I was still a closet atheist, trying to find God when I started reading AR's books. My atheist state of mind now is absolute. Anne went on to struggle with it for many more years. Not an atheist by a long shot. :-D I knew her vampchron days were done when she stopped struggling with faith. I don't want her to fake her way through another Lestat adventure just to make me happy, either. My Lestat is reckless and grieving and Anne cant really channel that anymore. She IS Lestat, remember?
@SOY, The standard of intellectual rigor in The Catholic Church is second to none. I have no doubt, even in matters dependent upon faith, that the work of the Early Church Fathers and those that have followed since, enhance Anne Rice's search in every fashion not the least of which, the philosophical and theological answers - and questions - that draw as they have so many, closer to a knowing that becomes more of a remembering.
I appreciate your video on this ..it shows alot of insight about yourself also. There comes a time in all our lives to move on and that includes writing subjects too. :)
Anyway, Anne, your words are amazing. I can relate to everything you've said, and I admire your honesty in everything you do and represent. You keep on writing what your gut tells you to write, you can't go wrong.
I'm glad to hear your explanation for why you've stopped writing the books I so loved but I'm saddened to sense the finality of their demise in your mind if you really have no more stories to tell with those characters. I'm NOT Christian, am probably more agnostic but with leanings far closer to the Pagan sensibilities in that I see "God", "The Universe" whatever you want to call a sense of the divine in and through nature, although I worship no specific deity. Thanx for many hrs. of enjoyment.
@dotoree Thanks alot. I'd rather not elaborate on the question of justice, evil and "hell" here, but I think beyond the questions of justice, hell, etc...lies much more fascinating concepts like grace and selflessness, and the dignity of the individual as being something uniquely precious. Once those concepts stir a conversation, within the context of God, Moral Law...I think the exceptional majesty of Christ begins to melt away misconceptions of religious norms that "people" think define Him.
@NilDesperandum777 Hi, it's nice to see a civil discussion here&that you actually hold up your side with quotes,historical references&solid evidence. It appears you are Catholic&while I have great respect for many Catholics in history&now&have learned from some (including you, thanks), I can't begin to count the number of atheists I have met who were former Catholics (&some former Christians) because of the doctrine of eternal hell. How can anyone think that is just?
I have no desire to have this be a theist vs atheist conversation, I merely asked for a instance in which the faith of a Christian advanced science. My position, as stated, is that "great scientific discoveries were made despite the faith of the scientist, or completely unrelated to" a person's faith. All I wanted was an instance in which the "faith of Christians [...] advanced science." Just that simple.
@gamesbok , There's little urgency to argue the exact date of Rome's fall. If any number of dates and times suit you depending on the day, emotion, what have you, by all means, provide an additional couple of dates to those offered. You may arrive at a starting point and we may have an honest beginning. But it's put to you to add to Gibbon's commonly criticized justification as being vague that Constantine's adoption of Christianity had any real influence on Rome's decline. (i.e. Bury,Drake,etc)
Finding the Christian god after atheism would certainly cause me distress (not hope or salvation). It's comforting knowing there's no evidence for an invisible deity who created an awful place like Hell. If such a god were to exist, it would be beyond frightening. Thank gawd the evidence points to no gods.
@gamesbok , So apart from Gibbons roundly denounced concentration (Passive as it was) on Christian contributions to Romes decline, your reasoning is based on...?
@gamesbok Mmm...Not according to most historical source material. 476 AD is the widest common date held as "the beginning" with the decline/defeat of Rome. I dont like to argue both sides but sometimes, clarity from any side is a gift. At any rate, thanks for attempting to specify.
"the blood is the life" from this passage in the bible: Deuteronomy 12:23 Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life; you may not eat the life with the meat. Jesus saves us through the blood He shed to die for our sins. I was a big fan of your vampire novels years ago and when I started attending church again and they talked about the 'covering' of the blood of Jesus in regards to the passover, and other passages in the bible I could see the connection there too.
@1n354a, My suspicions are any answer won't provide persuasion to a person closed to the record of history. Those instances are many, and very similar in contribution to the same strides made in music,art,etc... If you're actually interested, then I suspect your curiosity will prompt the right questions, to the right places, right people. It's an easy task. Best of luck.
