E-mails from my Born-again sister You respond.
Offline These to e-mails might be to easy to refute but i thought everyone would get a kick out of them.
A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed. As the barber
began to work, they began to have a good conversation. They talked about so many
things and various subjects.
When they eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: "I don't
believe that God exists."
"Why do you say that?" asked the customer.
"Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God doesn't exist.
Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick people? Would there be
abandoned children? If God existed, there would be neither suffering nor pain. I
can't imagine a loving a God who would allow all of these things."
The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he didn't want to
start an argument. The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just
after he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy, dirty
hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and un-kept.
The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said to the
barber: "You know what? Barbers do not exist."
"How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber. "I am here, and I am a barber.
And I just worked on you!"
"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because if they did, there would
be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed beards, like that man outside."
"Ah, but barbers DO exist! What happens is, people do not come to me."
"Exactly!"- affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES exist!
What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for Him.
That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world. "
- Login to post comments
RE: YOU GO GIRL..........
SOMEBODY'S RAISING THEIR KID RIGHT! One Nation, "Under God".
One day a 6 year old girl was sitting in a classroom. The
Teacher was going to explain evolution to the children. The teacher
Asked a little boy: Tommy do you see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.
TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the
Sky.
TEACHER: Did you see God up there?
TOMMY: No.
TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't
There. Possibly he just doesn't exist.
A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions.
The teacher agreed and the little girl asked the boy: Tommy, do
You see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yessssss!
LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?
TOMMY: Yessssss!
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the teacher?
TOMMY: Yes
LITTLE GIRL: Do you see her brain?
TOMMY: No
LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today in
School, she possibly may not even have one!
(You Go Girl!)
FOR WE WALK BY FAITH, NOT BY SIGHT" II CORINTHIANS 5:7
Don't forget to pass this on! I love this one. Everyone should
Send this to everyone they know, especially today with prayer restricted
In schools.
Forward if you believe in GOD!!!!
Technicaly, no one has a brain, or heart... or an appendix (which would level you with me in terms of non-appendixness)
Amazing that "Under god" didn't show up until the mcarthy-scare-era.
Oh well, you xians can have this country, you made it shit anyway. I guess the us, the buddhists, "Pagens"... etc. will have to move. we'll leave America to you so you can rot it more, and become a heavy burdon to all future apologists, unless you don't mind being called Muslims, or atheists, or something or other (Via the no true scotsman fallacy).
I would love to see a country with just fundy christians. Science would slow to a halt.
I've heard this story before, but it wasn't about a six year-old it was a college student and a professor I believe.
The One-Nation-Under-God thing doesn't really make any sense in that it has NOTHING to do with the story. I don't understand how people can make an intellectual leap like that. Who writes this stuff?
As far as the premise of the story it's obviously a watered down version of Reformed Epistemology. I think it makes a great observation in the area of the criterion of knowability and the limited nature of Naturalism. Once again it would be interesting to know where a story like this came from.
Blessings,
Matthew Angle
ttdm.blogspot.com
I am really desperate to see the level of education of xtians out there who use those kind of stories and find them relevant, AT ANY LEVEL....
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
and to think she probably thinks this will convert me.
I fixed it.
Flying Spaghetti Monster -- Great Almighty God? Or GREATEST Almighty God?
thanks for sharing zntneo. It has been a while since I've had a good healthy eye-roll. If you want the quick and easy route:
The flaw in both cases is that no one person has actually seen God. But, someone at some point in time has demonstrated that brains and barbers do exist.
you're right. next time bring us a challenge
After I read those, I had one of those numb moments when your whole brain just shuts down because you think to yourself, "They really just did not say that".
Yea i couldn't believe she sent me this.
I almost feel bad for replying. She is my sister. Although she did give a me a 2 hour lecture when i was younder. Hmmm...
Well, to be a little more serious, what you should tell your sister is the difference between logical thinking and rhetoric. Both those stories are spohistic/rhetorical abuses of metaphores and analogies that you could use to 'prove' anything. Replace God by FSM in both stories and apparently the FSM exists as much as barbers and brain.
