As a Catholic, I want to wish my protestant friends a happy 500 year celebration.
Let’s keep praying for each other.
As a Catholic, I want to wish my protestant friends a happy 500 year celebration.
Let’s keep praying for each other.
There is no law against “collusion” unless you are talking about anti-trust issues between corporations. Basically what we are really looking for is whether there was a “conspiracy.” Conspiracy is best understood simply as an agreement to commit a crime.
If Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump “conspired” then they must have agreed with another person to have a crime committed. For Trump one crime might be to have hacked the DNC computers. But it does not appear he was really involved in the actual hacking of those computers.
However, there is a quite broad statute preventing foreign nationals from contributing or donating anything of value to a campaign. 52 usc 30121:
§30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b) “Foreign national” defined
As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title 8) and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
So right off the bat we can see that section 1 is extremely broad. Honestly I am not sure this is healthy for a free society. And would invite comments in that regard.
Here is 2 usc 441e
§441e. Contributions by foreign nationals
(a) It shall be unlawful for a foreign national directly or through any other person to make any contribution of money or other thing of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution, in connection with an election to any political office or in connection with any primary election, convention, or caucus held to select candidates for any political office; or for any person to solicit, accept, or receive any such contribution from a foreign national.
(b) As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1) a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2) an individual who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, §319, formerly §324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, §112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493; renumbered §319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, §105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354.)
Regulations go into more detail on these terms specifically regulation
Definitions.For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
1.Disbursement has the same meaning as in 11 CFR 300.2(d).
2.Donation has the same meaning as in 11 CFR 300.2(e).
3.Foreign national means—
4.Knowingly means that a person must:
i.Have actual knowledge that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national;
ii.Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that there is a substantial probability that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national; or
iii.Be aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national, but the person failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry.
5.For purposes of paragraph (a)(4) of this section, pertinent facts include, but are not limited to:
i.The contributor or donor uses a foreign passport or passport number for identification purposes;
ii.The contributor or donor provides a foreign address;
iii.The contributor or donor makes a contribution or donation by means of a check or other written instrument drawn on a foreign bank or by a wire transfer from a foreign bank; or
iv.The contributor or donor resides abroad.
6.Solicit has the same meaning as in 11 CFR 300.2(m).
7.SAFE HARBOR.For purposes of paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of this section, a person shall be deemed to have conducted a reasonable inquiry if he or she seeks and obtains copies of current and valid U.S. passport papers for U.S. citizens who are contributors or donors described in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section. No person may rely on this safe harbor if he or she has actual knowledge that the source of the funds solicited, accepted, or received is a foreign national.
b.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections.A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
c.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals to political committees and organizations of political parties.A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or donation to:
1.A political committee of a political party, including a national party committee, a national congressional campaign committee, or a State, district, or local party committee, including a non-Federal account of a State, district, or local party committee, or
2.An organization of a political party whether or not the organization is a political committee under 11 CFR 100.5.
h.Providing substantial assistance.
i.Participation by foreign nationals in decisions involving election-related activities.A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person’s Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.
So we have two main cases that seem relevant at this point. The dirt on Hillary that “the Russians” may have offered to Trump. And the dirt that on Trump that Steele, a foreign national, seems to have delivered to Clinton.
Now lets assume the dirt against an opponent is a “thing of value” Again if this is a faulty assumption then please express that in the comment section. If so then getting dirt from a foreign national is a crime. Now was there an agreement to get this from a foreign national in either case?
In the case of Clinton it seems there was. At least Fusion GPS seemed to hire Steele a foreign national for this very purpose. Did Clinton know they were doing this? Well that would need to be established.
Now what about Trump?
So this might revolve around promises from different Russians to different people in the Trump campaign. For example the leads that George Papadopoulos seemed to be pursuing. And perhaps even what Trump Junior was up to.
It seems that no dirt was ever delivered in either case. But there still may have been an agreement to deliver dirt. Was the dirt a thing a value? Well normally we would say yes. But here since no dirt was actually delivered we don’t even know what the dirt was. So it seems quite a few more dots need connecting against Trump at this point.
No I don’t want to be violent. And of course, there is no logical reason to think religious extremism means violence.