@1n354a, Art,etc...A cursory view of your profile lists works by JRR Tolkein and Dostoevsky...Are you simply unaware of these authors lives and how their faith informed their work? Arias, Bach, Mozart, painters,sculptors and architects aside, are you aware of the dual nature of medieval cathedrals the likes of which Cassini drew inspiration and recorded observation from? Western Law as it grew out of Canon Law? Free market economics? The invention of seismology? The University?
@1n354a, Well since you're interested in accurate statements...I wrote, " The Catholic Church and the faith of Christians in many many instances advanced science." Where did I write it was THE cause? And instead of quoting my apprehension of Christian contribution to science, let's consult actual historians of science instead like: J.L. Heilbron, A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, and Thomas Goldstein. I take it you want the discussion to be theists vs atheists, correct?
@DublinFrodo My dear friend, I AM south American, and had to watch numerous lectures in my university about my own history. In South America, not *all* indians were exterminated. Look at Bolivia, a country with a 70% indian population, and even an indian president. I'm not saying they're all alive and well and nothing happened. Many (too many) were in fact killed, their families, beliefs, but not exterminated, and who led that wasn't the Catholic Church, it was man itself.
@Nemo, "Nonsense" would be incorrect as well. Perhaps investigating the actual process and rationale behind Transubstantiation would help you at least appreciate if not understand it's overall mechanism and effect.
@ Nemo, Anne Rice was raised Roman Catholic, so "joining" as you put it is incorrect. She merely returned to the faith of her family and her youth. And as far as "drinking blood", the Sacrament is much more nuanced than that simplistic description.
@1n354a, There's no mere request here, you stated clear and sweeping incredulity as to my understanding of the history of science (And art,music,etc.) with request to produce opinion to the contrary. I gave you 5 scholars on the history of science, and you still, actually, want "an instance" to support this reality as though it was something obscure? And you're quite certain your question isn't driven by Hitchens and Dawkins? Instances to follow...
@DublinFrodo, If you're actually in Dublin, I believe there is a permanent exhibit on ancient manuscripts at the Chester Beatty Library on the grounds of Dublin Castle. One of them concerning Paul's letters is held there. It could be worth a look in the beginning of a search that ultimately will arrest any suspicion that Jesus Christ and His Church's claims are anything but imaginary.
@gamesbok Well "common" still implies a collective understanding that 529 isn't nearly a start date is it? Then again, 480 Ad isn't 529 is it? So which date are you starting with? And again, you mean to separate Christian civilization and it's contribution to society in the early to late dark ages, to present Western democratic models, correct?
@1n354a, Newton from Principia: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being...This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as the Lord over all. " Bacon in Novum Organum that natural philosophy (science) is: "...after the word of God, the surest remedy against superstition, and the most approved support of faith." Would you like foundational propositions next?
@NilDesperandum777 Plutarch, who invented the phrase Dark Ages, meant a lack of intellectual development. Of the characters we can blame we have Arius, Odoacer and Justinian, all Christians. Neither of the first two had any effect whatso ever on the intellectual or cultural life of the empire. Justinian did. The real economic and social collapse of the city of Rome occured with Justinian's invasion. I'm sticking with 529.
In that the vampires were trying to do the same things..have eternal life through blood..but the blood they took came from infallible human beings. There efforts were very inadequate and very 'human' actually..a physical enactment of what we see people doing today in trying to achieve a state of eternal life without God. The vampire is the ultimate error on not only trying to achieve eternal life but finding yourself caught in hell instead, but also in trying to be gods.
@NilDesperandum777 Gibbon is only critisized by ecclesiastics and the petty, and the reverence in which Norwich (that’s how he signs himself) holds Gibbon verges on the idolatrous. Let’s see if we can find a well informed eye witness, without an ideological bias, who may confirm Christianity as a contribution to the decline of Rome. Oh yes, Emperor Julian.
@1n354a @1n354a Hi, I see you were having a bit of a discussion that looked civil and I thought I'd comment :). If you're looking for instances where the Bible has advanced science there are MANY of them. 1) The Bible gives strong hints at speciation up to the kind level (~family level these days) 2) The Bible has NUMEROUS concepts on health that even today give people who follow them 10 years more life than those who don't. Google buettner "how to live to 100".
@NilDesperandum777 Although common, I think that's a lazy interpritation, as how a Christian take-over of a Christian Empire, (Odoacer, Arian Christian, held Roman rank as Magister Millitum) produced any cultural change is not made clear. Indeed there was still a ruling Western Emperor until 480. Justinian's crushing of the Neo-Platonist school, however, obviously brought massive intellectual restructions and cultural change.