Analogies are often used in a rhetorical sense to make people understand the way you see something, but most of the time they don't demonstrate anything. To be able to demonstrate, the analogy bewteen the two entities you are comparing (brain and god e.g.) must be very close. In that case they obviously not. For instance you could see the brain of teacher using a scanner, or by opening her skull. But you will not see god through a machine or through surgery. Hence, the analogy stops here, and only a 6 year old would be convinced by it (no offense lol).
To show an example of what you can do with sophism you can send that to your sister:
One day a 6 year old girl was sitting in a classroom. The
Teacher was going to explain evolution to the children. The teacher
Asked a little boy: Tommy do you see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.
TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the
Sky.
TEACHER: Did you see a Flying Spaghetti Monster up there?
TOMMY: No.
TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see Flying Spaghetti Monster because he isn't There. Possibly he just doesn't exist.
A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions.
The teacher agreed and the little girl asked the boy: Tommy, do
You see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yessssss!
LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?
TOMMY: Yessssss!
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the teacher?
TOMMY: Yes
LITTLE GIRL: Do you see her brain?
TOMMY: No
LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today in
School, she possibly may not even have one!
(You Go Pastafarian Girl! Long Live the Flying Spaghetti Monster )
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof,
then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Yea, i realize the idea that i think it suppose to be kinda ajoke. But it seems to me that she didn't mean it as one. I might be taking it wrong but thats what it seems like to me. I made the assumption that the e-mail was sent as a defense of god and therefore i should refute it. I do believe i mentioned that assupmtion. Now if she e-mails me back and said that it was supposed to e something like what you mean then i will definately send something like what you say to her.
One-line refutations for both:
BARBER: No one claims that barbers are omnipotent.
TOMMY: If she didn't have a brain she couldn't be speaking to us.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Answer (an actual rational response...unlike the uninformed comment): Apparently, you are ignorant of the scientific contributons made by those of faith.
I await this list of contributions - will it be forthcoming and ready for cross-examination?
Or did you just pull an assert and run?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hmm... A list of conrtibutions by fundy christians. This should be interesting.
Of course we can all point out what fundie-ness has done to impede progress.
"No euthanasia, becuase a person has to suffer."
"Flat earth, with sun going around. completly trash previous works with the flat earth bit. And threaten anyone who tries to prove otherwise."
Answer (rational Response): Run? No running here (unlike you on the Ten Commandments thread).
In part, scientists of faith:
Like Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."
But what did Einstein know...right?
Notice how many on that list lived in a time where being an atheist would get you executed and/or tortured.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
You can take every name off that list that lived more than 200 years ago. Prior to that, scientists had to loudly profess their faith or risk persecution by the church - and sometimes they got it anyway (see Gallileo). We have no idea about the real faith of these scientists.
I notice that you quote from Einstein, though you didn't quite have the gall to include him on the list. Einstein was an atheist.
Most physical scientists don't waste much time thinking about god or religion. They have better things to do, and they find reality so much more engaging. If asked about their views, they often express a misty kind of deism in which the terms "god" and "the universe" are interchangeable. They should be more specific, but, as I've said, they often don't have well-formed views because they haven't given it much thought. What is certain is that very, very few scientists buy into the christian god as described in the bible.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Answer (rational response): ...Notice how many on that list don't live in the alleged era of which you speak.
And which is it...faith in God limits/prohibits science or it doesn't? Even if these scientists were under threat of death/punishment (which is only an assumption on your part unless you have primary source documentation that demonstrates that they were really athiests under duress...citations please), science certainly advanced at that time.
Tell that to Einstein (are you referring to his era as well?)
How about the Director of The National Human Genome Research Institute...tell him that.
How many men and women of faith are contributing to science as we speak...are they under coercion too?
That whole list, where they fundys? I highly doubt it.
I am sorry that I didn't see your post in the Ten Commandments thread. I have mild ADD and don't usually scan past the first page of the list of threads. I did not mean to appear as if I was running. I posted a reply - take a look.