Many in religious orders give away everything they own and dedicate their lives to Christ including an oath of celibacy. That’s extreme. Some monks and sisters dedicate their lives to prayer, and some even take a vow of silence. That’s extreme. Those many martyrs present and past could avoid death by simply saying words that would run counter to their religion. That’s Extreme. People like Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., chose to be arrested and put their lives in jeopardy in order to act as they believed their religion required. (Anyone who thinks his actions were not religiously motivated should listen to A Knock at Midnight.) What about Jainism? Some practitioners are so non-violent that they were a mask so as not to kill any bugs through breathing and sweep the floor before they walk so as not to tread on any insects. All of this is extreme religion and has nothing to do with violence. I could go on with examples but hopefully by now you can see that it is odd to equate religious extremism with violence.
So why has our language developed as if “religious extremism” is violent when obviously this does not fit? There are at least two reasons.
Of course, these goals fit well with different agendas people have. What’s my point? My point is mainly that people recognize how language is being manipulated. Hopefully, now when you read my title you will have a different and truer impression of what I am saying.
Finally, I will say that this post was inspired by a you tube video by Sam Harris. Yes, I have been critical of him in many places but I think he made a good point here.
I was listening to a BBC report on “The March for Science.” And I was wondering what message they were trying to convey. It apparently had a tie in with “earth day” and global warming. But anyway one of the people interviewed by the BBC said that to them an important message was that a “fact” is something that is verifiable and testable. Now I have heard this definition by quite a few others who might say it is verifiable by observation etc. So I thought I would address the problems with that definition in this blog.
Now this may be the way scientists view what a “fact” is but I would say that is a change from what it traditionally means. Moreover, I think adopting that definition in a more general sense means all facts are scientific facts. And that is problematic. I would point out that I have nothing against science and indeed I always had a higher aptitude for science than any other subject. But I admit being somewhat annoyed by scientists who seem to know nothing other than science telling the world how everything should be. Science is not the answer to every question.
Now before we go into analyzing her definition. (I will call it the “scientific definition” for simplicity sake). I would like to give some idea as to a traditional and legal definition of a fact. So for just a dictionary definition we can see this:
The Blacks Law definition offers this:
“A thing done; an action performed or an incident transpiring; and event or circumstance; an actual occurrence; an actual happening in time or space or an event or mental or physical; that which has taken pace…. A fact is either a state of things, that is, an existence, or a motion , that is, an event. The quality of being actual; actual existence or occurrence….” (citations omitted)
So you can see that the legal definition and the traditional definition have a focus on what actually happened or what actually is the case. It is not dependent on whether this can be proven or verified or not. So even if everyone agrees the evidence verifies that Martin Luther said “here I stand, I can do no other” in 1521. If he did not actually say that then it is not a fact. In other words facts are not dependent on what we can verify.
It was a fact that Jupiter had moons in 1510 just like it was a fact that Jupiter had moons in 1610 after Galileo saw them with his telescope. If someone in 1510 said it is not a fact that Jupiter has moons, then I would say he got his facts wrong. Because the moons were actually existing, they in fact existed.
To make facts dependent on verification actually makes them subjective. This is because often what will be a proof (or verification) to one person will not be a proof or verification to another. What is a proof will depend on what premises each of us accepts. (If you not sure on this check out my earlier blog here: https://trueandreasonable.co/2014/01/11/extra-extra-read-all-about-it-gods-existence-proven/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true) But I think we all want facts to be objective. So its unclear that she sees how badly she and others are botching the idea of a fact.
But I would point out another issue. Not because I have a strong view on it, but just because I think it’s interesting. Typically, in the law, a fact is something that is in the present or in the past. Future events are not facts. Some scientists want say certain theories are “facts” – like lets say gravity is a fact. That might mean different things. That gravity caused apples to fall in the past is a fact. That gravity is causing my book to remain on my desk is a fact. But that gravity will cause my book to stay on my desk tomorrow – is not a fact. It would seem that is not a fact under any definition. And in my opinion that is how it should be. We can say with lots of certainty that certain things will happen in the future. But they are not facts.
The bottom line with all of this is that certain scientists want people to place more importance on scientific views. So what they co-opt language so they and only they can have “facts” on their side. Changing what words mean to support your agenda almost always leads to more heat than light. I like science and appreciate its method, but there is no need to butcher what words mean on its altar.
Today 99 years ago Willi Graf was born. Willi was a member of the White Rose Society. This society was a Nazi resistance group. The core members were students Hans and Sophie Scholl, Alex Schmorrel, Christof Probst, and Willi Graf.
