Talk:Criticism of Christianity/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Denominations

Removed this: For example, following the death of the Catholic Pope John XXIII in 1963, the Protestant Reverend Ian Paisley denounced the dead Pope, saying "This Romish man of sin is now in Hell!". There are about one thousand different Christian faith groups in North America who believe themselves to be the only true denomination[1]. There are many other denominations who believe that all other denominations are going to Hell.

The quote attributed to Ian Paisley is uncited and thus impossible to verify. Given the nature of the quote, and Wikipedia's recent embarassment, it had better be left out unless it can be verified by the general public. The linked article about the denominations in North America actually says, "Some of the approximately 1,000 Christian faith groups in the U.S. and Canada believe themselves to be the only true Christian denomination." Thus, there are a total of 1,000 Christian faith groups in the U.S. and Canada (not North America, as the quote omits Mexico), only "some" of which believe they are the only true Christian denomination. From what I read, it did not assign a number to "some." finally, there appears to be no support for the claim that "there are many other denominations who believe that all other denominations are going to Hell." Would these many other denominations be those who do not believe they are they only true denomination, but still think that all others are going to Hell? Not only is it uncited, it makes no sense. Wesley 05:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea if its genuine, but it is certainly very plausible. Ian Paisley does hold views like that and has certainly been quoted in news clips, interviews, etc. expressing vehemently "the pope is the antichrist" views, even showing no respect for illness, or injury etc.. Clinkophonist 12:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Then quote a specific news clip or interview that can be verified. Otherwise we run the risk of libelling him and further undermining Wikipedia's credibility. And in case you wondered, I'm not at all sympathetic to the notion that the Pope is the antichrist, although I'm not Roman Catholic. Wesley 19:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Albigensian crusade a genocide?

I'm not that familiar with either the Albigensian crusade or with genocide, but based on the material in Albigensian crusade and genocide, this particular crusade does not appear to be an instance of genocide. Its goals appeared to be the conversion of Cathars to mainstream Catholocism, with the thinly veiled goal of giving away land in the south of France to nobles from the north of France who would help the Church accomplish this. The methods used were very harsh, but I don't think they ever intended to kill every last Cathar, but rather to kill or torture enough to frighten the remaining ones to convert or repent. Land would have been quite a bit less valuable to the conquerors if there were no peasants left to work it, would it not? Naturally, there's also the question of who it is that considers this crusade a genocide. A citation would be best, but at least naming a general group would be better than the passive voice "widely believed to be..." Wesley 06:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Since no support or citation has been offered for this in over three weeks, I removed the bit about it being genocide. Wesley 21:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

moved here from article

Criticisms Regarding Christianity and Education

A number of other critics fault Christianity for influencing education not only in the Creation-evolution controversy but in other areas such as sex education. Many argue that because some Christians insist on Abstinence only education and have used their political clout to push this on the education system, a number of teens are now woefully ignorant of sexual issues.

I moved this section here for two reasons:

  • It's completely uncited, relying on passive voice weasel words, and thus is likely the editor's personal opinion;
  • It's also talking about criticism of some very specific U.S. political controversies, and is not even discussing a criticism of Christianity in general.

Wesley 21:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Selective Interpretation

I have turned the "Christianity and Biblical adherence" article into a redirect and rewriten the section on this page. As far as Levitical rules go, simple ignorance does not need several paragraphs in two articles to expound itself.

There's still a lot of stuff than can go in this section. The accusation is very frequently used by Christians in theological debates, for example. A.J.A. 06:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this article intended to encompass criticisms and disputes among Christians, or criticisms of Christians by non-Christians? I would have assumed the latter, if only to limit the scope of this article. Wesley 05:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Maybe a Jewish form of the criticism would be the way to go. Their criticism is more often a knowledgeable one, hence worthy of more attention. A.J.A. 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

G.W.B's Christianity

I noticed there was disagreement and reverts being made about inclusion of that link on Bush's Christianity, but I did not see any talk here about it. I'm not sure I agree with those who are taking it out saying it’s not relevant. It seems relevant at least because one point in the article is specifically concerning this point: British columnist George Monbiot has also argued that Christian fundamentalists are driving the United States's current foreign policy, to the detriment of all concerned[2]. Also, the fact that Bush heavily uses Christian beliefs in his platform for getting elected, applied it to his policy decisions (sex education), was voted into office by mobilizing the right-wing Christian vote, is all pertinent facts regarding criticism of Christianity: namely that Christian beliefs, in this case, played a deciding role in giving the us G.W.B.Giovanni33 14:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In the cline from relevant to irrelevant, there are many stages. It's not as irrelevant to critcism of Christianity as a link to an article about boolean algebra or about contact lenses would be. But looking at the article, I don't feel it's relevant enough. It's a criticism of Bush, and yes, it does deal with his Christianity. But it's not really an article about criticism of Christianity. If it were normal on Wikipedia to add dozens of links that had any kind of relevance to the subject, then I think it could be justified, but I don't think the subject of that external webpage is central to this article. Also, it requires registration, although it didn't seem to last night. AnnH (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
At this moment, the site is down, so I'm going to have to wait until it's fixed before I can point out the parts that make it relevant. Alienus 19:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Alienus, you've violated 3RR by re-inserting the link at 23:40 yesterday, and at 17:32, 18:42, and 19:16 today. Remember that partial reverts also count. I've made my arguments and you haven't responded to them. Yet you say in your edit summary The relevance of this link has been explained. Take it to Talk if you have a complaint. Strange. I did take it to talk. AnnH (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, be careful about the reverts because Ann does report to get you blocked. I know because I was. I'll have to read the whole article on Bush and his Christianity myself to see how relevant it is. 64.121.40.153 20:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
No, Giovanni, as you know, I do not have a habit of reporting to get people blocked. If I had, I would have reported you on your first violation, instead of warning you again and again. It was only after you had done eleven reverts, and six, and five, and four, (all within twenty-four-hour periods,) and that you showed absolutely no intention of respecting the rule that I reported you. You are the only person that I have ever reported, and I have seen many violations of the 3RR rule from my "opponents" in articles. The difference is that they stopped after four or five, so I didn't want to be petty and try to get them blocked just so that I could have the article to myself. (My upbringing had some British influences, and you know, that "wouldn't be playing the game, old chap!") In fact, the reason that I warned Alienus here was because I did not intend to report him. And as a matter of fact, as far as I know, Str1977 has never reported a 3RR violation either, and the only time that I have ever known KHM03 to do it was when someone continued after repeated warnings. And even in that case, KHM03 specifically requested that the person be given a warning from an admin rather than a block. If you have any concerns about my lack of generosity in not waiting until you have twelve reverts, please bring them to my talk page rather than here. Thanks. AnnH (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent)

Uhm, did you just threaten me with a 3RR violation report right after I said I can't get the cited page to load so I'm giving up on this for now? If so, what exactly was your point?

For that matter, when did we all stop being editors and become lawyers? I must not have received that memo. If I had, I could have coordinated with Gio to alternate reverts so that neither of us would technically be in violation.

This legalism is silly. Let's go back to the whole point of this discussion, which is to figure out how to make this article suck less. If you do want to threaten, I'll have my lawyer contact your lawyer, and they can bill us both for their three-martini lunch together. Alienus 23:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Alienus. I don't understand how you can use the word "threaten" after reading my post in which I said that I did not intend to report your fourth revert. You said that you were not going to be able to point out the relevant parts until you got the page to load. You said nothing about giving up on reverting, so I wanted to ensure that you would know not to make a fifth revert. That was my point. I see nothing legalistic in warning people that they're violating a rule and risking a block. And since I could have reported you and didn't, don't you think the hostility in your tone is a little inappropriate? One final point — Giovanni is not in a position to alternate reverts with anyone. After his recent block for massive violations, he could be blocked again if he reverted, say, three times in a twenty-four hour period. Not by me, I hasten to add, but there is a precedent here for blocking previously-blocked 3RR violaters for "gaming the system", even if they stay "technically" within the rules. I've seen it happen on a few occasions. I don't want it to happen here. AnnH (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
If I can't read the citation, then I can't argue for its inclusion, so how could I possibly justify restoring a link to it in the article? I thought it clearly followed that I wasn't going to make any changes with regard to that link, which is why I was surprised that you started bringing up revert counts and rules and punishments. Pointing out your ability to get me blocked is itself a threat, even when it's linked to a statement about choosing not to use that ability. Compare it to "I could have blown your head off with this gun, but I'm just going to put it away for now".
As I see it, the bottom line is to do the right thing. If it means a fourth or even fifth revert, so bet it. It might annoy the lawyers, but it would still be what the article needed in order to improve. Rather than worrying about possibly breaking rules whose stated purpose is to help us make the article better, let's focus on making the article better. Otherwise, we'll be following the rules but thwarting their goal. For this reason, I'm utterly uninterested in gaming the system or otherwise trying to fool the admins. The worst that could happen to me is that I wind up prevented from freely giving my time and effort to improve this article. And whose loss would that be?
Now, back to the point, it looks like that G.W.B. site is now enforcing registration, which makes it unsuitable for linking to. (Note that this means that I am not going to be linking the article to it. Clear enough?)
Perhaps someone could dig up a good replacement that clearly focuses on the role of Christianity in the modern justification of wars and torture, and then we could talk about whether it fits. Until then, there's nothing of substance for us to consider, unless there's some other rule I violated just now. Alienus 07:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

expansion of sections, new material

Ok, I've significantly expanded several sections, and make language changes, all in an attempt to improve this article. I've removed what I thought was POV language, too, where it could be corrected. In all I think this article is much better now. I hope my contributions are looked on favorably I notice there is a warning tag for both inaccuracy and POV. I would like to know the specifics for claims of inaccuracy, first. It should be easier to determine questions of fact and get rid of anything that can be proven to be a false statement of fact. Lets see if we can get consensus and make this article a featured one without the POV/Accuracies tags. Giovanni33 15:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Post-Giovanni33 Copyedit

I went through and cleaned it up a bit. For the most part, I fixed language. In a few places, I tried to clean up any POV that snuck in. For example, like Aaron McDaid, I also noticed some problems with that last section. However, I've tried to salvage it instead of throwing it out. Perhaps people could contribute to it, so as to further balance the article. I'd also like to stick the GWB link back in, because I can see a strong case for it based on what Gio said above; the impact of Christianity upon foreign policiy was specifically mentioned in the article. Anyhow, the question that remains is whether there is any further need for the "neutrality and factual accuracy" disclaimer. Unless someone is still complaining, I suggest we remove it. Alienus 17:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This is also POV from the article: "All of the above objections are socio-historical."
What does it mean to say an objection is "socio-historical"? It's not correct to say that the every critic makes no attempt to use, for example, reason. I don't think it's possible to improve it with a "Some would say ...". How about simply saying that some people disagree with the criticisms? Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 17:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I second the notion that the last section "objections are social-historical, and the talk about language and Shakespear" should be thrown out, unless someone can make a good case why its needed in this article.Giovanni33 17:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I tried to salvage it, but it sounds like I failed. I won't complain if you kill it. Alienus 18:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Lets leave it to get a consensus first from other editors before taking it down. I don't like to revert anyone's work without hearing their argument(s) first, and coming to agreement. So, if anyone objects and thinks this section is needed here, or finds a way to make it work, then please make the case, or add to it, etc. If no one responds after some time (couple weeks?), then I'd say its ok go take it off. Giovanni33 18:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I acted without waiting for your response. At this point, if someone wants to recreate it in a more NPOV manner, they're encouraged to make the attempt. Alienus 19:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I only just saw this discussion. I've been responsible for the points under discussion, and I suppose I should offer some explanations. Regarding the "socio-historical/personal," the point is that the value of Christianity to any individual is "personal," while the problems related to Christianity necessarily involve political and social entities like "the church" or "the Spanish Inquisition" or even "Christians," as a collective. The second point about the language of the Bible is that, after getting translated from the Hebrew to Greek to Latin to Stuart English, it is entirely possible that things get lost in translation. Even if all the translations are entirely consistent with each other - and it would take a Biblical scholar to say - there remains the literary aspect of language. "Poetry is what is lost in translation," said whoever. I chose the Shakespeare example because firstly I figured that would be familiar to many people, and secondly, it is not controversial. Cheers. --Quadalpha 23:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

(indent reset)

The article is about criticism of Christianity, so the "Responses to criticism" section should address the criticism. What you wrote about translation issues, which debatable and in need of citation, is the right sort of thing. However, the section on Christianity being personal, hence immune to criticism on any objective basis, doesn't fit very well, particularly without citations. That's why I removed it. At this point, I recommend repairing or removing it. Alienus 23:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain why it might not fit, and perhaps suggest a direction for repair? --Quadalpha 00:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys, I've just rather hastily reverted Quadalpha's comment. In hindsight I must admit it was quite good. It's only the 'socio-historical' sentence that I object to now. I can't find any definition of 'socio-historical', but I'm guessing it's an implication that people reasons aren't 'logical' or 'rational'. I'll put it back in again. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Socio-historical just means "related to society and history." Put rather crudely, Christianity would like its follows to be Christians because they believe in the truth of the Bible, etc., so from that perspective - that the Bible is true, etc. - criticism of Christianity based on social or historical aspects is like not buying a car because it didn't sing songs; it would not be a relevant point from that perspective. I am assuming here, of course, that Christianity does not aim to have followers who only follow because Christianity has a nice reputation. --Quadalpha 03:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but wasn't there a section about theism? I would think that this directly relates to Christianity being true, as opposed to any social or historical asides. Alienus 04:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, what was the bit about theism? Also, I can live with the current edit, though there really isn't a non-socio-historical argument there. --Quadalpha 06:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent)

Check out the section marked "Criticisms regarding Christianity and reason", which refers to "Existence of God" as the main article. It doesn't really talk about society or history, but whether there's a rational basis for Christian belief. That's why I slightly diluted your "all". Do you think I was mistaken to do so? Alienus 07:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think if we got into a debate about the social construction (if there is any) of rationality or started comparing philosophy and religion, we'd be here for a pretty long time. I don't suppose there is much "right" or "wrong" in the matter, and I'm fine with the current compromise. --Quadalpha 08:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and here's a more general and succinct and wiki-fied version of the "social/personal/truth" thing: Christians are not always a fair representation of Christianity. :) --Quadalpha 08:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Since we're agreed on the matter, I'll avoid commenting on the other issues you've brought up. Alienus 08:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I might suggest (half-seriously?) that the page be renamed "Criticism of Christians"? --Quadalpha 08:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

White paragraph

I move the following paragraph over here, as there are serious issues about NPOV and accuracy.