@gamesbok Right...Virtually the entire discipline shares the same criticism. Ever the ecclesiastics, yes? As to your criteria, I guess we'll just have to filter through Dawkins, Hitchens, you and those like-minded to find genuine authoritative historicity on the last two thousand years. Sounds balanced.
@DublinFrodo Your question, of course, begs the question. It is by no means obvious that God is imaginary. In fact, just the opposite. Hunger does not suggest that food is merely a projection of the human mind. Likewise, the fact that man longs for He who is totally Other does not suggests that He does not exist.
The idea that God would punish a robber, an adulterer&Stalin the same is just incomprehensible in terms of justice. And even humans don't punish people with torture without end. What possible purpose could unending torture have? Are you really sure this idea is biblical or possibly it came from pagan traditions like many "Christian" doctrines have. It certainly can't be reconciled with the biblical concept that God is fair which is a major theme throughout scripture.
@PhoenixLament87 What are you on about? Hunger is a physiological response to lack of food. You can imagine you feel the need for God but that as far as it goes. And thansk for the suggestion but I couldn't care less about Paul, Christ the Church and anything else taht's Christian.
@gamesbok And how many have since deflated Gibbons contribution to that specific claim as being far less esteemed than his development of the historical methodology hes most celebrated. And...Because Gibbon did, why would you? Again, frivolous isnt it? I can read Gibbon myself and contract the same gist...And if by Lord Norwich do you mean, John Julius Cooper? Who holds Gibbons work on Byzantine as flawed and - oh look - frivolous? That Lord Norwich, sir?
actually I would question your understanding of history, if you think that the faith of Christians was the cause of scientific advancement. a more accurate statement would be that great scientific discoveries were made despite the faith of the scientist, or completely unrelated to. The same goes for music, art, etc.... I am curious as to instances that you feel exist, so I am asking you. Could you possibly list a couple so that I can understand where you are coming from? It's an easy task.
@Nemo, I take it you consider C. Hitchens as ridiculous then as well. Here's the problem with arrogance and ignorance walking hand in hand: They tend to lead it's user into patent contradictions revealing the lack, arrogance attempts to cover. Identifying "miracle" positively and qualified as "sacred" with "identical" in a scenario where "nothing happen[s]," betrays your worldview. In other words, you appear not to know your subject, nor your audience. A "chuckle" you say?
Actually, no. The Catholic Church considered very early that the indians had souls, therefore they had to take care of them, no only physically, but spiritually, so they began teaching them the catholic faith. They indeed destroyed the indians, but their beliefs. It was MEN who destroyed them, literally. In south America there are still a lot of indians left, but in north America, they were extermined, and the english men weren't catholic. It was men, not faith who destroys.
@gamesbok Feel free to message me for a more in depth rebuttal.. Your statement is a just a little broad. But for Christianity a great number of inventions, social norms (In the West certainly) wouldnt have existed. "Dark" compared to what exactly? Ages previous to the Renaissance weren't exactly bastions of ideal living conditions for the majority of humanity. Improved somewhat as time went on, and look a ways to go, but to blame Christianity!? Silly...
@gamesbok "Try some logic" Ok. Gotcha, Ad hominem. Please note "decline" before "defeat" in the comment below, not unlike Gibbon himself you'll recall. Given the character limits, YT makes a poor theatre for a quid pro quo exchange of citation on the subject, right? And if that's debatable to you, sir, by all means, begin another thread arguing the merits of reducing the subject to a conversation where frivolity and not intellectual integrity should be the norm rather than the exception.
@NilDesperandum777 Except Rome wasn't defeated in 476. Justinian's changes to society were massive, and in particular his attack on intellectual life. Odoacer did nothing of the sort, but preserved life as he found it in the Western Empire. What he did do was move the Capital to Revenna, and piss off the pope. If you're going to accept 476 then by the same logic you would also have to accept 410, a far more traumatic event. I'm with Lord Norwich on this one. Try some logic.
i think i have a pretty clear idea how the mechanisms work.priest mumbles over bread and wine,nothing happens,believers declare that a miracle has taken place.should rational thought intrude,mumble nonsense about accidents and substance.