All of these core members had very interesting – if short – lives. Hans and Sophie were Lutheran, Schmorrel was Orthodox, (He is officially an Orthodox Saint) Willi was Catholic and Christof Probst became Catholic just before he died. I found all of these members to be inspirational. They got together through a connection to the University of Munich. Alex Hans and Willi were Medics and served together on the eastern front.
Left to right: Hubert Furtwangler, Hans Scholl, Willie Graf and Alexander Schmorell on the Eastern Front (1942)
Left to right: Hans Scholl, Sophie Scholl and Christoph Probst.
They published leaflets trying to change germans’ minds about the Nazis. They would also spray paint “Down with Hitler” And “Freedom!” throughout the city. They would write and print out the leaflets and then they would mail them to people who they thought would be influential, or just leave them throughout different cities. Willi was not the author of the leaflets but instead he would form contacts in other cities. They would distribute the leaflets at the same time in different cities so it appeared to be larger than it was.
Before the white rose was even formed, Sophie and Hans Scholl were influenced by Bishop Clemens August Graf von Galen. There was a transcript of one of his sermons condemning the Nazis pogrom against disabled people. They actually distributed his sermon just as they would later distribute their own work as the White Rose.
Here are some excerpts from the leaflets:
The first leaflet Said: “…Therefore every individual, conscious of his responsibility as a member of Christian and Western civilization, must defend himself against the scourges of mankind, against fascism and any similar system of totalitarianism. Offer passive resistance – resistance – wherever you may be, forestall the spread of this atheistic war machine before it is too late,..”
The Second leaflet said “…Why tell you these things, since you are fully aware of them – or if not of these, then of other equally grave crimes committed by this frightful sub-humanity? Because here we touch on a problem which involves us deeply and forces us all to take thought. Why do the German people behave so apathetically in the face of all these abominable crimes, crimes so unworthy of the human race? Hardly anyone thinks about that. It is accepted as fact and put out of mind. The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals; they give them the opportunity to carry on their depredations; and of course they do so. Is this a sign that the Germans are brutalized in their simplest human feelings, that no chord within them cries out at the sight of such deeds, that they have sunk into a fatal consciencelessness from which they will never, never awake? It seems to be so, and will certainly be so, if the German does not at last start up out of his stupor, if he does not protest wherever and whenever he can against this clique of criminals, if he shows no sympathy for these hundreds of thousands of victims. He must evidence not only sympathy; no, much more: a sense of complicity in guilt. For through his apathetic behavior he gives these evil men the opportunity to act as they do; he tolerates this government which has taken upon itself such an infinitely great burden of guilt; indeed, he himself is to blame for the fact that it came about at all! Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty!”
The third leaflet again tried to trigger the conscience of their fellow Germans ending with “We will not be silent. We are your bad conscience. The White Rose will not leave you in peace!”
The Fourth Leaflet said:
“…Every word that comes from Hitler’s mouth is a lie. When he says peace, he means war, and when he blasphemously uses the name of the Almighty, he means the power of evil, the fallen angel, Satan. His mouth is the foul-smelling maw of Hell, and his might is at bottom accursed. True, we must conduct a struggle against the National Socialist terrorist state with rational means; but whoever today still doubts the reality, the existence of demonic powers, has failed by a wide margin to understand the metaphysical background of this war. Behind the concrete, the visible events, behind all objective, logical considerations, we find the irrational element: The struggle against the demon, against the servants of the Antichrist. Everywhere and at all times demons have been lurking in the dark, waiting for the moment when man is weak; when of his own volition he leaves his place in the order of Creation as founded for him by God in freedom; when he yields to the force of evil, separates himself from the powers of a higher order; and after voluntarily taking the first step, he is driven on to the next and the next at a furiously accelerating rate. Everywhere and at all times of greatest trial men have appeared, prophets and saints who cherished their freedom, who preached the One God and who His help brought the people to a reversal of their downward course. Man is free, to be sure, but without the true God he is defenceless against the principle of evil. He is a like rudderless ship, at the mercy of the storm, an infant without his mother, a cloud dissolving into thin air….”
Here is a bit from the 6th Leaflet:
“…The Hitler Youth, the SA, the SS have tried to drug us, to revolutionise us, to regiment us in the most promising young years of our lives. “Philosophical training” is the name given to the despicable method by which our budding intellectual development is muffled in a fog of empty phrases. A system of selection of leaders at once unimaginably devilish and narrow-minded trains up its future party bigwigs in the “Castles of the Knightly Order” to become Godless, impudent, and conscienceless exploiters and executioners – blind, stupid hangers-on of the Fuhrer…”
Willi Graf in Particular:
One thing I found interesting about Willi Graf, is that he did not seem to have any authority figure or other adult to lead him to his courageous life.
