Can the growth of Athiesm be due to the inaffectivenes or lack of inteligence in todays Christian apoligetics?

[Gaber]

…Science that discards truth is not science, it is ideology.
Peace,
Ed

Great, but inapplicable. Truth in a metaphysical sense is not the purvey of science, so it doesn’t and can’t reject it except as an immediate material factor in the phenomena it is qualified to observe within its scope. And while science is definitely a teleological activity, isn’t it religion the has to adjust its views regarding the physical to science, not the other way around? So when you are talking about alleged truths of the religious variety, perhaps a scientist or a group of them might rejects some combination or all of those. But as so many Christians are also quick to point out, there are, baffelingly enough, Christian scientists. But the mind needs some anchor in the sea of the Unknown, and if religion is what’s most conveniently at hand for some, than that can be expected.

But the way you state it, it reminds me of the mathematicians standing in front of the blackboard reading an equation about a mile long. The last factor before the = is & then a miracle happens] Is that how science ought to include religious truth?

 

[JDaniel]

How is it that you state a problem of shuffling Christianities as a problem with the poll?

Gaber:

This is a complete misrepresentation of what I said - but, not to worry, it’s not that important.

Do those Protestants or Catholics then become more or less knowledgeable as the shift around, dependent on their current status? I think you are introducing a factor that is both irrelevant and misinterpreted.

On the contrary.

One could as well make a case that those returnees are doing so out of fear, regression, or other factors, not growth in wisdom.

One can make any kind of nonsense assertion one wants to make. Anyone can sue anyone for almost any reason, in the US.

My Mom, though never having left the Church, is more and more involved mentally with her past, especially childhood, in proportion to her aging.

A longing to go back to simpler times is not a regress.

From similar reports, and my interactions with folks as aa Senior Peer Counselor in our community, I’d say that such is not uncommon. Fear is one of the major issues of growing older, and what greater thing is there to fear then the unknown?

There will always be doubt - even amongst the most churched.

and for those in that state, what greater panacea than a claim of authority in such matters? I don’t buy it. Too obvious.

What a rationale - too obvious.

Wisdom might increase, but as I’ve posted elsewhere, what homo sapien does better than animals but not too well nevertheless, is reason or be wise.

Yet better than any other exigencies on this planet, and, unfortunately, as well as we can do, given what we are, i.e., non-messianic, mere humans.

And from your position, your claim for authority is built in and self verifying.

Naked assertion - and very meaningless.Gaber, please!

Not so authoritative, eh? Not from a phenomenological view. It works in the paradigm the Church presents, but is that paradigm accurate on other grounds than the nature of belief and how culture and its habits are handed down?

You’ll try anything, won’t you?

There are far more practical interpretations of the Gospels then what I learned in catechism and the Catholic school system.

You, Sir, may hold your interpretations tightly between your tongue and the roof of your mouth. I want no part of them. I’ve already run them through my own personal veracity detector, when my thinking was as muddled and muddy. So, I beat you to it. And, like you, I was wrong yet very, very arrogant, i.e., very papal. I had very similar Messianic misconceptions about myself as . . . well, never mind.

I just din’t know them yet, because I had no motivation to look. Who knows? Even you or someone like you might sometime find such motivation?

Did that; I’m not the Messiah.

Further, to place authority in the Pope is a wonderful and needful thing for the Church as an institution. Wouldn’t work otherwise, and what you say about “authority” in that sense might apply.

Thank you for that condescension.

But ultimate authority is not in the Pope, eh, despite what it allegedly says about that in the Bible.

Ultimately, then, why are you here? Do you really think you’ll change any one? Who has sent you?

Again, there are other interpretations. And it is fine to believe the one you want to, until religions clash. Then what?

Authority! Precisely.

You get to feel right because of the self verification part of the story. But unfortunately, relationship with God is not a story and isn’t abut religion. You can make it that way, but some day you might find out different.

If that happens, then I will, at that time, know that God was a liar. How many “interpretations” will the Holy Spirit allow? Two? Twenty? Five hundred? Forty thousand? Or, seven billion?

In any case, the Pew poll is a good indicator.

How?

I’m guessing you scored 100%? That would put you head and shoulders above our fellow Catholics by a factor of nearly two,

Once again, what you and other non-Catholics perceive to be the Truth, we view as the precursors to Atheism.

I wish you all the best,
God bless,
jd

 

[Arizona_Mike]

None of the above.

More people are becoming educated, and while most educations are not worth much and teach their own style of errors (e.g. Darwinism, Big Bang theory, etc.) …

Science is willing, however grudgingly, to discard bad theories and replace them with something that works better. Phlogiston theory is not the only example. But religions do not change. The current core beliefs of the Catholic Church were invented about 1700 years ago, by men who believed that the solar system and the universe revolved around a flat earth. They did their best given the knowledge they had— but they had little knowledge, and most of what they thought they knew was entirely wrong.