+Michael Steven Martin real christianity is about a relationship with Christ not a doctrine religion is a doctrine Jesus is interested a relationship and love with his children
@NilDesperandum777 The transparent absurdity of your claim that superstition somehow advances science is so obvious that comment is unnecessary. The counter arguement, that faith inhibits science, is easily illustrated by Newton's failure to account for the formation of the solar systen, and Laplace's success. There can be no bigger enemy of science than 'faith', the claim to knowledge dishonestly won.
@Nemo, You have six steps in your explanation and subsequently, six errors. Don't you think, that as a militant atheist, you could err on the side of arrogance that is also enhanced with correct information?
@gamesbok Well, consensus disagrees with your summation. But we'll take it that the "Dark Ages" began the fall of Science, and to it, The Church contributed to it's continued demise as your posit, correct? You have a number of outstanding claims to follow up on, sir. At some point youre confronted with Bury and Drake and at another down the same winding road of nonsense you're confronted with scientists, too many to name, who in one way shape or form, began inquiries because of Faith. Big "F"
@Dublin, Islam and the human conditionf flew men into buildings, The Catholic Church and the faith of Christians in many many instances advanced science. Truly, investigate the matter before repeating the unsubstantiated ramblings of certain editors and biologists pretending to be philosophers and theologians.
yes,rejoined would have been better wording sorry. and "big load of nonsense,because it is still freaking wine and not blood"may have been more nuanced and less simplistic
i love this one.. this PROVES that one does NOT need religion to have FAITH :-)
I was still a closet atheist, trying to find God when I started reading AR's books. My atheist state of mind now is absolute. Anne went on to struggle with it for many more years. Not an atheist by a long shot. :-D
I knew her vampchron days were done when she stopped struggling with faith. I don't want her to fake her way through another Lestat adventure just to make me happy, either. My Lestat is reckless and grieving and Anne cant really channel that anymore. She IS Lestat, remember?
@SOY,
The standard of intellectual rigor in The Catholic Church is second to none. I have no doubt, even in matters dependent upon faith, that the work of the Early Church Fathers and those that have followed since, enhance Anne Rice's search in every fashion not the least of which, the philosophical and theological answers - and questions - that draw as they have so many, closer to a knowing that becomes more of a remembering.
I appreciate your video on this ..it shows alot of insight about yourself also. There comes a time in all our lives to move on and that includes writing subjects too. :)
Anyway, Anne, your words are amazing. I can relate to everything you've said, and I admire your honesty in everything you do and represent. You keep on writing what your gut tells you to write, you can't go wrong.
THIS!!
You saw the Eucharist in Vampirism.
I remember when I saw Vampirism in the Eucharist!
Best Theological Juice EVAR!!
I'm glad to hear your explanation for why you've stopped writing the books I so loved but I'm saddened to sense the finality of their demise in your mind if you really have no more stories to tell with those characters. I'm NOT Christian, am probably more agnostic but with leanings far closer to the Pagan sensibilities in that I see "God", "The Universe" whatever you want to call a sense of the divine in and through nature, although I worship no specific deity. Thanx for many hrs. of enjoyment.
Anne is so wise!
@dotoree Thanks alot. I'd rather not elaborate on the question of justice, evil and "hell" here, but I think beyond the questions of justice, hell, etc...lies much more fascinating concepts like grace and selflessness, and the dignity of the individual as being something uniquely precious. Once those concepts stir a conversation, within the context of God, Moral Law...I think the exceptional majesty of Christ begins to melt away misconceptions of religious norms that "people" think define Him.
@NilDesperandum777 Hi, it's nice to see a civil discussion here&that you actually hold up your side with quotes,historical references&solid evidence. It appears you are Catholic&while I have great respect for many Catholics in history&now&have learned from some (including you, thanks), I can't begin to count the number of atheists I have met who were former Catholics (&some former Christians) because of the doctrine of eternal hell. How can anyone think that is just?
I have no desire to have this be a theist vs atheist conversation, I merely asked for a instance in which the faith of a Christian advanced science.
My position, as stated, is that "great scientific discoveries were made despite the faith of the scientist, or completely unrelated to" a person's faith.
All I wanted was an instance in which the "faith of Christians [...] advanced science."
Just that simple.
@NilDesperandum777
which instances were those?