Hans and Sophie had their father who was a conscientious objector to fighting in WWI. He did not want them participate in anything Nazi. Hans however was initially beguiled by the Nazis and became a leader in the Hitler Youth. Sophie, also initially joined a nazi girl’s group. However their father seemed to have a clear head and did push them in the other direction. Their sister Inge Scholl wrote of this later:
“But there was something else that drew us with mysterious power and swept us along: the closed ranks of marching youth with banners waving, eyes fixed straight ahead, keeping time to drumbeat and song. Was not this sense of fellowship overpowering? It is not surprising that all of us, Hans and Sophie and the others, joined the Hitler Youth? We entered into it with body and soul, and we could not understand why our father did not approve, why he was not happy and proud. On the contrary, he was quite displeased with us.”
— Inge Scholl, The White Rose
Alexander Shmorrel was half Russian and so it is no surprise he came to find Nazis revolting – considering he spent time on the Eastern front. And Probst’s stepmother was Jewish so he presumably would have a strong counterinfluence at home as well.
But Willi’s youth seemed a bit different. It appeared that his anti-nazi views came solely from his belief that it was inconsistent with his faith. He joined catholic youth organizations and remained with them even when they were illegal. He also refused to join Hitler youth when it was mandatory. Not only that but he would cross his acquaintances names out of his personal address book if they joined the Hitler Youth. In some of my reading it seemed as though his actions went against his parents wishes. Not that his parents were Nazis but that they just wanted the best for him and wanted him to get along. I should point out that one source says his father was a Nazi leader but I was not able to verify this or get the fuller story.
When Willi was seventeen he marched in a Mayday parade. But whereas there was a sea of brown marching in step giving “heil Hitler’s” and carrying Swastika flags, he and his friends marched purposely out of step, did not wear brown, and carried their tattered school flag.
A friend commented: “Willie Graf… was one of those young people who have always found it impossible to remain indifferent in the face of injustice.” This obstinate refusal to comply would lead to fights where it was said Willi would give as good as he would get.
And all of this was before he witnessed the horrors on the eastern front.
To his sister he wrote from the Eastern front “The war here in the East leads to things so terrible I would never have thought them possible… Some things have occurred… that have disturbed me deeply… I can’t begin to give you the details… It is simply unthinkable that such things exist… I wish I hadn’t had to see what I have seen…. I could tell you much more but do not want to trust it to a letter.”
Even though I live at a time where it is much easier to live a good Christian life I still can relate to him when he wrote in his journal: “To be a Christian, is perhaps the hardest thing to ever become in life.” He was devoutly Catholic and it was said he would attend mass every Sunday even as a college student. He was interested in the liturgy and composed some alternate liturgies that could be used at mass. He was also chess player and philosopher.
But perhaps what I admire most about him is that despite harboring doubts he made a decision as to how to live and stuck to it even when it meant death. He wrote in his journal: “Sometimes, I am certain of the rightness of my course. Sometimes I doubt it. But I take it upon myself nevertheless, no matter how burdensome it may be.”, and “Sometimes you can’t just go where favoring winds send you. Sometimes one must take a direction which isn’t that easy. You can’t allow yourself to be continually blown about.”
He was not as eloquent at his trial as Sophie or Hans Scholl. However, despite being interrogated the longest he never gave additional names of any his contacts. All of the members of the white rose remained loyal to each other throughout their interrogations. This reminds me of John 15:13 “ There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”
In the movie Sophie Scholl last days they make it appear that Willi was very vocal against the actions Sophie and Hans took, which lead to all the arrests. But even, if this is true, nothing I have read suggests he ever held it against them. I think they all decided it was just a matter of time before they were caught and killed.
We must remember that Willi and his friends were still quite young during this time. They died at ages ranging from 21 to 25. I think as I am older and wiser, not only from an age perspective but a historical one, I can see how what they did was necessary. But when I consider the inevitable doubts of the moment to go against all of society, at such a young age, and with full knowledge of the dire consequences, I can only marvel at the dedication of these young men and women.