I don’t mean to pick on greylorn here, I’m sure he is an intelligent person himself, and I don’t mean my comments about this post to be seen as uncharitable to him personally, but this post provides an excellent example of so many of the problems with atheism as it is often presented on the Internet. The chief problem seems to be a deficient state of knowledge about real history and real science (and especially, the history of science). I’m not sure why this is, other than the likelihood that modern educational methods have failed them.

Many of the atheist true believers claim that science is in a state of conflict with religion, and that this has been the case through history. This ignores the very real evidence throughout history that the Church has provided the basis for scientific education - through patronage, through the creation of the university system, through free education, and through the very philosophical underpinnings of science.

It is also a problem that the atheist subculture tends to promote a view of science and the history of the development of scientific knowledge that is, essentially, urban legend - often repeated, passed from atheist to atheist, with little to no attempt at identifying the truth of the claim from original source material.

As an example, greylorn claims in his post that “[t]he current core beliefs of the Catholic Church were invented about 1700 years ago, by men who believed that the solar system and the universe revolved around a flat earth. They did their best given the knowledge they had— but they had little knowledge, and most of what they thought they knew was entirely wrong.”

I don’t know if you ever spent any time on the open seas, greylorn, but it is apparent to any sailor - and many of the ancients were, including even some of the apostles - but any sailor can observe that the earth is obviously not a flat surface. One can see the horizon dip while at sea, and one can see the mast of a ship is the last item to disappear below the horizon.

Few educated people in the ancient world believed the world was flat.

The myth that the Church believed in a flat earth was promulgated by Andrew Dickson White in an 1896 atheist apologetic work, “The War of Science with Theology,” which promoted a lot of other hoary atheist cliches. (You can even find it on atheist websites now, such as here: infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/) White even admitted that the fathers of the Church - Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Isodore, Albertus Magnus and Aquinas - all knew the earth was a globe, and White was reduced to arguing that some of the early Church fathers believed in a flat earth based on their metaphorical language. A few literalists, such as Cosmas Indicopleustes, a little-known Egyptian hermetic monk, made the flat earth claim, but his work had little infliuence, was derided by the Church and was unknown in the west until translated into Latin in 1776, by which time the whole world had already agreed that the earth was a globe. He may have been a member of the Church, but it would be hard to argue that he is a Church Father. He was more like the Immanuel Velikovsky of his time.

White even repeated the old chestnut that sailors on Columbus’s voyage were terrified they would sail off the edge, which is absolute ahistorical nonsense.

White also was fond of taking the patristic writings out of context to support his atheistic claims. In Chapter 2 of his book, he claimed that "A few of the larger-minded fathers of the Church, influenced possibly by Pythagorean traditions, but certainly by Aristotle and Plato, were willing to accept this view, but the majority of them took fright at once. To them it seemed fraught with dangers to Scripture, by which, of course, they meant their interpretation of Scripture. Among the first who took up arms against it was Eusebius. In view of the New Testament texts indicating the immediately approaching, end of the world, he endeavoured to turn off this idea by bringing scientific studies into contempt. Speaking of investigators, he said, “It is not through ignorance of the things admired by them, but through contempt of their useless labour, that we think little of these matters, turning our souls to better things.”

The actual quote from Eusebius is from his Praeparatio Evangelica and contains no reference to any theories on the shape of the planet, but was discussing the multiplicity of opinion among the ancient Greek philosophical systems on trivial topics, and quoted Xenophon on Socrates admiringly concerning the need to turn one’s philosophical attention to matters of human morality rather than philosophical trivialities: [XENOPHON] ‘No one ever yet saw Socrates do or heard him say anything impious or unholy. For he did not discourse about the nature of the universe or the other subjects, like most of them, speculating upon the condition of the cosmos, as the Sophists call it, and by what forces of necessity the celestial phenomena severally are produced: rather he used to expose the foolishness of those who troubled themselves about such things.…‘Such, then, was the nature of his remarks about those who busied themselves with these matters: but he himself was always discoursing of human interests, inquiring what was, pious, what impious; what noble, what base; what just, what unjust; what sanity, what madness.’

This, then, is the actual meaning of the section White quoted out of context, and which is still often seen on atheist as a claim that Eusebius was “anti-science”:

As we have been deferring up to the present time our final discourse hereon, which is the fifteenth Book of the treatise in hand, we will now make up what is lacking to the discussions which we have travelled through, by still further dragging into light the solemn doctrines of the fine philosophy of the Greeks, and laying bare before the eyes of all the useless learning therein. And before all things we shall show that not from ignorance of the things which they admire, but from contempt of the unprofitable study therein we have cared very little for them, and devoted our own souls to the practice of things far better.

I’d recommend you read Roger Pearse’s full explication of the matter: roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=6366

Pearse provides another look at White’s misuse of Basil of Caesaria’s supposed “attack on science”: roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=6369

As a side issue, I don’t think the Church would be likely to ban the teaching of the Big Bang Theory, as greylorn suggests. It was, in fact, the creation of a Jesuit and was lauded by the Pope at the time.

