![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/09\/Lemaitre4.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I continue my critiques of<\/span>\u00a0Why I Became an Atheist<\/em><\/a>,\u00a0by John W. Loftus<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n I first ran across former Christian minister <\/span>Loftus back in 2006. We dialogued about the<\/span> problem of evil<\/a>, and<\/span> whether God was in time<\/a>. During that period I also<\/span>\u00a0replied to an online version of his deconversion<\/a>: which (like my arguments about<\/span> God and time<\/a>) he didn\u2019t care for at all<\/a>. I\u2019ve<\/span> critiqued many<\/em> atheist deconversion stories<\/a>, and maintain a<\/span> very extensive web page about atheism<\/a>.\u00a0In 2007\u00a0I critiqued his \u201cOutsider Test of Faith\u201d series<\/a>: to which he gave no response.\u00a0Loftus\u2019 biggest objection to my critique of his descent into atheism was that I responded to what he called a<\/span> \u201cbrief testimony.\u201d<\/span> He wrote in December 2006 (his words in<\/span> blue<\/span> henceforth):<\/span><\/p>\n Deconversion stories are piecemeal. They cannot give a full explanation for why someone left the faith. They only give hints at why they left the faith. It requires writing a whole book about why someone left the faith to understand why they did, and few people do that. I did. If you truly want to critique my deconversion story then critique my book. . . .\u00a0I challenge you to really critique the one deconversion story that has been published in a book. . . .\u00a0Do you accept my challenge?<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I declined at that time, mainly (but not solely) for the following stated reason:<\/span><\/p>\n If you send me your book in an e-file for free, I\u2019d be more than happy to critique it. I won\u2019t buy it, and I refuse to type long portions of it when it is possible to cut-and-paste. That is an important factor since my methodology is Socratic and point-by-point. . . .\u00a0<\/span>You railed against that, saying that it was a<\/span> \u201chandout.\u201d<\/span> I responded that you could have any of my (14 completed) books in e-book form for free.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Throughout August 2019, I critiqued Dr. David Madison, a prominent contributor to Loftus\u2019 website, Debunking Christianity<\/em>,<\/span> no less than 35 times<\/a>. As of this writing, they remain<\/span> completely unanswered<\/a>. I was simply providing (as a courtesy) links to my critiques underneath each article of Dr. Madison\u2019s, till Loftus decided I couldn\u2019t do that (after having<\/span> claimed that I \u201chate\u201d atheists<\/a> and indeed, everyone<\/em> I disagree with).<\/span> I replied at length<\/a> regarding his censorship on his website. Loftus\u2019 explanation for the complete non-reply to my 35 critiques was this:<\/span> \u201cWe know we can respond. It\u2019s just that we don\u2019t have the time to do so. Plus, it\u2019s pretty clear our time would be better spent doing something else than wrestling in the mud with you.\u201d <\/span>Meanwhile, I discovered that Dr. Madison wrote glowingly about Loftus on 1-23-17:<\/span><\/p>\n When the history of Christianity\u2019s demise is written (it will fade eventually away, as do all religions), your name will feature prominently as one who helped bring the world to its senses. Your legacy is secure and is much appreciated.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n This was<\/span> underneath an article<\/a> where Loftus claimed:<\/span> \u201cI\u2019ve kicked this dead rodent of the Christian faith into a lifeless blob so many times there is nothing left of it.\u201d<\/span> I hadn\u2019t realized that Loftus had single-handedly managed to accomplish the stupendous feat of vanquishing the Hideous Beast of Christianity (something the Roman Empire, Muslims, Communists, and many others all miserably failed to do). Loftus waxed humbly and modestly<\/span> ten days later<\/a>: \u201cI cannot resist the supposition that my books are among the best. . . . Every one of my books is unique, doing what few other atheist books have done, if any of them.