SloopJohn

come on QPR!

But not scientifically? I never said it was for better but you must admit that Christianity was one of the causes? It goes against all historical logic to deny it. Of course I've heard of all those people. In fact I mentioned Aristotle in last my post didn't I? It is worth mentioning though that nearly all the texts you cite were preserved by Islam and then by the Catholic Church and wouldn't exist if wasn't for these two particular religions. Well Galileo was interesting case: he was unfortunate enough to coincide within a time of great institutional crisis within the Catholic Church. His appeal to the Vatican that scripture not ought be interpreted literally would've been regarded as fair half a century before (as Augustine and Aquinas were both in favour of a multi-layered interpretation of the Bible) but in response to a growing Lutheran critique, the Catholic Church attempted to set it's stall out by attacking anyone who questioned their doctrine and one of the ways to solidify their message was to take a singular stance on Biblical interpretation. That being said Galileo, in the weeks leading up to his trial, still had strong support within the church, if I recall correctly, Campanella, an influential Dominican, wrote a letter to the Vatican in his defense whilst Foscarini, a Carmelite, supported Galileo in his refutation of a Copernican interpretation of the universe in relation to scripture. and of course, one of his best friends would go on to be Pope Urban VIII. Galileo wasn't exactly a saint either. He spent huge amounts of time belittling his colleagues in astronomy, such as Joseph Kepler and Horatio Grassi and refused to credit astronomers who had come to the same conclusions he had. Indeed the Catholic Church only forbid Galileo teaching Copernicanism initially because Galileo had no sole objective proof for its existence (you may find that ironic!). It is also worth noting that the Copernican model would go on to be proved only a hypothesis, and a defective one at that, and there was never enough sufficient evidence, mathematical or otherwise, to support its claims. Galileo was no doubt one of the most gifted astronomers of his age, if not the most gifted up to that point in human history, his actions were questionable...particular his relentless criticism of Urban VIII, a man who treated him with honor and ludicrous indulgence, and his propagation of a theory of the universe that at it's very core, was utterly flawed. That being said, what happened to Galileo was dreadful and in no way am I advocating his treatment but if you look through the history of the church throughout this period, it was more an exception than a general rule considering the extreme Ecclesiastical patronage that was available to scientists of the time and that most of these scientists were Jesuits. Christianity does not deny that everything is man made. However I see your point and its fair one, but I must admit to dismiss Pascal, Kant, Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky as pseudo intellectual bollocks doesn't exactly help your cause - these are all authors who can be found in any western canon.

But animals can and do act altruistically, at times, towards each other - I don't see how an understanding of it changes anything if the action itself is the same. What do you think of Dawkins' theories in The Selfish Gene? Of course Christianity didn't invent 'moral behaviour' in the sense that people should live by a set of rules...this is evident in all threads of society before the supposed death of Christ. But to say what we perceive as 'moral behaviour' nowadays existed, en masse, before the beginning of the Christian revolution is simply historically inaccurate. Christianity solidified and institutionilised nearly all the parameters of morality which exist today and whilst it is clear that society has shaken off the darker aspects of the culture that church brought to society (for instance no sex before marriage) it is also true that we have retained all the ideas which now suited and bettered society: orphanages, hospitals, the idea of social progress, the absolute virtue of being a human being, altruism as the most profound of all actions etc. I find your dichotomy between science and religion totally bizarre. What we mean today by 'science', that is, the study and analysis of the material world - its methods, principles, controls, its desire to unite theory to discovery, its trust in a unified set of physical laws - came into existence, for whatever reasons, and for better or for worse, only within Christendom, and under the watchful eyes of Christians. Copernicus, for instance, was matriculated at a number of Christian universities and was heir to a long tradition of scholastic mathematical and astronomy which stemmed from the 13th Century. This knowledge became the foundation of his refutation of the Aristotelian view of the cosmos and would have a profound effect on fellow Christians such as Kepler, Newton and Galileo. This is one example out of thousands. This is of course the same science, that as an offshoot, gave rise to better ways of being able to kill each other. There is a barbarity to all progress. I don't believe there is a God. I'm just not arrogant enough to presume that my position is totally right. A sane position is to constantly question ones own thoughts: to read things that are in opposition to your beliefs or ideas and constantly consider the firmness of the intellectual ground you are standing on. I've read Hitchens, Dennett, Gray, Nietzsche, Dawkins, Schopenhauer as well as Chesterton, Bentley Hart, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Pascal, Augustine, Solovyov in an attempt to get a rounded view, to see both sides equally and what is most apparent to me is that atheists (historical materialists, positivists, fundamental Darwinists etc.), even moreso than Christians, are never willing to challenge their assumptions outside of material fact but still end up recycling anti-theistic philosophical arguments that grew irrelevant in the mid-19th century, whilst at the same time, patronising those who oppose them - you're 'vengeful sky fairy' comment for example...or the Bill Maher film which chose not to engage with religion on any sane level.