I have been pondering their lives for a few months now and I am still looking for more information – especially on Willi Graf. I know there has been a book written on him but it is in German. I would love to get a translation.
My thoughts here were based on a 2 books, “A Noble treason” by Richard Hasner and “At the Heart of the White Rose: Letters and Diaries of Hans and Sophie Scholl” Hardcover – August, 1987 by Hans Scholl (Author), Sophie Scholl (Author), as well as the movie The last days of Sophie Scholl and the White Rose.
There are also numerouse webpages that I read as well including the following:
Generally I think our United States Supreme Court is overly concerned with laws establishing religion and too little concerned with laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. A study of the history of the establishment clause demonstrates the Supreme Court has basically turned the establishment clause on it’s head. (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1624.pdf see Scalia’s concurring opinion) But that is another discussion. For now, I don’t want to get involved with how the amendment is interpreted but rather the more basic question of when certain distinctions may be warranted.
If we consider discrimination against race, gender or disability we can see that it is irrational because, it is wrong to blame someone for something they didn’t choose. Moreover, the mere fact of a difference in race gender or disability does not seem to effect whether someone will act morally – however we want to define morality.
But what about religion? It seems that it is both chosen and it does, at least potentially, effect how people will act. This difference is indicated by the different cultures that develop based on different religious beliefs. Is cultural discrimination a bad thing? I would agree that someone would have to be narrow minded to not like anything about a culture – even Nazi or Soviet culture – but on the whole it would seem ok if your dislikes of a culture outweigh what you do like about it.
While it might be nice if there were clear lines to draw about religious beliefs and how they should be treated by the state and individuals, it seems reality is a bit more complicated. I will probably post more on this in the future but for right now the question remains whether religious discrimination should be treated differently then, say, race, gender or disability discrimination.
Generally speaking I enjoy the topics surrounding Atheism versus Theism and spend most of my time on those. I will say that I am quite happy with the discussions with non-believers and have found many to be quite cordial despite the topics. I consider many to be my friends.
I also enjoy discussing the issues surrounding Catholic versus Protestant versus Orthodox. And this will be the first of what I hope are many posts I will make on this topic. I am a Catholic and a fairly committed one at that. But just as I do not think theism is an intellectual slam dunk I do not think Catholicism is a slam dunk either. In other words, I think there are some good reasons to be atheist, protestant and/or orthodox. My children go to a Lutheran School. One that I love. But sometimes when I see what they are taught I think many protestants must wonder what is he thinking!? Why is he Catholic? Well here I would like to offer some insights. There are few other fairly large reasons but this is a big one. Lets call this the historical argument.
Ok so let us start with a passage that I believe does lead me to be Catholic or Orthodox. Actually, I will freely admit that the reasons I prefer Catholicism over Orthodoxy are fairly minor. I think it’s well past time to end the schism. But anyway today I want to poke at my fellow protestant readers.
“…I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Now before this quote Peter says something to Jesus and Jesus says he is Peter an “on this rock” I will build my church. A lot has already been written on what “this rock” is. I want to focus on the second part. Did he build a church? If so when? What sort of Church did Christ build? And finally, have the gates of hell prevailed against his church?
Ok so I think most Christians would agree Christ did in fact found a church. Moreover, he did it before the New Testament was written. We see references to the Church in Paul’s letters which are believed to be the earliest NT scriptures. So it would seem the Church Christ founded could not have been a “biblical church” i.e., one that claims its only authority comes from the bible. Right?
The Church founded by Christ had to have some other authority beyond “scripture alone.” If the church Christ founded, is now limited to the bible alone when did this change happen? Did this change right after the scriptures were written? Or was it after they were considered to be the bible by …I don’t know, someone, a church, Martin Luther – again I don’t know.
The bible does not say what books are supposed to be in the bible. Would you agree that Christ’s church has the authority to decide this issue? Or is there some other way to determine what books were inspired by the Holy Spirit and should be in the bible? There is a dispute, as many of you likely know, between Protestants Catholics and even Orthodox (each bible growing larger) as to which books belong in the bible. Although this dispute only involves the Old Testament, we do have different bibles.
How can anyone maintain it is “the bible alone” when the bible does not even say what books belong in it and there is a dispute?
Now some maintain that the church is invisible. If the Church was/is entirely hidden then how would this passage make sense?