Thank you as well for this list - others have already said what I would have said so I won't reinvent the wheel.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
How much do you know about the Galileo affair?
The issue was not science's challenge of religion/church...The issue with Galileo was that the Catholic Church had bought into Aristotle's science and believed that a challenge of the Aristotelian view was a challenege of the church.
The Catholic Church at this point was not devoid of science...they just clung to an outdated scientific theory, which Copernicus and Galileo, and his telescope, had debunked.
Galileo, in citing Commentary on Job by Didacus a Stuncia, Job 9:6, noted that the mobility of the earth was not contrary to Scripture.
Obviously, Galileo believed in God and he correctly challenged the Church's out-dated Aristotelian view. This wasn't about religion v. science...This was about two different scientific views (how many scientists held the incorrect view at the same time the Church did?)
Answer (rational response): Please provide specific citations as to where "fundie-ness" has impeded scientific progress.
Euthanasia is scientific progress? How so? And are all ethical issues in science invalid? Are all ethical issues in science only attributable to "fundie-ness"?
What did "fundie-ness" have to do with the Aristotelian view of the sun rotating around the earth?
Forget the Catholic Church, or "fundie-ness" as you put it, how many scientists held to this view at Galileo's time?
I will answer your thing about the sun rotating around the earth. How about because if it wasn'
t able to be changed as soon as it could have been. The research about a heliocentric earth was slowed because the church thought the bible said it was the center of the earth (it does by the way)
Answer (rational response): Please provide specific citations as to where "fundie-ness" has impeded scientific progress.
Fundamentalists impede science all the time. Look at kansas, the laughingstock of the USA and the world because it upheld intelligent design (fortunately, it was reversed yesterday). It is because of their power that embryonic stem cells were banned, and they consistently impede genetic research in the nited states.
What did "fundie-ness" have to do with the Aristotelian view of the sun rotating around the earth?
Forget the Catholic Church, or "fundie-ness" as you put it, how many scientists held to this view at Galileo's time?
You missed the obvious point. Galileo was brutally opressed for publishing geocentricity, locked in his house by the church. So, that is another example of scientific progress (the debunking of heliocentricity) being shot down by the "fundies".
However, I will agree with you that "euthanasia" is probably not scientific progress. We have the means to do it, but whether we should is an ethical debate. It has nothing to do with scientific progress.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Thanks, jcgadfly...I "went over" and looked at your posts.
Have a good one.
Answer (rational response): It was the belief of the church at the time (their mistake in letting science be their tool in interpretting Scripture)...But it was also the pervasive, dominant scientific view.
Science can be as hard as the Catholic Church, at times, in allowing new/alternative scientific thought (ask Dr. Alan Feduccia, world class orinthologist at the University of North Carolina...He has performed studies that shows that dinosaurs were not the ancestors of modern birds and that dinosaurs were not feathered. Feduccia says of this thought, "This isn't science...This is comic relief. Feduccia says that the publication and promotion of feathered dinosaurs by the popular press and by prestigious journals and magazines, including National Geographic, Nature and Science, have made it difficult for opposing views to get a proper hearing.) (UNC News Release, Oct. 10, 2005--No. 477)
I am sure that in some ways, Feduccia understands the plight of Galileo (and the Church isn't Feduccia's problem).Yes i agree scientfic change can be hard to come by. But science will never kill someone for pushing a new scientific idea. This is what the church did with heliocentricy, plan and simple. I take objection that you almost equate new scientfic ideas and the inertia people have in changing their ideas, and what the church did to people such as Galileo.
Answer (rational response): The teaching of intelligent design along side evolution has impeded science in which matters, exactly? Where has scientific study stopped because a school board wants a sticker on a book or another theory taught in the classroom?
And you are misinformed...embryonic stem cell research was not banned by anyone. However, federal funding of new embryonic stem cell research was. There were existing embryonic stem cell lines that can be utilized in research, though. Additionally, privately funded stem cell research is free to be carried out. The dirty little secret is that private funds are not coming in for the embryonic stem cell research because it has not yielded much in the way of results and/or promise (while adult stem cell research has).