"Some of the bloodiest battles, White believed, had been fought during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, during what is often described as the Scientific Revolution. During this time, powerful church leaders repeatedly tried to silence the pioneers of modern science. Examples include Nicolaus Copernicus, who located the sun at the center of the planetary system, and risked his very life to publish his heretical views, escaping "persecution only by death". Many of his disciples met a less happy fate: Giordano Bruno, his tongue in a gag, was hung upside-down naked on a pubic stake and "burned alive as a monster of impiety; Galileo, tortured and humiliated as the worst of unbelievers; Kepler hunted alike by Protestants and Catholics." Andreas Vesalius, the sixteenth-century physician who laid the foundations of modern anatomy by insisting on careful first-hand dissection of the human body, paid for his temerity by being "hunted to death". While White's scholarly work throughly documented how Christian doctrine was enforced with torture, murder, deprivation of freedom, and censorship, was published more than a century ago, it has remained the mainstream view among the historians of science today."

Just quickly:

  • Copernicus did not risk his life, had no conflict with clerics, and "heretical" is POV in this instance
  • Bruno was no disciple of Copernicus and the details would be should "shock tactics" elsewhere
  • Gallileo was not tortured, humiliated is a bit fuzzy

More when I get back. Str1977 19:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


The entire of White's work, I actually found online. See: [3] I corrected the passage for accuracy. White says that his treatment and threats were equivalent to torture. I changed it to under threat of torture to be more precise.

About Bruno, you misunderstand the use of the word, disciple. Not of Copernicus the man, but of his ideas. In anycase, I changed the wording to refect that. And Copernicus himself most certainly did risk his life in publishing his theories because even though these theories were declared as "heretical," yet, they were soon after. If you go into the section of the book where he talks about Copernicus directly, you see how he feared for life and took measures by to hide the realiy of the theories as just "immagination," among other tactics. Still the risk was real and the fear warrented. If he had lived, there is all indication that he would have been subjected to the same treatment anyone would have been for such "heresies." He indeed did escape it with his death. The section about Galileo from White is below. But, its an excellent book and I recomment reading it in its entirety:

"The world knows now that Galileo was subjected certainly to indignity, to imprisonment, and to threats equivalent to torture, and was at last forced to pronounce publicly and on his knees his recantation, as follows:

``I, Galileo, being in my seventieth year, being a prisoner and on my knees, and before your Eminences, having before my eyes the Holy Gospel, which I touch with my hands, abjure, curse, and detest the error and the heresy of the movement of the earth. He was vanquished indeed, for he had been forced, in the face of all coming ages, to perjure himself. To complete his dishonour, he was obliged to swear that he would denounce to the Inquisition any other man of science whom he should discover to be supporting the ``heresy of the motion of the earth.

Many have wondered at this abjuration, and on account of it have denied to Galileo the title of martyr. But let such gainsayers consider the circumstances. Here was an old man - one who had reached the allotted threescore years and ten - broken with disappointments, worn out with labours and cares, dragged from Florence to Rome, with the threat from the Pope himself that if he delayed he should be ``brought in chains; sick in body and mind, given over to his oppressors by the Grand-Duke who ought to have protected him, and on his arrival in Rome threatened with torture. What the Inquisition was he knew well. He could remember as but of yesterday the burning of Giordano Bruno in that same city for scientific and philosophic heresy; he could remember, too, that only eight years before this very time De Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro, having been seized by the Inquisition for scientific and other heresies, had died in a dungeon, and that his body and his writings had been publicly burned.

To the end of his life - nay, after his life was ended - the persecution of Galileo was continued. He was kept in exile from his family, from his friends, from his noble employments, and was held rigidly to his promise not to speak of his theory. When, in the midst of intense bodily sufferings from disease, and mental sufferings from calamities in his family, he besought some little liberty, he was met with threats of committal to a dungeon. When, at last, a special commission had reported to the ecclesiastical authorities that he had become blind and wasted with disease and sorrow, he was allowed a little more liberty, but that little was hampered by close surveillance. He was forced to bear contemptible attacks on himself and on his works in silence; to see the men who had befriended him severely punished; Father Castelli banished; Ricciardi, the Master of the Sacred Palace, and Ciampoli, the papal secretary, thrown out of their positions by Pope Urban, and the Inquisitor at Florence reprimanded for having given permission to print Galileo's work. He lived to see the truths he had established carefully weeded out from all the Church colleges and universities in Europe; and, when in a scientific work he happened to be spoken of as ``renowned, the Inquisition ordered the substitution of the word ``notorious.

And now measures were taken to complete the destruction of the Copernican theory, with Galileo's proofs of it. On the 16th of June, 1633, the Holy Congregation, with the permission of the reigning Pope, ordered the sentence upon Galileo, and his recantation, to be sent to all the papal nuncios throughout Europe, as well as to all archbishops, bishops, and inquisitors in Italy and this document gave orders that the sentence and abjuration be made known ``to your vicars, that you and all professors of philosophy and mathematics may have knowledge of it, that they may know why we proceeded against the said Galileo, and recognise the gravity of his error, in order that they may avoid it, and thus not incur the penalties which they would have to suffer in case they fell into the same.

As a consequence, the processors of mathematics and astronomy in various universities of Europe were assembled and these documents were read to them. To the theological authorities this gave great satisfaction. The Rector of the University of Douay, referring to the opinion of Galileo, wrote to the papal nuncio at Brussels: ``The professors of our university are so opposed to this fanatical opinion that they have always held that it must be banished from the schools. In our English college at Douay this paradox has never been approved and never will be.

Still another step was taken: the Inquisitors were ordered, especially in Italy, not to permit the publication of a new edition of any of Galileo's works, or of any similar writings. On the other hand, theologians were urged, now that Copernicus and Galileo and Kepler were silenced, to reply to them with tongue and pen. Europe was flooded with these theological refutations of the Copernican system.

To make all complete, there was prefixed to the Index of the Church, forbidding ``all writings which affirm the motion of the earth, a bull signed by the reigning Pope, which, by virtue of his infallibility as a divinely guided teacher in matters of faith and morals, clinched this condemnation into the consciences of the whole Christian world.

From the mass of books which appeared under the auspices of the Church immediately after the condemnation of Galileo, for the purpose of rooting out every vestige of the hated Copernican theory from the mind of the world, two may be taken as typical. The first of these was a work by Scipio Chiaramonti, dedicated to Cardinal Barberini. Among his arguments against the double motion of the earth may be cited the following:

``Animals, which move, have limbs and muscles; the earth has no limbs or muscles, therefore it does not move. It is angels who make Saturn, Jupiter, the sun, etc., turn round. If the earth revolves, it must also have an angel in the centre to set it in motion; but only devils live there; it would therefore be a devil who would impart motion to the earth.... ``The planets, the sun, the fixed stars, all belong to one species - namely, that of stars. It seems, therefore, to be a grievous wrong to place the earth, which is a sink of impurity, among these heavenly bodies, which are pure and divine things.

The next, which I select from the mass of similar works, is the Anticopernicus Catholicus of Polacco. It was intended to deal a finishing stroke at Galileo's heresy. In this it is declared:

``The Scripture always represents the earth as at rest, and the sun and moon as in motion; or, if these latter bodies are ever represented as at rest, Scripture represents this as the result of a great miracle.... ``These writings must be prohibited, because they teach certain principles about the position and motion of the terrestrial globe repugnant to Holy Scripture and to the Catholic interpretation of it, not as hypotheses but as established facts....

Speaking of Galileo's book, Polacco says that it ``smacked of Copernicanism, and that, ``when this was shown to the Inquisition, Galileo was thrown into prison and was compelled to utterly abjure the baseness of this erroneous dogma.

As to the authority of the cardinals in their decree, Polacco asserts that, since they are the ``Pope's Council and his ``brothers, their work is one, except that the Pope is favoured with special divine enlightenment.

Having shown that the authority of the Scriptures, of popes, and of cardinals is against the new astronomy, he gives a refutation based on physics. He asks: ``If we concede the motion of the earth, why is it that an arrow shot into the air falls back to the same spot, while the earth and all things on it have in the meantime moved very rapidly toward the east? Who does not see that great confusion would result from this motion?

Next he argues from metaphysics, as follows: ``The Copernican theory of the earth's motion is against the nature of the earth itself, because the earth is not only cold but contains in itself the principle of cold; but cold is opposed to motion, and even destroys it - as is evident in animals, which become motionless when they become cold.

Finally, he clinches all with a piece of theological reasoning, as follows: ``Since it can certainly be gathered from Scripture that the heavens move above the earth, and since a circular motion requires something immovable around which to move,... the earth is at the centre of the universe.

But any sketch of the warfare between theology and science in this field would be incomplete without some reference to the treatment of Galileo after his death. He had begged to be buried in his family tomb in Santa Croce; this request was denied. His friends wished to erect a monument over him; this, too, was refused. Pope Urban said to the ambassador Niccolini that ``it would be an evil example for the world if such honours were rendered to a man who had been brought before the Roman Inquisition for an opinion so false and erroneous; who had communicated it to many others, and who had given so great a scandal to Christendom. In accordance, therefore, with the wish of the Pope and the orders of the Inquisition, Galileo was buried ignobly, apart from his family, without fitting ceremony, without monument, without epitaph. Not until forty years after did Pierrozzi dare write an inscription to be placed above his bones; not until a hundred years after did Nelli dare transfer his remains to a suitable position in Santa Croce, and erect a monument above them. Even then the old conscientious hostility burst forth: the Inquisition was besought to prevent such honours to ``a man condemned for notorious errors; and that tribunal refused to allow any epitaph to be placed above him which had not been submitted to its censorship." 64.121.40.153 20:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Giovanni. When someone moves a disputed passage to the talk page it's considered rather poor form to revert the move fifteen minutes later. There are lots of things to talk about concerning the amount of change in the article today (though of course, you've also added some useful information), but one passage in particular was found sufficiently problematical to be moved here. Putting it straight back with a few very minor changes shows a lack of respect. From the wording the Str1977 used, it seemed that he found serious problems, but was in a hurry and just outlined a few. I'm not a historian, but it is my understanding that history books written over a hundred years ago are often considered to be inaccurate, flawed, and biased in many ways, though valuable in other ways. Of course, they can be quoted, but just quoting White, without giving any indication that his work is disputed, doesn't help the NPOV-ness of this article. Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, says:
The pope [Urban VII] gave Galileo permission to write a book about theories of the universe but warned him to treat the Copernican theory only hypothetically. . . . The commission found that Galileo had not really treated the Copernican theory hypothetically and recommended that a case be brought against him. . . . It should be noted that Galileo was never in a dungeon or tortured; during the Inquisition process he stayed mostly at the house of the Tuscan ambassador to the Vatican and for a short time in a comfortable apartment in the Inquisition building. . . . After the process he spent six months at the palace of Ascanio Piccolomini (c. 1590–1671), the archbishop of Siena and a friend and patron, and then moved into a villa near Arcetri, in the hills above Florence. He spent the rest of his life there.
There are also various responses made by Catholic writers (I don't claim they're historians) to the general accusation that the Church tortured Galileo. See, for example, Johnston, Conway, Madrid, and the Catholic Encyclopaedia.
I'm sure the ordinary man in the street believes that Marie Antoinette said, "Let them eat cake." But it would be wrong for a Wikipedia article just to quote a nineteenth-century historian who said that she said that, and not give any indication that reputable historians dispute it. I see no harm in having a short quotation from White, balanced by something that shows the other side. What you're trying to do is let White dominate that section with his inaccuracies and misleading words.
Please, Giovanni, if something is disputed, don't be so eager to re-insert it. Be patient. Wait. See if your fellow editors are comfortable with a proposed solution. Give Str1977 a chance to comment on your reply here. I have seen him and KHM03 reaching compromise, civilly, with other editors on numerous occasions, when the other editors left things for discussion on the talk page without this constant "I've-changed-three-words-and-I've-waited-thirteen-minutes" reverts. AnnH (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I did not re-insert it--I changed it to address the points in disput, which were easy to fix and did not justify removing the entire section. I think that editors should not revert others work without reaching consensus on the talk page. Adding, editing, is fine, but not undoing others work, and esp. not after it points of contention have been addressed. Giovanni33 21:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, its not true that there is a general accusation that the Church tortured Galileo. The claim is that he was under the threat of tourture. I note that White says that what they put him through was the equivalent of tourture. I bypassed the point by simply stating he was under the threat of tourture, instead of tortured. I don't think anyone, Catholic writer or otherwise, that disputes this claim. Giovanni33 22:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to address your other point, regaring White's work being dated and therefore not as valid, I'd say is refuted by the fact that the intellectual historian Bruce Mazlish certified White's thesis to have been established "beyond reasonable doubt," and the late George Sarton, a distinguished historian of science at Harvard found White's argument so compelling that he urged its extension to non-Christian cultures. See Mazlish, Preface, P. is; George Sarton, "Introductory Essay," in Science, Religion and Reality, ed. Joseph Needham (New York, 1955), p. 14. Giovanni33 22:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hallo, let me resume my critique of the passge:

Ann has suggested that this is all a quote from White or at least giving his content. In that case, the exaggerations and iaccuracies are comprehensible, but they then need to be marked as such - we would need much more "according to White", as right now it isn't clear that this is all White.

Nonetheless, it is not NPOV and not balance to simply give a rendition of a book's over the top wordings, especially if not much of this is factual.