 

[edwest2]

Great, but inapplicable. Truth in a metaphysical sense is not the purvey of science, so it doesn’t and can’t reject it except as an immediate material factor in the phenomena it is qualified to observe within its scope. And while science is definitely a teleological activity, isn’t it religion the has to adjust its views regarding the physical to science, not the other way around? So when you are talking about alleged truths of the religious variety, perhaps a scientist or a group of them might rejects some combination or all of those. But as so many Christians are also quick to point out, there are, baffelingly enough, Christian scientists. But the mind needs some anchor in the sea of the Unknown, and if religion is what’s most conveniently at hand for some, than that can be expected.

But the way you state it, it reminds me of the mathematicians standing in front of the blackboard reading an equation about a mile long. The last factor before the = is & then a miracle happens] Is that how science ought to include religious truth?

So why do people post here constantly about applying science to something they don’t believe in in the first place? Religious dogma does not rely on science. Views and opinions do not matter. There are truths that science cannot analyze.

The science you speak of that Christians are involved in - why is that strange?

Show me any scientific, peer reviewed publication that refers to God. And that strange cartoon, which does nothing more than mock god, I’ve seen it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[greylorn]

I don’t mean to pick on greylorn here, I’m sure he is an intelligent person himself, and I don’t mean my comments about this post to be seen as uncharitable to him personally, but this post provides an excellent example of so many of the problems with atheism as it is often presented on the Internet. The chief problem seems to be a deficient state of knowledge about real history and real science (and especially, the history of science). I’m not sure why this is, other than the likelihood that modern educational methods have failed them.

Many of the atheist true believers claim that science is in a state of conflict with religion, and that this has been the case through history. This ignores the very real evidence throughout history that the Church has provided the basis for scientific education - through patronage, through the creation of the university system, through free education, and through the very philosophical underpinnings of science.

It is also a problem that the atheist subculture tends to promote a view of science and the history of the development of scientific knowledge that is, essentially, urban legend - often repeated, passed from atheist to atheist, with little to no attempt at identifying the truth of the claim from original source material.

As an example, greylorn claims in his post that “[t]he current core beliefs of the Catholic Church were invented about 1700 years ago, by men who believed that the solar system and the universe revolved around a flat earth. They did their best given the knowledge they had— but they had little knowledge, and most of what they thought they knew was entirely wrong.”

I don’t know if you ever spent any time on the open seas, greylorn, but it is apparent to any sailor - and many of the ancients were, including even some of the apostles - but any sailor can observe that the earth is obviously not a flat surface. One can see the horizon dip while at sea, and one can see the mast of a ship is the last item to disappear below the horizon.

Few educated people in the ancient world believed the world was flat.

The myth that the Church believed in a flat earth was promulgated by Andrew Dickson White in an 1896 atheist apologetic work, “The War of Science with Theology,” which promoted a lot of other hoary atheist cliches. (You can even find it on atheist websites now, such as here: infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/) White even admitted that the fathers of the Church - Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Isodore, Albertus Magnus and Aquinas - all knew the earth was a globe, and White was reduced to arguing that some of the early Church fathers believed in a flat earth based on their metaphorical language. A few literalists, such as Cosmas Indicopleustes, a little-known Egyptian hermetic monk, made the flat earth claim, but his work had little infliuence, was derided by the Church and was unknown in the west until translated into Latin in 1776, by which time the whole world had already agreed that the earth was a globe. He may have been a member of the Church, but it would be hard to argue that he is a Church Father. He was more like the Immanuel Velikovsky of his time.

White even repeated the old chestnut that sailors on Columbus’s voyage were terrified they would sail off the edge, which is absolute ahistorical nonsense.

White also was fond of taking the patristic writings out of context to support his atheistic claims. In Chapter 2 of his book, he claimed that "A few of the larger-minded fathers of the Church, influenced possibly by Pythagorean traditions, but certainly by Aristotle and Plato, were willing to accept this view, but the majority of them took fright at once. To them it seemed fraught with dangers to Scripture, by which, of course, they meant their interpretation of Scripture. Among the first who took up arms against it was Eusebius. In view of the New Testament texts indicating the immediately approaching, end of the world, he endeavoured to turn off this idea by bringing scientific studies into contempt. Speaking of investigators, he said, “It is not through ignorance of the things admired by them, but through contempt of their useless labour, that we think little of these matters, turning our souls to better things.”

The actual quote from Eusebius is from his Praeparatio Evangelica and contains no reference to any theories on the shape of the planet, but was discussing the multiplicity of opinion among the ancient Greek philosophical systems on trivial topics, and quoted Xenophon on Socrates admiringly concerning the need to turn one’s philosophical attention to matters of human morality rather than philosophical trivialities: [XENOPHON] ‘No one ever yet saw Socrates do or heard him say anything impious or unholy. For he did not discourse about the nature of the universe or the other subjects, like most of them, speculating upon the condition of the cosmos, as the Sophists call it, and by what forces of necessity the celestial phenomena severally are produced: rather he used to expose the foolishness of those who troubled themselves about such things.…‘Such, then, was the nature of his remarks about those who busied themselves with these matters: but he himself was always discoursing of human interests, inquiring what was, pious, what impious; what noble, what base; what just, what unjust; what sanity, what madness.’

