The Hazards of Belief

marienbad

fran17 wrote: »

Sorry but that literally makes no sense.Your accusing me of being selective because I selected examples to prove my point in relation to the myth of the "dark ages"
And in relation to Newton,his metaphor was used precisely as originally quoted by Bernard of Chartres.Bernard of Chartres being one of the leading scholars of the cathedral school of Chartres in the eleventh and twelfth century.Founded by the catholic church through bishop Fulbert and producing some of the finest scholastic minds of its time.

One of the reasons I say you are being selective is that you don't tell the whole story - for example ,Copernicus waited until the end of his life to publish for fear controversy and he was right . Though it was delayed in coming , it did come and the Catholic Church opposed his views and Galileo for expressing them .

Hotblack Desiato

marienbad wrote: »

Similarly if you extracted Dublin from your study the IQ would be even lower in the remainder

Someone needed to say it :pac: :pac:

recedite

marienbad wrote: »

Furthermore as far as I am aware this result is quite common in all areas of high and long term immigration or migration, as the best and brightest are usually the ones to leave . But it might be only as far as London

The "brain drain" is one effect. Another equally valid effect arises from the fact that most people don't want to emigrate. Therefore the most resourceful ones may survive and be successful, and stay on, in a Darwinian type selection.
Not many of us alive today is the direct descendant of someone who died in the famine. There were people who died then, and people who emigrated, and people who survived. Maybe the survivors were smarter, luckier, more resourceful, or more ruthless. Or maybe all of those.

marienbad wrote: »

Similarly if you extracted Dublin from your study the IQ would be even lower in the remainder , and if you extracted London Berlin of NY from their hinterland the same would happen .

Again this is unsupported by evidence. It may, or may not, be true that city slickers are smarter than country bumpkins.
Like in the book, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, it was said that humans considered themselves to be more intelligent than dolphins because they had built machines and lived in great cities, while dolphins had done nothing except mess about in the water. But the dolphins considered themselves to be more intelligent than humans, for exactly the same reasons

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What if I told you that environment, not genetics, was the prime factor in someone's intelligence, which in turn isn't just restricted to IQ?

You'd then have to cite your evidence.

fran17

marienbad wrote: »

One of the reasons I say you are being selective is that you don't tell the whole story - for example ,Copernicus waited until the end of his life to publish for fear controversy and he was right . Though it was delayed in coming , it did come and the Catholic Church opposed his views and Galileo for expressing them .

Copernicus refrained from publishing his works until later years,not because of fear of censure from the Catholic Church,but out of fear of ridicule from colleagues.At that time the geocentric theory was the view of scientists in the main.Martin Luther condemned the heliocentric theory.
Voltaire spoke of Galileo "Groaning away his days in the prisons of the inquisitions".An utter lie as he never spent one day in prison and it's worth knowing the inquisitions never banned his works either.Galileo fell foul of the Pope due to his breathtaking arrogance and duplicity.His implying of Pope Urban VIII as the character Simplicio is what got him in difficulty.

marienbad

fran17 wrote: »

Copernicus refrained from publishing his works until later years,not because of fear of censure from the Catholic Church,but out of fear of ridicule from colleagues.At that time the geocentric theory was the view of scientists in the main.Martin Luther condemned the heliocentric theory.
Voltaire spoke of Galileo "Groaning away his days in the prisons of the inquisitions".An utter lie as he never spent one day in prison and it's worth knowing the inquisitions never banned his works either.Galileo fell foul of the Pope due to his breathtaking arrogance and duplicity.His implying of Pope Urban VIII as the character Simplicio is what got him in difficulty.

Again just more selectivity and brazen at that -

At the instance of Roger Boscovich, the Catholic Church's 1758 Index of Prohibited Books omitted the general prohibition of works defending heliocentrism,[117] but retained the specific prohibitions of the original uncensored versions of De revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Those prohibitions were finally dropped from the 1835 Index


Next you'll be telling us the Inquisition killed anyone , it was the secular authorities that did it .