As for these points of fact (all addressing historical reality - White very well might haven written what you said he did, as I question not your honesty but White's validity):

  • Bruno was no disciple of Copernicus or his ideas in any way and in fact doesn't belong among pioneers of modern science.
  • Copernicus did not escape persecution by his death. He didn't publish his book for a long time because he was afraid of being ridiculed by his fellow academics. He published it after his confessor insisted on him sharing his thoughts with the public. And Copernicus was ridiculed, and condemned by a certain cleric (his name was Martin Luther) but somehow he was not touched in the least by the Church. You say he was soon condemned - that's incorrect. His book was put on the index in the context of the Gallileo case, some decades after his death.
  • Gallileo wasn't tortured during his trial - he was shown the instruments, which was a formal part of any inquisition trial. Whether that is equivalent to torture I leave to the reader to decide. But no one involved in the trial wanted to torture G. and in fact the prosecution took care to indict him on disobedience (by having published his theory about heliocentrism as established fact) and not actually because of heresy. - Someone wrote before, that years earlier G. had been ordered not to treat his theory as established fact, but he did so nonetheless. At this trial, this order was provided in written form. Historians are not decided on whether G. was really ordered that way years earlier or whether the note was only produced during the trial (hence forged), with the intention of moving the charges from heresy to disobendience.
  • After abjuring, G. was put under house arrest in Florence - hardly a life of persecution.
  • Any remarks about his theory being weeded out from universities forgets that G's theory wasn't that widely accepted. In fact, it was G's fellow academics that refused to even look through G's telescope. During that time it was Roman cardinals that were G's sponsors and especially one cardinal that came to be Urban VIII.
  • The Gallileo trial is not a nice event - it was a conflict of egos (both G. and Urban), of issues of scientific methodology (in which G. is clearly the culprit), of anxiety about Biblical interpretation in the age of the Reformation, of transition of Aristolism to what eventually became modern science - but it wasn't the carricature that "Black-and-"White paints.
  • That White brings "papal infallibility" into play, is also a blunder on his part. Only "ex cathedra" defintions are considered infallible - this was a verdict given by a ecclesistical court.
  • Is there any evidence of Kepler being hounded - I though he spent many years at the Emperor's court, quite unharrased.

Setting aside these issues, where is there any evidence for the following passage:

"While White's scholarly work throughly documented how Christian doctrine was enforced with torture, murder, deprivation of freedom, and censorship, was published more than a century ago, it has remained the mainstream view among the historians of science today."

It certainly is not the mainstream view among historians today, from all I read. Str1977 22:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Some references:

  • Gerhard Prause: Niemand hat Kolumbus ausgelacht. Fälschungen u. Legenden d. Geschichte richtiggestellt. Düsseldorf u.a.. 1988.
  • Thomas Schirrmacher, "Und sie bewegt sich doch!" & andere Galilei-Legenden, Professorenforum-Journal 2000, Vol. 1, No. 1 3.
  • Thomas Schirrmacher, The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 14.1 (2000) 91-100

Again, anything that is White's POV must be marked as such in the text, or if factually inaccurate (and that's basically all), deleted. That's a minimum - the section still doesn't need to be White rolled out all over the place. Or is he the only thing the section is based on? Str1977 22:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, you say in your edit summary that the points have been addressed. I acknowledge that you are conscientious about giving an explanation for your edits. The problem is that you don't wait to see if anyone agrees with you. I don't agree with that paragraph as it stands. The whole paragraph ("Some of the bloodiest" to "historians of science today") was removed by Str1977, and as we can see here, you brought the whole page back to what it had been, with just a few changes, even though he indicated that he was for the moment only stating a few objections and would be back later. He wanted to discuss it here first. You reposted a modified version less than fifteen minutes later. I expect the Str1977 will have some objections to the modified version. I know I do.
You have the following bit in quotation marks: "burned alive as a monster of impiety; Galileo, under threat of torture, humiliated as the worst of unbelievers; Kepler hunted alike by Protestants and Catholics." Is all of that White, or is some of it you? "Humiliated as the worst of unbelievers" sounds very POV; it's rather sensational language. What about "While White's scholarly work throughly documented how Christian doctrine was enforced with torture, murder, deprivation of freedom, and censorship, was published more than a century ago, it has remained the mainstream view among the historians of science today"? On what grounds do you make that claim? It seems unlikely to me, anyway. Besides, from a linguistic point of view, a "work" can't be a "mainstream view". Perhaps the views expressed in it can, but I doubt that that's true in this case. I see that Str1977 has just posted while I was typing my response, and Str, you've eaten up a bit of someone else's post again, through that software bug, but don't worry — I've restored it (I hope)! AnnH (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Some confusion needs to be clarified. The problem was not with White, it was with me. I found those quotes by White that someone else made of White, however when I went to the original source (White's actual work), I did not find those quotes. It could have been inaccuracies or simply refering a different version. I note that White did have several versions and he changed many things. His latest verion is the one that is highly respected, not just in his time, the 19th century, but the 20th century, accepted as mainstream. My evidence for this claim is the fact that the intellectual historian Bruce Mazlish certified White's thesis to have been established "beyond reasonable doubt," and the late George Sarton, a distinguished historian of science at Harvard found White's argument so compelling that he urged its extension to non-Christian cultures. See Mazlish, Preface, P. is; George Sarton, "Introductory Essay," in Science, Religion and Reality, ed. Joseph Needham (New York, 1955), p. 14. I included in the link above the actual full work online. I've not checked to find the quoted passage, and it appears to be this instead: "Copernicus, escaping persecution only by death; Giordano Bruno, burned alive as a monster of impiety; Galileo, imprisoned and humiliated as the worst of misbelievers; Kepler, accused of ``throwing Christ's kingdom into confusion with his silly fancies; Newton, bitterly attacked for ``dethroning Providence, gave to religion stronger foundations and more ennobling conceptions." Found here in Chapter 3:[4]
  • You say Bruno was no disciple of Copernicus's ideas in any way and doesn't belong among pioneers of modern science. I disagree. Bruno was heavily influenced by the ideas of Copernicus. The reason he left left Naples in 1576 was to avoid the attention of the Inquisition, and he left Rome for the same reason and abandoned the Dominican order. He travelled to Geneva and briefly joined the Calvinists, before he was excommunicated, officially for his adherence to Copernicanism, and then left for France.
  • You say he doesn't belong among pioneers of science, but in his writing, In De l'Infinito, Universo e Mondi, he argued that the stars we see at night were just like our Sun, that the universe was infinite, with a "Plurality of Worlds", and speculated they could be inhabited by other intelligent beings, like today the Drake equation speculates about. These two works are jointly known as his "Italian dialogues." In 1582, Bruno penned a play summarizing some of his cosmological positions, titled Il Candelaio ("The Torchbearer"). This is my evidence that he was a disciple of Copernicus's ideas, a pioneer of modern science, and was persecuted and then was brutally tourtured and murdered for these "heresies". Can you refute any of this? If not, I don't see how you can maintain your position fairly.
And Copernicus himself most certainly did risk his life in publishing his theories because even though these theories were declared as "heretical," yet, they were soon after. In 1616 th the Congregation of the Index, moved to solemnly rendered a decree that ``the doctrine of the double motion of the earth about its axis and about the sun is false, and entirely contrary to Holy Scripture; and that this opinion must neither be taught nor advocated. The same decree condemned all writings of Copernicus and ``all writings which affirm the motion of the earth. The great work of Copernicus was interdicted until corrected in accordance with the views of the Inquisition; and the works of Galileo and Kepler, though not mentioned by name at that time, were included among those implicitly condemned as ``affirming the motion of the earth.
Still the risk was real and the fear warrented. If he had lived, there is all indication that he would have been subjected to the same treatment anyone would have been for such beliefs. Copernicus had been a professor at Rome, but kept his doctrine relatively silent as early as 1500, and then only harmless conjecture. But to Copernicus, steadily studying the subject, it became more and more a reality, and as this truth grew within him he seemed to feel that at Rome he was no longer safe. And, we are not talking redicule here. He therefore returned to his little town in Poland. Even to publish here was dangerous since he kept it for thirty years in the hands of only private friends. When he finally dared to make his publication, "Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies," "he dared not send it to Rome, for there were the rulers of the older Church ready to seize it; he dared not send it to Wittenberg, for there were the leaders of Protestantism no less hostile; he therefore intrusted it to Osiander, at Nuremberg." But Osiander's dared not launch the new thought boldly. "He wrote a grovelling preface, endeavouring to excuse Copernicus for his novel idea, and in this he inserted the apologetic lie that Copernicus had propounded the doctrine of the earth's movement not as a fact, but as a hypothesis. He declared that it was lawful for an astronomer to indulge his imagination, and that this was what Copernicus had done. " Because of the real danger this greatest of of scientific truths was forced, in coming before the world, "to sneak and crawl." On the 24th of May, 1543, the newly printed book arrived at the house of Copernicus, but he was on his deathbed at this stage, died a few hours later putting him beyond the reach of persecution. When Galileo tested the waters with his evidence the that theory was true, proved by his telescope, the book was taken in hand by the Roman curia. The statements of Copernicus were condemnned. We don't seem to disagree about the facts surrounding Galileo, exempt that his persecution was real and deamining and they did hounded him the rest of his life-- even mstreated him after he died-- as White describes above. That is a life of persecution. And, if Galileo had decided to speak the truth, as he beleived, then he would have been tourtured and murdered like Bruno was. I don't think anyone has any serious question about that. Giovanni33 00:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Giovanni and the minor issues have already been fixed. The Church role historically has been one of persecuting scientists. The list of those who earned the wrath of the Church reads like a Who's Who of Science: Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Halley, Darwin, Hubble, even Bertrand Russell. The Church has also been on the wrong side of the social sciences for over 1,500 years, actively promoting slavery, anti-Semitism, the torture and murder of women as witches, sexual repression, censorship and the Inquisition, Crusades and other aggressive wars, and capital punishment for misdemeanors (suggest this for a new section?). Ofcourse, this has given rise to a Christian field called apologetics, which attempts to defend the Church's errors, even claiming that science and Christianity are compatible friends, not enemies. But the atrocities and scientific errors were too profound, and stretched on for too many millennia, to be defended in any reasonable manner.

Being proven wrong on any count undermined the Church's authority, which means its political and economic power as well. Not surprisingly, the Church moved energetically against scholars attempting to make scientific progress, branding their work as "heresy" and persecuting them to the fullest extent that they could. The full range of the Church's actions included harassment, discrimination, censorship, slander, scorn, abuse, threats, persecution, forced recantations, torture and burning at the stake. The list of great scientists opposed by the Church reads like a Who's Who of Science: Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Halley, Darwin, Hubble, even Bertrand Russell. At no time has the Church been on the cutting edge of science -- it has opposed virtually all scientific progress for nearly 2,000 years.

The scientists who challenged this Absolute Truth came to bitter ends. Although the vast majority were Christians themselves who had no desire to harm the Church, their findings were completely unacceptable to the popes, saints and theologians who were already committed to a previous version of the truth. Here is what happened to some of the most famous scientists:

Copernicus had concluded by 1500 A.D. that that the sun is the center of the solar system, but he kept his theories secret for 30 years, not wishing to draw the wrath of the Church. Shortly after publishing Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies, he died of old age, and was thus spared their angry response. But they got their revenge anyway, by burying him in a grave that marked none of his great accomplishments, but said: "I ask not the grace accorded to Paul; not that given to Peter; give me only the favour which Thou didst show to the thief on the cross." Then they kept silent about his work for 70 years -- until the appearance of Galileo.

Bruno had no such luck; when he publicly defended Copernicus, the Inquisition arrested him, tortured and burned him at the stake.

Galileo, often called "the Father of Modern Science," was the first astronomer to claim actual evidence that the earth was not the center of the universe, but revolved around the sun. For this, Galileo came under intense criticism and persecution from the Church. Pope Urban VIII personally gave the order in 1633 that Galileo, then an old man of 70, should be threatened with torture if he did not renounce the heresy that the earth revolved around the sun. Under repeated threats of torture, Galileo finally renounced his beliefs. He was then placed under house arrest, and not freed even after he went blind. Technically, the Catholic Church never convicted Galileo of heresy (only a "vehement suspicion of heresy") but it did make clear that the "heresy" in question was defined as the belief that the earth rotated around the sun. And, to leave absolutely no doubt about how completely it condemned the ideas of Galileo, the Church censored and prohibited all books supporting his scientific findings for over 200 years. This censorship was placed in the Index of Prohibited Books, which was personally signed by every pope who renewed it. Protestants would be mistaken in thinking this is a Catholic embarrassment only. Every Protestant church before 1800 rose in bitter opposition to the "atheistic" findings of Galileo.

Campanella was tortured seven times by the Inquisition for a number of heresies, one of which was writing Defense of Galileo.

Rene Descartes, alarmed by the Inquisition's persecution of Galileo, delayed his plans to publish The World, a book that agreed with Galileo's views. Later he wrote Meditations on First Philosophy, which introduced the idea that truth can be discovered only through scientific investigation and the scientific method. This earned the hostility of the Church, and their persecution caused Descartes much suffering. This great philosopher, who is famous for attempting a logical proof of God's existence, was called an atheist, and his works were placed on the Index of Prohibited Books. Protestant theologians in his resident Holland wanted him tortured and put to death.

Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler and Edmond Halley were pioneers in describing the orbits of celestial bodies like comets and planets. The orderly laws of nature they described contradicted the Church's belief that comets were thrown in anger from the right hand of God, or that they portended disaster and war. For over a hundred years the Church argued against them -- to describe how heated, bitter and personal this debate grew in a single paragraph is impossible. But Halley secured the final victory by accurately predicting the return of the comet that now bears his name. All three would have been brought before the Inquisition had they not been Protestant.

Isaac Newton kept his true religious beliefs secret, for fear of persecution, until literally his dying day. He privately rejected his native Anglican Church at about age 30, convinced that its teachings about Christ's divinity and the existence of a Trinity were a fraud. He instead accepted Arianism, a 4th century Christian heresy. Only on his deathbed did he reveal his true beliefs by rejecting the Anglican sacrament. Many Christians opposed his scientific findings as well, for everyone had previously believed that God actively and frequently intervened in the ordinary events of the universe. Christians charged that he "took from God that direct action on his works so constantly ascribed to him in Scripture and transferred it to material mechanism," and that he "substituted gravitation for Providence."

Georges Louis Leclerc Comte de Buffon, one of the more colorful scientists in history, was the first to study fossils and suggest that life forms had changed in the past. The proto-version of evolution earned him the enmity the Church, which forced him to resign from his Sorbonne University position and recant his views. The Church then humiliated him by publishing his recantation.

William Buckland, Charles Lyell, Louis Agassiz, and Adam Sedgewick were all 19th century Christian geologists who originally set out to prove the story of creation and Noah's Flood. But despite their best attempts to reconcile their discoveries with the Bible, their findings kept pointing in the other direction: namely, the earth was several billion years old, not 6,000. One by one, they recanted their belief in the literal interpretation of Genesis and accepted the findings of modern geology. For their intellectual honesty, they came under terrific attack from the Church, which hurled epithets like "infidel," "impugner of the sacred record," and "assailant of the volume of God." Their geology was condemned as "a dark art," "dangerous and disreputable," "a forbidden province," "infernal artillery" and "an awful evasion of the testimony of revelation."