This, then, is the actual meaning of the section White quoted out of context, and which is still often seen on atheist as a claim that Eusebius was “anti-science”:

I’d recommend you read Roger Pearse’s full explication of the matter: roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=6366

Pearse provides another look at White’s misuse of Basil of Caesaria’s supposed “attack on science”: roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=6369

As a side issue, I don’t think the Church would be likely to ban the teaching of the Big Bang Theory, as greylorn suggests. It was, in fact, the creation of a Jesuit and was lauded by the Pope at the time.

I cannot match your extensive knowledge of history. I gave that subject only cursory attention. Just a few points.

I learned about Columbus’ voyage in Catholic school, taught by Norbertine priests. There I was taught that Columbus had difficulty recruiting sailors because they were fearful of sailing beyond sight of land. Most of his sailors were prisoners granted a pardon if they returned. This was a common fear among Europeans at the time, whose pre-Columbian trading routes hugged the shoreline.

I was also told that the mast-tip first argument was used by Columbus to convince those sailors who did sail with him of the earth’s spherical nature. But who really knows? Is there a history which has not been whitewashed and reinvented to make some group’s point? Already, Japanese history books tell a story of WWII that is totally unlike our version.

I also request that you do not reinvent my words as part of your project. I never said or implied that the Church would not accept Big Bang theory— only that it should not do so because the theory is absurd, and moreover does not serve the Church well.

I regret that you disapprove of my understanding of science. If you find something particular to complain about, kindly let me know so that I can correct it. Otherwise, please keep your unsupported criticisms in the bag.

Likewise my understanding of the history of science, which is probably superior to yours, and which includes curiosities that you will never find in pedantic textbooks. I regarded LeMaitre’s theory as absurd when I first learned of it, probably in the early seventies, as I do today. A few scientists are just now beginning to reach the same conclusion, doing so from much better evidence than was available to me back when.

I do not mind insults at all, and would prefer that you be upfront about them, rather than try to conceal them within verbiage. I appreciate direct honesty.

BTW, as best I can decipher your veiled complaints, you seem to imagine that I am an atheist. At least, so you imply. Please stop that. I regard atheists in the poorest possible light, individuals who have shut out painfully obvious data in order to maintain their beliefs. I was nearly booted off PhysicsForums.com for initiating a thread which dealt with the probability calculations for a single human gene, and then defending myself when two atheistic forum monitors jumped all over me for trying to slyly promote creationism. That unpleasant experience has helped me appreciate the CAF, and its large number of thoughtful members. .

 

[WTSherman]

The growth of atheism is equal to the level of non fathers in society, those who should be showing the fear of God to their sons and daughters.

This is common sense

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I also request that you do not reinvent my words as part of your project. I never said or implied that the Church would not accept Big Bang theory— only that it should not do so because the theory is absurd, and moreover does not serve the Church well.

I apologize, I misunderstood what you wrote and don’t wish to misrepresent what you said. I should have read that part of your post with more care.

I regret that you disapprove of my understanding of science. If you find something particular to complain about, kindly let me know so that I can correct it. Otherwise, please keep your unsupported criticisms in the bag.

Likewise my understanding of the history of science, which is probably superior to yours, and which includes curiosities that you will never find in pedantic textbooks. I regarded LeMaitre’s theory as absurd when I first learned of it, probably in the early seventies, as I do today. A few scientists are just now beginning to reach the same conclusion, doing so from much better evidence than was available to me back when.

Thank you for your earlier compliment on my knowledge of history, and I agree that your understanding of the history of science may well be superior to mine, but mine is focused on a particular area. I don’t regard Fr. Lemaître’s theory as absurd, but that’s not germane to this thread. My concern, which I think I expressed, was that many in the atheist/agnostic/secular field misrepresent the history of science, and misrepresent Catholic teaching and history, by failing to research original source material, and then repeating folk legends about the Church and its history. My particular post was addressed to your comment about the Church fathers believing in a flat earth, which is not correct.

I do not mind insults at all, and would prefer that you be upfront about them, rather than try to conceal them within verbiage. I appreciate direct honesty.

I try not to insult people personally, although I will take their arguments to task, which are, I think you will agree, fair game. If you will re-read my post, I think you will see that I took pains to state that my comments were not directed at you personally, but at the claim you made, which is commonly advanced by atheists, and that I did not want to be uncharitable. As I said, you seem to be an intelligent person (judging by your posts that I have read), and you are presumably well-educated in your field of endeavor, but you were promoting a canard of history. I do not think you did this out of any malice or desire to spread a falsehood, I simply think that our educational institutions (yes, even - or especially - many of the Catholic ones) do not do a good job of teaching history now, and you were taught a falsehood. An endemic prejudice against Catholicism by many academics also probably plays a part in that. You are not alone in believing the flat earth myth, as writers who are far better-known than you or I have also made the claim, such as Daniel Boorstin. As James Hannam has pointed out, the UK edition of Umberto Eco’s book “Serendipities” makes the same claim, even though Eco himself devotes a large section of the book (“The Force of Falsity”) to debunking the myth. If you are interested in pursuing the topic, Edward Grant’s “God and Reason in the Middle Ages” also provides numerous cites that show educated people in the Middle Ages, including those in the Church, knew that the earth was a sphere.

