Galileo Galilei (1564-1642); portrait (c. 1605-1607) by Domenico Tintoretto (1560-1635)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/p>\n Neil Carter\u2019s\u00a0cited words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n * * * * *<\/p>\n Last night for the third time in as many months I found myself explaining to someone raised outside of a devoutly religious environment that\u00a0<\/span>religious people<\/span> are not stupid<\/span> simply because they<\/span> believe nonsensical things<\/span><\/i>. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Very often they flatly disagree and insist that anyone who believes in things like demons and angels and Young Earth Creationism<\/span>\u00a0must<\/i>\u00a0<\/i>be morons. But then like last night they get a puzzled expression as they sit across from me and finally admit, \u201cThe thing is, you don\u2019t seem stupid to me. So how\u00a0on earth<\/i>\u00a0did you ever believe such things?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Good article. I can heavily relate to it. I, too, have often found myself explaining to someone not familiar with the devoted atheist environment, that atheists are not stupid or wicked simply because they believe nonsensical and absurd things.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s tough for us non-believers in the atheist \u201cvision\u201d and worldview to comprehend how intelligent, sharp people with lots of degrees and books read and high IQs and a profound love of science, manage to believe that\u00a0trillions of atoms (having popped into existence for no known or discernible reason in a Big Bang: an event now accepted and first developed by a Catholic priest, Georges Lema\u00eetre<\/a>) \u2014 but we \u201cknow\u201d that GOD<\/strong> COULDN\u2019T HAVE DONE IT!!! \u2014 and their distant relatives, cells, can make absolutely\u00a0<\/span>everything\u00a0<\/i><\/span>in the universe occur, by their own power, possessed eternally either in full or (who knows how?) in inevitably unfolding potentiality. We\u2019re baffled at how they can attribute to atoms and cells the omnipotence and omniscience and extraordinary creative power that we attribute to an eternal spirit, God. But they manage to do so.<\/span><\/p>\n We\u2019re baffled how intelligent scientists could be fooled by Piltdown Man <\/a>for 41 years (!). \u00a0<\/span>Henry Fairfield Osborn<\/a>, President of the\u00a0<\/span>American Museum of Natural History<\/a>, thought\u00a0\u00a0the jaw and skull belonged together \u201cwithout question\u201d.\u00a0<\/span>It turned out to be an obvious hoax:\u00a0the jawbone of an orangutan\u00a0attached to a human skull. Atheist paleontologist \u00a0(and great critical writer on the history of science) Stephen Jay Gould observed that it was immediately apparent that it had been tampered with \u2014 if only someone had bothered to look closely<\/em> at the damned thing during all those years. Finally someone did. It just took 41 years . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n But\u00a0it had been accepted for 41 years as a compelling proof of Darwinian human evolution, and thrown in the face of the folks at the\u00a0famous\u00a0Scopes trial <\/a>in 1925 (I happened to visit that courtroom this summer).\u00a0Nebraska Man<\/a>: another silly so-called \u201cspecimen\u201d \u2014 was widely accepted from 1922 to 1927, and turned out to be a tooth of an extinct pig (one tooth<\/em> was the entire evidence for it). It\u2019s another case of intelligent scientists believing in folly. <\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s remarkable how often throughout history this happens. Of course we don\u2019t hear<\/em> much about it, but these follies and imbecilities assuredly happened, just as all the stuff we constantly hear about Christian<\/em> history happened (albeit usually fantastically distorted and exaggerated, as I have myself shown in my apologetics work, time and again).<\/span><\/p>\n Scientists started becoming enthralled with eugenics<\/a> in the early 20th century, and advocated things like sterilizing black men, so they wouldn\u2019t pollute white society too much. We saw how Germany, a highly advanced, pro-scientific society, started using its scientists to torture Jewish prisoners in concentration camps for \u201cscientific experiments.