Yes. The Catholic Church went after Galileo for his view...BUT their beef was a scientific and academic one! The church held to Aristotle's view as did popular science at the time.
Answer (rational response): You want find a defender of the actions of the Catholic Church, in me. I was simply pointing out that the Galileo affair had more to do with opposing scientific views (Aristotle v. Copernicus), then it had to do with religion v. science.
The church wrongly adopted, just as science had, a wrong view (Aristotle's). The church should not have used any scientific view to interpret Scripture...Scripture interprets Scripture (not science).
They should have never dealt with Galileo in such a manner.
In part, this is one of the reasons that I am thankful for the Reformation.
But the original point remains...Galileo was a man of faith and also a great contributor to science. The two are not mutually exclusive as implied in a previous post.
want=won't
Suriously, are you kidding? Teaching ID alongside evoltuion promotes an invalid view of what science is. This in the future will inhibit the amount of research done in evolution. It also, implies that ID is on equal footing as evolution, IN NO WAY IS IT! To say so diminsihes what science is.
Are you kidding me, they went after him becuase he was considered a heretic, for which he was put on trial for. Which means to go against the teachings of the roman church. Had the roman church not been a hinderence to science, it would have accepted opposing views of science. Plain and simple.
If I recall correctly, the exsting stem cell lines have been damaged to the point that they are useless. There were only 72 approved lines and maybe only 22 are left (and those have badly damaged DNA as well.
From http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem.htm
"Stem cells can also be extracted from adult tissue, without harm to the subject. Unfortunately, they are difficult to remove and are severely limited in quantity. There has been a consensus among researchers that adult stem cells are limited in usefulness -- that they can be used to produce only a few of the 220 types of cells in the human body. However, some evidence is emerging that indicates that adult cells may be more flexible than has previously been believed.
Government research using embryo stem cells had been authorized in Britain, but was initially halted in the U.S. by President George W. Bush. He decided on 2001-AUG-9 to allow research to resume in government labs, but restricted researchers to use only 72 existing lines of stem cells. By 2003-MAY, most of these lines had become useless. Only 22 remained in mid-2006, and many of them were of limited usefulness because of DNA damage."
Maybe the research doesn't yield so much because there isn't a lot of useful source material to do research on."I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I'm going to be a bit more "lliberal" than some of my skeptical compadres here. I accept that there have been scientists that have impeded scientific progress, and there have been religionists that have progressed it. I suspect strongly that when it comes to degrees, there have been a lot more of religionists to impede it than to progress it, but, I suppose I can't give you statistics on it.
He also said, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
But what did Einstein know...right?
www.caseagainstfaith.com
If embryonic stem cell research is so promising, then I am sure that the private funds will come pouring in...
The point remains...it was federal funding that was banned, not embryonic stem cell research.
Answer: Dr. Francis Crick co-discovered the double-helix of DNA (won a Noble Prize). He also believed in the theory of Directed Panspermia (that life on Earth came about via aliens and their rocket ships...He didn't think that the current scientific theories related to abiogenesis were plausible). If his view didn't impede science, how will ID?
I am not an intelligent design advocate, by the way (just a creationist). I just don't believe that advancing a particular theory in a high school science class will be catastrophic to, and/or impede, science.
Specifically, how will it?
I appreciate your "liberal" view on the matter.
Federal funding to start new lines of cells. It's a roundabout way to ban the research itself - defund the means and the research can't be done.
I'm still not sure what the problem is - the majority of embryos are taken from fertility clinic leftovers. The clinics discard them anyway - why not use them for a purpose?
That is, unless you know millions of women who are willing to be wombs for "snowflakes".
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Well, its about as "liberal" as your going to get from this side of the fence around here...
www.caseagainstfaith.com
Answer (Rational response):
It allows us to know something new. It knocked patients out, so it was possible to see problems as it hapenned, instead of waiting for them to die (Chance are the person would rather try to walk it off).
Answer (Rational response):
See below, it has to do with my (Rational response) below.
Answer (Rational response):
We can't say for sure, as anyone who disagreed with the church would be threatened.