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n These last three cited statements put me \u201cover the edge\u201d and I decided to buy a used copy of his book,<\/span>\u00a0Why I Became an Atheist<\/em> <\/a>(revised version, 2012, 536 pages) and critique it, as he wanted me to do in 2006. Moreover<\/span>, on 8-27-07<\/a> he made a blanket challenge about the original version of this book:<\/span> \u201cI challenge someone to try this with my book. I might learn a few things, and that\u2019s always a goal of mine. Pick it up and deal with as many arguments in it that you can. Deal with them all if you can.\u201d<\/span> His wish is granted (I think he will at length regret<\/em> it), and this will be my primary project (as a<\/span> professional apologist<\/a>) in the coming weeks. <\/span><\/p>\n Despite all his confident bluster, I fully\u00a0expect<\/em>\u00a0him to ignore my critiques: just like Madison and \u201cBible Basher\u201d Bob Seidensticker, who also<\/em> has ignored 35 of my critiques<\/a> (that he<\/em> requested I do). If Loftus decides to defend his views, I\u2019m here; always have been. And I won\u2019t flee for the hills, like atheists habitually do, when faced with substantive criticism.<\/span><\/p>\n The words of John Loftus <\/span>will be in<\/span> blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n John Loftus\u2019 chapter 6 is entitled, \u201cThe Lessons of Galileo, Science, and Religion\u201d (pp. 127-145).<\/span><\/p>\n The amount of error in the usual atheist analysis of \u201cscience and Christianity\u201d is so vast, and the misrepresentations and often deliberate, glaring historical omissions so innumerable, that I could literally write for a week about them. But I have neither the time nor the energy, so I will have to make a relatively limited reply. For a much different view: a thinking Christian approach to science, see my extensive<\/span> web page on science and philosophy<\/a>, and my book<\/span>,\u00a0Science and Christianity: Close Partners or Mortal Enemies?<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(available for only $3.99 as an e-book).<\/span><\/p>\n Neil DeGrasse Tyson . . . [said] \u201cI have yet to see a successful prediction about the physical world that was inferred or extrapolated from the content of any religious document. . . . Whenever people have used religious documents to make detailed predictions about the physical world they have been famously wrong.\u201d (p. 132)<\/span><\/p>\n Atheist Bob Seidensticker, in one of his countless trashings<\/a> of Christianity, taunted:<\/p>\n 10. Germs? What germs?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n The Bible isn\u2019t a reliable source of health information. . . . physical health and basic hygienic precautions are not obvious and are worth a mention somewhere. How about telling us that boiling water minimizes disease? Or how to site latrines to safeguard the water supply?<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Five minutes searching on Google would have prevented Bob from spewing more ignorance about the Bible. The\u00a0Bible Ask<\/em>\u00a0site has an article,\u00a0\u201cDid the Bible teach the germs theory?\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(5-30-16):<\/p>\n The Bible writers did not write a medical textbook. However, there are numerous rules for sanitation, quarantine, and other medical procedures (found in the first 5 book of the OT) . . .<\/p>\n Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818 \u20131865), who was a Hungarian physician, . . . [He] proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 . . . He published a book of his findings in\u00a0Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever<\/em>. Despite various publications of his successful results, Semmelweis\u2019s suggestions were not accepted by the medical community of his time.<\/p>\n Why was Semmelweis research rejected? Because germs were virtually a foreign concept for the Europeans in the middle-19th-century. . . .<\/p>\n Had the medical community paid attention to God\u2019s instructions that were given 3000 years before, many lives would have been saved. The Lord gave the Israelites hygienic principles against the contamination of germs and taught the necessity to quarantine the sick (Numbers 19:11-12<\/a>). And the book of Leviticus lists a host of diseases and ways where a person would come in contact with germs (Leviticus 13:46<\/a>).