\u201d It\u2019s tough to grasp that one! How could the \u201csmart\u201d people do such things? The Nazis loved eugenics. That was sufficient to wake up the scientists who loved it, and it fell by the wayside. Nuthin\u2019 like a wake-up call<\/em>, huh? The Wikipedia article on eugenics states:<\/span><\/p>\n But Copernicus\u00a0<\/a>(1473-1543) had erred in asserting circular orbits and in holding that the sun was the stationary center of the\u00a0universe<\/span>, with not only the earth and the other planets of the solar system, but also\u00a0all\u00a0<\/span>the other stars, moving around it. He also believed that transparent rotating crystalline spheres carried the planets in their orbits. So why is only the Catholic Church<\/em> mocked for the temporary scientific errors of some of her members during this fledgling period of astronomy, when everyone else<\/em> held to errors, too?<\/span><\/p>\n Not so well-known are the stupid errors<\/em> that<\/span> Galileo<\/a>\u00a0(1564-1642) believed in. He rejected<\/span> Johannes Kepler\u2019s<\/a> (1571-1630) elliptical orbits of the planets, considering the circle the \u201cperfect\u201d shape for planetary orbits; even though his main publications (unlike Copernicus) came after<\/em> Kepler\u2019s groundbreaking work. Galileo was oblivious to the current, cutting-edge, correct science of orbiting planets.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Einstein described Galileo\u2019s failure to incorporate\u00a0Kepler\u2019s laws as \u201ca grotesque illustration of the fact that creative individuals are often not receptive\u201d. Kepler\u00a0was correct in asserting elliptical orbits of the planets around the sun, at varying speeds (both notions having been foreseen by the Catholic Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in the 15th century), but continued to err in thinking that the sun was the center of the entire universe.<\/span><\/p>\n Galileo was wrong in following Copernicus\u2019s (and Kepler\u2019s) view that the sun was the stationary center of the universe, with the earth and other planets of the solar system, and also<\/span>\u00a0all the other stars<\/span>, moving around it. In this respect, he and Copernicus had hardly advanced beyond what was already posited by the ancient Greek astronomer\u00a0<\/span>Aristarchus<\/a>\u00a0(d. c. 230 B. C.). All three had merely moved the center of the universe 93 million miles from the earth to the sun.<\/span><\/p>\n Galileo, moreover, argued vehemently in his 1623 book\u00a0<\/span>The Assayer<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>that the comets of 1618 were merely an optical illusion.\u00a0Furthermore, Galileo dismissed as a \u201cuseless fiction\u201d the idea, held by\u00a0Kepler, that the moon caused the tides. He thought they were caused by the rotation of the earth.\u00a0Galileo (like Kepler) was an avid proponent of astrology (see\u00a0\u201cGalileo\u2019s Astrology,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0by Nick Kollerstrom)<\/span>. He\u00a0drew up astrological charts for his two illegitimate daughters, and composed character-judgments based upon them. For his oldest, Virginia, he noted:<\/span><\/p>\n The Moon is very debilitated and in a sign which obeys. She is dominated by family relationships. Saturn signifies submission and severe customs which gives her a sad demeanour, but Jupiter is very well with Mercury, and well-aspected corrects this. St. Robert Bellarmine, who was directly involved in the Galileo controversy, made it clear that heliocentrism was not irreversibly condemned, and also that a not-yet proven theory was not an unassailable\u00a0<\/span>fact<\/i>. Bellarmine actually had the superior understanding of the nature of a scientific hypothesis. The mere observations of the telescope had not technically proved anything. True heliocentrism wasn\u2019t conclusively proven until some 200 years later. Thus, Bellarmine\u2019s attitude was more advanced regarding scientific method than the dogmatic Galileo\u2019s attitude was. I\u2019d bet that not one in 25,000 (maybe 100,000) people know that<\/em>!<\/span><\/p>\n Tycho Brahe<\/a>\u00a0(1546\u20131601) erred insofar as he was a geocentrist and held (Tychonic \u201cgeoheliocentric\u201d system<\/a>) that the sun and moon revolve around the earth, and the other five planets revolve around the sun: in circular, not elliptical orbits. Also, in his system the earth did not rotate.