“If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” Matthew 18:17
If we follow this advice what church should we go to? Who can tell us, for example, what books belong in the bible? Do we ask the Jews? Nothing against the Jews but that seems odd as that is really a different religion and not surprisingly they did not include the New Testament. Why would we ask the Jews instead of Christ’s Church? So which of the 33,000 plus churches is Christ’s Church?
Did the Gates of Hell prevail?
The problem I have here is that it seems the protestants took such a hard line against the Catholic Church and sort of forced this issue. If Martin Luther (and just about every other early protestant church reformer) was right and the Bishopric of Rome was indeed the seat of the anti-christ, it is hard to see how we can deny that the Gates of hell prevailed against the Catholic Church. If you don’t think the gates of hell prevailed then what happened to Christs Church before the reformation? Was the bishopric of Rome always the seat of the anti-christ? I have read some protestants claim all the heretics who were persecuted by the Catholic Church were the actual true church. Is that still a viable position among rational Christians today? That seems a bit of stretch, but what would the alternative view be?
Of course, the Orthodox Church has an easy answer here. Although relations have not always been rainbows and lollipops, I don’t think the Orthodox Church ever taught that the Bishopric of Rome was the seat of the Anti-Christ. But if protestants think the Orthodox Church is a contender for being the Church founded by Christ, which the gates of Hell never prevailed against, why reject Orthodoxy? It seems to offer a historically coherent view without requiring commitment to as many different Doctrines as Catholicism.
Go through what you know about the title. What comes to mind?
Did anyone think of Galileo?
For many people Galileo seems two epitomize the relationship. But to say that turns history on its head. Science was born in a deeply Christian culture. As I indicated I recently finished some books by Rodney Stark and I also just finished a book by James Hannam called the Genesis of Science. (Painting a basement is always a good time to listen to some audible books) I have to say I am simply amazed at how much of science middle age “natural philosophers” put together before even Copernicus came on the scene.
The importance of applying math to nature, using empirical evidence to test theories, including but not limited to, how objects move, how light works, whether the earth moves, how things might work in a vacuum etc. Why was I so ignorant of all this? I can tell you it’s not that I was taught all this and forgot it. All of these great medieval thinkers were left out of my education. None of it quite fit the “scientific revolution” view of history. You know the story where the Catholic Church had to let the poor scientists out of their evil clutches before science could advance. If you read Hannam’s book you will see that the Catholic Church and the university system (which was heavily fostered and influenced by the Church) was actually the major force that brought about science.
So what are the facts about Christianity and Science? For that I highly recommend Hamman’s book to get a fuller picture. Honestly it was such a flood of new and interesting information I do not have the perspective to summarize it properly. (I offer some other blogs below that do that.)
But here I will just offer something from Rodney Stark. Rodney Stark is what I consider a hard working scholar. He tends to do the nitty gritty work of looking up facts and delivering the information. He did the legwork and looked up the all the major scientists during the “scientific revolution” and addressed how religious/Christian they were. Here is his explanation of his methodology:
“Historians typically define the era of the “Scientific Revolution” as stretching from the publication in 1543 of Copernicus’s De revolutionibus to the end of the seventeenth century. Therefore, I selected Copernicus as my first case and included all appropriate cases, beginning with Copernicus’s contemporaries and stopping with scientists born after 1680. The “whom” was a bit more difficult. First of all, I limited the set to active scientists, thus excluding some well-known philosophers and supporters of science such as Francis Bacon, Joseph Scaliger, and Diego de Zuniga. Second, I tried to pick only those who made significant contributions. To select the cases, I searched books and articles on the history of science, and I also consulted a number of specialized encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries, among which I must mention the several editions of Isaac Asimov’s Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology for its completeness and lack of obvious biases. Having developed a list of 52 scientists, I then consulted various sources, including individual biographies, to determine the facts that I wished to code for each case”
Christianity and Science from Stark (2003) For the Glory of God p.22
Stark put the 52 scientists in 1 of 4 categories. Clergy, devout, conventional Christian, or skeptic. “Devout” meant that they did things that demonstrated an unusual commitment to Christianity such as writing extensively on Christianity or other works indicating strong commitment to the faith. “Conventional Christians” would be those who did not appear to be much more than typical Christians of the time. He gives some explanations of how he grouped these people but in general he appears to have underestimated the religiosity. For example a scientist who became the Popes physician was categorized not as devout but just as “conventionally” religious.
Here were the results:
13 (25%) were clergy 9 of them catholic clergy, 60% were devout. There were only 2 who were skeptics.