Christianity's contribution to Western Society morally is huge; one has to remember that when Christianity came along it initially won plaudits for it's sobriety, peacefulness, generosity, care for the poor and sick and above all it's central creed that it was a religious obiligation to act charitably towards others - something that disgusted the Emperor Julian who wrote that "it is a disgrace that these impious Galileans care not only for their own poor for ours as well" - but today would the extolling of such virtues fundamentally shock the leaders of our society? I don't think so. Whether these values are Christianities or not is a historical one, but it is clear that today we can see these virtues underlining our healthcare system for example... The influence of Christianity on the west is undeniable but also not exclusively beneficial. Every advance in human rights in the last 500 years has been opposed by religious authorities at some point - including the abolition of slavery. To suggest the idea of charity and especially medicine is exclusively Christian is also an insult to all of the Eastern philosophies - for example the service ethos of Buddhism pisses all over Christian charity from that pov. Someone mentioned geographical accident earlier which rings true in your case - if you'd been born in the Middle East you'd extoll the virtues of Islam as a cultural influence on humanity (with a degree of truth) or further east another influence - of course various perspectives all have some truth but that's my point - the underlying core values and ethics of all of them are broadly similar because they are all based on evolved human empathy - central to that is the lack of need for a particular tribal deity. Every progression in human rights in the past 500 years has also been opposed by fairly elected democratic governments - governments who have also waged unjust wars, incinerated villages of non-combatants, tolerated corruption and inequality, lied to citizens, aided foreign despotic regimes or given power to evil men. Slavery may have been 'abolished' but as we speak, the West sits idly back and watches the slave trade grow to a size that dwarfs (estimated between 20 and 27 million people), in terms of numbers, any other period in human history. However this does not mean democratic governments are a bad thing, its just that they can be easily abused and twisted to justify anything... I guess what I'm saying is that religion and irreligion are cultural variables but evil is a human constant I'm not saying that charity is exclusively Christian but there is a reason why charity and compassion, which are the central virtues of Christianity, are still seen as intrinsic to the functioning of a successful society and it's mainly because of Constantine's conversion.. You see NJS, for me the flaw in argument is that humans will be naturally empathetic towards each other if there was no concept of God in society but there is little evidence to suggest this. Humans will always kill each other for no reason other than propagating their own agendas or the agendas of their kin. To say that all underlying values and ethics are similar in the world is simply not true and if they are its only favour of human 'goodness', but if humans, as Darwin suggested, are simply another part of the animal world, why should ethics only apply to our own race and not the brutal laws of the animal kingdom? What makes us different? There is no reason why we should take precedence other than the own selfish instincts of our race... Also am I right in assuming that you believe in 'memes'...as you're constantly talking about how human empathy evolves?

Thems some shiny bastards! He probably fashioned them from the hide of the last dragon he vanquished. never thought Tiote would be much of a Vivienne Westwood fan

tbf to MON he's a lovely bloke away from the game...met him a few times and got nothing to say bad about him as a manager, well, he's done pretty good jobs you can't begrudge him that Really? I wouldn't say he did well at Villa & neither would a Villa fan, for the money he spent he got little real return and he left them with a lot of debt. Scotland is Scotland but I suppose I can doff my cap to his job at Leicester, Didn't spent crazy money at Villa from what I can remember? Ashley Young was a fantastic signing, so was Milner.. I don't think he spent anything like what Liverpool have and they were 5th for two consecutive seasons if I remember correctly...

