Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[ducati916]

But that is the arguement you have made, you are claiming the religion helped us leave the dark ages, when it actually caused the dark ages.

In regard to 'religion' causing the Dark Ages, it was the fall of the Roman Empire in the West that caused the Dark Ages. The Roman Empire in the East fared much better and retained control far longer, possibly accounting for the benefits referred to in the later video of Tyson.

In the second statement, Wayne, which if he is, [in regard to leaving the Dark Ages] is correct to do so.

Religion, in this case Christianity, was for the most part the sole repository of Greek & Roman knowledge in the West. The ecclesiastical hierarchy were literate and educated where the vast majority of the populations were not.

Did they exploit this? Of course. They were however very often leaders in philosophical and economic thought, which eventually brought Europe out of the Dark Ages.

Canon law preserved Roman law and which eventually evolved into the common law and civil law. Property rights are the bedrock upon which all manner innovation takes place.

jog on
duc

 

[Tink]

When in Rome, do as the Romans do

 

[grah33]

But I thought the Catholic Church new accepts Adam and Eve are just mythical. At least Cardinal Pell said that when debating Richard Dawkins on Q&A. It was just impossible for the Catholic Church to reconcile Adam and Eve with what is known about evolution.

On top of that, how could they be virgins if they had children, Cain and Abel? And what the heck is so special about being virgins? Clearly those 2 big writers in Christendom are very delusional.

Remember that post about the guy in the video, who claimed to deceptively feel something that resembled the Holy Spirit. Well, not long ago, while I was absent from asf forums, I believe the real thing happened to someone I knew very well. There weren't religious, but now they are. It was a dramatic event for her and the family. Some points from their story to me:

-'Electricity' was how she described it. Probably referring to the Holy Spirit going through them .
-She reported that she felt a special joy or happiness within (something like that from memory), may have characterized it differently from usual happy feeling , can't remember
-God was communicating something to her , she said, yet without employing words (can't remember the message. was it love for her? or to follow , can't remember)
-Parent was crying, about to call ambulance (had never seen this before);she was lying on the ground for maybe 30 minutes (they said it was for a very long time)
-Either upper body or lower body couldn't move (can't remember)
-Person wasn't looking for this experience, it just happened. They went to a Catholic healing mass,didn't get healed, but this happened. It happened afterwards when they went up to get prayers (they lay hands over people).
-I queried her afterwards, she never knew such experiences happen to people,nor did she look for one
-She used the word 'electricity' to describe what was inside her. I may have heard this word before so asked her about it. It came from her, she didn't copy it from other people.
-She's very committed to her religion now. Thinks her life before (without God) was severely lacking.
-Her condition had something to do with the jaw 'clicking' , and anxiety along with that. it wasn't simple for me to grasp at the time.
- I know them well enough. They wouldn't lie to me.

My belief is that these things do happen, along with false experiences (like the guy in that video).

 

[ducati916]

Religion advancing anything useful and productive my eye wayne. Just one (and can insight many more) huge event to ponder:-

"The French Revolution was a watershed event in world history that lasted from 1789 to 1799. Among other things, it saw the French abolishing feudalism; beheading their monarch; changing their form of government from a monarchy to a republic; forming a constitution based on the principle of equality and freedom; and becoming the first state to grant universal male suffrage. The French Revolution had a great and far-reaching impact that probably transformed the world more than any other revolution. Its repercussions includelessening the importance of religion; rise of Modern Nationalism; spread of Liberalism and igniting the Age of Revolutions. Most importantly the Revolution altered the course of modern history, triggering the global decline of absolute monarchies and replacing them with republics and liberal democracies. Know more about the impact of the French Revolution through its 10 major effects."

https://learnodo-newtonic.com/french-revolution-effects

French Revolution.....

The English Civil War (1642–1651) was a series of armed conflicts and political machinations between Parliamentarians ("Roundheads") and Royalists ("Cavaliers") over, principally, the manner of England's governance. The first (1642–1646) and second (1648–1649) wars pitted the supporters of King Charles Iagainst the supporters of the Long Parliament, while the third (1649–1651) saw fighting between supporters of King Charles II and supporters of the Rump Parliament. The war ended with the Parliamentarian victory at the Battle of Worcester on 3 September 1651.