Answer (rational response): The teaching of intelligent design along side evolution has impeded science in which matters, exactly? Where has scientific study stopped because a school board wants a sticker on a book or another theory taught in the classroom?
Intelligent design is not a theory, it is pseudoscience. If you want to argue with me on that, start a new thread.
Yes. The Catholic Church went after Galileo for his view...BUT their beef was a scientific and academic one! The church held to Aristotle's view as did popular science at the time.
Yes, but this is dogma! Real science does not kill people over different beliefs, it analyzes them, evaluates, then either accepts or debunks it. Galileo disproved heliocentricity, and for that he lost everything. That is suppresion that does not exist in science.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Did a little work on that list:
From Wikipedia: In the course of the twentieth century the philosophical understanding of the role of experiment in the sciences has been substantially modified and historical research has shown the extent and variety of medieval scientific activity. Consequently, the picture of Bacon has changed. His advocacy of scientia experimentalis is now seen to differ from modern experimental science,[7] and many medieval sources of and influences on his scientific activity have been identified.[8] As to his persecution for science, although texts indicate that Bacon was briefly confined for his doctrinal digressions, recent accounts of his life show no evidence for any lengthy period of imprisonment and modern historians speak of his "alleged imprisonment."[9] As one recent study summarized it:
Bacon was not a modern, out of step with his age, or a harbinger of things to come, but a brilliant, combative, and somewhat eccentric schoolman of the thirteenth century, endeavoring to take advantage of the new learning just becoming available while remaining true to traditional notions ... of the importance to be attached to philosophical knowledge.[10]
So Bacon did not advance science but rather attempt to steer it into a theological backwater. And may have been punished for the Church for even having that much contact with science.
A good one. Of course, the fact that Oresme was a personal friend of the king of France and Bishop of Lisieux would have gained him some latitude to pursue his studies that other scientists of the era would not have enjoyed. Still, a solid example of a man of god who was also a great scientist.
Brunfels fought with the religious establishment his entire life. His conversion to Protestantism got him first place on a list of heretics in 1550, despite that fact that he was already feuding with Martin Luther. Whatever Brunfels’ real views on religion, they certainly didn’t meet with the approval of his superiors.
There is little evidence Copernicus’ religious views one way or the other, and his references to god in his writings have very much the perfunctory feel of lines inserted in order to stay on the right side of the church. “For I am not so enamored of my own opinions that I disregard what others may think of them. I am aware that a philosopher's ideas are not subject to the judgment of ordinary persons, because it is his endeavor to seek the truth in all things, to the extent permitted to human reason by God.” In this passage he seems to acknowledge a conflict between human reason and god’s word.
Copernicus delayed publication of his heliocentric theory for years despite urgings from all over Europe. There seems to be no possible motive for this outside of a quite reasonable fear of what the reaction of the church would be to a direct challenge to one of its teachings. Some historians have theorized that Copernicus was nervous about the reaction from the scientific community, but this makes little sense since most of Europe’s top minds were already aware of the theory and begging him to publish!
Turner changed religions three times and was a notorious noncomformist! It is hard to hold a man like this up as an example of harmony between science and religion when most religious authorities were aghast at his views. Let’s remember that in those days becoming clergy was as much a vocation as a calling. If a man showed aptitude for higher learning, there was a good chance he’d gravitate to the church as it was the only place he’d have any opportunity to pursue his studies.
From Wikipedia: Napier used some of his mathematical talents for theology, as he used the Book of Revelation to predict the Apocalypse. Napier believed that the end of the world would occur in 1688 or 1700. He is also sometimes claimed to have been a necromancer; however, it was common for scientifically talented people of the period to be accused of such things without basis.
Another scientist with what can only be described as an uneasy relationship with the church.
Kepler was excommunicated from the Lutheran church, despite every evidence that he was a lifelong devout Lutheran! So it seems that where scientists are religious, their religions won’t have them!
Interesting choice – only the most famous case in history of persecution of a scientist by the church. Again we see that even if a scientist is a believer (we don’t know in this case – certainly Galileo was in danger of his life if he professed to believe anything other than church doctrine) the church will attempt to obstruct his work.