As you have taken offense at what I wrote, I apologize to you.

BTW, as best I can decipher your veiled complaints, you seem to imagine that I am an atheist. At least, so you imply. Please stop that. I regard atheists in the poorest possible light, individuals who have shut out painfully obvious data in order to maintain their beliefs. I was nearly booted off PhysicsForums.com for initiating a thread which dealt with the probability calculations for a single human gene, and then defending myself when two atheistic forum monitors jumped all over me for trying to slyly promote creationism. That unpleasant experience has helped me appreciate the CAF, and its large number of thoughtful members. .

I don’t know what you are, other than your description at the top right of your posts. And so, I took some pains not to describe you as an atheist. I am in violent agreement with you on the dangers of an atheistic worldview, for what that’s worth, and if your perception was that I was implying you were an atheist, that is incorrect but I also apologize if I gave you that perception.

I think it is correct, however, based on the source material I cited, to describe the statement you made as having originated in a book written in the 19th century by an atheist and promoting an atheist viewpoint.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The growth of atheism is equal to the level of non fathers in society, those who should be showing the fear of God to their sons and daughters.

This is common sense

And more importantly, the love of God, but I take your meaning.

There was a 2000 book “(Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism” by former atheist Paul Vitz) that examined the psychological underpinnings of an atheist worldview, and made the claim that atheists (whether anecdotally or statistically) reported a higher level of absentee fathers than believers. I’ve read reviews but haven’t been able to find a library copy and Amazon is asking too much for an out-of-print copy.

“Vitz (psychology, New York U.), an atheist himself until his 30s, exposes atheism to the same psychological analysis atheistic apologists have used to debunk religious belief. Beginning with Freud’s notion that belief in God is a product of humanity’s desire for security, he argues that psychoanalysis is actually a better explanation for denial of God, concluding that the absence of a good father is at the core of militant atheism. Surveys of the leading intellectual defenders of atheism and Christianity, show that the atheists had “defective fathers” while the believers did not. Vitz does not intend to suggest that atheism is psychologically determined, but rather hopes to counteract the idea that irrational psychological factors lead one to believe in God.” Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com) – Booknews

 

[Roy5]

Roy:

Absolutely wrong. That’s the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. Do some checking. It is Protestantism that is losing adherents in droves, not Catholicism. Why? Simply because we have one Pope and one Magisterium. You have hundreds of thousands of them. Anarchy is not the answer.

God bless,
jd

 Golly, that's not my experience. They're all losing around here, probably the Catholics more than anybody if you go by church attendance. Evangelical Protestant churches are gaining somewhat, mainline Protestants churches are slowing losing - though both of these groups have picked up many Catholics. As for Catholicism, this is a Catholic area - many Italians, Irish, French-Canadian, Latinos, Poles, etc. - but only about 20% attend Mass with any faithfulness. Many parochial schools have closed for lack of students. And such factors as the priest sex scandal (a new scandal arises regularly), the seeming bitter battle that many feel is essentially against birth control, the Papal criticism of devout and dedicated nuns, financial scandals and conflicts within the Vatican - etc - all these continue to hurt the image of the Church. The shortage of priests, and importing some from abroad who barely speak the language, does damage, too.

 When it comes to Protestant churches, much depends upon the preacher and various other factors. Two of the most successful parishes in town are UCC (Congregationalist) because they have outstanding pastors and offer many attractive programs. They also are the oldest churches in most of these New England towns. 

 My paternal kin were from Quebec, and I keep informed about conditions there. From a devout Catholic area to one of the most secular places in the world. The beautiful large church in my Grandma's hometown is now up for sale! Hard to believe. 
 
 Atheism is growing in part because more and more people have trouble with traditional Christian beliefs. The teaching that a righteous God basically arranged for the cruel crucifixion of his only Son so that we won't go to the fires of hell doesn't appeal to millions anymore. It sounds primitive, somehow a relic of human sacrifice that typified many primitive religions.

 

[epan]

So why do people post here constantly about applying science to something they don’t believe in in the first place? Religious dogma does not rely on science. Views and opinions do not matter. There are truths that science cannot analyze.

The science you speak of that Christians are involved in - why is that strange?

Show me any scientific, peer reviewed publication that refers to God. And that strange cartoon, which does nothing more than mock god, I’ve seen it.

Peace,
Ed

Faith is opinion. By that I mean that it is a voluntary act, which is not related to any scientific method. So, I disagree with the statement that opinion does not matter. That would be the same as saying that faith does not matter.

In our fact based society, there is a desire for supporting evidence which does not rely on opinion. This is where personal life experience comes into play. You can’t blame a person for not having the experience to come to the same conclusions as you do.