Christianity's contribution to Western Society morally is huge; one has to remember that when Christianity came along it initially won plaudits for it's sobriety, peacefulness, generosity, care for the poor and sick and above all it's central creed that it was a religious obiligation to act charitably towards others - something that disgusted the Emperor Julian who wrote that "it is a disgrace that these impious Galileans care not only for their own poor for ours as well" - but today would the extolling of such virtues fundamentally shock the leaders of our society? I don't think so. Whether these values are Christianities or not is a historical one, but it is clear that today we can see these virtues underlining our healthcare system for example...

What do you think The church would have done in the middle ages with gas chambers or A bombs? The 20th century also saw massive advances against disease, hunger and poverty, of course they all still exist but to try and say it was dark age is ludicrous. Also note the widespread advance of human rights, and the increase of tolerance for homosexuality in a lot of the world as a huge step forward. Which God? As I alluded to there is a broad commonalitty of morality with all human communities. Of course there are aberattions but in general we do have an instinctive "feel" for right and wrong across a large span of ethics. Sociaties which never did know of an Abrahamic God all managed to come up with the same ideas - coincidence or evolved empathy based morality? To your first point I don't know what the church would've done but I must say, it's impossible to speculate on such matters. What is certain though, is what progressive, Western societies supported and turned a blind eye too in the 20th Century as to adhere to a culture of progress. To paraphrase Benjamin, every work of culture is also a work of barbarism and for all the progress we made in human rights, disease etc - others clearly suffered for it - whether for right or wrong is another matter On the matter of a 'commonality of morality' within all human communities - there is little evidence to support this - yes the Romans thought murder was bad but they were a-ok with mass pedastry, no human rights for the sickly, the poor or slaves and gladiator fights. For every society that had a system of morality similar to our own there is a society that spits in the face of modern moral standards - we all witnessed how a 1930s German society quickly became content with genocide as to support the status quo - just as as post-Constantine Roman Empire quickly adapted to Christian moral standards. I'm wondering NJS, if you think that all societies that progress will arrive at the same moral conclusion, answer this for me. If Hitler conquered the entire world, 100 years later, would the people of this earth still think that Jews were evil and should be exterminated on mass?

tbf to MON he's a lovely bloke away from the game...met him a few times and got nothing to say bad about him as a manager, well, he's done pretty good jobs you can't begrudge him that

If there ever was a dark age in human history, its the 20th Century NJS do you believe objective morality exists without God?

Its secular because it's a view that comes from atheistic philosophers - Gray, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Dawkins - all believe or believed - free will is an illusion

It's secular philosophy dude

I'm arguing that free will wasn't even an idea back then, because it made no sense logically in their view of the world I'm also arguing that outside a Monotheistic view of the world free will doesn't exist - it's inherently as false a belief as the idea that Christ died for our sins

Pagan culture didn't view humans as having a choice - individuals were simply puppets of the gods, slaves to a pre-determined fate, hence the emphasis on tragedy in Greek and Roman literature

You never replied to my post in the other topic about religion If religion puts people in 'cages' then what does determinism do? I'm sorry Sloop I forgot all about that. Would you expand your question please...as I assume you have a view on what determinism does? well the entire concept of free will and choice in the West originates from the Abrahamic religions and thus so does it's logic: God created man - man is given the choice on whether to be good or evil - man goes to heaven or hell based on his choices. Take our the idea of God and logically you're left without a way to explain free will - and life is reduced down to an endless repetition of cause and effect where choice is rendered obselete

You never replied to my post in the other topic about religion If religion puts people in 'cages' then what does determinism do?

also we live in a post-Christian society which basically still borrows everything our religious past (minus God) so that's probably another reason for the rhetoric

death is really the only certainty in a human life nowadays (you're not even guaranteed to be born) so it makes sense that people will look beyond themselves in an attempt to avert the inevitable

I thought we lacked a lot of balance in midfield There was no option on the left so we kept running into dead ends...really Gutierrez should have played left wing and Perch left back but that being said, Perch was excellent in midfield and broke up play very well onwards and upwards

In the chaos of yesterday everyone missed the fact that Fat Sam has managed to let West Ham slip out of the automatic promotion places would make my year if they didn't get promoted...their team is ridiculously good on paper

Just wondering because I grew up round there...lovely area bar the Saffa / Aussie scumbags down O Neils on a Saturday night

where do you live in Clapham Fish?

Yeah walking to work is a fucking blessing in London because travel is FUCKING EXPENSIVE I agree on Stoke Newington, nice area and easy to get to Whitechapel on bus...

a walking football league