Robert Chambers created a major scandal in 1844 when he published an anonymous best-selling book entitled The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. The book contained the blasphemous suggestion that an orderly progression in the changes of fossils indicated that species themselves had evolved. Religious leaders demanded to learn the identity of the author and denounced the book in the angriest terms possible. The ensuing controversy proved that Chambers had made the correct decision to publish anonymously.

Charles Darwin knew that his revolutionary theories on natural selection would invite the full fury of the Christian world. He therefore delayed publishing his theory for over 20 years, agonizing over the decision of whether or not to publish. His hand was forced in 1858, when he learned that the naturalist Alfred Wallace was about to publish the same theory. His fears proved true -- the reaction from the Church was shock, disappointment and anger. The world-wide attacks on his character, theories and personal life are common knowledge now, but he was saved from physical harm for two reasons. First, nearly the entire scientific community was quick to see the soundness of his theories, and rallied immediately to his defense. Second, the age of the Inquisition and other torture-based persecutions had finally passed.

Bertrand Russell found that Christian persecution exists even in the 20th century. One of the greatest of modern philosophers, Russell angered many Christians with his essay, Why I am not a Christian. And they exacted their revenge in 1940, when Russell accepted an appointment at the College of the City of New York. The Christian community launched a furious and protracted campaign to prevent the appointment, printing slanderous accusations of homosexuality, child molestation, public nudity and lechery. (This, for his mildly liberal views on sex, which would be considered tame by today's standards.) Even New York's highest political officials joined the assault, calling him a "dog" who should be "tarred and feathered and driven out of the country." Christians sued in court to prevent Russell's appointment, and in a trial filled with legal howlers, Russell was barred from teaching in New York State -- in a word, censored. BelindaGong 07:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"The Church role historically has been one of persecuting scientists." Here's where I see your (possible) false dichotomy: Church vs. science/truth/knowledge/etc. --Quadalpha 08:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Belinda, thanks for repeating all these legends Giovanni had declaimed before. Only, it doesn't help any debate if you simply ignore and negate contrary evidence. You say "The Church role historically has been one of persecuting scientists", which sounds ridiculous once you have taken a clear, unbiased look upon the actual historical record.
Even in the case of Galileo the matter is not as clear cut as you and White would have it.
Had the church been an opponent of science, she could have made sure that there was no science - why did she allow such things in the first place, why did she set up universities? Why did clerics, up to the highest ranks, sponsor men like Copernicus or Galileo.
Darwin's case is valid since this is "Criticism of Christianity" (and hence not directed against the RCC, though some of your comments seem to suggest that it was her that "persecuted" Darwin), but you cannot claim "Oh they would burn him if they could". That's contra-factual historiography - an interesting past-time but not serious.
Why turn Bruno into a scientis when in fact he was bent on reviving a speculative paganism. I certainly don't condone that he was burned but given the circumstances of his time the main surprise was that he wasn't burned earlier.
What has Mr Russell to do with this all? Are you citing him as an authority (he was no historian) or as an example (well, he was no scientist, was he?) Academic appointments are often subject to intrigue and campaigns, then as now. You might disagree with what happened with Russell, but to call it censorship is ridiculous! Censorship is when the state (or another authority outside of the publication process) controls, supervises or revises what is published before publication. Was Russell banned from publishing? No, hence no censorship.

Unfortunately I must say that your diatribe does not add anything to the discussion. Str1977 09:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You answered belinda's post but not mine, in which I provided evidence to back up my claims, and which refute yours. You have yet to prove how these are but legends. Brunos scientific theory about the nature of the stars turned out to be true. He was persecuted for supporting Copernicus's theories. While you point of some of the grey areas, and other factors, it changes nothing to the main point being made, which is still remain true: Those whose ideas, however true based on the evidence, went against the official dogmas of what the Christian faith believed was the absolute truth were not tolerated, and subject to pesecution. Lets not lose site of the forest for the trees. Bruno, like other proto-scientists were forerunners, and their bravery in speaking out for the convictions of their beliefs were met with violent supression. The fact that they showed and told G. that he would be tortured unless he humiliated himself daily, and submit to the degradation of house arrest (they would not even let him go after he was blind!), and the fact that others were who did resuse to obey, is evidence enough that he would have been tourtured and murdered otherwise. There is no reason to even suggest that the Inquisition was merely joking in their threats.
I grant you, Giovanni, that any Christian that contradicted elements of doctrine could be calle before an Inquisition court - scientists (or whomever you call forerunners) not excepted. However, the showing of the instrument was a formality, normal under the circumstances as torture was at that time part of standard judicial proceedings (not just by the Inquisition). Recent debates indicate why this could be. We may abhorr this now but then it was standard and to state that it was equivalent to torture is absurd. House arrest is hardly a degredation (and the reference to his blindness is "heart-warming"). The inquisition were certainly not jokin and I believe that, had G. refused, they would have totured him. But that wasn't what they wanted. Str1977 11:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There is long tradition of warfare between science and Christianity. This is not legend but fact. The source of this conflict stems from the fact that both attempt to do the same thing: to explain the world around us, and offer solutions to our problems. The difference between these two attempts is basically one of age. Religion comprises very old explanations and solutions; science, newer ones. And because they differ, they enter into conflict. Sure, they sponored Universities, and scientists but they were supposed to affirm and prove their dogmas true. They really believed in their mythological constructions. There is no contradiction here. The point is that when facts emerged which cast doubt on the faith, it was suppressed, and those who dared to stand by truth were eliminated.

That is exactly the dispute: there is no long tradition of warfare between science and Christianity. There is a long tradition (well 300 years) about such a warfare, which I polemically called legend. Representatives of Christianity have, at time, been in conflict with scientist, that's true (though details are not that clear-cut), but Christianity is also one of the intellectual foundations on which modern science rests, e.g. the idea of the two books of Revelation and Nature. In G's case it was more a conflict between Aristotelism and new ideas. Aristotelism was the standard of scholarship (or should I say science) at the time and hence it was held by academics and clerics. Hence it's not science vs. religion but old science vs. new science.
Thanks for kindness of assuming that "They really believed in their mythological constructions", though such statements don't help my believing in your ability to overcome your bias.
And it wasn't "facts emerged which cast doubt on the faith" - in fact Cardinal Bellarmin (or was it Baronius) stated that if the movement of the earth could be proved than the Church would have to reconsider its interpreation of the Joshua passage, and he even stated how such a new interpretation would look like. But, as he also said, there was no proof for that and hence the Church stayed with its old, face-value interpretation. To portray the Cardinals as ignorant or intellectually immobile is more than a carricature (granted some where ignorant as well). G. didn't have proof (though he claimed he did - the tides) - only Kepler provided it. G also delved into the area of biblical exegesis, i.e. Private interpreation, which had the Inquisition's alarm bells sounding in the age of Luther. Str1977 11:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That this conflict would occure is logical. All human societies have attempted to answer the question: "Where do we come from?" In ancient Israel, the answer was God and Creation, as described in the book of Genesis. But as human knowledge has advanced and grown, different explanations have arisen that challenge the legitimacy and authority of these dogmatic defenders of myths that they forced people to belive on the pain of death. This is why historians like White can exhaustively cover hundreds of historical cases, and able to demonstrate that the Church generally repeats the same three-step process whenever confronted by a threatening scientific discovery:

1. First, the Church tries to crush the "heretical" view, often through censorship and persecution of the scientist.

2. The evidence supporting the scientific viewpoint inevitably grows, the Church struggles to find a compromise position that incorporates both viewpoints.

3. When scientific victory is complete, and the Church is left to indulge in apologetics, to try explain away and defends the Church's actions. Here it is common for apologists to claim that there is not, and never was, any conflict between the Church and science.

Just because White makes such claims doesn't mean that all his finding are true. In fact, it is a quite dodgy book. But you seem to believe in old books like Gibbon and White.
Your three step process is the normal process anyone who has been in error about new ideas and will admit to it later.
One could find the same process in academic science as well, only that "apologetics" gets replaced by "silence". Proponents of scientific triumphalism just don't admit that scientists ever were wrong. What about the guy that advised Nils Bohr to study music, as there was nothing left in physics. Funny, that the field of physics is never accused of ignorance etc. Str1977 11:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This process has occurred like clockwork down through history, resulting in a Christian Church today that is completely unrecognizable from the Early Christian Church -- indeed, if the two could ever meet, they would denounce each other as heretics!Giovanni33 10:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

History doesn't work logically or like a clockwork. I could also say, if today's scientists (I mean the more ignorant sort of, such as ... well, you quoted him) ever met the heroes they worship, they would denounce each other: Copernicus as speculative, Bruno as an obscurantist, Galíleo as a fundamentalist and Newton ... Str1977 11:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

About the "mainstream-ness" of the view: statistically, that is probably what most people believe, but then, a majority of Americans also believe the capital of Canada is Toronto. --Quadalpha 15:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Str, I think I understand your objections. They rest in a fundamental misunderstanding about the real big difference between science and religion. Specifically their methodolgy. That is why while Scientists have been proven be incorrect (subsequently wrong), they were not wrong at the time, in the sense of being a valid scientific theory. This is in contrast to reglious theories of reality which were wrong and were defended despite the evidence, because their methodology was not facts but faith, not evidence but revelation, not a willingness to change theories and hold then as simply tentative in nature, but to hold them as absolute truth, as in a dogma. Your argument rests on ignoring these fundamental differences. It is because of these differences that the conflict between religion and science are real, and that religion is not just like science. Ofcourse, everyone to some extent must change but only because of the new grounds fought for by Science at great cost by those who try to hold back advancements in understanding and defend the old myths despite evidence. Giovanni33 03:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The Vatican has been quite clear about the fact that the church does not try to lay claim to any science. They did not support teaching intelligent design in science class, for example. I know you were not arguing that point, but given that religion and science have different goals, it would be hard (if not impossible) to compare them without imposing one's own biases in valorising one goal over another.--Quadalpha 05:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Representative of Christianity

Christianity is organized, with official leaders who can speak for parts of the organization. Atheism isn't an organized religion, or a religion, or even organized. Nobody speaks for atheism with any authority, because atheism is the simple lack of theism. Therefore, arguments about the bloodshed caused by political leaders who were atheists miss the target. In contrast, arguments about the bloodshed caused by religious leaders who are Christian do have relevance. If actual priests participated in genocide, this is a problem much worse than mere laymen doing the same. Likewise, if there are churches dedicated to racism, sexism and other forms of bigotry, this is different from individual atheists having the same flaws. For these reasons, KHM03, I believe the paragraph you deleted needs to be restored. Do you have any sort of counter-argument? Alienus 22:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Was the genocide (or any acts by white supremacists) sanctioned by any official Christian denominational body? For example, was the Rwanda incident sanctioned by the Vatican, or was it just an example of a few people (who happen to be Christian) behaving horrifically? KHM03 23:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I can see how you might argue that the laypeople were just some people who happened to be Christian, but this doesn't apply to the clergy. For that matter, I seem to remember the Vatican admitting to complicity for its acts during WW II. Is that just a few people who happen to be Christian? I'm sorry, but if you are in a position of authority, your actions must be taken as representative of the organization that authorized you. Alienus 23:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to implicate certain Christian leaders or Christian organizations for their alleged involvement or lack their of in certain historical events then please do so. However, you should do so on the pages relevant to those events. For example, you could start a section (although I am sure one already exists) on the Catholic church's lack of response during the Holocaust, but do so on the Holocaust page. The fact that the Vatican did not speak out against the Holocaust during WWII is not a criticism of the Christian faith. This page should deal exclusively with criticisms that people have brought against the set of ideas and beliefs that are collectively known as Christianity. For example, some would argue that Jesus of Nazareth never actually existed. Christianity posits that he did. Therefore, this would fall under the rubric of "Criticism of Christianity." The Rwandan incident does not comport to this standard and therefore should not be included. I think this is fairly clear. Mcb197 23:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Now you are criticising an organisation. --Quadalpha 00:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Remember, Alienus, that this article is called Criticism of Christianity, not Criticism of Christians. I haven't heard of the Vatican admitting to complicity for its acts during WWII — can you provide a source? Is there evidence that actual priests participated in the genocide? Where are you getting the idea that there might be churches dedicated to racism, sexism and other forms of bigotry?
I'm not very knowledgeable about the events referred to in that paragraph, but I do agree with KHM03, both with what he said in his edit summary, and what he said above. Of course, Christianity does not support genocide and racism. If terrible acts are carried out by Christians, or by people who call themselves Christians (I'd very much like to know the extent to which these people acknowledged Christ as Lord in their lives), then unless the terrible acts were in obedience to the teaching of their Church, they were simply Christians who did not follow Christianity.
I have a problem with this sentence:
Over 90% of the population of Rwanda at the time was Christian, but nevertheless, the Archbishop and other Bishops have been implicated in inciting the genocide, while others refused to send help to stop it.
First of all, who says that the Archbishop and other Bishops have been implicated in inciting the genocide?
Secondly, what does it mean to say that others (other whats? bishops? Christians? people?) refused to send help to stop it. "Refused"? Were they asked to? Did they say, "No we won't because we don't care" or did they simply do nothing, in which case "neglected to" would be more accurate than "refused to". I didn't donate to my usual Third World charity this year, as I was sending money to Abigail Witchalls. Does that mean that I "refused" to help the starving people in Africa?
There's nothing in the article Rwandan Genocide about Bishops inciting the genocide or refusing to send help. (Yes, I know we're not meant to use one Wikipedia article as a means of claiming verifiability for claims made in another.) I'd still like to see some verification of that.
It's true that atheism is not an organized religion. But some of the things you want in the article have no relevance to Christianity as an organized religion. If it's an article about criticisms of Christianity (as opposed to Christians), then it should cover inconsistencies (or perceived inconsistencies) in Christian beliefs. It could also cover wrong-doing carried out by Christians in obedience to the teachings of their Church. It should not turn into a list of all the bad things that Christians did when they were acting, not as Christians, but as ordinary people. AnnH (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Atheism is not a religion period. It's simply a lack of belief in what it regards is a silly, unsubstantiated assertions of supernatural creatures ruling the universe, because, in their view no such evidence exists, and nor is it logical. The overwhelming majority of scientists share this view. The application of this criticism to practical movements it contributes to is used as a basis for, is also valid criticism.