 

[greylorn]

I apologize, I misunderstood what you wrote and don’t wish to misrepresent what you said. I should have read that part of your post with more care.

Thank you for your earlier compliment on my knowledge of history, and I agree that your understanding of the history of science may well be superior to mine, but mine is focused on a particular area. I don’t regard Fr. Lemaître’s theory as absurd, but that’s not germane to this thread. My concern, which I think I expressed, was that many in the atheist/agnostic/secular field misrepresent the history of science, and misrepresent Catholic teaching and history, by failing to research original source material, and then repeating folk legends about the Church and its history. My particular post was addressed to your comment about the Church fathers believing in a flat earth, which is not correct.

I try not to insult people personally, although I will take their arguments to task, which are, I think you will agree, fair game. If you will re-read my post, I think you will see that I took pains to state that my comments were not directed at you personally, but at the claim you made, which is commonly advanced by atheists, and that I did not want to be uncharitable. As I said, you seem to be an intelligent person (judging by your posts that I have read), and you are presumably well-educated in your field of endeavor, but you were promoting a canard of history. I do not think you did this out of any malice or desire to spread a falsehood, I simply think that our educational institutions (yes, even - or especially - many of the Catholic ones) do not do a good job of teaching history now, and you were taught a falsehood. An endemic prejudice against Catholicism by many academics also probably plays a part in that. You are not alone in believing the flat earth myth, as writers who are far better-known than you or I have also made the claim, such as Daniel Boorstin. As James Hannam has pointed out, the UK edition of Umberto Eco’s book “Serendipities” makes the same claim, even though Eco himself devotes a large section of the book (“The Force of Falsity”) to debunking the myth. If you are interested in pursuing the topic, Edward Grant’s “God and Reason in the Middle Ages” also provides numerous cites that show educated people in the Middle Ages, including those in the Church, knew that the earth was a sphere.

As you have taken offense at what I wrote, I apologize to you.

I don’t know what you are, other than your description at the top right of your posts. And so, I took some pains not to describe you as an atheist. I am in violent agreement with you on the dangers of an atheistic worldview, for what that’s worth, and if your perception was that I was implying you were an atheist, that is incorrect but I also apologize if I gave you that perception.

I think it is correct, however, based on the source material I cited, to describe the statement you made as having originated in a book written in the 19th century by an atheist and promoting an atheist viewpoint.

Thank you for a clear and cogent response. I’m getting to like your style. I did not take any offense at your comments, but thank you nonetheless for your apology. I just want to keep the conversational record straight, as you also clearly do. You’ve done a first-rate job of it.

I appreciate your violent agreement about atheism, a belief system whose worst enemy I am working to become.

I stand corrected on the flat-earth issue, and vow to not repeat that mistake. I’m trusting your information on this, and thank you for it.

I could have made my point by simply stating that the Church fathers believed that the earth was the center of a tiny universe.
May I PM you in the future if I have any questions re: Catholic history? While no longer a practicing Catholic, I still respect the Church and do not want to misrepresent it. Feel free to engage anything that you believe is untrue.

 

[JDaniel]

Golly, that’s not my experience. They’re all losing around here, probably the Catholics more than anybody if you go by church attendance. Evangelical Protestant churches are gaining somewhat, mainline Protestants churches are slowing losing - though both of these groups have picked up many Catholics. As for Catholicism, this is a Catholic area - many Italians, Irish, French-Canadian, Latinos, Poles, etc. - but only about 20% attend Mass with any faithfulness. Many parochial schools have closed for lack of students. And such factors as the priest sex scandal (a new scandal arises regularly), the seeming bitter battle that many feel is essentially against birth control, the Papal criticism of devout and dedicated nuns, financial scandals and conflicts within the Vatican - etc - all these continue to hurt the image of the Church. The shortage of priests, and importing some from abroad who barely speak the language, does damage, too.

 When it comes to Protestant churches, much depends upon the preacher and various other factors. Two of the most successful parishes in town are UCC (Congregationalist) because they have outstanding pastors and offer many attractive programs. They also are the oldest churches in most of these New England towns. 

 My paternal kin were from Quebec, and I keep informed about conditions there. From a devout Catholic area to one of the most secular places in the world. The beautiful large church in my Grandma's hometown is now up for sale! Hard to believe. 
 
 Atheism is growing in part because more and more people have trouble with traditional Christian beliefs. The teaching that a righteous God basically arranged for the cruel crucifixion of his only Son so that we won't go to the fires of hell doesn't appeal to millions anymore. It sounds primitive, somehow a relic of human sacrifice that typified many primitive religions.

Roy:

While much of what you say is apropos of loss of adherents in general, the reality of loss is as I said. There several Protestant think tanks that are in continuous contact with almost all of the mainstream churches. One of these is in Pennsylvania. (You may know it without me having to broadcast it.) Catholicism is losing followers, but the loss rate is about as it has always been, with the churched remaining static. It is making some fairly heavy gains in Africa.