<\/p>\n Germs were no new discovery in 1847. And for this fact, Roderick McGrew testified in the\u00a0Encyclopedia of Medical History<\/em><\/a>: \u201cThe idea of contagion was foreign to the classic medical tradition and found no place in the voluminous Hippocratic writings. The Old Testament, however, is a rich source for contagionist sentiment, especially in regard to leprosy and venereal disease\u201d (1985, pp. 77-78).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Some other interesting facts regarding the Bible and germ theory:<\/p>\n 1. The Bible contained instructions for the Israelites to wash their bodies and clothes\u00a0in running water<\/em>\u00a0if they had a discharge, came in contact with someone else\u2019s discharge, or had touched a dead body. They were also instructed about objects that had come into contact with dead things, and about purifying items with an unknown history with either fire or running water. They were also taught to bury human waste outside the camp, and to burn animal waste (Num 19:3-22;<\/a>\u00a0Lev. 11:1-47<\/a>;\u00a015:1-33;<\/a>\u00a0Deut 23:12<\/a>).<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0Leviticus 13\u00a0and 14 mention leprosy on walls and on garments. Leprosy is a bacterial disease, and can survive for three weeks or longer apart from the human body. Thus, God commanded that the garments of leprosy victims should be burned (Lev 13:52<\/a>).<\/span><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0It was\u00a0not until 1873<\/a>\u00a0that leprosy was shown to be an infectious disease rather than hereditary.\u00a0Of course, the laws of Moses already were aware of that\u00a0<\/span>(Lev 13, 14,\u00a022;\u00a0Num 19:20<\/a>). It contains instructions\u00a0<\/span>about quarantine and about quarantined persons needing to\u00a0thoroughly shave and wash. Priests who cared for them also were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly.\u00a0The Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the 19th century, when medical advances discovered the biblical medical principles and practices.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0Hippocrates, the \u201cfather of medicine\u201d (born 460 BC), thought \u201cbad air\u201d from swampy areas was the cause of disease.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n See also:\u00a0\u201cOld Testament Laws About Infectious Diseases.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Seidensticker continued<\/a>:<\/p>\n Let me close with a paraphrase of an idea\u00a0from AronRa: When the answer is known, science knows it. But when science doesn\u2019t know it, neither does religion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That\u2019s not true. As shown, Hippocrates, the pagan Greek \u201cfather of medicine\u201d didn\u2019t understand the causes of contagious disease. Nor did medical science until the 19th century. But the hygienic principles that would have prevented the spread of such diseases were in the Bible: in the Laws of Moses.<\/p>\n [R]eligious beliefs are always the ones that have been forced to integrate with science, and not the other way around, so why not just admit science sets the boundaries for what we believe? (p. 134)<\/span><\/p>\n I just showed numerous examples regarding germ theory, disease, and medicine, that already put the lie to this broad claim. Another example that readily comes to mind would be Big Bang cosmology. The consensus among scientists before that came around was the steady state theory of cosmology (an eternal universe). Even Einstein accepted that. Then a Belgian Catholic priest by the name of Fr.\u00a0Georges\u00a0 Lema\u00eetre\u00a0<\/a>(1894-1966), who was also a mathematician,\u00a0astronomer, and professor of\u00a0physics\u00a0at the\u00a0Catholic University of Louvain, developed the Big Bang Theory. The Wikipedia article on him<\/a> states:<\/p>\n He was the first to identify that the recession of nearby galaxies can be explained by\u00a0a theory of an expanding universe<\/a>,<\/sup>\u00a0which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by\u00a0Edwin Hubble<\/a>.<\/sup><\/sup>\u00a0He was the first to derive what is now known as\u00a0Hubble\u2019s law<\/a>, or the Hubble\u2013Lema\u00eetre law,<\/sup><\/sup>\u00a0and made the first estimation of what is now called the\u00a0Hubble constant<\/a>, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble\u2019s article.