And what is breath-taking is that you think Galileo was arrogant and not the Pope.

Pherekydes

Galileo was condemned by the inquisition for supporting the theories of heliocentrism. He was forced to recant and was held under house arrest. Until he died.

Pherekydes

But things improved:

The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.

In a speech by Joe Ratzinger, 15/02/1990.

:rolleyes:

Finally:

Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture....

Pope JPII, 4/11/1992

Hotblack Desiato

Disgusting.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36516006

fran17

marienbad wrote: »

Again just more selectivity and brazen at that -

At the instance of Roger Boscovich, the Catholic Church's 1758 Index of Prohibited Books omitted the general prohibition of works defending heliocentrism,[117] but retained the specific prohibitions of the original uncensored versions of De revolutionibus and Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Those prohibitions were finally dropped from the 1835 Index


Next you'll be telling us the Inquisition killed anyone , it was the secular authorities that did it .

And what is breath-taking is that you think Galileo was arrogant and not the Pope.

Again your use of the term selective is nonsensical.I know that these inconvenient truths are not in the "spirit" of this forum but your beginning to inadvertently portray yourself as a smidge condescending.I'm well aware that the chances of converting any views in this forum is miniscule due to the blind hatred of religion but I at least must defend history.
Galileo was deeply arrogant and this entire episode proved so.He begun by plagiarising the work of others and then attempting to portray these theories as fact.The heliocentric theory could not be proven in that time as the equipment needed for measuring did not yet exist.Galileo then attempted to move this from the scientific realms to the theological and that was his mistake.
He went to Rome where he met with his long time friend,the new pope Urban VIII,who allowed him to write for and against the heliocentric theory but was cautioned not to advocate for a yet unproven theory.Galileo then,in his arrogance,publicly humiliated the pope through his use of the character Simplicio in his writings.Galileo mocked the very person who was his benefactor and also attacked his long time supporters,the Jesuits.That is the background to the now infamous trial.
Any and all rebuttal to these facts is based on the malignance of revisionism and should be viewed as such.

Pherekydes

fran17 wrote: »

Again your use of the term selective is nonsensical.I know that these inconvenient truths are not in the "spirit" of this forum but your beginning to inadvertently portray yourself as a smidge condescending.I'm well aware that the chances of converting any views in this forum is miniscule due to the blind hatred of religion but I at least must defend history.
Galileo was deeply arrogant and this entire episode proved so.He begun by plagiarising the work of others and then attempting to portray these theories as fact.The heliocentric theory could not be proven in that time as the equipment needed for measuring did not yet exist.Galileo then attempted to move this from the scientific realms to the theological and that was his mistake.
He went to Rome where he met with his long time friend,the new pope Urban VIII,who allowed him to write for and against the heliocentric theory but was cautioned not to advocate for a yet unproven theory.Galileo then,in his arrogance,publicly humiliated the pope through his use of the character Simplicio in his writings.Galileo mocked the very person who was his benefactor and also attacked his long time supporters,the Jesuits.That is the background to the now infamous trial.
Any and all rebuttal to these facts is based on the malignance of revisionism and should be viewed as such.

That's the church's line. And who was wrong?

Funny that: the church, a direct line from Jesus Christ and, by extension, God, proved wrong! Does God not know how the universe works?

Makes me think he's not real...

...and that the church is peddling lies.

Hotblack Desiato

fran17 wrote: »

Again your use of the term selective is nonsensical.

I know that these inconvenient truths are not in the "spirit" of this forum but your beginning to inadvertently portray yourself as a smidge condescending.

I'm well aware that the chances of converting any views in this forum is miniscule due to the blind hatred of religion

Galileo was deeply arrogant

Do you do irony at all?

MrPudding

fran17 wrote: »

Galileo was deeply arrogant and this entire episode proved so.

Deeply arrogant? I think you will find the correct phrase is correct.