From Wikipedia: The work endorsed the Copernican view of the moving earth, so Descartes cautiously delayed its release when he heard of the condemnation of Galileo’s Copernicanism by the Catholic Church in Rome and the subsequent burning of the related works. Descartes discussed his work on the book, and his decision not to release it, in correspondence with another philosopher, Marin Mersenne. Some material from The World was revised for publication as Principia philosophiae or Principles of Philosophy (1644), a Latin textbook at first intended by Descartes to replace the Aristotelian textbooks then used in universities. In the Principles the Copernican tone was softened slightly with a relativist frame of reference. The last chapter of The World was published separately as De Homine (On Man) in 1662. The rest of The World was finally published in 1664, and the entire text in 1677.
Oops. Descartes delayed publishing for 43 years out of fear of what the church would do to him. And this is a guy that constantly references god and gave the church some of its strongest (albeit fatally flawed) arguments!
Pascal’s belief is called into question by his most famous work! Pascal’s Wager constitutes an argument for faking faith – and Pascal’s life shows that he lived by it. Even as he loudly professed faith under various circumstances, Pascal was a womanizer and a gambler who really only got religion after he became seriously ill. As with most scientists on this list, his level of real belief is highly doubtful.
Appears to be genuinely religious scientist. Though not one who’s fields of study (mathematics, cryptography) ever intersected with church teachings.
Ray was thrown out of Oxford for refusing to comply with the Act of Uniformity in 1661. Another nonconformist who’s work was obstructed by the church, despite the fact that the man used to preach at the college chapel.
Newton is hard to figure. He was certainly at least as concerned with religion as science, wrote extensively on theology and publicly declared his belief in god many times. On the other hand, he denied the trinity and sought special dispensation from King Charles II to avoid having to become ordained before assuming the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics seat at Cambridge. Religious he may have been, but his views were certainly not aligned with mainstream belief, then or now.
Abauzit, a protestant, spent his early years fleeing from persecution by the RC church, who had imprisoned his mother. This man was admired by Newton, but his heirs destroyed most of his papers after his death because of their religious differences! Abauzit also cast doubt on the prophecy of the apocalypse. It’s hard to find a better example of science impeded by religion than the life of Firmin Abauzit.
There is no evidence that Linnaeus held religious belief of any kind! In fact he was accused of impiety by a Lutheran bishop and drafted the following reply:
It is not pleasing to me that I must place humans among the primates, but man is intimately familiar with himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name is applied. But I desperately seek from you and from the whole world a general difference between men and simians from the principles of Natural History. I certainly know of none. If only someone might tell me one! If I called man a simian or vice versa I would bring together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to, in accordance with the law of the discipline [of Natural History].
What Linnaeus is doing on this list is beyond me.
Another devout christian persecuted by other christians for his rational and scientific doubts about church doctrine. From historyguide.org: “His History of Early Opinions concerning Jesus Christ (1786) signaled renewed controversy since it defended Unitarianism and attacked such doctrines as the inspiration of scripture, the virgin birth, the Trinity and the atonement.
His reply to Burke's Reflections led a Birmingham Church and King mob to destroy his home and laboratory in 1791. Both Burke and Lord North expressed satisfaction at the developments at Birmingham -- Priestley accepted his losses with stoic dignity. He now settled at Hackney where he taught history and science at the New College, considered by many to be a hot-bed of sedition, republicanism and deism”
Thanks for these excellent examples of science attacked by religion!
Hey you got one! A religious man who was also a noted mathematician. Well, an author, actually, and not a theorist of any kind. Plus math really doesn’t conflict with scripture. But what they hey, I’ll give it to you.
Hey, you’re heating up – a devout Lutheran pastor who also made some contributions to botany. His views were radical and resulted in his Bishop splitting up his congregation, and of course botany really doesn’t say much about the origins of man or the universe, but let’s be generous and call this another example of science and religion cohabiting.