<\/sup><\/sup><\/sup><\/sup>\u00a0Lema\u00eetre also proposed what later became known as the \u201cBig Bang<\/a>\u00a0theory\u201d of the origin of the\u00a0universe<\/a>, initially calling it the \u201chypothesis of the\u00a0primeval atom<\/a>\u201c. . . .<\/p>\n At this time [1931],\u00a0Einstein, while not taking exception to the mathematics of Lema\u00eetre\u2019s theory, refused to accept that the universe was expanding; Lema\u00eetre recalled his commenting \u201cVos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable<\/i>\u201c<\/sup>\u00a0(\u201cYour calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious\u201d). . . .<\/p>\n After Hubble\u2019s discovery was published, Einstein quickly and publicly endorsed Lema\u00eetre\u2019s theory, helping both the theory and its proposer get fast recognition.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That is all scientific work, so how does it tie into the Bible (which \u2014 we agree \u2014 is not and was not intended to be a \u201cscience book\u201d)? Well, the Bible taught ex nihilo<\/em> creation:<\/p>\n Genesis 1:1<\/strong> (RSV)\u00a0In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thus, in this instance, science had to adjust to a long-held tenet of Christianity, rather than vice versa, and what John Loftus claimed above (falling into the trap of asserting a universal negative again) is a falsehood. The agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow<\/a> (1925-2008) observed about this:<\/p>\n For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (God and the Astronomers<\/em>, 1978)<\/span><\/p>\n Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the Biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.\u00a0(The Enchanted Loom<\/em>, 1981)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As Richard Carrier says, \u201cTheologians have been wrong every time so far. Why keep betting on them?\u201d I just don\u2019t see why we should. (p. 135).<\/span><\/p>\n Really<\/em>? I\u2019ve already provided several contrary examples. Loftus and Carrier need to get up to speed and to stop saying dumb things. Here\u2019s another example that runs counter to their bigoted proclamations. Aristotle<\/a> thought that time extended to an infinite past and into an infinite future. But Christian theologian St. Augustine (354-430), according to the Stanford University web page, \u201cSpacetime Before Einstein\u201d<\/a>:<\/p>\n . . . put a theological twist on Lucretius\u2019 argument for the relational nature of time in his\u00a0Confessions<\/em>, emphasizing that \u201cGod created the world\u00a0with<\/em>\u00a0time, not in time\u201d. Time came into existence along with matter, in other words \u2014 a viewpoint that interestingly foreshadows the one held by big-bang cosmologists today.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Eric Rosenfield, in his article, \u201cAn Analysis of the Concept of Time in\u00a0the Confessions<\/em>, Book 11 by Augustine of Hippo\u201d<\/a> elaborates:<\/p>\n In 1917,\u00a0Albert Einstein\u00a0completed work on the\u00a0General Theory of Relativity,\u00a0<\/i>one of the rules of which states that time is fundamentally bound to matter and gravity, and that without matter there would be no time. Oddly, this concept was presaged almost 1,300 years before that when Bishop Augustine of Hippo (later St. Augustine) put forth the idea that when God created the Heavens and the Earth, he created time itself as well. Before Augustine, no one that we know of had tried to consider \u201ctime\u201d as being something changeable, something that could start and stop; after all, we always perceive time as moving forward, and contemplating temporality as being finite or malleable seems unnatural, and the implications headache-rousing. Plato and Aristotle both regarded time as being infinite. Yet it was Augustine\u2019s application of the methods of the principles of Grecian philosophy and reason to the Christian concept of God that forced him to arrive at his conclusions. . . .