About the objections to the Racist and Genocide sections, I think these objections do not stand. The fact is that white supremacist movements are linked to fundamentalist Christianity or Christian Identity, churches. They teach racism, and are connected with racist movements, basing their racism in Christian doctrine, and using the bible for such beliefs. Yes, the bible is very open ended, open to interpretation so within Christianity you can have opposite movements, everything from Christian Communists, to Christian Fascists. If this fact needs to be stated, that’s fine, but the fact that it has been argued to be a vehicle for advancing racism in the form of a right wing fundamentalism is a criticism that needs not be suppressed. Simply because they do not subscribe to your version of Christianity, you can not say that they were not really Christians (that is POV). About the genocide, the point is very valid precisely because Christians make the argument that Christianity creates morality and decency in people--indeed they go so far as to argue the lack of theism, results in immorality! This kind of widespread Christian belief is criticism as false in the examples of modern day genocide committed by professed Christian populations, and Christian leaders, as well. But there is also a second point why this should be included. Another critism is not only that the arguments for being a Christian are false but actually harmful. The critism is that if you can get people to believe in absurdities, then you can more easily get them to commit atrocities. That blind faith, irrationalism, and dogmatism are essential factors in producing the worst evils commited by man. These are all widespread criticism of Christianity. You might not agree with these but you can't deny they are not real.Giovanni33 03:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. Should science be criticised for promoting rationalism because it has been used to justify some of "the worst evils commited by man," like eugenics, perhaps. Should science be criticised because it has been used to commit "the worst evils commited by man"? I'm afraid your argument seems over-simplistic and affected by point of view, though it might be a fascinating document for future sociologists. --Quadalpha 03:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not absurd at all. Its logical and factual. Again, what we see here is a misunderstanding of science. Eugenics was not science, it is a good example of psuedo-science, which is anti-scientific. Science is based on evidence, and logical principals, the principal of parsimony, for example. It does not claim morality either, as does religious beliefs such as Christianity. To show they are false, as is evideced by immoral behavior among Christian populations, is thus fair game for a page dedicated to criticism of it. Giovanni33 05:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
When you use the word "science" in your argument, you mean the idealised concept of science, but when the word "Christianity" is used, everything that has a finger in the pie, so to speak, everything that claims to have been done in the name of Christianity, gets dragged in. I agree that what I mentioned is not a valid criticism of science, but could be a valid criticism of scientists. Draw the parallel, etc. Though of course now we run into the "true Scotsman" fallacy. :) --Quadalpha 05:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Your point is not valid because Science has strict rules that make it science, and to deviate outside its methodology, which is clearly defined and not a matter of interpretation, is not to do science but something else like junk science or psuedo-science. Also, keep in mind that part of science is publication in peer review journals so other experts in the field can reproduce and verify claims and conclusions. This is science. Its not being idealised at all. Those who don't do that, like "creation scientists" can use all the science sounding words and copy the forms, etc, but they don't do this. There is no peer review, for example. On the other hand, there is no such clear methodology for determing if something is Christian or not (unlike Science) that exists. All that is needed for one to claim to be a Christian is to say the comon things Christians say to idenfity themselves, i.e. that they accept Jesus Christ as their savior the Lord, ect and hold the Bible as their book of faith which they use to justify their beliefs. Then they use some kind of logical argument based on what the Bible says, which is a matter of interpretation. Therefore, we have thousands of different Christian groups all differing and all thining they are the one rule religion; yet they all can legitimately call themselves Christian since they use the same Bible to push their various agendas. Some of those agendas have been racism and slavery, for example. This used to be the dominant Christian view (defend slavery) and now its not. But, sure enough they found support for it in the Bible (both the old and new testiment does support and sanction slavery). Other Christians may argue this is a wrong interpretation but that is just as much a POV, since the bible is about interpretation, and there is no one common sense view. Its just the nature of their methodology--biblical reveation, use of scriptures, and their interpretations. The Bible contains quite a number of broad, vague, and even contradictory statements, that allows exactly this. Again, no comparison with science at all, where one can easily see that someone is doing bad science, and therefore not being scientific. 64.121.40.153 13:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
So basically, you're saying that Christianity should be judged by Christians, but science should not be judged by scientists? --Quadalpha 15:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No, go back and read again. I don't know where you cam up with these conclusion. I do not say that Christianity should be judged by Christians. It can be judged by anyone, using its own stardards and practices (the Bible, its method, and its adherents). Science, likewise, has stanards based on its own methods that that make objectively judging its practice much more precise, and narrow. This can ofcourse also be done by anyone who understands how science works. The point is that science and religion are of different standards by their very nature. Giovanni33 17:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was, you're saying that the measure of Christianity should be the behaviour of Christians, but the measure of science should not be the behaviour of scientists? --Quadalpha 18:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, even if it were decided that it would be fair to judge Christianity by Christians, then it still has to be decided who is a Christian and who is not, which would be POV. --Quadalpha 16:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
On the sake token there should be a section dedicated to Christianity and the Oppression of Women for the same reasons. Giovanni33 03:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33, I commend you for insightful critique of some of the problems inherent in sola scriptura. When anyone can interpret the Bible any way they like, we do indeed find tens of thousands of differing opinions, at a conservative estimate. That notwithstanding, some of your points I think are just slightly misstated, though probably not intentionally. First, my understanding of the 'morality claim' is that in the absence of some religion, the atheist has a weaker rationale to follow an outside, standard code of moral behaviour. Of course an atheist may still find utilitarian or other reasons to behave morally; and sadly, many Christians have behaved and do behave immorally despite the greater rationale afforded by their religion. But I've never been aware that Christians claim to be sinless, and only a few sects, such as some Wesleyans, believe that that's even possible in the "present life," this side of Heaven. So I think you're creating a bit of a straw man. The Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and similar churches even require their members to regularly confess their sins, presuming that they will have committed sins that need to be confessed and forgiven. Many Protestants also make some provision for this, in the form of "altar calls" or "rededications."

Regarding slavery, there are of course biblical passages that can and have been used to condone slavery. Two further observations are warranted though: the institution of slavery in the first century of the Roman empire was far different than slavery as it was practices in the Old South of the U.S. So what the New Testament authors were condoning, or at least tolerating, was something rather different. Secondly, at least some passages that call upon slaves to obey their masters, also call upon masters to well treat their slaves. And within the Church, Paul wrote that there was no longer "slave or free," and in the book of Philemon he urges Philemon to free his slave Onesimus. It's fair to say that some Christians in some places have ignored these balancing passages, but their disregard of such passages should be the criticism, not that they were exemplifying their faith. Wesley 17:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do I even bother?

You know, there's a reason why I avoided contributing to this page, and the text above exemplifies it. Anyone who wants to point out historical facts that are unfavorable to someone's pet religion has to deal with irrational levels of resistance, having the evidential bar set arbitrarily high, and -- eventually -- accusations of bigotry. The fact is that science is not an organization, it is a method rooted in evidence, while Christianity is an organization based on belief regardless of the evidence. Science makes claims to facts but does not claim moral authority, while Christianity lays claim to both. Therefore, any attempt to draw analogies between the two is doomed from the start.

  • spit*

I wash my hands of this page and all of you people on it. I wish I could wash the foul taste of dealing with you out of my mouth, but I can't. You want this page whitewashed to oblivion? More power to you. You get what you deserve. Alienus 04:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with the distruptions and obstructionism by these Christian edtors who seem to be ignorant of what science is about, but I assume good faith, i.e. they are just honestly confused, misinformed and ignorant of it, and thus the validity and legitimacy of these real criticism of Christianity. I say do not give up so easy. With the guidelines of NPOV, the topic of this article, and making arguments, it will prevail. You have to stand up for truth and struggle for it. Its never free, and its never easy. Failure is only when you give up. I and others will continue to make this case so please stay and join in. Giovanni33 05:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


That's a great response Alienus. In my post above I tried to explain, using rational arguments, why I did not think the paragraph about the Rwandan genocide was relevant to this page. In your post here you have not responded to any of those arguments, but instead responded with this immature and insulting diatribe. I agree with you that proponents of certain causes (mainly religion, but also feminism and racial issues) are far too quick to throw out words like "bigot," when people bring up facts that they don't like. However, when you make an argument, other people respond to it, and then you respond again with, "I wish I could wash the foul taste of dealing with you out of my mouth..." it really doesn't make you look very good. Your position on this issue weak and you just proved it by failing to respond to my arguments with anything even remotely resembling an intelligent response. Nicely done! Mcb197 05:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
True, he said he didn't want to argue about this because he felt it would lower him to the level of the absurd objections that have been raised to supporess and remove these sections. But, I did respond using rational arguments that make the case why it is a logical and defendable criticism of Christianity, which stipulates morality as part of its argument for belief. This is shown to be false and thus a valid criticism. Giovanni33 05:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well then I applaud your efforts to engage in rational discourse. However, I still don't think you have made a strong case for why there should be any mention of the Rwandan genocide in an article entitled, "Criticism of Christianity." I understand the title, "Criticism of Christianity" to include all criticism put up against the collection of ideas and beliefs that fall under the label, "Christianity." Logically, each criticism would then require a corresponding Christian belief or idea that it is attacking. The fact that a genocide occurred in Rwanda does not have a corresponding Christian idea, and therefore is not relevant to this topic. A historical event cannot in and of itself be a criticism of anything -- it is simply something that happened. Mcb197 05:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow, this is a very intersting analysis: A historical event can not be a criticism of anything? Ofcourse the event itself is not the criticism but the event can be appropriately used to make a criticism. History is a power tool for criticism and arguments. And, not its never the case that "it is simply something that happened," as if that is the end of story. Things happen within contexts, on a stage, with causes and reasons that are explainable and can be understoood by looking at the factors that create the happenings. This is where one can use the happenings to make valid criticism. Giovanni33 06:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