@gamesbok , There's little urgency to argue the exact date of Rome's fall. If any number of dates and times suit you depending on the day, emotion, what have you, by all means, provide an additional couple of dates to those offered. You may arrive at a starting point and we may have an honest beginning. But it's put to you to add to Gibbon's commonly criticized justification as being vague that Constantine's adoption of Christianity had any real influence on Rome's decline. (i.e. Bury,Drake,etc)
Finding the Christian god after atheism would certainly cause me distress (not hope or salvation). It's comforting knowing there's no evidence for an invisible deity who created an awful place like Hell. If such a god were to exist, it would be beyond frightening. Thank gawd the evidence points to no gods.
@gamesbok , So apart from Gibbons roundly denounced concentration (Passive as it was) on Christian contributions to Romes decline, your reasoning is based on...?
@gamesbok Mmm...Not according to most historical source material. 476 AD is the widest common date held as "the beginning" with the decline/defeat of Rome. I dont like to argue both sides but sometimes, clarity from any side is a gift. At any rate, thanks for attempting to specify.
"the blood is the life" from this passage in the bible: Deuteronomy 12:23
Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life; you may not eat the life with the meat.
Jesus saves us through the blood He shed to die for our sins.
I was a big fan of your vampire novels years ago and when I started attending church again and they talked about the 'covering' of the blood of Jesus in regards to the passover, and other passages in the bible I could see the connection there too.
@NilDesperandum777 The Dark Ages started at 9am, 13th January 529, when Justinian closed the Academy in Athens.
@1n354a,
My suspicions are any answer won't provide persuasion to a person closed to the record of history.
Those instances are many, and very similar in contribution to the same strides made in music,art,etc...
If you're actually interested, then I suspect your curiosity will prompt the right questions, to the right places, right people.
It's an easy task.
Best of luck.
@1n354a,
Art,etc...A cursory view of your profile lists works by JRR Tolkein and Dostoevsky...Are you simply unaware of these authors lives and how their faith informed their work?
Arias, Bach, Mozart, painters,sculptors and architects aside, are you aware of the dual nature of medieval cathedrals the likes of which Cassini drew inspiration and recorded observation from?
Western Law as it grew out of Canon Law? Free market economics? The invention of seismology? The University?
Yes, THIS is what The vampire chronicles are about.
@patrickledford420 ,
Can you quote me please, and possibly rephrase the question? Thanks.
@1n354a,
Well since you're interested in accurate statements...I wrote, " The Catholic Church and the faith of Christians in many many instances advanced science." Where did I write it was THE cause?
And instead of quoting my apprehension of Christian contribution to science, let's consult actual historians of science instead like: J.L. Heilbron, A.C. Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, and Thomas Goldstein.
I take it you want the discussion to be theists vs atheists, correct?
@DublinFrodo My dear friend, I AM south American, and had to watch numerous lectures in my university about my own history. In South America, not *all* indians were exterminated. Look at Bolivia, a country with a 70% indian population, and even an indian president. I'm not saying they're all alive and well and nothing happened. Many (too many) were in fact killed, their families, beliefs, but not exterminated, and who led that wasn't the Catholic Church, it was man itself.
@Nemo,
"Nonsense" would be incorrect as well.
Perhaps investigating the actual process and rationale behind Transubstantiation would help you at least appreciate if not understand it's overall mechanism and effect.
@ Nemo,
Anne Rice was raised Roman Catholic, so "joining" as you put it is incorrect. She merely returned to the faith of her family and her youth.
And as far as "drinking blood", the Sacrament is much more nuanced than that simplistic description.
@NilDesperandum777 'but to blame Christianity' Why not, Gibbon did.
@1n354a,
There's no mere request here, you stated clear and sweeping incredulity as to my understanding of the history of science (And art,music,etc.) with request to produce opinion to the contrary.
I gave you 5 scholars on the history of science, and you still, actually, want "an instance" to support this reality as though it was something obscure? And you're quite certain your question isn't driven by Hitchens and Dawkins?
Instances to follow...
@DublinFrodo,
If you're actually in Dublin, I believe there is a permanent exhibit on ancient manuscripts at the Chester Beatty Library on the grounds of Dublin Castle.
One of them concerning Paul's letters is held there. It could be worth a look in the beginning of a search that ultimately will arrest any suspicion that Jesus Christ and His Church's claims are anything but imaginary.