<\/p>\n [W]hat\u2019s really strange about Augustine\u2019s interpretation of the eternal nature of the Beginning is that, when taken entirely apart from the Bible, it resonates not only with Relativity (Augustine saying that for the Word to happen in time there must have been something that experiences time being roughly analogous to Einstein saying that matter and time are linked, and without one you would not have the other) but also with modern Big Bang Theory. Briefly, according to Big Bang Theory, because matter and time are so inextricably bound, when all the matter in the universe was compressed into a single point it formed what\u2019s called a \u201cquantum singularity\u201d in which, the math shows, the curvature of time and space became infinite. This means the Big Bang singularity exists at all times at once, in all places at once much like Augustine\u2019s God \u2013 the singularity that created the universe is all around us, all the time, forever.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Isaac Newton was still getting it wrong some 1300 years later, according to Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy<\/em> (\u201cTime\u201d<\/a>):<\/p>\n In about 1700, Isaac Newton claimed future time is infinite and that, although God created the material world some finite time ago, there was an infinite period of past time before that.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But Loftus cites Richard Carrier\u2019s whoppers again (one of many dumb things Carrier has uttered, that he chose to include in his book):<\/p>\n \u201cChristianity was bad for science, it put a stop to scientific progress for a thousand years, and even after that it made science\u2019s recovery difficult, painful, and slow.\u201d (p. 141)<\/span><\/p>\n Right. He must live in an alternate universe.\u00a0I have documented\u00a0\u201c33 Empiricist Christian Thinkers Before 1000 AD\u201d<\/a>.\u00a0<\/span>As one example among many, both\u00a0Augustine<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Aquinas<\/a>\u00a0opposed astrology. On the other hand, many great early scientists (also Christians) were\u00a0obsessed with astrology<\/a>, including Galileo, Kepler, and Tycho Brahe, while Isaac Newton (an Arian) was fascinated with alchemy.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n The so-called \u201cEnlightenment\u201d (the supposedly \u201creasonable\u201d people), by contrast,\u00a0murdered Lavoisier, the father of chemistry<\/a>, and several other prominent French scientists and philosophers (namely,\u00a0Philippe-Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric de Dietrich<\/a>,\u00a0Nicolas de Condorcet<\/a>,\u00a0Jean Baptiste Gaspard Bochart de Saron<\/a>,\u00a0Guillaume-Chr\u00e9tien de Lamoignon de Malesherbes<\/a>, and\u00a0F\u00e9lix Vicq d\u2019Azyr<\/a>). The murderous spree against scientists was later revived by the\u00a0Soviet and Chinese atheist Communists<\/a>.<\/p>\n Galileo, on the other hand (the only example of a \u201cscientific martyr\u201d that we ever seem to hear about) lived his life under house arrest in luxurious palaces of his supporters. Galileo and other scientists of his general time,\u00a0got many things wrong, too<\/a>\u00a0(just as some in the Church had, in condemning Galileo\u2019s premature overconfidence).<\/p>\n The Catholic Church produced modern science, including heliocentrism (formulated by the Catholic Copernicus). One (sub-infallible) Catholic tribunal at one point of our history, got science wrong (while a pious Catholic who was wrongly persecuted: Galileo, got some major things right, but also other things wrong, and another Catholic, St. Robert Bellarmine, had the more modern, accurate understanding of scientific method<\/a>).<\/p>\n As for heliocentrism, it need not be pointed out that\u00a0Nicolaus Copernicus<\/a>\u00a0was the key figure who changed that, and he was a Catholic cleric, and his work was enthusiastically supported by the pope of the time and the Church (though later with Galileo there were some silly things said). Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia (\u201cHeliocentrism\u201d<\/a>) reveals that Catholics were forerunners of heliocentrism:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The\u00a0entry on \u201cHealth\u201d<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0Baker\u2019s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology<\/em>\u00a0reveals that ordinary medicinal remedies were widely practiced in Bible times. There wasn\u2019t\u00a0solely<\/em>\u00a0a belief that sin or demons caused all disease (as Bob Seidensticker often implies in his anti-Christian writings, and in this paper:\u00a0\u201cAccording to the Bible, evil spirits cause disease.