Except for some of the larger Protestant churches, many of the smaller ones are - for all intents and purposes - gone, with too few churched to pay the electric bills. (Recently, I’ve been working on the lender end of trying to obtain money for these strapped churches. Lay people do not take the time to investigate the child abuse and other charges and so act impulsively. Still Catholic numbers are holding - even in this economy, which is also taking its toll on them.

God bless,
jd

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Thank you for a clear and cogent response. I’m getting to like your style. I did not take any offense at your comments, but thank you nonetheless for your apology. I just want to keep the conversational record straight, as you also clearly do. You’ve done a first-rate job of it.

I appreciate your violent agreement about atheism, a belief system whose worst enemy I am working to become.

I stand corrected on the flat-earth issue, and vow to not repeat that mistake. I’m trusting your information on this, and thank you for it.

I could have made my point by simply stating that the Church fathers believed that the earth was the center of a tiny universe.
May I PM you in the future if I have any questions re: Catholic history? While no longer a practicing Catholic, I still respect the Church and do not want to misrepresent it. Feel free to engage anything that you believe is untrue.

And thank you for your kind response. Feel free to PM me whenever you’d like.

Not all the Church fathers believed the earth was the center of the universe, by the way. Bishop Nicholas of Cusa (1401 - 1464), a Cardinal of the Church, suggested that the idea of the universe having a “center” was probably meaningless, as in the same way that God is everywhere, “Thus the fabric of the world (machina mundi) will quasi have its center everywhere and circumference nowhere.” Bishop Nicole Oresme (1320 - 1382) also suggested in Livre du ciel et du monde that it was possible the earth rotated about its axis, correctly stated that the earth, its atmosphere, and oceans would all move as part of the same motion, and also correctly noted that the apparent motion of the sun could be explained by either the heliocentric motion or the orbit of the planet around the sun, and held to a traditional Catholic view that OT passages concerning the movement of the sun need not be taken literally Although open to the possibilities he discussed, his belief in a heliocentric system was based on the best evidence he had available. No shame in that.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

When it comes to Protestant churches, much depends upon the preacher and various other factors. Two of the most successful parishes in town are UCC (Congregationalist) because they have outstanding pastors and offer many attractive programs. They also are the oldest churches in most of these New England towns.

 Atheism is growing in part because more and more people have trouble with traditional Christian beliefs. The teaching that a righteous God basically arranged for the cruel crucifixion of his only Son so that we won't go to the fires of hell doesn't appeal to millions anymore. It sounds primitive, somehow a relic of human sacrifice that typified many primitive religions.

And yet, the UCC Churches that go against the traditional Christian beliefs of their members may find that their members are voting with their feet:

twincities.com/stpaul/ci_20975779/pastor-whose-congregation-dwindled-after-supporting-gay-marriage

 

[FurtherSuntime]

The Egyptians clearly knew not only the earth was a globe, but the Nut sun-god symbolism…they knew the Sun was a star…all thats needed is a good look at their art, “Nut” is usually filled with stars…they knew. The globe re Egyptians cannot be argued both in the pic’s and finer historical evidence…

The Egyptian were bright cookies…Take a look at that moon, ovr time with the way light wraps around it, it is impossible not to realize the ball figure…then all thats needed is a little common sense re distance-size…that even animals can grasp…Then all thats needed is guess what…the Sun, The moon…stuff is made in globe form…thats the deal…you know those pyramids actually had 8 sides…the middle is channeled out in each side, they are slightly concave and theres a stunning reason for it.

 

[Gaber]

Roy:

While much of what you say is apropos of loss of adherents in general, the reality of loss is as I said. There several Protestant think tanks that are in continuous contact with almost all of the mainstream churches. One of these is in Pennsylvania. (You may know it without me having to broadcast it.) Catholicism is losing followers, but the loss rate is about as it has always been, with the churched remaining static. It is making some fairly heavy gains in Africa.

Except for some of the larger Protestant churches, many of the smaller ones are - for all intents and purposes - gone, with too few churched to pay the electric bills. (Recently, I’ve been working on the lender end of trying to obtain money for these strapped churches. Lay people do not take the time to investigate the child abuse and other charges and so act impulsively. Still Catholic numbers are holding - even in this economy, which is also taking its toll on them.

God bless,
jd

So in fact you agree with the Pew poll, as it would appear that as education goes up, so does atheism. If Catholic numbers are “holding,” it is not here. This is why there is so much missionarying to third world countries, eh? Same with the Mormons. A nephew of mind was one of their missionaries in DR. Their favorite targets are the poor uneducated Catholics. That’s where most of their growth is coming from.

As for Catholicism? While about half of American adults change their religion early on, there is this:

Catholicism has suffered the greatest net loss in the process of religious change. Many people who leave the Catholic Church do so for religious reasons; two-thirds of former Catholics who have become unaffiliated say they left the Catholic faith because they stopped believing in its teachings, as do half of former Catholics who are now Protestant. Fewer than three-in-ten former Catholics, however, say the clergy sexual abuse scandal factored into their decision to leave Catholicism.
~Pew poll,* Faith in Flux*

 

[Gaber]

Were you searching the current slick Kali retailers, or dropping back a notch looking for dingy Dvapara stores that might not have closed their doors entirely? In those yugas, mind compressed. Wrong places to seek a stretcher.

