick a fight with you?

And your refusing to justify that alleged "common knowledge" makes us wonder how supportable your claim really is.