The overall outcome of the war was threefold: the trial and execution of Charles I (1649); the exile of his son, Charles II (1651); and the replacement of English monarchy with, at first, the Commonwealth of England(1649–1653) and then the Protectorate under the personal rule of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1658) and subsequently his son Richard (1658–1659). In England, the monopoly of the Church of England on Christian worship was ended, while in Ireland the victors consolidated the established Protestant Ascendancy. Constitutionally, the wars established the precedent that an English monarch cannot govern without Parliament's consent, although the idea of Parliament as the ruling power of England was only legally established as part of the Glorious Revolution in 1688.

Then you had the American War of Independence, 1776.....

The French were well behind the times.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

The Christian morals are PERFECT

Which are what exactly?

jog on
duc

 

[Tink]

Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"),[a] is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law.

The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling English Parliament passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance. At the end of the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings propounded by the Stuart monarchs. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles.

The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States.[c] Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".[4]

In the 21st century, four exemplifications of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the British Library, one at Lincoln Cathedral and one at Salisbury Cathedral. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. The original charters were written on parchment sheets using quill pens, in heavily abbreviated medieval Latin, which was the convention for legal documents at that time. Each was sealed with the royal great seal (made of beeswax and resin sealing wax): very few of the seals have survived. Although scholars refer to the 63 numbered "clauses" of Magna Carta, this is a modern system of numbering, introduced by Sir William Blackstone in 1759; the original charter formed a single, long unbroken text. The four original 1215 charters were displayed together at the British Library for one day, 3 February 2015, to mark the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

 

[grah33]

Which are what exactly?

jog on
duc

All the parables and so on about Christian living taught by Christ. Future nations would then incorporate them into their laws. That coming of the Kingdom foretold long ago. Some we all know, others are not so obvious to derive by human agency alone.

examples:
Love your enemies (Christ): it's morally correct and required to treat them kindly, and to forgive .
Necessity to help poor (good Samaritan parable) . Hence western world is big on charity.
To not dislike someone (integrity must also be in the mind).
Another moral, but for various reasons will omit...
Welcoming the disabled /poor , and equality with everybody.


"Be ye perfect.."(Christ).

 

[ducati916]

All the parables and so on about Christian living taught by Christ. Future nations would then incorporate them into their laws. That coming of the Kingdom foretold long ago. Some we all know, others are not so obvious to derive by human agency alone.

examples:
Love your enemies (Christ): it's morally correct and required to treat them kindly, and to forgive .
Necessity to help poor (good Samaritan parable) . Hence western world is big on charity.
To not dislike someone (integrity must also be in the mind).
Another moral, but for various reasons will omit...
Welcoming the disabled /poor , and equality with everybody.


"Be ye perfect.."(Christ).

Well already I have problems with these in that they seem more akin to common sense or what your granny told you.

Meta-ethics investigates the basis of morality, for example whether it [the stated moral] is either objective or subjective. Normative ethics focusses on the norms on which moral conduct is based and finally applied ethics brings philosophical theory to bear on day-to-day practical issues.

Normative ethics, as its test to fitness for purpose, must pass the universality test. This simply means that, for all people at all times, the moral stated must promote positively the continuing existence of the human race.

Taking your first example: 'love your enemies'.

'Enemies' will appear on a spectrum: some will seek to kill you at one end and at the other end simply wish ill upon you. The test must be applied at the extreme end to pass muster. Allowing your enemies to kill you does not pass the test and could not therefore be considered a moral.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

Magna Carta Libertatum (Medieval Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), commonly called Magna Carta (also Magna Charta; "Great Charter"),[a] is a charter of rights agreed to by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes. His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law.

The charter became part of English political life and was typically renewed by each monarch in turn, although as time went by and the fledgling English Parliament passed new laws, it lost some of its practical significance. At the end of the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings propounded by the Stuart monarchs. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles.