First you ridicule my statement: "Wow, this is a very intersting analysis [sic]," and then in the next line agree with it: "Ofcourse the event itself is not the criticism [sic]" You then go on to say that "the event can be appropriately used to make a criticism." Obviously you are correct. However, no one has done this with the Rwandan incident, and this was the point of my comments regarding the neutrality of historical events in and of themselves. I thought that this was clear when I wrote, but I guess I was wrong. In my comment below I have given you some much needed advice on how to construct a logical criticism of Christianity, which I would suggest you read. Mcb197 06:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I poke fun at the statment because its a truism. Ofcourse its true that an event itself is not the criticism. No would ever claim such a silly notion. Obviously when one uses an event to make a criticism its logically connected to a specific argument that relates to the nature of the event which supports the argument or criticism. I think that case has been made, and if not then lets hear the objections. About the genocide, the point is valid precisely because Christians make the argument that Christianity creates morality and decency in people--indeed they go so far as to argue the lack of theism, results in immorality! This is a claim made my Christians. The criticism is that this is false. The modern day genocide committed by a Christian populations, with Christian leaders, serves as an example to support this point.
But there it also makes a second point illustrated by this example. The other criticsm is not only that the arguments for being a Christian are false but actually harmful. Note that this criticism isn't based on a refutation of a claim (that Christianity is good), and therefore benign. No, its a positive attack that its harmful. The argument is that if you can get people to believe in absurdities, then you can more easily get them to commit atrocities. That ideologies that focus on blind faith, irrationalism, and dogmatism, that one has the absolute truth, are dangerous and produce worst evils commited by man. These are all widespread criticism of Christianity (and other religions that both breed fanatics and encourage sheepish obedience) esp. from proponents of strong atheism/anti-theism. You might not agree with these but you can't deny they are not real criticism. Giovanni33 03:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Now that is a POV comment if there ever was one. I think you'd find some rather prominent philosophers who might disagree with you. --Quadalpha 06:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Haha, I was about to give up a while ago too. Personally, I have no stake in this article whatsoever, though I have a somewhat more idealistic image of Wikipedia than as conveyor of a mishmash of second-hand ideologies. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Etc. Rename the article "Criticism of Christians" and we'd be out of this mess. --Quadalpha 05:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Christianity can be criticized by pointing out that its practice, as evidenced by the actions of its professed adherents are linked it its ideology and doctrine. Secondly, it points to the falsity to one its main claims: morality. Because of those these reasons its fair to use the examples of immoral behavior by Christian populations, as well as the racialized theology and interpretations of racist Christians who use the bible to push racism. It’s a criticism of Christian doctrine itself that it lends itself to such wide varying interpretations and practices.Giovanni33 05:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 writes: "Christianity can be criticized by pointing out that its practice, as evidenced by the actions of its professed adherents are linked it its ideology and doctrine [sic]." To do this successfully you would need to identify specific tenets of Christian doctrine, and then explain how these tenets, when applied correctly by believers, lead to undesirable ends. You could then give historical examples to support your claim. However, you would also have to prove that the historical actors in question were indeed motivated by the doctrinal tenet in question. In the case of the Rwandan genocide, no one has yet done this, and, hence, the paragraph was rightfully removed.
Oh, but this has already been done. 1. specific tenets of Christian doctrine are used by the Christians themselves who are racists, and were cited as links to some of these racist Christian churches. Do I need to go further and identify the particulars? There are many Christian groups who ascribe to such racialized theological interpretations of the Bible, both today and in the past. Recall that even the KKK was founded as a Christian organization and still sees itself in terms of defending true Christianity. Especially in the earliest days, Klansmen openly recruited in churches (white and segregated, of course), attracting members from all strata of society, including the clergy. Ofcourse, I, like anyone else, can look at their arguments, and cite the parts of the Bible that they use. But, I don't think you doubt their existence since they were included in the removed passage. But, if you'd like this section expanded, I think its best left for other articles. A link is enough.
Now the second part that you say is required is part of the point I've making. You say " explain how these tenets, when applied correctly by believers, lead to undesirable ends." Its easy to point to racist ideas leading to desirable ends (would anyone disagree here?). The problem do they "correctly" apply it? That is impossible to say objectively since is that there is no one accepted standard that can be used in this areana to judge if a tenent is "correctly applied" because its a matter of interpretation carried out by the respective Christian churches. Not long ago the majority of Christians interpreated their doctrines as one that defends and encourages slavery. Now they are in a minority. Same things with racist Christians, who today use the bible to support their own bigotry against others. All can claim to be legitimate Christians just as much as other Christians can claim they alone are the only correct interpretation of Christian tenants. All that is needed for Bible to be used to justify an action, is a particular interpretation; the Bible contains quite a number of broad, vague, and even contradictory statements. The interpretation can be objectively defended by appeal to text and context, which they do. This is why one of the most abominable chapters in the history of how the Bible has been used and interpreted involve the questions of race and slavery. Although Christians will be loathe to admit it, their religion shares a significant part of the blame for raical oppression in the US. Ofcourse, people on all sides of racial and slavery issues have interpreted the Bible through the filters of their personal and cultural assumptions. But, one can not say that one the Christians who support your interpretaton are correct, whereas others are not. In my view they are all wrong, and using the Bible as a belief system is inherently nontenable given its many contradictions.
Lastly, you say I have to prove that the actors were motivated by these doctrinal tenents. I disagree. Infact, all I have to show is that these docrinal tenants did not produce moral behavior in its adherents. It doesnt matter if the actual motivation for, say, robbing a bank and killing someone in the process was motivated by greed and money, if a Christian acted in such a way, then this is evidence that Christians are not superior moral agents by virtue of their Christianity. Even more so when we have a whole population ether supporting or allowing such evils as genocide. Its a valid example that connects the event to a refutation of the Christian claim, and therefore a critcism. This also ties in with the opening statment by Noam Chomsky about the Bible being a book of genoice, and ties in with the points make about support of G.W. Bush, Christianity and his policies. Giovanni33 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Giovanni33 writes: "Secondly, it points to the falsity to one its main claims: morality [sic]." Christians don't claim that professing to be a believer automatically makes one, "moral." Christian scriptures give a set of guidelines for how one should live. Whether or not one correctly follows these guidelines is what determines whether or not one can be considered to be living a morally acceptable life.
Ah, but I did not say just professing to be a believer, but rather that one is a Christian, and we only know what they profess and what they do. And, we do know that Christians claim that that being a Christianity makes one moral, whereas lack of belief leads to immorality. That is what Christians charge of Atheists, no? Well, it follows that if one is a believer one does in actions. The actions are evidence for what one believes in, in addition to what they claim to bleieve in. So we note that tere are people who claim belief in the Bible (their version), and we can assume he believes according to how he acts, since actions are a demonstration of thoughts. Where are we left? Again, the same problem as I explained about about contradictory interpretations rears its problematic head. There is no one set of guidelines for how one should live that is agreed upon so as to determine if one is "correctly" follwoing it or not. Since we cant know that, we have to go based on the evidence that they are Christians (enough presented), and see how they act. And there are expliced examples, too, where there is active reference of the Bible to support racism. Could anyone argue that a Christian is not correctly following "the set guidlines" by supporting and particpating in that most cruel and despicable horror known as the slave trade? That would be hard to do, no? The Christians who supported (the majority beefore) did so did so according to the bible, and how can you say that they are not correctly following what the bible says when the Bible clearly gives its support, in any objective and logical reading? Back to the other point, its a stretch to say that we can discount a whole population of Christians who act in a certain way and assume that are acting contrary to their professed beliefs, when they state their professed beliefs clearly (evidence enough), and when the doctrine can itself be stretched to support almost anything given the power of interpretation. Who are we to say they were not really Christian, simply because we don't like their negative example? No basis for this, other than our own pov and bias. All I have to show is that they called themselves Christians, and they acted in such a such way. When we have a whole population that does this and in different times in history and in different parts of the world, the evidence is strong that morality and Christianity need not go together, and if anything seem to make it all the more easier to be barbaric given the nature of superstitious belief, and the arrogance to think that they posses the aboslute truth. The examples of facts are relevant, and let the reader draw their own conclusions about what it means or how strong it supports the argument being made. Giovanni33 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Giovanni33 writes: "It’s a criticism of Christian doctrine itself that it lends itself to such wide varying interpretations and practices" This claim is illogical. If you and I disagree on how to solve an equation is that a "criticism" of algebra? Obviously not. The fact that you and I disagree doesn't matter: there is still a right and a wrong answer regardless of what we think. What if you took your statement and substituted Hamlet? "It’s a criticism of Hamlet itself that it lends itself to such wide varying interpretations..." Clearly this line of reasoning is absurd. Mcb197 06:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No, its not illogical, your analogy is flawed, as is any that assumes a similarity between religion and science. It’s debatable if mathematics is properly a branch of sciencebut it shares much in common with it, in contradistinction to religion. Therefore, your analogy fails on the same grounds. We can disagree about how to solve an equation and there may be many ways to solve the same equation but the truth of the equation and its solution is easily verified beyond dispute. There is a clear right and wrong answer, as you say. That we disagree about how to solve a problem is therefore not tied to the problem itself. This, however, is not true of Christian doctine. As I already argued above (and many times), Christian doctrine is contradictory, abusrd, illogical, and open to vast and differing interpretations given its vauge and broad writings. It itself is part of the problem, in that any biases can latch onto the Bible and use it to promote their own bias and bigory under the banner of absolute truth and divine inspriation--the word of god! In short, it breeds dogmatism. This is indeed a criticism of Christian doctrine itself. Giovanni33 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hold on, Christians believe that all men are sinners, so I guess your examples are right on the money. --Quadalpha 06:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems that we disagree on what exactly "Christianity" is. This is a stickier point than I care to deal with at 1AM, but simplistically, do you think you might be judging the car by the driver? --Quadalpha 05:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
To try to use your analogy (despite limitations), yes, I say that users of the car, how the car is used, is also valid critism of the car. This is infact true, literallly for criticism of cars today--that they kill people. This is an argument by those who would prefer us to go back to bikes. Note this is apart from criticism of cars mechanical features, i.e. efficiency, etc, which are also valid points to be critical of. Giovanni33 06:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Your arguing that cars can be criticised because, when the user loses control of the car, the large energy of the car tends to become dangerous. That is still a criticism of the car, but not the driver. --Quadalpha 06:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is still a criticism of the car alone, and note that the car needs a driver. You are making my argument for me. See, a car alone, is not dangerous. It just sits there in a show room or lot. Its rather harmless. So are dead religions, thought only in terms of a mythology, in which no one practices them anymore. They are likewise harmless. But, as the analogy shows, cars become quite dangerous only when they are in use by drivers. Note again this is not a criticism of the drivers (not of Christians), but still of cars in their interaction in the world as it exists today and in the past. If you accept this analogy, your own, then you can see that this is about criticism of Christinaity not the actions what bad things Christians happen to do, although they necessarily involve Christian actors. Giovanni33 15:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I was pointing out the flaw in your use of the analogy. In this case the car has an intrinsic flaw, so you are still trying to find a way to blame the immorality or somesuch of the driver on the car. --Quadalpha 15:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The car may have instrinsic flaws, but we are not dealing with those at the moment. Those are not controversial and are accepted to be flaws, where proved. What I am showing is that even when the driver uses the car in a responsible way, the car will still result in thousands of deaths and injuries, maiming millions, even. That is a valid criticism of the car, even though its impossible without the driver. To object on the basis that we are only describing the driver does not stand, except as sophistry. Likewise in Christianity. We do not only look at the flaws of doctrine alone, we look at the effect of doctrines by actors who use it as their own vehical in the world. In this respect its caused much harm to, and to make criticism of this as part of Christianity is valid and proper. Giovanni33 17:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
So "possible misuse" is the responsibility of the maker? Hence the "Not designed for use as a boat" label on tractors? --Quadalpha 18:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Where did I ever say anything about misuse? Clearly I said "even when the driver uses the car in a responsible way." Not everyone who dies or gets injured in car accidents are from the results of misuse or driver error. So, the criticism is not of the driver, but of the car. But, the driver is still necessary in order for the reality that the criticism is based on to exist. Giovanni33 18:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
This isn't really my argument, but Gio, could you please give an example of a car accident that isn't the result of at least one or both of the drivers being in error? This isn't really meant to be an attack, I just can't think of any examples, and am curious to see if you had one in mind when you wrote that. Oh and don't say something about ice on the roads because that would not really be the fault of the car either.
How about innocent people in the car who are not driving but die? How about good drivers who get hit by bad drivers, say one running a red light? How about cars hitting pedestrians or bike riders because they didn't see them? And, yes, road conditions, black ice, things in the road that cause problems, etc. I think you still don't understand that this isn't about it being the fault of the car or the driver. Its about criticism of the car. All one has to show is the negative affects of the use of the car on a whole in society. Likewise, the argument doesn't rest on drivers never making errors. On the contrary, all humans make errors. That is a given. Add that to the use of cars, and we get a predicable number of injuries and deaths. Lots of them. These are predictable social outcome from use of the car, and criticism laid at the car for large number of deaths and injuries yearly are proper irrespective of the fact the it happens in conjuction with drivers. If we accept these are valid points in criticsm of cars, then for the same reason we should accept that Christian actors are not the focus of the criticism either, Christianity is-- despite the need for its actors (drivers) to use their ideological vehical (the car), which the yields real social harms. Giovanni33 19:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
This analogy is getting slightly out of hand. I wouldn't object if we dropped this and proceeded with some more productive points. --Quadalpha 19:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Rwanda, White Supremacists, etc.

The point was made some time ago that these don't belong. The rationale has been that white supremacists, for example, may claim to be Christian, but they disagree (strongly) with basic Christian thought. Can a person who believes in God, for example, still legitimately claim the label "atheist"? That's the issue here. Anyone can claim to be Christian (or atheist, or Hindu, etc.), but if they violate key tenets of said faith, is their claim legitimate? KHM03 11:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If it were only so simple as that, KHM03. The exmaple you give is true, those are logical impossibliites by definition, i.e. a theist athist, or a, say, married bachelor as another example. This is easy to show. You are probabaly aware there are such things as "Christian Atheists." This goes to show you how far the Christian doctrine can stretch, even so far as to not believe in a literal God. Granted that is an extreme example but I use it only to prove a point. You would probably not call them Christians, I would guess, but they would object, using greater leeway of interpretation that you would allow for your version of Christianity. Much less is needed for others to find objective, logical and contextual support in the text of the Bible for racist beliefs, sexists beliefs, and homophobic beliefs,and all sorts of ugly things. And thus they are used by what all evidence points to as real Christians. Did not most Christians support the institution of human slavery? Does not the Bible make it clear that its gives such support today, even though most Christians today would regard that as immoral by today's standard? And, yet is not the Bible thought of to be devinely inpired by most Christians, and therefore one must concluse that God's view of slavery is not negative? The problem is that the Bible itself is contradictory. No "common sense" interpretation can deny such things without doing violence to the text itself, and nothing can be criticized as having been "taken out of context." Christians should perhaps consider admitting that their Bible was written in a primitive, barbaric age and as such represents the primitive, barbaric attitudes of that age. Those that follow it and choose to be barbaric themselves out of whatever other bigoted and racist ideology can find support in the Bible and will find a Christian churc that supports such an interpeation. You may define key tenents of the faith, in a way that the self professed Christians who you do not agree with would be in violation, and therefore not true Christians, but this would be an interpretation and not like the example of a logical impossibility you gave ealier.Giovanni33 15:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The Bible as a literary text is subtler than you might suppose. But that would be a POV comment. --Quadalpha 16:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, many passages are very subtle which is part of my point. But there are sections that are not so subtle either, in particular with regard to slavery. I point out that people on all sides of racial and slavery issues have interpreted the Bible through the filters of their personal and cultural assumptions, and were held by the majority of Christians well into the 19th Century--we are not just talking antquitity here.
Now as far as what the Bible says, a human law, it is to be expected and the norm, but but as the will of an all loving god, it's abominable. And the fact that Christians regard the Bible was devinely inspired and this book says these things pretty clearly, is part of the problem (from the POV of those who hold to this criticism). Let me gives you just some passages, for fun. Im curious to see how you can fine any subtleties here to inprepret away:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)
Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)
Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)
What do you make of these representative quoted passages? I'd say its what we'd expect to find in the period, and nothing shocking. However, if those authors were indeed divinely inspired, as is commonly thought by Christians, then we must conclude that God's attitude towards slavery is not negative. I don't see how an interpretation can deny such things without doing violence to the text itself, and nothing can be criticized as having been "taken out of context." This is true no matter if today mainstream Christians form official bodies to define what parts are acceptable beliefs themselves--its still in the bible and other groups outside the mainstream can thus still regard themselves as Christians, and support all kinds of morally outdated beliefs, and do so with the confidence that its God's will. That is scary. The ones that are not scary are the Christians who are willing to admit that their Bible was written in a primitive, barbaric age and as such represents the primitive, barbaric attitudes of that age, not the will of God. Giovanni33 16:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems presumptious to claim that one knows the will of God. See the point below, and maybe also Seneca Ep. Mor. 47.10. --Quadalpha 17:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but the argument seems to be whether bad things done by "Christians" counts as criticism that she be included. But if you believe in such a thing as a "Christian atheist", couldn't you include anyone at all? A.J.A. 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Bad things done by Christians is relevant to criticism of Christianity in some areas, such as common Christian claim that being a Christian makes for more moral behavior than being godless. Fundamentalists love to make this false argument. To refute this all we have to od is look at all the bad things that have been done by Christian populations, Christian States, and by organized Christian authorities.
Do you deny there exists "Christian Atheists?" I didn't invent them, but I guess your not familiar with the full spectrum of Christianity. Its true that atheistic beliefs are often accompanied by a total lack of supernatural beliefs, but this is not a necessary consequence of atheism. Some atheists who are not irreligious or secular. These are most common in spiritualities like Buddhism and Taoism, but they also exist in sects of religions that are usually very theistic by nature, such as Christianity, especially in some Liberal Quaker groups. A number of atheistic churches have been established, such as the Thomasine Church, Naturalistic pantheism, Brianism, and the Fellowship of Reason. There is also an atheist presence in Unitarian Universalism, an inclusivist religion. See Inclusivism. Other, unrelated practitioners of Christian atheism may include Liberal Christian atheists who follow the teaching of Jesus, but who may not believe in the literal existence of god. Ofcourse, some Christians dispute whether the atheists in question are truly Christians, but certainly are by some of the looser definitions of the word. On the other side of the spectrum we have the right-wing fundamentalists churches, incldes a whole slew of racist and facists Christians. The fact that they can all be called Christians is a commentary on the nature of the doctrine, which is one of the criiticism's being made. 64.121.40.153 06:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand what Wikipedia is for. The article is about Criticisms of Christianity, it's not here to actually criticize Christianity. And even if it were, your criticism fails: you can't know whether the Christian populations, etc, would have been better or worse without the influence of Christianity, although the behavior of non-Christian states certainly doesn't put your argument in a good light.
Of course I deny the existence of Christian atheists. What a silly question. A.J.A. 06:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
If it is about Criticism of Christianity, don't you think that one must include the actual criticisms? Im here trying to present the criticism, and the standard has been raised to say that they must actually be valid criticism, so I'm showing how they are valid and legitimate arguments, although I think that all criticism should be included regardless if others think they are not valid or not. At Wikipedia, we do not engage in the disputes, we are supposed to only represent them fairly, characterize them, etc. That is the NPOV platform.
Maybe you sould visit some of the Christian Chruches I pointed out that are filled with self professed Christians who use the Bible and who deny the exisitence of literal God, but follow the teachings of Jesus, etc. When you go there and meet some of then, make sure to point out that you don't believe they exist! hehe Actually, do deny their existence is just ignorance, but what you really mean is that you disagree that they true Christians given their inclusivist interpretations. That ok because they disagree that with you, and others would say that you are not a ture Christian. Such is the arrogance of this doctrine which is open enough for thousands of interpretations and yet they all have the arrogance to claim that everyone else is wrong excpet the one they ascribe to. Incredible. Giovanni33 08:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Gio -- I'm not sure I'm the best person to answer your questions. While I consider myself a firm Arminian/Wesleyan evangelical Christian, and do believe the Bible to be divinely inspired and authoritative (for Christians), I do not subscribe to any form of Biblical inerrancy, and I support contemporary Biblical criticism (when responsibly applied). So, it's easy for me to say that much of Scripture is influenced by the sociological norms of the folks who wrote the books. And in the Biblical era, generally speaking, slavery was viewed as acceptable.