Calling this guy a scientist is an insult to the term. From Wikipedia: His chief project, however, was natural theology, which attempted to unify and reconcile science and religion, focusing on geology. His major work in this area was The Religion of Geology and its Connected Sciences (Boston, 1851). In this book, he found somewhat tortured ways to make the Bible agree with the latest geological theories. For example, he knew that the earth was at least hundreds of thousands of years old, vastly older than the 6,000 years posited by Biblical scholars. Hitchcock actually found a way to read the original Hebrew so that a single letter in Genesis -- a v', meaning "afterwards" -- implied the vast timespans during which the earth was formed.
John Bachman (he named several species of animals)
Bachman’s a good one. A pastor and naturalist who opposed racism with science. I wonder what he thought of his neighbors in South Carolina who were busy using biblical justifications to create the KKK.
Another winner. Astronomer, friend of Darwin and ordained Anglican priest. Of course, we’re now into the late 19th century and churches, coming under the secular influences of the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution, are beginning to feel a bit less confident about throwing their weight around.
Gosse’s religion destroyed his credibility as a scientist. Having done excellent work as a marine biologist, including setting up the world first stable sea water aquarium in London, Gosse embarked on an ill-fated mission to reconcile his fundamentalism with the observed age of the earth. In a book called Omphalos he put forth the hypothesis that the geological and other evidence for the age of the earth must come from “before” Creation, postulating a “time before time” in which these “prochronic” artifacts were created and for some reason included in the makeup of the earth by god. He was savaged by religious authorities and scientists alike, and never published a major work again.
No evidence whatsoever that this man held any particular religious beliefs past boyhood. Let’s try to keep in mind that it’s only in the last fifty years or so that a person might be raised from birth completely unaffiliated with any church. Just noting that such-and-such a scientist was baptized in such-and-such church does not show that the person actually held religious faith.
*shrug* The guy’s a bird watcher for Spaghetti’s sake. What difference does it make to him if the birds have been around six thousand years or six hundred million?
A brilliant scientist, mentally crippled by mind-disease called faith. Kelvin wasted years of his life and time arguing against Darwin and others that the earth could not be old enough for evolution to account for diversity, only to be kneecapped by new discoveries at the end of his life. From Wikipedia: Thomson ultimately settled on an estimate that the Earth was 20-40 million years old. Shortly before his death however, Becquerel's discovery of radioactivity and Marie Curie's studies with uranium ores provided the insight into the 'energy source beyond' that would power the sun for the long time-span required by the theory of evolution. Though Thomson continued to defend his estimates, privately he admitted that they were most probably wrong.
One can only wonder what Kelvin, a contemporary of some of the greatest minds ever to study at Cambridge, might have accomplished without the distraction of this niggling peccadillo.
What a great example of an otherwise brilliant scientific mind led astray by his wacko religious beliefs! From Wikipedia: In the 1930s he entered into a debate with Arthur ComptonCompton's view). Millikan thought the cosmic ray photons were the "birth cries" of new atoms continually being created by God to counteract entropy and prevent the heat death of the universe. Compton would eventually be proven right by the observation that cosmic rays are deflected by the Earth's magnetic field (and so must be charged particles). over whether cosmic rays were composed of high-energy photons (Millikan's view) or charged particles (
His religious upbringing also led to his to some rather more unsavory positions: His beliefs are of some note today. In his later life he became interested in the relationship between Christian faith and science, his own father having been a minister. He dealt with this in pamphlets and the book Evolution in Science and Religion. A more controversial belief of his was eugenics. This led to his association with the Human Betterment Foundation and his praising of San Marino, California[1] for being "the westernmost outpost of Nordic civilization . . . [with] a population which is twice as Anglo-Saxon as that existing in New York, Chicago or any of the great cities of this country."
Smart guy, though his religion or lack of it doesn’t rate a mention in any of bios I can find. He probably was religious, though, because he was a racist who delayed allowing blacks into Washington University for as long as he could.
A solid hit. Great scientist, ardent catholic.
I'm not going to bother with the 20th century examples because by then the relationship between religion and science had changed. Religious authorities no longer had the power to persecute scientists, and the explosion of science and technology of the last century has been the result. The fact that this list from the 20th century is so short makes my point for me: few scientists hold religious beliefs of any kind any more, and literalists who believe in a personal, omnipotent god with supernatural powers are almost nonexistent.