The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century. It influenced the early American colonists in the Thirteen Colonies and the formation of the American Constitution in 1787, which became the supreme law of the land in the new republic of the United States.[c] Research by Victorian historians showed that the original 1215 charter had concerned the medieval relationship between the monarch and the barons, rather than the rights of ordinary people, but the charter remained a powerful, iconic document, even after almost all of its content was repealed from the statute books in the 19th and 20th centuries. Magna Carta still forms an important symbol of liberty today, often cited by politicians and campaigners, and is held in great respect by the British and American legal communities, Lord Denning describing it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot".[4]

In the 21st century, four exemplifications of the original 1215 charter remain in existence, two at the British Library, one at Lincoln Cathedral and one at Salisbury Cathedral. There are also a handful of the subsequent charters in public and private ownership, including copies of the 1297 charter in both the United States and Australia. The original charters were written on parchment sheets using quill pens, in heavily abbreviated medieval Latin, which was the convention for legal documents at that time. Each was sealed with the royal great seal (made of beeswax and resin sealing wax): very few of the seals have survived. Although scholars refer to the 63 numbered "clauses" of Magna Carta, this is a modern system of numbering, introduced by Sir William Blackstone in 1759; the original charter formed a single, long unbroken text. The four original 1215 charters were displayed together at the British Library for one day, 3 February 2015, to mark the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

All interesting, but the article is more concerned with the origin than the purpose.

Do you understand 'why' the Magna Carta was so important historically and why it is still so important?

jog on
duc

 

[grah33]

Well already I have problems with these in that they seem more akin to common sense or what your granny told you.

Meta-ethics investigates the basis of morality, for example whether it [the stated moral] is either objective or subjective. Normative ethics focusses on the norms on which moral conduct is based and finally applied ethics brings philosophical theory to bear on day-to-day practical issues.

Normative ethics, as its test to fitness for purpose, must pass the universality test. This simply means that, for all people at all times, the moral stated must promote positively the continuing existence of the human race.

Taking your first example: 'love your enemies'.

'Enemies' will appear on a spectrum: some will seek to kill you at one end and at the other end simply wish ill upon you. The test must be applied at the extreme end to pass muster. Allowing your enemies to kill you does not pass the test and could not therefore be considered a moral.

jog on
duc

It's not about how innovative the virtues/morals are. Not to be compared with technology. Yet I still think some aren't that obvious . For instance things pertaining to sexual immorality . Here sexuality is misused, thus going against reason and God. Certainly not obvious in today's time. Or the requirement for purity in the mind (see parable about lustful ), and not just exterior actions. The world didn't think like this until Christ came. It was revolutionary. Augustine likely thought a society would be flawed and dysfunctional without the common sexual tenets we've all known.

" Love your enemies ", as in having a good disposition toward them. Or the verses about slaves that VC likes to quote. It makes sense to me. It all accords with human dignity.

Paul's letters (NT) are worth investigating, for anyone who wants to see if there is any substance to the Christian faith.

 

[bellenuit]

The world didn't think like this until Christ came. It was revolutionary.

"Love your enemies ", as in having a good disposition toward them.

The teaching predates Jesus.

“Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy.”

- Akkadian Councils of Wisdom (from the ancient Babylonian civilization that existed two millennia before Jesus was born)

“Shame on him who strikes, greater shame on him who strikes back. Let us live happily, not hating those who hate us. Let us therefore overcome anger by kindness, evil by good, falsehood by truth. Do not hurt others in ways that would be hurtful to yourself.”

- Buddhist wisdom (written centuries before Jesus was born)

 

[grah33]

The teaching predates Jesus.

“Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy.”

- Akkadian Councils of Wisdom (from the ancient Babylonian civilization that existed two millennia before Jesus was born)

“Shame on him who strikes, greater shame on him who strikes back. Let us live happily, not hating those who hate us. Let us therefore overcome anger by kindness, evil by good, falsehood by truth. Do not hurt others in ways that would be hurtful to yourself.”

