You should do some research about the tens of thousands of Muslims coming to faith in Christ through supernatural encounters. If you can explain how a devout Muslim could walk into church hidden in a cave and already know verses from the Bible without ever reading one and knowing Christian theology without ever studying it that would be great! And it’s not only Muslims. Today there are hundreds of thousands of people coming to faith in Christ through supernatural encounters. About thirty years ago the ratio of black to white Christians in the world was 1:7. Now the ratio is 7:6. Christianity is exploding in places like Africa, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, China and North and South Korea in the biggest numbers in history. Today there are more Christians than there have been people who ever lived on earth, and Christianity has only been around 2,000 years! Atheism, however, is steadily declining and that’s why you get people like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris who have to rant and rave, throw logic out the window and use arguments that have been refuted for hundreds of years. They’re desperate. When the Atheistic professors in the major university pass away they’re going to be replaced by pantheists and New Agers, both of which are on the rise in the Western World. In the 19th century people tried to proclaim the “Death of God” but now everyone’s realizing atheism is illogical and there’s a spiritual aspect to human beings. America is leaving Atheism and Agnosticism behind and putting in it’s place pagan religions. Once people realize the irrationality of pagan religions they’ll be back to monotheism. The last shouts of your dying atheism are being drowned out by the wonderful chorus of over a billion Christians, worshipping Jesus together, all over the earth. You can say the universe created itself, and you can ignore the evidence for objective morality and the resurrection of Jesus, but you’re not winning this fight and you never will. Humans are realizing that this wonderful, dramatic universe we live in couldn’t come from nothing. For nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever does. So while you and 5% of the world’s population get together to dismiss God, just be thinking of the billions of theists, and the over 1 billion Christians worshipping their wonderful Creator. Hopefully, one day, reason will outway the dogmatism of atheism but until then, we Christians will pray, and as we pray, we will know that Jesus Christ is Lord, no matter what the irrational atheist may say. We have a hope and a voice that won’t be drowned out by the last lash-out from the whimpering collection of Atheists, huddled together, closing their minds, and resting on “we just don’t know yet… we just need more time… science will vindicate us, you’ll see…” If we’ve learned one thing from these last one hundred years, it’s that science has done anything but vindicated atheism. Rest now oh atheists, don’t struggle, the more you kick and scream the less strength you’ll have, you’ll be gone soon, better save your energy.

It is clear that humans are pathetic , and that without DOROS morality cannot exist. Atoms are unstable , and without the will of DOROS they would fly apart. The only way to explain the universe is to resort to the supernatural. Nature is pathetic, as it is below the nature of DOROS. DOROS is the uncaused cause. DOROS exists beyond time, but was able to distinguish past and present from each other when there was no time. This is proof that DOROS is divine.

I did not mean to whitewash Bruno’s case at all, though he was the sort of man who just enjoyed making trouble. I am merely pointing out that in neither his nor Galileo’s case you can not point to any bias against science on the part of the Church.

I do not believe that I have anywhere denied that many have died for holding heretical opinions. At one time that was considered a crime, and I might say that given the turbulence, not altogether unreasonably, and it was an age where punishments were severe. There are two points that must be borne in mind, however. 1) The “Church” never condemned anyone to die. It did not have the power. It was the secular power who did so. 2) It is well documented that many accused people deliberately pretended to some heresy or other in order to be judged and sentenced under church law rather than the secular law since it was more thorough (more just) and more lenient.

“(Psy, Giordano Bruno was not condemned for heliocentrism nor his belief in the infinity of the universe, neither of which are heretical, but for his many theological errors).”

Oh yeah, and that statement above:

Oh the church is great, right, they didn’t condemn him because of his scientific theories, but because his theology was veiwed by the pope as errored, well that makes everything better doesn’t it? no not really, he is still being killed because of his beleifs

which were that Bruno was deeply influenced by magical views of the universe inherited from Arab astrological magic, Neoplatonism and Renaissance Hermeticism, so while it wasn’t about his science that he got killed, he still got killed because his beleifs conflicted with the church, that sounds just as bad.

And stop saying that only a few people have been punished by the church for their beleifs, many a person has been burned at the stake, or punished in some way or another, for their so called “heresies”.

Another site suggested that in fact Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah, but that others posthumously attributed it to him…

In the first page of results I did not see the list you talked about… no doubt someone has one, and someone else has another, and someone else ….