The problem is that "slavery" in antiquity is a somewhat different term than our term "slavery". I'm not endorsing either view, but slavery in antiquity was surrounded by a sense of justice (inasmuch as the ancients graped that term) and fairness. It was illegal to mistreat or kill your slaves. Also, the Old Testament talked about a year or season of jubilee, which, for the Hebrews, involved freeing their slaves, so as to end the multi-generational horror experienced by slaves in, say, antebellum America. So while the words are the same, the meanings are quite different. To say - given our modern understanding - that the Bible condones slavery is not to say that the Bible condones the kind of slavery to which we typically refer. I'm not sure I'm being clear, so forgive my lack of clarity.

At any rate, there are official bodies and official works which do define appropriate Christian doctrines/practices/norms/interpretations of Scripture. Certainly the early Church Councils qualify, but also, I would say, do "standard" (for lack of a better term) denominational bodies such as the various Orthodox Christian denominations (the world's oldest, in my opinion), the Roman Catholic Church (the world's largest denomination), and various recognized-around-the-world Protestant denominations such as the United Methodist Church (go team!), and others (Presbyterians, Lutherans...a hodgepodge here). Also ecumenical groups such as the WCC and the NCCCUSA. None of these groups sanctions white supremacism in any way and, in fact, they reject the view as non-Christian. Maybe we can take some of these well meaning ans somewhat authoritative folks at their word.

Yes, the Bible is pre-modern and at times contains things which utterly offend modern sensibilities, and I struggle with much of its content. But we ought not condemn an entire religion because of the sick acts of a few who don't even fairly represent the Faith. KHM03 16:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, please, I beg you, proofread your posts. I found it very difficult to make sense of your writing, given the persistent presence of awkward constructions and errors in spelling and grammar. That being said, you are simply wrong when you make statements like, "you say I have to prove that the actors were motivated by these doctrinal tenents. I disagree. Infact, all I have to show is that these docrinal tenants did not produce moral behavior in its adherents [sic]." Do you realize what you are saying here? You are saying that because Christianity says A, and the historical actor in question did action B, which violates the command of Christian doctrine A, Christian doctrine A is responsible because it failed to "produce moral behavior in its adherent." I'm sorry sir, but with all due respect, this is nonsense. You must demonstrate that individuals were motivated by the Christian tenets which you are criticizing. If you cannot do this then you cannot use their behavior as an example. Your continued claim that Christianity should produce moral behavior in its followers is also incorrect. You must not have read what I wrote on this point above so I will repost it here for your convenience: “Christians don't claim that professing to be a believer automatically makes one, "moral." Christian scriptures give a set of guidelines for how one should live. Whether or not one correctly follows these guidelines is what determines whether or not one can be considered to be living a morally acceptable life.” Simply saying, "I am a Christian," has nothing to do with it. I'm sure that you would be quick to criticize me if I professed to be a scientist, and then failed to use the scientific method. If I didn't use the scientific method, and then as a result drew some wacky conclusions, would you then go create a Wikipedia entry entitled, "Criticisms of Science," and list my incorrect conclusions as a "criticism of science?" When people questioned your doing so would you respond with the following: "you say I have to prove that the actors were motivated by these doctrinal tenents [in this case meaning the scientific method]. I disagree. Infact, all I have to show is that [the scientific method] did not produce [correct results] in its adherents [sic]." Your arguments are fallacious and incorrect. Atheists love to go on and on about the ambiguity of the Christian scriptures and how really, when you get right down to it, you just can’t make any sense of them of them at all. You make many such statements in your posts. For example: “the doctrine can itself be stretched to support almost anything given the power of interpretation.” While this line of thinking is very convenient, it is spurious. First, just because there are multiple interpretations of something, doesn’t mean that isn’t one correct interpretation, rendering the others incorrect. Theology is an academic discipline just like any other, and our understanding of it is constantly improving as we learn more, and new thinkers contribute to the discussion. This being the case, we can rightly say that our theologians today understand the scripture better than did those theologians in the past who would have defended slavery. Mcb197 18:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi guys. While ultimately I would like to see these sections added in again in some form, I don't see any harm in leaving them out for the moment. There are two questions here:
  1. Does Wikipedia care about whether a criticism is valid or not? I think not, I think any criticism leveled against Christianity should be included, even ones that aren't very convincing. These criticisms are relatively popular and deserve to be included somewhere in Wikipedia. Where better to educate readers about the criticism's flaws than in this article?
  2. Are criticisms of Christians, or purported Christians, a proper subject for the Criticism of Christianity article. I suppose this is the more controversial point. Strictly speaking the answer is no, but many readers will criticize Christianity because of how historically very Christian countries have condoned slavery and racism. Again, where better to educate readers than in this article? Also, Wikipedia has essentially unlimited space, so as long as the section is introduced properly, it would be useful to include it. And the power of Wikipedia is in it's linking, so I would like to see every article trying to link to as many related issues as possible. (Although I'm not suggesting we put these examples into a separate article from Criticism of Christianity).
I think we should have a separate section for this. I don't know what to call it. It should start with something like "Many people, who happened to be Christians, have brought their religions into disrepute with their actions. Most of their coreligionists were abhored by their actions and considered them to be totally at odds with their faith. Here are some examples ..."
On another issue, there seems to have been some agreement on other threads for a Responses section where rebuttals of the criticism could be placed. I think these rebuttals should be placed immediately after the criticism in question, and for these controversial issues this would be the ideal place for making clear the distinction between the religion, the majority of the followers, and these minorities. I would prefer separate criticism and rebuttals because it allows each case to be clearly expressed, rather than endless tweaking of a single paragraph. Detailed discussion of rebuttals and responses is a subject for another thread, but I think it would be useful with these two controversials issues. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 23:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Hear, hear. --Quadalpha 00:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Mcb197, you fail to understand my arguments and your own arguments reveal major flaws. You say I’m wrong for arguing that all have to show is that these docrinal tenants did not produce moral behavior in its adherents. My argument is that its not wrong because its refutes the myth that one being a Christian makes for moral behavior. You say that Christianity doesn’t make such a claim but I encounter it quite often by Christains, esp. fundamentalists. It's often decribed as the “moral argugment.” Lets assume that such an argument does exist for now. I'll be happy to present promient Christian thinkers, activists and groups who make this argument, if you don't believe me. But to show that Christians in practice are not any more moral as evidenced by their actions throughout history than any other group, is alone all that suffices as evidence to show the claim is false.
You write “Do you realize what you are saying here? You are saying that because Christianity says A, and the historical actor in question did action B, which violates the command of Christian doctrine A, Christian doctrine A is responsible because it failed to "produce moral behavior in its adherent." No, I am not saying that. Let me correct you, so you know what I do say. I never make the claim that the Action B violates the command of Christian doctrine (that is your pov). I don’t know if it violates it or not. I only show that the historical actor in question did action B (and immoral act), and that this may or may not be consitent with Chrstian doctrine A, which depends on how one interprets it. I maintain and argue that its not possible to say definitively what is the “correct” following of Chrstian doctrine because there is no one accepted standard. I argue that those who provide evdience that they are Christians, and fit within a lose definition that is inclusive of a majority professed Christian Churches is valid grounds given the nature of Christianity to accept that they are infact really Christians, and following their own interpreations of what that means in practice. The fact that Christians disagree is moot point since they all disagree with each other all the time anyway. I don’t take sides, I only need to show that the actions are really Christians (or should be accepted as such given a lack of grounds to exluding them), and that they engage in actions that most would call immoral behavior. Therefore, it follows that the notion that Christians, by virtue of their religious adherence, posses positive and superior moral attributes is shown to be a completely false claim. No reference to what motivates them, which is really impossible to know anyway, is necessary to prove this point.
And before you repeat yourself, I already read clearly what you wrote before and responded, already too. You must not have read or understood my response, so I’ll repeat it. You say: “Christians don't claim that professing to be a believer automatically makes one, "moral." Christian scriptures give a set of guidelines for how one should live. Whether or not one correctly follows these guidelines is what determines whether or not one can be considered to be living a morally acceptable life.”
I did not say “just professing” to be a believer is enough, although that is strong evidence that they are Christians. My argument rests on an acceptance that they are Christians in fact, not just because someone professes to be. It’s a subtle difference. Professing alone is not my criteria, just a major part of it. The argument is that they are Christians. This then follows that by definion they adhere to Christian scriptures, etc. The problem, though, is how do we determine who is “correctly” following such scriptures? Who is a real Christian and who isnt? This is sticky point you keep ignoring. Since I maintain we can not say one way or the other, given the broad and contradictory nature of the texts in the Bible, the standards of evidence for who is a Christian must be kept fairly open as well. Hence my accepting their claims of being and following Christians teachings itself as valid evidence they are also Christian. We only know what they profess they believe in. There is no basis to say they are not really Chrisitans because you don’t like or agree with how they act according to your version of what makes a good Christian, your version of what is “correctly” following scripture, etc. . Such a line of argument is very convenient for you since you can then select out and count only the good ones while ignoring the bad ones as not really being Christians. I claim this is what is what is spurious reasoning. As I’ve shown, we have Christians of every strip, from Marxist Christians to Fascist Christians, even Atheist Christians, and everythign in between. That this exists is proof there is no one correct way to interpret and that yields one Christian ideology.
The only way to deny these these immoral actor's Christianity is to define "Christian" in a bigoted manner, ie- "to be Christian is to be moral", which is the refrain of those who would believe that you can determine someone's morality (or lack thereof) by simply asking what religious beliefs he holds, and this is a tautology. Those who would deny Hitler's Christianity, for example, on the basis of his immoral actions are also guilty of not only religious bigotry but the same circular logic: as they see it, Hitler is consistent with their belief that all Christians are moral because he was not a Christian, and they know he was not a Christian because all Christians are moral!
I mentioned this difficulty somewhat earlier. Just because there can be no NPOV way of defining a Christian, does not mean you could impose your own view that "anyone is who says so." --Quadalpha 17:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Given the record those are generally described as being Christian you would have to define "true Christian" in such a narrow way so as to say that majority of Christians were in fact not acting as true Christians. The medieval Catholics did everything Hitler did and more; does this mean they weren't "true Christians" either? When they hacked a "witch’s breasts off, violating her with heated metal instruments, and then tearing her limbs out of their sockets on the rack, were these not act of true Christians? I define a Christian as one who believes that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. Others define it far more narrowly, so that they can exclude people like Hitler and Mengele. But if they are to use such a narrow definition, then they must be willing to admit that most self-professed "Christians" throughout history have not been truly Christian. I don’t think its our duty to make such special pleading arguments but let the reader decide and include these historical examples of genocide both by Germany, and Rwanda, along with the terror and horrors of the medieval Catholics on the record as immoral behavior by self professed Christians. Let the reader draw his own conclusions. At the very least it refutes the nonsense claims to moral virtue. To discount a whole population of Christians who act in a certain way and assume that are acting contrary to their professed beliefs, when they state their professed beliefs clearly (evidence enough), and when the doctrine can itself be stretched to support almost anything given the power of interpretation, is unjustified. Who are we to say they were not really Christian, simply because we don't like their negative example? No basis for this, other than our own pov and bias.
Now you get back into the false comparision between religion and science when you say, “I'm sure that you would be quick to criticize me if I professed to be a scientist, and then failed to use the scientific method. If I didn't use the scientific method, and then as a result drew some wacky conclusions, would you then go create a Wikipedia entry entitled, "Criticisms of Science," and list my incorrect conclusions as a "criticism of science?" Yes, indeed, I would because Christianity is NOT science in any way, shape or from. Unlike the Bible, science has a very well established methodology that NO ONE who is a scientists disputes. Those who deviate from its methods are easily and clearly shown to not be doing science. Its objective not subjective. There is no comparision as the standards are completely different. So, it's is your arguments that are fallacious and incorrect, not mine. This is especially true when you keep comparing the two.
You then say “Atheists love to go on and on about the ambiguity of the Christian scriptures and how really, when you get right down to it, you just can’t make any sense of them of them at all.” I don’t know what they “love” but secular voices do point out the obvious, and I make the argument as well: The doctrine can itself be stretched to support almost anything given the power of interpretation. You say this is spurious by saying that “just because there are multiple interpretations it doesn’t mean that isn’t one correct interpretation, rendering the others incorrect.” Yes, that is what all Christians say that, and all religious belifes make the claim that they are the one true interpreation, that their god is the one true god, etc. But all this proves is their own narrow bigotry and intolerance. There is no basis to prove this. Its just subjective interpretation. Theology is not like science. You say, “theology is an academic discipline just like any other…” No, you are wrong here, too. Theology has a significantly problematic relationship to Academia that is not shared by any other subject, and is distinguished from other established Academic disciplines that cover the same subject area, such as Comparative religion, Religious studies, Philosophy of Religion, the History of Religions, Psychology of Religion, and Sociology of Religion. All these approach religion with humanistic presuppositions unlike most theology. To say that “our theologians today understand the scripture better than did those theologians in the past who would have defended slavery” flawed in so far as it suggests that its just a matter of objectively understanding, and ignorance, instead of subjective interpreation that reflects the cultural bias of the times (no less than it reflects the bias of our own time). True, we may understand many things better today, such as how the Bible is full of contradictions, open for vastly differing and selective interpretations, and how it more and more is shown to be at odds with true and science. Also, that it contintues to be used by different groups who find it a means by which they can rally support for prejudice (or almost any other cause) in the name of Christianity as referenced and supported by their interpretation of its texts.
Now, I don’t say it’s not problematic to evaluate the morality of a religion or philosophy based on the past behavior of its adherents, no matter how heinous. Hitler was a Christian and he killed millions. The Roman Catholics were Christians and they killed countless tens of millions throughout the Dark Ages, with the Crusades, Inquisitions, and the brutal conquests and subjugations of Africa and the Americas. This, far from indicting Christianity gives one a better claim to moral behavior, a direct comparison of historical records should, if anything, give Christians a moment of self-doubt regarding this claim, and refute it well for others. Giovanni33 07:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Giovanni, what are "tenants?" When I looked that word up in my dictionary, I got an answer that didn't really fit in with your blatherings. Please explain this word to us. Thanks!
Also, when you say: "I only show that the historical actor in question did action B (and immoral act), and that this may or may not be consitent with Chrstian doctrine A, which depends on how one interprets it. I maintain and argue that its not possible to say definitively what is the “correct” following of Chrstian doctrine because there is no one accepted standard." How do you judge action B to be "and immoral" act, if there is "no one accepted standard?" What standard do you use, and isn't that just your POV? Please, keep posting Gio -- they are a lot of fun to read! RussianBoy 15:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Russianboy, I judge an act is immoral by the commonly accepted standards of society. Today slavery is considered immoral whereas in the past it was not. The immoral acts in question, though, are likewise not diputed, being genocide. Genocide was made possible only by support among Christians both in Rwanda and Germany. This is not to say that if they were non-Christians that such would not have been possible. My argument only is that Christianity does not make one any more moral than a non-Christian, as evidenced by these historical examples of Christians behaving as immoral historical actors. I know some would say that no such claim is made and this is a straw man but as I'll show shortly, such an argument is widley made. Giovanni33 21:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
RussianBoy, I think Giovanni33 meant to say "tenets," not "tenants," meaning the beliefs or teachings of Christianity. Wesley 17:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Wesley, that clears things up. RussianBoy 17:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What about your claims that Christianity makes evilness more likely? Substantiate beyond the simplistic "It's irrational!" "Hence my accepting their claims of being and following Christians teachings itself as valid evidence they are also Christian." - that is a POV statement. --Quadalpha 08:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Qudalpha, I don't really make that an argument. It's not a strong argument and while I think its a sub argument that can be stated, I don't argue it at lenght. I don't think being a Christian in itself makes one any less moral than anyone else. As far as the practical effects the closest I'd argue along these lines is that many tyrants both past and present, such as Hitler, used the mantle of religion to justify and further their selfish, hateful, and destructive agendas and prejudices. And, by conditioning people to blindly accept the pronouncements of authorities, instead of teaching them to think for themselves, religions like Christianity can make it easy for such evil dictators and demagogues to succeed. This is a notion well supported in political science and sociology. Giovanni33 21:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Giovanni33, please note my earlier post that you are creating a "straw man" of this belief that Christians are themselves morally superior to others. Only a few small sects even claim it is possible to be sinless this side of Heaven, and even in those sects few claim to have achieved it. The oldest denominations, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and related, require members to regularly confess their sins, thus presupposing that they will not run out of sins to confess. Even evangelical and fundamentalist churches have a mechanism to do this at least occasionally, through "altar calls," "rededications" and similar occasions. These well known traditions demonstrate that Christians do not claim to be without sin; do you dispute this? If not, then it is not enough to cite examples that prove Christians sin, to show a cause and effect relationship between Christian teachings and immoral behaviour. Regarding theology as an academic discipline, fields like sociology and psychology that study people do come under criticism from some of the "harder" sciences like physics, precisely because it's difficult to reproduce a controlled experiment that exactly reproduces the results of a behavioural survey. This is much easier to do in something like chemistry; theology is not unique in having problems with verifiability and repeatability of results. Wesley 17:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
It's only a straw man if in fact I'm distorting the real argument to create one that is easier to knock down, and then pretending that I knocked down the real argument. Clearly I'm not doing that. I identified the argument I'm knocking down and I proceeded to do that. Your claim is that no such argument exists. Well I disagree and will prove it exists. First let me point out that the fact the Christians who do make this argument do not claim to be without sin. They only claim that those who don't believe in God are less moral, or worse, immoral as a result. They only claim to be more moral. Their argument is that the existence of moral values itself depends on the existence and nature of God, and to not believe in a God leaves one without a basis in a consistent universal morality. As a result such Christians think they are better, more moral, than those who don't believe in God. Some examples: Christian philosopher J.P. Moreland, states, "the ultimate values of [secular] humanism are incapable of rational justification" (Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Book House, 1987: p.121) and "Christian theism is a background theory that makes the existence and knowability of morality more likely than does the background theory of atheism" (J.P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen, Does God Exist: The Debate between Theists & Atheists. Buffalo, NY. Prometheus, 1993: p. 119). Fundamentalists are especially fond of saying that humanist morality isn't "universal". They argue that we humans cannot distinguish right from wrong without divine guidance, so humanist ethics are essentially a rudderless ship, with each person defining his own version of morality to suit his convenience. "If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being."- Jerry Falwell According to Jerry Falwell, a man like Albert Einstein was a failure as a human being. If only we could have more such "failures"! Anyway, you get the idea. They all argue that by virtue of religious belief in God, they possess a superior morality than those who are without, or that it’s more likely to exist for them, etc. Note that a common argument historically by Christians against Atheists is exactly this argument, in which they label Atheists as immoral as a consequence of their lack of belief, esp. in contrast to those who do believe. Some go as far as to say that lacking belief makes us evil, agents of the devil! In any case, the examples clearly throw mud in the face of such bankrupt notions and make decisive refutations for if Christians can succumb to perpetrating wholesale genocide then “with friends like these who needs enemies?” Regarding my statment that theology is not like other disciplines I did not say it was a soft vs. hard one. I said it was different than all the other similar soft ones. Anyway, this is debatable as there are many different schools of theology. I'm sure if you go back to what I wrote about it you will see what I actually said.Giovanni33 22:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