What this list shows (beyond the dishonesty of those trying to pass it off as evidence of the harmony between science and religion) is that religious authorities will always try to resist science that disagrees with their doctrine - using force if necessary. Religion is a negative force on science.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Answer: "Researchers at Harvard Medical School say adult stem cells may eliminate the need for embryonic ones..."
"New research in the UK...shows that the adult cells were more effective than cells from aborted babies...The Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York came to the same conclusion."
"Of the 15 biotech companies soley devoted to developing cures using stem cells, only two focus on embryos. Embryo stem cell research is at the drawing board stage - not for lack of funds but for lack of promising research to finance."
Dr. Irving, a former professor of biology at Georgetown University and former biochemist at The National Cancer Institute, said, "I have argued that adult stem cells are better..."
(source: www.lifeissues.org/cloningstemcell/bradsarticle.html)
Maybe the research doesn't yield much because it doesn't yield much according to science.
Nice quotes from a website dedicated to pushing pro-life issues. Now here's what CNN has to say:
"A year after President Bush's decision on stem cell research, scientists say they are being hindered by federal rules governing the use of embryonic stem cells because access to stem cell lines approved for research is limited."
And a woman who has done extensive research on adult stem cells:
"Dr. Diane Krause of Yale University -- whose studies with adult stem cells have been cited by opponents of embryonic research -- said to bar use of embryonic stem cells simply because adult cell research was showing promise "is to play odds with people's lives."
Krause said she was unhappy that opponents were "using my data to justify this interpretation" and said that adult stem cells simply lacked the versatility of embryonic cells -- and to choose either over the other, while scientists have no idea which will be most beneficial, was shortsighted."
Now back to your regularly scheduled spin from pby...
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
So...you pointed out that there is some disagreement among the scientific community (not of religious nature). I am sure that it will play out.
Additionally, nothing changes the fact that Bush did not ban embryonic stem cell research as stated by a poster.
No, there is no disagreement among the members of the scientific community who are not on the payroll of pro-life organizations.
They agree on this: we know that embryonic stem cells can be used for medical research, right now. It is happening around the world. We do not know if adult stem cells can be used in the same way. We do not know how long it will take to develop ways of using adult stem cells in the same way. We would prefer to just use embryonic stem cells, but the religious concerns are preventing that from happening.
The disagreement is ONLY of a religious nature.
Yes, over years, while people with Parkinson's etc die. That's what makes the religious right so morally repulsive - their preference for doctrine over human suffering.
Bush cut off federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. This had the effect of ending that research in dozens of labs around the country. Any more disingenuous spin you'd like to lay on us?
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
Answer: There is certainly scientific disagreement over embryonic stem cell research that is not religious in nature. The article I cited, and posted, alone documents several cases...and I don't think that Harvard Medical School is on any Evangelical or Catholic payroll (or the Einstein School of Medicine for that matter).
Please name the promising embryonic stem cell research that is ocurring right now around the world.
If embryonic stem cell research is so promising, then why did Bush's funding ban effectively end all research. Why aren't there private funds flowing into the research...With all the promise, it should be a big boon for the many venture capitalists! What is the problem, here?
Answer: Please cite the dozens of labs around the country that stopped embryonic stem cell research with Bush's funding ban.
Answer: A little work? Good effort and great post!
Please note that I said scientists of faith that have contributed to science and certainly they have (and still are).
"Religion is a negative force on science"...Tell that to Francis Collins, Director, US National Human Genome Research Institute. (Maybe "religion" has been at times but so has science, communism and other forces).
Ask a scientist who descents with any commonly accepted conclusion in the scientific community (like dinosaurs had feathers) how the scientific community responds (not nice). It took 50 years for the Continental Drift theory to take hold because of science v. science bias. Look at the scientific debate on global warming...You can't be heard if you disagree that global warming is caused by man.
Any entity in power, or with power, can be a negative influence on science.