\u00a0He was an avid proponent of astrology, too, and even Isaac Newton was fascinated with alchemy, a sort of half-sister to astrology, and long considered a pseudo-science.<\/span><\/p>\n No one was infallible in this period, according to modern-day science. Those who condemn only the Catholic Church because some of its prominent members held to geocentrism a bit longer, are simply ignorant of history, or are choosing to selectively present it, so that the Catholics look stupid and the scientists unfailingly brilliant, intelligent, and forward-looking. Isn\u2019t the real<\/em>, full truth far<\/em> more fascinating?<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s hard to understand how intelligent, informed scientists could be enthralled with a pseudo-science as stupid as<\/span> phrenology<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(\u201cobserving and\/or feeling the skull to determine an individual\u2019s psychological attributes\u201d) for many decades (mostly from around the 1770s to the 1840s, but in some scientific circles, well into the 20th century).<\/span><\/p>\n We shouldn\u2019t regard these thousands of \u201cenlightened\u201d scientists (not infrequently, also agnostics or atheists) as stupid; just those who somehow come to believe in nonsensical, absurd, utterly implausible \u00a0things. Y\u2019all don\u2019t \u201cget\u201d us; we don\u2019t get y\u2019all. But we gotta be kind and nice to each other anyway.<\/span><\/p>\n Carter goes after Dr. Ben Carson in his article:<\/span><\/p>\n To see what I mean by compartmental intelligence, look no further than presidential candidate\u00a0<\/span>Ben Carson<\/span><\/b>, who distinguished himself as a pioneering brain surgeon but who displays the political acumen of a remedial third grader.\u00a0 As a presidential candidate I must say he makes a fine neurosurgeon.<\/span><\/p>\n But take solace, my atheist friends; as a Seventh-Day Adventist, Dr. Carson (from my hometown of Detroit) rejects the doctrine of hell<\/em> (they believe in annihilationism). So will atheists and theological liberals (among whom a denial of hell is quite the trendy fashion these days) praise him to the skies for that<\/em>? I won\u2019t hold my breath.<\/span><\/p>\n If Dr. Carson has no political abilities (here, Carter merely reveals his political<\/em> bias, not atheism per se), I\u2019d love to see how President Obama<\/em> is ranked \u00a0in Carter\u2019s estimation (catatonic? unconscious? ignoramus?). One of my \u00a0daughter\u2019s\u00a0guinea pigs<\/em> could have done a better job than he has these past seven years. <\/span><\/p>\n Iran can be trusted<\/em> regarding nuclear weapons or anything else<\/em>? The radical jihadists have no<\/em> relation to even a perverted<\/em> version of Islam? We\u2019ll get to keep our doctors and health\u00a0insurance won\u2019t increase in cost? We\u2019ll live in a wonderfully colorblind, racist-free liberal Utopia, with lower crime, etc.? African-American incomes will go up? We\u2019ll control illegal immigration? The south side of Chicago will cease being a murderous hellhole? Socialism will get the US economy going? Right.<\/span><\/p>\n How utterly stupid and anti-scientific also<\/em> is it for intelligent \u201cenlightened\u201d people, to argue that babies in the womb are not human beings<\/em>? Do pro-abortion atheists wanna argue about the genetic science<\/em> involved in that<\/em>? no; they almost never do that. Talk about absolutely ignoring science<\/em> and all common sense . . . <\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019d much rather have a President Carson than a President Obama, who believes the ghastly, ghoulish murder of the most helpless and innocent human beings; believes \u00a0in sucking the brains out of a full-term baby, or winks at the practice of delivering perfectly intact, healthy babies, only to dissect and dismember them outside of the womb, in order to harvest their body parts for profit (and if evil is also stupid, these outrages are\u00a0extremely<\/em> stupid). Dr. Carson has devoted his life to saving lives, not deliberately ending them, or indulging in\u00a0the most hideous, cruel tortures for a profit motive.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Carter continues:<\/span><\/p>\n Another thing you must realize is that\u00a0<\/span>very intelligent people<\/span> will believe very nonsensical things if you<\/span> get to them young enough.