MrP

looksee

fran17 wrote: »

Again your use of the term selective is nonsensical.I know that these inconvenient truths are not in the "spirit" of this forum but your beginning to inadvertently portray yourself as a smidge condescending.I'm well aware that the chances of converting any views in this forum is miniscule due to the blind hatred of religion but I at least must defend history.

Where do you get this from? Where is the 'blind hatred'? Yes you will get strong emotion from the occasional individual who has for whatever reason been subjected to ill-treatment by a religious institution or individual, in the same way you will get religious people who are equally passionate about people who do not share their beliefs.

Generally however, this forum mocks some of the sillier results of religious belief; it puts forward opinions that do not fit with religious people's views; it is bemused by the fact that religious people want everyone to accept something that only exists in those people's own heads, but it does not hate.

Why do you expect to come into this forum and convert anyone? Sure, put your argument forward, but don't expect any conversions.

cowboyBuilder

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Disgusting.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36516006

Indeed, I actually thought it was an onion / waterford whispers style story when I saw the headline on another news source.

The mind boggles , World Cup 2022 hosts folks!

marienbad

fran17 wrote: »

Again your use of the term selective is nonsensical.I know that these inconvenient truths are not in the "spirit" of this forum but your beginning to inadvertently portray yourself as a smidge condescending.I'm well aware that the chances of converting any views in this forum is miniscule due to the blind hatred of religion but I at least must defend history.
Galileo was deeply arrogant and this entire episode proved so.He begun by plagiarising the work of others and then attempting to portray these theories as fact.The heliocentric theory could not be proven in that time as the equipment needed for measuring did not yet exist.Galileo then attempted to move this from the scientific realms to the theological and that was his mistake.
He went to Rome where he met with his long time friend,the new pope Urban VIII,who allowed him to write for and against the heliocentric theory but was cautioned not to advocate for a yet unproven theory.Galileo then,in his arrogance,publicly humiliated the pope through his use of the character Simplicio in his writings.Galileo mocked the very person who was his benefactor and also attacked his long time supporters,the Jesuits.That is the background to the now infamous trial.
Any and all rebuttal to these facts is based on the malignance of revisionism and should be viewed as such.

you just don't seem to get it - the Pope had no business telling Galileo anything !

And the fact that the Church had deviated so far from the original teachings that it felt entitled to crown and uncrown kings , interfere and veto science and learning , make war on women ,that it eventually took a Reformation an Enlightenment , numerous revolutions to somewhat redress the balance .

This is not to say the Church did not achieve great things , it did , but wherever there is great power there is equally great wrongs .

robindch

fran17 wrote: »

Galileo then,in his arrogance, publicly humiliated the pope through his use of the character Simplicio in his writings.

This is reasonably well-known and does not seem to be in dispute. However, the prosecution mounted by the Vatican was based upon religion

fran17 wrote: »

He begun by plagiarising the work of others and then attempting to portray these theories as fact. [...] Any and all rebuttal to these facts is based on the malignance of revisionism and should be viewed as such.

I'm open to correction here, but I believe the Vatican has indeed formally accepted as fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

cowboyBuilder

http://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36542008

This guy is just digging deeper ..

MrPudding

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36542008

This guy is just digging deeper ..

There are a few possible contenders there... Which are you talking about?

MrP

cowboyBuilder

MrPudding wrote: »

There are a few possible contenders there... Which are you talking about?

MrP

The mullah defending wife beating ?

cowboyBuilder

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36537364

All her food was taking away from her stall as she was open during the day in this month of Ramadan.

They have to close to "premote tolerance between religious groups"

couldn't make it up..

MrPudding

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

The mullah defending wife beating ?

Your link took me to a page with a bunch of news stories, not to a specific story, and there were a few nasty ones.

MrP

cowboyBuilder

MrPudding wrote: »

Your link took me to a page with a bunch of news stories, not to a specific story, and there were a few nasty ones.

MrP

Strange, I tried it again and it takes me to the story .. maybe its a region issue , sorry.

looksee

Yes, it took me to the story, though I had seen it before. The man's logic was totally baffling.