If you cannot find a Satya store, you’ll need to open your own. Read that parable! (Or a Vince Lombardi biography.) Your mind’s life may be changed by either.

Thanks for the heads up abut the VL bio. I’ll check it out. In the mean time, I have a small Satya store in the basement, but mostly attract only browsers, though there has been more traffic lately and fewer scoffers. And I agree, in a sense that in those yugas subject/object mind compressed but grew in the descending cycle. But as in the case of a blind person, (blind to duality) other things, other mind faculties, came to the fore, as seems to be the trend today. E.g. I was just healed of chronic pain and numbness in my neck by a touch therapy. I said little about it to my gf, and she out of the blue said yesterday about how I seem to have more energy and move more freely. I also just read that some physics student has developed a theoretical way to take advantage of quantum flux as an energy source. So ascending Duarpa may indeed be kicking in. But hey, it’s a theory. We’ll have to look back in abut 11K years and see. If we care. Or are still here, lol! But as I have no doubt you know better than I, we have a lot to learn about physics and what that’s all really about.

 

[Zosimus41]

Can the growth of Atheism be due to the ineffectiveness or lack of intelligence in today’s Christian apologetics? Or are we dealing with the mere illusion of Atheism’s intellectual superiority?

The catechism and bible both tell us faith is a gift from God.

In my thoughts gifts can be rejected and gifts can be not given.

 

[greylorn]

And thank you for your kind response. Feel free to PM me whenever you’d like.

Not all the Church fathers believed the earth was the center of the universe, by the way. Bishop Nicholas of Cusa (1401 - 1464), a Cardinal of the Church, suggested that the idea of the universe having a “center” was probably meaningless, as in the same way that God is everywhere, “Thus the fabric of the world (machina mundi) will quasi have its center everywhere and circumference nowhere.” Bishop Nicole Oresme (1320 - 1382) also suggested in Livre du ciel et du monde that it was possible the earth rotated about its axis, correctly stated that the earth, its atmosphere, and oceans would all move as part of the same motion, and also correctly noted that the apparent motion of the sun could be explained by either the heliocentric motion or the orbit of the planet around the sun, and held to a traditional Catholic view that OT passages concerning the movement of the sun need not be taken literally Although open to the possibilities he discussed, his belief in a heliocentric system was based on the best evidence he had available. No shame in that.

No shame indeed!

I confess to being impressed and surprised at these historical insights. They change my perspective on Church history, and bring up some questions that should be within the scope of this thread. I’m asking these from my best knowledge, which may require even more correction.

Given that heliocentrism had already been proposed by a Bishop who presumably was not executed for his trouble, mid-Inquisition, why was Copernicus afraid to publish his heliocentric theory during his lifetime? We are looking at about 150 years between Bishop Oresme and Copernicus, which is plenty of time for the political climate to change. What happened during this time to make Copernicus so fearful? And perhaps rightly so, inasmuch as his publication was later banned.

Then, we can extend the question to Galileo. I’ve read two biographies on him; most of my limited knowledge of the character of the Church around that time comes from these.

Your insights renew my interest in this (what I consider possibly) crucial period in Church history. How would you feel about contributing to (even better, initiating) a thread which might provide CAF members some insights into the ebb and flow of ideas during this time, particularly those relating to the Church’s understanding of how the universe works?

From the Galileo biographies I concluded that he made a deliberate choice to challenge the Church’s extension of its theology into science, I see his purpose in doing so, especially knowing the risk, as his desire to integrate theology and science, which he knew would have meant potential changes to theology. Any thoughts on the matter?

 

[greylorn]

Thanks for the heads up abut the VL bio. I’ll check it out. In the mean time, I have a small Satya store in the basement, but mostly attract only browsers, though there has been more traffic lately and fewer scoffers. And I agree, in a sense that in those yugas subject/object mind compressed but grew in the descending cycle. But as in the case of a blind person, (blind to duality) other things, other mind faculties, came to the fore, as seems to be the trend today. E.g. I was just healed of chronic pain and numbness in my neck by a touch therapy. I said little about it to my gf, and she out of the blue said yesterday about how I seem to have more energy and move more freely. I also just read that some physics student has developed a theoretical way to take advantage of quantum flux as an energy source. So ascending Duarpa may indeed be kicking in. But hey, it’s a theory. We’ll have to look back in abut 11K years and see. If we care. Or are still here, lol! But as I have no doubt you know better than I, we have a lot to learn about physics and what that’s all really about.

Congratulations on discovering touch therapy! I’ve been practicing various forms of it for the last dozen years, and always get good results. A few months back I combined one of my techniques with hypnosis and got spectacular results. BTW touch healing is something you could learn, easily and cheaply, perhaps even offer in your basement store. The healer always learns more than his subject, often those ineffable kinds of things of great value that cannot be described to someone who has not already learned them.