@gamesbok Well "common" still implies a collective understanding that 529 isn't nearly a start date is it? Then again, 480 Ad isn't 529 is it? So which date are you starting with? And again, you mean to separate Christian civilization and it's contribution to society in the early to late dark ages, to present Western democratic models, correct?
@1n354a,
Newton from Principia: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being...This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as the Lord over all. "
Bacon in Novum Organum that natural philosophy (science) is:
"...after the word of God, the surest remedy against superstition, and the most approved support of faith."
Would you like foundational propositions next?
@NilDesperandum777 Plutarch, who invented the phrase Dark Ages, meant a lack of intellectual development. Of the characters we can blame we have Arius, Odoacer and Justinian, all Christians. Neither of the first two had any effect whatso ever on the intellectual or cultural life of the empire. Justinian did. The real economic and social collapse of the city of Rome occured with Justinian's invasion. I'm sticking with 529.
In that the vampires were trying to do the same things..have eternal life through blood..but the blood they took came from infallible human beings. There efforts were very inadequate and very 'human' actually..a physical enactment of what we see people doing today in trying to achieve a state of eternal life without God.
The vampire is the ultimate error on not only trying to achieve eternal life but finding yourself caught in hell instead, but also in trying to be gods.
@NilDesperandum777 Gibbon is only critisized by ecclesiastics and the petty, and the reverence in which Norwich (that’s how he signs himself) holds Gibbon verges on the idolatrous. Let’s see if we can find a well informed eye witness, without an ideological bias, who may confirm Christianity as a contribution to the decline of Rome. Oh yes, Emperor Julian.
@1n354a @1n354a Hi, I see you were having a bit of a discussion that looked civil and I thought I'd comment :). If you're looking for instances where the Bible has advanced science there are MANY of them.
1) The Bible gives strong hints at speciation up to the kind level (~family level these days)
2) The Bible has NUMEROUS concepts on health that even today give people who follow them 10 years more life than those who don't. Google buettner "how to live to 100".
@NilDesperandum777 Although common, I think that's a lazy interpritation, as how a Christian take-over of a Christian Empire, (Odoacer, Arian Christian, held Roman rank as Magister Millitum) produced any cultural change is not made clear. Indeed there was still a ruling Western Emperor until 480. Justinian's crushing of the Neo-Platonist school, however, obviously brought massive intellectual restructions and cultural change.
@gamesbok Right...Virtually the entire discipline shares the same criticism. Ever the ecclesiastics, yes? As to your criteria, I guess we'll just have to filter through Dawkins, Hitchens, you and those like-minded to find genuine authoritative historicity on the last two thousand years. Sounds balanced.
@Dublin,
And apparently, you don't place care into what you think either.
No problem.
Peace.
@DublinFrodo Your question, of course, begs the question. It is by no means obvious that God is imaginary. In fact, just the opposite. Hunger does not suggest that food is merely a projection of the human mind. Likewise, the fact that man longs for He who is totally Other does not suggests that He does not exist.
The idea that God would punish a robber, an adulterer&Stalin the same is just incomprehensible in terms of justice. And even humans don't punish people with torture without end. What possible purpose could unending torture have? Are you really sure this idea is biblical or possibly it came from pagan traditions like many "Christian" doctrines have. It certainly can't be reconciled with the biblical concept that God is fair which is a major theme throughout scripture.
@PhoenixLament87
What are you on about? Hunger is a physiological response to lack of food. You can imagine you feel the need for God but that as far as it goes. And thansk for the suggestion but I couldn't care less about Paul, Christ the Church and anything else taht's Christian.
@gamesbok And how many have since deflated Gibbons contribution to that specific claim as being far less esteemed than his development of the historical methodology hes most celebrated. And...Because Gibbon did, why would you? Again, frivolous isnt it? I can read Gibbon myself and contract the same gist...And if by Lord Norwich do you mean, John Julius Cooper? Who holds Gibbons work on Byzantine as flawed and - oh look - frivolous? That Lord Norwich, sir?
actually I would question your understanding of history, if you think that the faith of Christians was the cause of scientific advancement. a more accurate statement would be that great scientific discoveries were made despite the faith of the scientist, or completely unrelated to.
The same goes for music, art, etc....
I am curious as to instances that you feel exist, so I am asking you. Could you possibly list a couple so that I can understand where you are coming from?