\u201d). There was also a natural cause-and-effect understanding:<\/p>\n Ordinary means of healing were of most diverse kinds. Balm (\u00a0Gen 37:25<\/a>\u00a0) is thought to have been an aromatic resin (or juice) with healing properties; oil was the universal emollient (\u00a0Isa 1:6<\/a>\u00a0), and was sometimes used for wounds with cleansing wine (\u00a0Luke 10:34<\/a>\u00a0). Isaiah recommended a fig poultice for a boil (\u00a038:21<\/a>\u00a0); healing springs and saliva were thought effectual (\u00a0Mark 8:23<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0John 5<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a09:6-7<\/a>\u00a0). Medicine is mentioned (\u00a0Prov 17:22<\/a>\u00a0) and defended as \u201csensible\u201d ( Sirach 38:4). Wine mixed with myrrh was considered sedative (\u00a0Mark 15:23<\/a>\u00a0); mint, dill, and cummin assisted digestion (\u00a0Matt 23:23<\/a>\u00a0); other herbs were recommended for particular disorders. Most food rules had both ritual and dietary purposes, while raisins, pomegranates, milk, and honey were believed to assist restoration. . . . [St. Paul: \u201cuse a little\u00a0<\/b>wine\u00a0<\/b>for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments\u201d: 1 Timothy 5:23]<\/p>\n Luke\u2019s constant care of Paul reminds us that nonmiraculous means of healing were not neglected in that apostolic circle. Wine is recommended for Timothy\u2019s weak stomach [St. Paul: \u201cuse a little\u00a0<\/b>wine\u00a0<\/b>for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments\u201d: 1 Timothy 5:23], eye-salve for the Thyatiran church\u2019s blindness (metaphorical, but significant).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Doctors today often note how the patient\u2019s disposition and attitude has a strong effect on his health or recovery. The mind definitely influences the body. Solomon understood this in several of his Proverbs: written around 950 BC (Prov 14:30; 15:30; 16:24; 17:22).<\/p>\n\nFor examples of \u201cscientific Christians\u201d long before modern science was born, see\u00a0Hermann of Reichenau<\/a>\u00a0(1013\u20131054) and\u00a0Adelard of Bath<\/a>\u00a0(c. 1080-c. 1152). When modern science did get off the ground, of course it was Christianity that was\u00a0overwhelmingly in the forefront<\/a>\u00a0of that. Christians or theists\u00a0founded 115 scientific fields<\/a>. There were\u00a0at least 244 priest-scientists<\/a>. And here are\u00a0152 lay Catholic scientists<\/a>. 35 lunar craters were\u00a0named to honor Jesuit scientists<\/a>.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n
European scholarship in the later medieval period actively received astronomical models developed in the Islamic world and by the 13th century was well aware of the problems of the Ptolemaic model. In the 14th century, bishop\u00a0Nicole Oresme<\/a>\u00a0[c. 1320-1382] discussed the possibility that the Earth rotated on its axis, while\u00a0Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa<\/a>\u00a0[1401-1464] in his\u00a0Learned Ignorance<\/em>\u00a0asked whether there was any reason to assert that the Sun (or any other point) was the center of the universe. In parallel to a mystical definition of God, Cusa wrote that \u201cThus the fabric of the world (machina mundi<\/em>) will\u00a0quasi<\/em>\u00a0have its center everywhere and circumference nowhere.\u201d . . .<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n\n
\nThe state of knowledge on planetary theory received by Copernicus [1473-1543] is summarized in\u00a0Georg von Peuerbach<\/a>\u2018s\u00a0Theoricae Novae Planetaru<\/em>\u00a0(printed in 1472 by\u00a0Regiomontanus<\/a>\u00a0[1436-1476] ). By 1470, the accuracy of observations by the Vienna school of astronomy, of which Peuerbach and Regiomontanus were members, was high enough to make the eventual development of heliocentrism inevitable, and indeed it is possible that Regiomontanus did arrive at an explicit theory of heliocentrism before his death in 1476, some 30 years before Copernicus. . . .<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\nScience wasn\u2019t content to accept the notion that epilepsy was demon possession or that sicknesses were sent by God to punish people. (p. 142)<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n