You need to stop churning the muck and come up with solid arguments and not just google searches that all contradict each other drammatically.

You even contradict yourself talking about a non-existent man possibly returning in the age of Aquarius because you interpret the non-inspired Bible to prophesy it…. what’s got into you? And then you say that your atheism is more reasonable because you don’t have to believe in anything but science!

Joe. Thank you for your marvellous contribution providing us with a few complex ideas at once. I had thought including Galileo might raise a few eyebrows. Everyone seems to assume that the Church is anti-science , but besides him and Darwin, noone can really come up with any other big names who have been censured. (Psy, Giordano Bruno was not condemned for heliocentrism nor his belief in the infinity of the universe, neither of which are heretical, but for his many theological errors).

Regarding Galileo, few people realise that he made a greater contribution to the fields of mechanics and dynamics than astronomy. In the field of astronomy he wrote to Kepler in 1597 that he had refrained from publically supporting heliocentricism (then called “Copernicanism”) because of the ridicule of his fellow scientists. Among the scientific problems was accounting for the irregular orbits of Jupiter, Mars and Venus. It was only when Galileo practically invented the telescope that he discovered the moons of Jupiter, that he reinvestigated Copernicanism. He (incorrectly) assumed that Mars and Venus were transparent to the Sun to resolve those discrepancies. Still his theories (far inferior to Kepler’s) were not convincing to fellow scientist, Tycho Brahe. Many of his ‘proofs’ were false: eg explaining the tides on earth.

Copernicus had dedicated his own thesis (with permission) to Pope Paul III, and none of the nine following popes raised any alarm. Indeed he arrived in Rome (in 1611) in triumph; priests and lay alike flocked to see him and his telescipe as he exhibited the sunspots (the core of his argument). As yet he had no proof.

To cut long stories short it was Protestantism that rejected the heliocentric theory on the grounds that it violated the Scriptures (sun standing still in the book of Joshua). Ironically there was an active sceptical party in Italy, which aimed at the overthrow of all religion, and this party lent Galileo all its support.

In these circumstances, Galileo, presented his arguments in Rome in December, 1615, and was courteously received. However he was told that it was false and heretical and he must renounce it, which he did. It is undeniable that the church authorities erred in acting thus. Still it must be remembered that no proof had yet been provided, and there was no objection to it being taught merely as a hypothesis. It certainly seemed simpler than the Ptolemaic system. Indeed Cardinal Bellarmine, the highest prelate in the investigation admitted that “we should rather say that we have misunderstood [Scripture] than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.” So much for hatred for science.

But there is more, alas. In 1624 he again visited Rome when the new pope Urban VIII, who had, as Cardinal Barberini, been his friend and had opposed his condemnation in 1616. Pope Urban gave Galileio a pension but insisted that the former judgment must stand: ie Copernicanism must be held as a theory until proven.

However Galileo at this time fragrantly wrote a work condemning the old theory and supporting the new. For this he was placed under house arrest until his death. In practise he was permitted to move around freely staying at the houses of friends, always comfortable and usually luxurious. Urban VIII sent his special blessing to the dying man, who was interred not only in consecrated ground, but within the church of Santa Croce at Florence. He continued his scientific work all this time and had many visitors, especially from the Vatican Observertory, still one of the most prestigious astronomical institutions in the world today (though I understand it has moved away from Italy because of the interference of artificial light).

This, then, gentlemen, is the story of the one man who is brought up time and time again as proof that the Church is anti-science. If anything, it proves the opposite. Why only one name? (and Darwin, I suppose, though he has never been formally condemned at all).

Now, you claim that this is nevertheless science moving steadily away from religion, and give church-state relations as another example. I think you need to read more to realise that this has a long history and that the separation of powers (both in Europe and in the foundational documents of the United States) was intended to defend religion from state interference not the other way around.

In conclusion I would like to suggest that “education, and learning” is not hostile to belief as you seem to suggest, but complementary. As I have said before, and it is a favourite quote of mine. At the time of Galileo, a Cardinal remarked that: “the bible does not teach us how to get the heavens into our head, but our heads into heaven.” Indeed if you look at the Church and its centres of higher education today (including prestigious scientific academies) you will find it engages much more readily and comfortably than you could ever imagine!