Hotblack Desiato

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36548882

Ofsted inspectors have criticised an Islamic independent school, where they found leaflets which claimed music and dancing were "acts of the devil".

Inspectors made an unannounced visit to the Darul Uloom Islamic High School in Birmingham after having previously rated the school as "inadequate".

Inspectors said pupils were not being protected from "extreme views".

"The leaflets were found in areas shared by the school and adjoining mosque which are used by leaders and in areas used by the pupils from the school," said the inspectors.

Ofsted says that it is not clear who produced the leaflets, which they added seemed to be calling for a boycott of a local music festival.

The leaflet is understood to have made reference to music in terms of "public indecency" and the "proliferation of sinful activities".

It also warns that there is a lack of evidence that the lessons match the published curriculum.

"For example, the policy states that the biggest timetable weighting has been given to English and mathematics, but inspection evidence and school timetables show that pupils study Arabic for approximately half of the school day."

Hotblack Desiato

From the 'giving legislative favouritism to religion is a really bad idea' file:

Concern mounts that hundreds of marriages may be invalid

In a statement, the Registrar General told The Irish Times: “Religious bodies are not required by law to have training and accreditation procedures, and there is concern that the quality assurance provided by training and accreditation may not be present in some cases. The office is aware any individual can easily obtain an online ordination certificate without any training or accreditation by the religious body issuing the certificate.

“Applications have been made by such persons for registration in the register of solemnisers.”

Solemnisers from a secular body must satisfy regulations in the Civil Registration (Amendment) Act 2014, which says the body must have more than 50 members, must meet regularly and must have appropriate procedures for “selecting, training and accrediting members as fit and proper persons to solemnise marriages”.

Senior officials in the department have warned in a briefing note to Minister for Social Protection Leo Varadkar: “The proliferation of small bodies and the lack of regulations of bodies gives rise to concerns as to validity of [some] marriages registered in the State.

“In one case, a member of a religious body was convicted of facilitating sham marriages.

“Against this background, consideration may need to be given to requiring that all marriages in the State be solemnised by a civil registrar as is the practice in most EU countries.”

Note the bolded part does not apply to anyone seeking to be a religious solemniser of marriages. A supposedly secular state now has to rule on what constitutes a 'valid religion' and what does not, and has created an injustice in the difference between how a 'valid' religious body is treated under the law compared to a non-religious body.

silverharp

I cant be arsed trying to find out if this is a troll or not but its funny either way.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36548882

You don't have to look as far as Birmingham to see that kind of pattern.

Inspectors at the state funded Islamic school in Clonskeagh said;

..as 73% of pupils do not have English as their first language, there are significant language learning needs among these pupils. It is a matter of concern that a substantial amount of curricular time is used to accommodate the teaching of Arabic, which is not a recognised subject on the curriculum ...

The school is still "researching" the thorny issue of Islamic-compatible music, but it is proving to be a difficult search. It could take some time....

Good work has been initiated in planning for a music programme that is respectful of the Islamic tradition. This plan provides for a broad and balanced programme but current practice in most classrooms does not reflect this. The support services and internal expertise should be utilised to raise standards of learning in this area. It is also recommended that the music curriculum be discussed at board of management level in order that any ethos or other issues are formally addressed. The school has contributed to a research dissertation on Music and the Islamic faith, the findings and recommendations of which will be helpful to the school in planning and implementing an appropriate music programme.

Don't even ask about school sports or PE.

captbarnacles

After the Orlando shooting Rick Scott told a reporter the most important thing they could do right now was "Pray. Pray for the victims, pray for their families". Nice sentiment but what difference is it going to make Everything that is wrong with believing in religious nonsense right there.

silverharp

pressing issue in some circles

MrPudding

captbarnacles wrote: »

After the Orlando shooting Rick Scott told a reporter the most important thing they could do right now was "Pray. Pray for the victims, pray for their families". Nice sentiment but what difference is it going to make Everything that is wrong with believing in religious nonsense right there.

Yes, everyone knows what it needs was praying AND Facebook likes. Schoolboy error Rick.

MrP