It's an easy task.
science flew us to the moon, religion flew us into buildings
@NilDesperandum777 Christanity gave us the dark ages.
@Nemo,
I take it you consider C. Hitchens as ridiculous then as well.
Here's the problem with arrogance and ignorance walking hand in hand: They tend to lead it's user into patent contradictions revealing the lack, arrogance attempts to cover.
Identifying "miracle" positively and qualified as "sacred" with "identical" in a scenario where "nothing happen[s]," betrays your worldview. In other words, you appear not to know your subject, nor your audience.
A "chuckle" you say?
is it any surprised that Anne Rice joined the religion where she gets to drink Jesus's blood?
Actually, no. The Catholic Church considered very early that the indians had souls, therefore they had to take care of them, no only physically, but spiritually, so they began teaching them the catholic faith. They indeed destroyed the indians, but their beliefs. It was MEN who destroyed them, literally. In south America there are still a lot of indians left, but in north America, they were extermined, and the english men weren't catholic. It was men, not faith who destroys.
@gamesbok Feel free to message me for a more in depth rebuttal.. Your statement is a just a little broad. But for Christianity a great number of inventions, social norms (In the West certainly) wouldnt have existed. "Dark" compared to what exactly? Ages previous to the Renaissance weren't exactly bastions of ideal living conditions for the majority of humanity. Improved somewhat as time went on, and look a ways to go, but to blame Christianity!? Silly...
@gamesbok "Try some logic" Ok. Gotcha, Ad hominem. Please note "decline" before "defeat" in the comment below, not unlike Gibbon himself you'll recall. Given the character limits, YT makes a poor theatre for a quid pro quo exchange of citation on the subject, right? And if that's debatable to you, sir, by all means, begin another thread arguing the merits of reducing the subject to a conversation where frivolity and not intellectual integrity should be the norm rather than the exception.
@NilDesperandum777 Christanity gave up the dark ages.
@NilDesperandum777 Except Rome wasn't defeated in 476. Justinian's changes to society were massive, and in particular his attack on intellectual life. Odoacer did nothing of the sort, but preserved life as he found it in the Western Empire. What he did do was move the Capital to Revenna, and piss off the pope.
If you're going to accept 476 then by the same logic you would also have to accept 410, a far more traumatic event.
I'm with Lord Norwich on this one. Try some logic.
i think i have a pretty clear idea how the mechanisms work.priest mumbles over bread and wine,nothing happens,believers declare that a miracle has taken place.should rational thought intrude,mumble nonsense about accidents and substance.
@gamesbok the claim to knowledge dishonestly shared.
Religion and God is not the same Jesus could not stand organized religion
+April Gosa Then why did he start one?
+Michael Steven Martin real christianity is about a relationship with Christ not a doctrine religion is a doctrine Jesus is interested a relationship and love with his children
@NilDesperandum777 The transparent absurdity of your claim that superstition somehow advances science is so obvious that comment is unnecessary.
The counter arguement, that faith inhibits science, is easily illustrated by Newton's failure to account for the formation of the solar systen, and Laplace's success.
There can be no bigger enemy of science than 'faith', the claim to knowledge dishonestly won.
@Nemo,
You have six steps in your explanation and subsequently, six errors.
Don't you think, that as a militant atheist, you could err on the side of arrogance that is also enhanced with correct information?
@gamesbok Well, consensus disagrees with your summation. But we'll take it that the "Dark Ages" began the fall of Science, and to it, The Church contributed to it's continued demise as your posit, correct? You have a number of outstanding claims to follow up on, sir. At some point youre confronted with Bury and Drake and at another down the same winding road of nonsense you're confronted with scientists, too many to name, who in one way shape or form, began inquiries because of Faith. Big "F"
@Dublin,
Islam and the human conditionf flew men into buildings, The Catholic Church and the faith of Christians in many many instances advanced science.
Truly, investigate the matter before repeating the unsubstantiated ramblings of certain editors and biologists pretending to be philosophers and theologians.
yes,rejoined would have been better wording sorry.
and "big load of nonsense,because it is still freaking wine and not blood"may have been more nuanced and less simplistic
@FutileGrief actually you don't know the first thing about South American history. The South American Indians were all but exterminated. Look it up!
Interesting stuff. I don't get Christianity at all. At best an awkward weird belief, at worst a mental illness. Why the need for imaginary Gods?