Compulsion to convert

jackofalltrades

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A lack in belief in a deity given no evidence requires a leap of faith.

I doesn't though, the lack of belief is based on a complete lack of evidence to prove that a deity exists.
Not accepting a claim due to lack of proof is not a faith based position.

osarusan

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A lack in belief in a deity given no evidence requires a leap of faith.

What an unbelievably stupid statement.

floggg

Reekwind wrote: »

And? Wasn't your point that God or the Church hadn't corrected the perception that "Genesis was the literal word of God"? Not only has this never been official Catholic dogma but major Catholic thinkers have argued the opposite since some of the earliest days of the Church.

If this didn't filter down to the mass of peasants then it was because the Church's reach was too limited. That is, there was an inability to overcome traditional superstition and creation myths with the far more nuanced and sophisticated philosophy of the Church Fathers. Ironically, it was the increasing power of Rome (including the Tridentine standardisation and improvement of clerical education) that equipped most priests with a philosophical education.

All of which is very different from the case put forward by yourself that the Church was advocating literalism until those daring scientists stood up and challenged it. Leaving aside the assumption of a conflict that wasn't there (Newton could be both brilliant physicist and Biblical nutjob), this just isn't the case. The Church has employed allegory, particularly to Genesis and Revelations, since its earliest days. Far from being a maverick, Augustine was probably the single greatest individual influence on Catholic thinking.

Not allegory per se (that would be impressive) but some specific allegorical interpretations. To use an example from above, Augustine still assumed that God had created the Earth - He just hadn't done so according to what was laid down in Genesis. Instead he posited that creation had in fact taken place at a single moment in time. Which was wrong (obviously) but he was working from a Neo-Platonist position and didn't feel constrained by what the Bible actually said.

All Darwin really did (from this perspective) was provide a new explanation, a successor to Plato. Which is why the Church - at the time railing against every other sign of modernity, from liberalism to gas lighting - was relatively relaxed about evolution. It could quibble with specifics (humans related to monkeys, surely not!) but wasn't invested in arguing from literalism.

(As noted: Christian fundamentalism was a 19th C reaction to modernity. While the Church could easily accept evolution, fitting it into its allegorical model, the Protestant churches struggled and gave rise to the fundamentalist movement.)

Again, the conflict there wasn't 'religion v science'. It was 'one scientific model v a new scientific model'. (Obviously I use the term 'science' loosely here.) The real obstacle to the Church accepting a heliocentric view of the universe (and it certainly wasn't unique in this) was an attachment to a particular brand of Greek philosophy, not the word of God.

The core problem in this case wasn't the actual subject of the debate but the Church's assumed role as the guardian of Western intellectual thought. Which was fair enough during the Middle Ages (when the Church held a near-monopoly on literacy) but increasingly unsustainable in the centuries that followed. This is the real impact of that affair - not 'science v religion' but the development of intellectual traditions outside of the Church. Hence, I'd suggest, the controversy over heliocentrism only flared up when Galileo raised the issue. Copernicus (a member of the Church, even if never a priest himself) was only met indifference and some dense theoretical responses when his thesis was first published.

My only point in saying it wasn't known was that you had said it was "hardly a secret."

It's not something an ordinary person would know.

However it appears I was misinformed on the other points and I now my head to your superior knowledge.

floggg

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

And there are religious people who see no blasphemy in pious ejaculations: jesus! sacred heart! holy mother of god! (although they might be arrested, no matter what their religion).

It's not only the religious who call for god while ejaculating...

catallus

Oh Jeeeeeeeeesus! Ahhhh!

catallus

floggg wrote: »

It's not only the religious who call for god while ejaculating...

I take it you've been converted by Reekwind? :pac:

Iwasfrozen

mickydoomsux wrote: »

How can you prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist?

Are people supposed to default to believing that literally everything dreamt up by someone else could possibly exist until it is disproved?

That's idiotic.

You misunderstand to lack belief in something requires no leap of faith but to say something definitely doesn't exist when you have no proof requires a leap of faith.

It's like saying there are no green cars in a parking lot without actually counting them.