<\/span><\/i><\/b>\u00a0 When you grow up in an environment which takes for granted that a system of belief is sacred, your knowledge base and your critical thinking skills grow up around that belief structure in such a way as to leave it undisturbed.<\/span><\/p>\n I agree, totally. Atheists who grow up in the atheist environment, or surround themselves with only like-minded people (after work) will continue on as good atheists, oblivious to all the absurdities inherent in the position.\u00a0They take it in with their mother\u2019s milk.\u00a0That argument cuts both ways . . . Carter grew up some kind of Christian (lemme guess: a fundamentalist?) and later rejected it for atheism. So he doesn\u2019t fit into this mold. I don\u2019t either. I grew up as a very theologically ignorant nominal Methodist till age 10, when we stopped going to church, at which time \u00a0became a \u201cpractical atheist\u201d enthralled with the occult. I converted to evangelical Protestantism at age 18 and again to Catholicism at age 32, as a result of my own study, not environmental factors (I was surrounded by almost all Protestants in 1990!).<\/span><\/p>\n I agree that many<\/em> people fit this mold, but not just Christians. Anyone of any<\/em> stripe is highly prone, statistically, to \u201cbecome what they eat.\u201d It\u2019s by no means only a Christian<\/em> phenomenon. He continues:<\/span><\/p>\n We learned at an early age that human reasoning cannot be trusted. . . .\u00a0With a narrative like that, is it any wonder that Christians grow up suspicious of the life of the mind?\u00a0 We were taught to distrust our own intellects even within those subcultures which otherwise valued science, education, and exploration . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n![\"Galileo2\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/10\/Galileo2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n[T]he modern\u00a0<\/span>history of eugenics<\/a>\u00a0began in the early 20th century when a popular eugenics movement emerged in Britain<\/span>\u00a0and spread to many countries, including the\u00a0<\/span>United States\u00a0and most European countries. In this period, eugenic ideas were espoused across the political spectrum. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies meant to improve the genetic stock of their countries. Such programs often included both \u201cpositive\u201d measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly \u201cfit\u201d to reproduce, and \u201cnegative\u201d measures such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction. People deemed unfit to reproduce often included people with mental or physical disabilities, people who scored in the low ranges of different IQ tests, criminals and deviants, and members of disfavored minority groups.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nThe \u201cenlightened\u201d French revolutionaries who worshiped the \u201cgoddess of reason\u201d in the late 18th century were so smart that they decided that the father of chemistry, Antoine Lavoisier<\/a>, ought to be put to death. But those wicked evil Catholics, who burned everyone at the stake, right? [wrong!] were so brutal to Galileo 150 years earlier that they sentenced him to \u00a0(are you ready<\/em>?!) house arrest in the luxurious palace of a supporter (Niccolini, the ambassador to the Vatican from Tuscany). Somehow we all hear about the [grossly distorted and twisted] story of Galileo. And that is, of course, because he took on the big bad evil Catholic Church (never mind that Copernicus was a good Catholic, and that his revolutionary book <\/a>had been endorsed by the pope of the time).<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nNow here he clearly betrays the fact that he must have grown up in anti-intellectual fundamentalist circles. This is very common among former Christians who become atheists. But the mistake he makes is to equate that small sub-community with all<\/strong> of Christianity<\/em>. He doesn\u2019t qualify it. I don\u2019t recognize this mentality in the many Protestant and Catholic subcultures I have been involved in (Methodist, Lutheran, messianic Jewish, non-denominational \u201cJesus Freak\u201d, Assemblies of God<\/a>, Inter-Varsity, Baptist, the cult researcher community, the pro-life community, Catholicism since 1990). I never saw it. <\/span><\/p>\n