All About Gio

Wow Gio! If your strategy is to drown the opposition in excessive verbiage, then I think you are close to winning the war! When I saw how long your latest masterpiece was I almost pulled an Alienus on you all and quit. However, I am pleased to say that I did read through your post, and have given you and your ideas their own subject heading on this talk page. But, Gio, you didn’t seem to heed my advice about proof-reading your posts. You are not doing anyone any favors by refusing to write in a way that can be clearly understood.

Gio writes: “I never make the claim that the Action B violates the command of Christian doctrine” Gio, if you aren’t claiming to be criticizing Christian doctrine, then you probably are on the wrong page. This page is dedicated to the criticisms of Christianity. Please straighten yourself out before posting again.

Gio writes: “I argue that those who provide evdience that they are Christians, and fit within a lose definition that is inclusive of a majority professed Christian Churches is valid grounds given the nature of Christianity to accept that they are infact really Christians…” I don’t think this is really what you want to say, because you will never find “a majority of professed Christian Churches” that agree with White Supremacy or the Rwandan genocide. Everyone on this board would be happy to accept this standard, and in fact, this is exactly what we have been arguing for the entire time. I’m glad you are finally coming around my friend!

Gio writes: “Therefore, it follows that the notion that Christians, by virtue of their religious adherence, posses positive and superior moral attributes is shown to be a completely false claim.” Correct! Too bad nobody here is making that claim. I will quote myself: “Christians don't claim that professing to be a believer automatically makes one, "moral." Christian scriptures give a set of guidelines for how one should live. Whether or not one correctly follows these guidelines is what determines whether or not one can be considered to be living a morally acceptable life.”

Gio writes: “I did not say “just professing” to be a believer is enough, although that is strong evidence that they are Christians. My argument rests on an acceptance that they are Christians in fact, not just because someone professes to be. It’s a subtle difference. Professing alone is not my criteria, just a major part of it. The argument is that they are Christians.” Does anyone else here understand what he is talking about? Maybe I am just dumb, but I have absolutely no idea what he is trying to say. “My argument rests on an acceptance that they are Christians in fact, not just because someone professes to be.” Huh? “It’s a subtle difference.” Apparently!

Gio writes: “Who is a real Christian and who isnt? This is sticky point you keep ignoring [sic].” Actually, Gio, I would be happy to accept your own standard, defining Christians as those that who “fit within a lose definition that is inclusive of a majority professed Christian Churches [sic].” We would need to first clarify what a “lose definition” is, but I am sure that some sort of consensus could be reached.

Gio writes: “Hence my accepting their claims of being and following Christians teachings itself as valid evidence they are also Christian. We only know what they profess they believe in.” Wait a minute Gio! Didn’t you just say a minute ago that you “did not say ‘just professing’ to be a believer is enough...” and that your, “argument rests on an acceptance that they are Christians in fact, not just because someone professes to be?” Reading on you write that, “It’s a subtle difference. Professing alone is not my criteria, just a major part of it.” Wow, apparently it is a very subtle difference! Although, I must admit, I really have no idea what you are talking about, so maybe this whole thing is unfair to you. Could someone else please come and be Gio’s translator? I’m totally serious.

Gio writes: “Those who would deny Hitler's Christianity, for example, on the basis of his immoral actions are also guilty of not only religious bigotry but the same circular logic: as they see it, Hitler is consistent with their belief that all Christians are moral because he was not a Christian, and they know he was not a Christian because all Christians are moral!” Good point! I propose we add the Holocaust and Nazism to our list of Criticisms of Christianity.

Gio writes: “I define a Christian as one who believes that Jesus Christ was the Messiah.” Me too – I am glad we can finally agree on something!

Gio writes: “Others define it far more narrowly, so that they can exclude people like Hitler and Mengele.” Gio, for the billionth time, the actions of professing Christians do not in and of themselves constitute “Criticism of Christianity.” By your logic, we could include the name and biography of every single Christian in the world under “Criticism of Christianity,” because every single Christian in the world has committed numerous immoral acts. To criticize Christianity, you need to criticize some tenet (notice I did not write “tenant” -- please stop using that word) of the religion. You can then use historical examples to illustrate how that tenet leads to undesirable ends. I am really getting tired of explaining that to you, over and over again.

Gio writes: “There is no comparision [between Christianity and science] as the standards are completely different [sic].” Gio, please read things slowly and carefully so that you can grasp what people are saying. I was not comparing the standards used in theology and science. Clearly, as you astutely observe, “Christianity is NOT science in any way, shape or from.” Why don’t you go back and read it again.

Gio writes: “The doctrine can itself be stretched to support almost anything given the power of interpretation.” This is clearly false. Provide me with an interpretation of the Bible that is pro-necrophilia. Yes this is a ridiculous example, but it is all one needs to disprove your statement.

Gio writes: “You say this is spurious by saying that ‘just because there are multiple interpretations it doesn’t mean that isn’t one correct interpretation, rendering the others incorrect.’ Yes, that is what all Christians say that, and all religious belifes make the claim that they are the one true interpreation, that their god is the one true god, etc. But all this proves is their own narrow bigotry and intolerance [sic].” Gio, there is an objective truth about the nature of things. Christians think they have it. Now, they might be wrong, but they are not automatically wrong simply because other people disagree with them. Perhaps the Muslims are correct. I really don’t know, but I do know that your assertion is illogical.

Gio writes: “True, we may understand many things better today, such as how the Bible is full of contradictions, open for vastly differing and selective interpretations, and how it more and more is shown to be at odds with true and science [sic].” You don’t know much about theology do you? That’s okay though, because at least you know a lot about “true and science!” But wait Gio, I thought that those who make truth claims are only proving, “their own narrow bigotry and intolerance?”

It’s been a pleasure going through your post. You’re a master of prose Gio – hats off to you! Mcb197 17:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Mcb197 -- There are numerous problems with Gio's proposals and with his apparent understanding of Christians and Christianity, but your tone was somewhat less than friendly and really just unacceptable. Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thanks...KHM03 22:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree KHM03. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 22:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we should end this particular thread, as it possibly getting a little personal. There are other threads to discuss the article itself. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 23:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet More

I'm not against discussing the criticism itself. The problem is that the article already makes a POV attempt to substantiate the criticism, and what Gio's arguing for is in effect to make it even more so. I repeat: the article is about criticism of Christianity, it's not a vehicle for making criticisms.

I don't even know if he's realized it yet, but not only does he insist there are atheist Christians, he also believes there are Muslim Christians. A.J.A. 18:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni doesn't seem to think that theology is an academic discipline. I guess that Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, Duke, UNC, Princeton, Vanderbilit, Emory, Columbia etc., etc. all missed that memo. Shall I forward the news on to them Gio? RussianBoy 19:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
RussianBoy -- There are numerous problems with Gio's proposals and with his apparent understanding of Christians and Christianity, but your tone was somewhat less than friendly and really just unacceptable. Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thanks...KHM03 22:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree KHM03. Everyone should be more civilised. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 22:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we should end this particular thread, as it possibly getting a little personal. There are other threads to discuss the article itself. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 23:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to resolve Supremacist and other debates

Here's what I think we should do:

  • For the time being, keep the two contentious pieces of text off the main article. I don't think there is any major dispute as to the accuracy or neutrality of the rest of the article. So we could remove the neutrality tags altogether until we resolve this.
  • I've put the contentious text into this subpage. We should fix it there. This will not be linked to from the main article. If/when we have a version that is an NPOV coverage of criticism of Christianity or Christians, then we discuss whether it should be copied into the main article.
  • In the meantime, we try not to discuss whether it should go in, or even whether it's relevant to 'Criticism of Christianity'. Simply try to improve it so it's an NPOV discussion on 'something to do with criticisms of Christianity and/or Christians'.
  • Maybe try to redirect further discussion on either of these pieces of text to the subpage?

Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 23:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)