- Buddhist wisdom (written centuries before Jesus was born)

That's besides the point. The morality has always been there, so the buddhists were able to discover some of it, although not all of it I imagine. I'm sure God was happy that they were contemplating such things back then. The Jewish people as well were likely aware of some of it, even if it wasn't part of their prescribed law. And Christ came specifically to die on a cross.

 

[bellenuit]

That's besides the point. The morality has always been there

But you said it was revolutionary! Now you are saying it was always there.

 

[grah33]

But you said it was revolutionary! Now you are saying it was always there.

I meant that morality is morality; right and wrong doesn't change, it's always the same. Christ even said so , if you read the passage on marriage (first generations were like that). Yet Christ still caused a great revolution. Let's not argue about words, as that would be a waste of time.

 

[bellenuit]

I meant that morality is morality; right and wrong doesn't change, it's always the same.

I think we have been through that 100 times and do we need to bring up the morality of the God of the OT again. Morality, when taken to mean what is seen by most people as moral at a particular time, does change.

A clear example would be at what age should marriage be allowed. What was seen as acceptable at the supposed time of Christ, would not be acceptable today.

We tend to define morality in relation to age when marriage should be allowed based on the sexual maturity of those marrying, but we know that has changed in the last 50 years. People are more sexually mature at a younger age today.

 

[ducati916]

It's not about how innovative the virtues/morals are. Not to be compared with technology. Yet I still think some aren't that obvious . For instance things pertaining to sexual immorality . Here sexuality is misused, thus going against reason and God. Certainly not obvious in today's time. Or the requirement for purity in the mind (see parable about lustful ), and not just exterior actions. The world didn't think like this until Christ came. It was revolutionary. Augustine likely thought a society would be flawed and dysfunctional without the common sexual tenets we've all known.

" Love your enemies ", as in having a good disposition toward them. Or the verses about slaves that VC likes to quote. It makes sense to me. It all accords with human dignity.

Paul's letters (NT) are worth investigating, for anyone who wants to see if there is any substance to the Christian faith.

You simply have not addressed the issue put to you.

jog on
duc

 

[grah33]

You simply have not addressed the issue put to you.

jog on
duc

Your question was a bit funny, so I gave you a better answer

 

[grah33]

I think we have been through that 100 times and do we need to bring up the morality of the God of the OT again. Morality, when taken to mean what is seen by most people as moral at a particular time, does change.

A clear example would be at what age should marriage be allowed. What was seen as acceptable at the supposed time of Christ, would not be acceptable today.

We tend to define morality in relation to age when marriage should be allowed based on the sexual maturity of those marrying, but we know that has changed in the last 50 years. People are more sexually mature at a younger age today.

I was under the impression that the Jewish people back then had an age limit for young girls, that girls were fit for marrying. Fit or not fit, your point doesn't really travel far to make an argument against Christianity/religion. And I did quote from the the NT before which explained well enough the moral deficiency in the OT.

I might have to email Craig Lane my little analogy about the higher life form (advanced in wisdom) having authority to abort the lower life form. It might help him when debating to explain some of the difficult passages in the OT.

 

[bellenuit]

I was under the impression that the Jewish people back then had an age limit for young girls, that girls were fit for marrying. Fit or not fit, your point doesn't really travel far to make an argument against Christianity/religion.

It wasn't an argument against religion or Christianity, but an example of how morality evolved whereas you stated it was unchanging.

And I did quote from the the NT before which explained well enough the moral deficiency in the OT.

Exactly, proving my point that morality evolves.

 

[grah33]

It wasn't an argument against religion or Christianity, but an example of how morality evolved whereas you stated it was unchanging.



Exactly, proving my point that morality evolves.

Now you're making me go around the mountain again. A few seconds I will, but this week I'll be getting into a new gear for Lent. Those verses do show that a lesser form of morality was needed to deal with the times, so don't put God in a box. And I'm glad it's in there, since everyone asks that question. Nicely answered for all.