Now yes it’s true that people in Europe at this time tended to be Christian. But that raises the question: Of all the places and times, was it coincidence that Science developed in Christian society? Not in the Roman Empire, not in China, Not in Islamic cultures or Persia. Not in any of the other times and places. Rodney Stark and others think that is not just a coincidence. For example, early on Christians have been open to the idea that our senses can be reliable guides to reality. (Unlike certain Greeks that taught how the material world was relatively unreliable) Moreover, Christians put a high value on logical thinking and reason in theology. Christianity is an intellectual religion which made science (then known as natural philosophy) and mathematics required courses in its medieval universities. People who argue there is a conflict between Christianity and Science are taking the rare exception and calling it the rule.
Indeed, Galileo may be the only scientist who was ever persecuted by the church for his scientific view. And those who are aware of Galileo case can legitimately question whether it was really his views as opposed to essentially calling the pope a simpleton which lead to his persecution. Feel free to read more on the story for youself and draw your own conclusions. Based on what I have read I do find the Church blameworthy in that case, even if Galileo was a stubborn, egocentric, and abrasive genius.
Remaining ignorant of all the people who lead up to Galileo and Copernicus in order to push the “enlightment” myth was a sad state for educational institutions. But there is hope this prejudice is being scraped away thanks to scholarly work. Not only has Hamman’s work received acclaim but I am told scholars are viewing his books and their views as relatively uncontroversial – at least to those who study this matter.
Short of reading Hamman’s book I would invite those with an interest in the history of science to take a look at this blog by Tim O’neill where he reviews God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science By James Hannam:
Although he is himself an atheist bastard, he also has a blog that debunks much of “new atheist” history here:
As people who are interested in truth we should read about history and where we see the ignorant prejudices of the past being propagated, suggest the person at least read some of the above listed books or blogs.
I am not really into politics much lately. I too thought Clinton would win. I will just admit that I was like everyone else in the media. That is, early on I was saying why Trump would lose. Then, without skipping a beat, I started pontificating why he won.
Bottom line is everyone is now trying to say he won for the reasons they hope he won for – whatever that is. But really I just don’t think anyone knows why he won. It was a crazy election with tons of issues and it is very hard to sort out why he won at this point. (will time passing make it any easier?) Anyone who says he won for this reason or that reason is probably just expressing what they liked about him or disliked about Clinton. They are likely partly right, but its really just speculation.
That’s why I am squarely agnostic as to why Trump won.
I just finished listening to three books by Rodney Stark, Bearing False Witness, Triumph of Faith, and How the West Won. Here is just a brief review of the first book.
In Bearing False Witness, he describes how he believes the Catholic Church has received unwarranted attacks over the centuries. As a History buff of medieval Europe and the middle east I have come to draw similar conclusions on a variety of topics. But this book has that as the central thesis, therefore he marshals the facts for more coherent case.
Stark puts it all together with his central thesis in mind and does so in an informative way. He covers different issues with a broad brush. These include the Church’s interaction concerning Nazism, the Crusades, the bible’s formation, treatment of other religions including Judaism, the inquisition, slavery, science, and tyrannical governments. Since he covers the issues in a relatively broad brush the book is an easy read/listen.
The topics included some information that I already learned from other sources as well as new information. I found that when he covered a topic I already had background information on, he was fair in his treatment. That’s not to say he took pains to present every possible counter example, but on the whole he was fair.
He opens with a question the question why bother trying to defend the church and dredge through all this history? It’s a question I asked myself in a prior blog. But whereas I could not formulate a decent answer, he did by quoting Garrett Mattingly “Nor does it matter at all to the dead whether they receive justice at the hands of succeeding generations. But to the living, to do justice, however belatedly, should matter.”
I really enjoyed the chapter concerning science. The basic construct of scientific method had already been put together by various monks and religious people in the middle ages. Later scientists who are often credited as being the fathers of science were putting those principles into use on a very large and impressive scale. I was quite impressed with the quotations from the scholastics which formed the bedrock of scientific method.
One interesting theory he suggested, was that science did not so much need to fight religion as much as it did the Platonic view that empirical information was not as valid as a-priori ideas.
In the end if you think you will learn the Church always acted just like we do now with our modern sensibilities, you will be disappointed. However, if you would be satisfied with a strong case that the Church has been a huge force of progress, in science, education and morality then I think this book is for you.