Religion = Delusion?

you're mistaken about what he studied.
I think your report of the church's view is correct. But what Galileo saw of Jupiter's moons and Venus' phases convinced him that they were orbiting the Sun and not the earth. He studied many other things, and gave N European Protestant scientists* a head start on the 19th century, but I don't think he concerned himself unnecessarily with finding "the center of the universe".

And most observers agree that our astronomy began with the Babylonians' astrology. That is, they observed the bodies accurately with a view to getting input from the gods. Since Jehovah forbids worshipping the heavens, could he be accused of 'holding back science for religious reasons'? (Ex 20:4-6)

*An earlier, by then deceased Catholic was Copernicus, a Polish Priest who had sense enough to keep his best ideas to himself.

Here are excerpts from a real encyclopedia, Encarta:

He showed little interest in astronomy, although beginning in 1595 he preferred the Copernican theory (see Astronomy: The Copernican Theory)?that the earth revolves around the sun?to the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic assumption that planets circle a fixed earth.
...
By December 1610 he had observed the phases of Venus, which contradicted Ptolemaic astronomy and confirmed his preference for the Copernican system. No mention of "universe"; from Ptolemy on down the goals had been to better predict the movements of the "wanderers" (planets), the tides, and to solving the longitude problem. The stars were the concern of the various theologians.
...
Professors of philosophy scorned Galileo?s discoveries because Aristotle had held that only perfectly spherical bodies could exist in the heavens and that nothing new could ever appear there.
...
And this part is especially interesting, and true in its parts and assumptions.
Since the full publication of Galileo?s trial documents in the 1870s, entire responsibility for Galileo?s condemnation has customarily been placed on the Roman Catholic church. This conceals the role of the [Aristotelian]philosophy professors who first persuaded theologians to link Galileo?s science with heresy.

For many centuries no one dared question Aristotle, to the detriment of all non-Arab science. The history of the churches' (not, Church's) slavish devotion to ancient Greek superstition is well-documented.

The two names you want for this are Stillman Drake and Owen Gingerich.
The former was the premier researcher on G's scientific development, with access to Vatican archives.
The latter is Emeritus Professor of Astrophyisics at Harvard. I don't remember reading the Scientific American I reference here

http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/phys/alshukri/PHYS215/Islamic%20astronomy.htm

but I did read the one emphasized in my quote from it, below.

"Throughout the entire Islamic period astronomers stayed securely within the geocentric framework. For this one should not criticize them too harshly. Until Galileo's telescopic observations of the phases of Venus in 1610, no observational evidence could be brought against the Ptolemaic system. Even Galileo's observations could not distinguish between the geo-heliocentric system of Tycho Brahe (in which the other planets revolved about the sun but the sun revolved about the earth) and the purely heliocentric system of Copernicus [see "The Galileo Affair," by Owen Gingerich; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, August, 1982]."

Both articles will provide you interesting reading, I promise.

but it requires some presumptions.

If you can stand anywhere on the earth and point in any direction it's said that the distance of that point to the edge of the universe is infinity. As well, you can move to any heavenly body....Oops? I should change that to astral body... and repeat the same activity. You can point to the edge of the universe and the distance is still infinity.

Does this now mean that YOU are the center of the universe? or is that something your wife just says you tend to think sometimes?

Bite your tongue! IF I think, it's because I am! Cogito ergo dim sum, as Lao Tze put it.

Actually, I think we got each other off on a tangent. Don't really know or care if the whole universe was under discussion, but our topic was the reactions of the churches and the Church. It was solar system cosmology vs. the bible vs. doctrine that concerned them. Gingerich's article in '82 judged virtually everyone adversely.

F'rinstance: Galileo got increasingly tactless in his old age. Not only did his friend Bellarmine die, but another Cardinal friend became Pope and moved to the right, which happens. He was more alone than he realized when he came to trial. The very setting of Dialogue of Two World Systems was what we would now call a flame against his intended readership. Not unlike the Mac vs. PC commercials without the humor.

My comments about Aristotle were meant to show this: The scholastics who went after Galileo did so out of a desire to defend their academic positions, not for scientific truth nor to 'defend God'. Not out of line to say A. had godlike status among literate people for centuries.

And, with friends like these, Jehovah doesn't need enemies: One of Drake's articles reproduced a page of G.'s notes with a horoscope doodled in one corner. He was doing it for Bellarmine!

Not long afterward, the Anglican Newton was devouring everything of G.'s he could find, much of which thinking went into his Principia.

My main point was that your view of your church's history is, as usual, rose-tinted. If we're discussing only history, then who cares? But if any that history is being repeated, then ...

because in a case like this perception counts for much. Sorry if I overstepped.
In my "defense", though:

http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6130_102-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=256225&messageID=2541032#2541032
"The Catholic church will attempt to find
the "best" answer based current knowledge and run with that until other reasonable information is available that disputes it."

It didn't in Galileo's case. It denied the demonstrated truth. (The churchmen he dealt with were capable of understanding his evidence.) It prosecuted those who supported demonstrated truth. It took 500 years to "discover" its mistake.

http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6130_102-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=256225&messageID=2543532#2543532
"Later an astronomer who'd studied movement in the solar system decided the sun was the center. He was severely dealt with. As it turned out, however, both were wrong. I not saying that proves anything other than to say that the only certainty in science is uncertainty."

"severely dealt with" You stated correctly.
"both were wrong" Again, I don't know Galileo's view of the universe at that time, nor the Church's. The trial was about his definite statements that our solar system is heliocentric, not geocentric. In this- the nominal main subject of his prosecution, he was right and the churchmen were wrong. As were the schoolmen who sandbagged Galileo for their own reasons. And to whom did they direct their accusations? To the only authority capable of a prosecution- the Church. Not to the governments (no jurisdiction) nor to academe (no teeth, and Galileo had tenure). From a legal standpoint, we might say that no church would have jurisdiction either, but the reality was something else. Gingerich and others have noted that it was deal-making that saved Galileo from the stake, not justice or mercy or evidence.

We both have noted all religion's culpability in these matters, up to and including the waging of wars and massacres. (While John Calvin flourished he ran Geneva as if he had the firewood concession.)

Again, remember that the Catholic Church is the world's largest single religious organization. It has a high opinion of its teachings which it should, if it's leader truly is standing in for Christ in the present day. It is politically active in every country in which it has a significant presence, and acts politically also as a sovereign nation; I believe that position is unique in the world. In short, it's a lightning rod.

And see the thread about the Pope I just started. It's placed without any bad intent. I agree with his statements about war, although I wouldn't use the same theology. I also think he's wasting his time appealing to man's governments, but that's his problem. He's entitled to try.

in your effort to find anything to fault in my thinking or the history of my church. One contention of this discussion by some is that religion causes friction between and among the various beliefs. I don't think religion is, itself, the cause but I fully understand how that perception can be created given the evidence available. I, for one, will not engage in a conversation here that offers more evidence to reinforce the notion presented.

draw ire are straight from the bible. Most of the rest are from acknowledged history.
The bible is relentless.

As to the "notion presented" in the thread, here's Clay's second post:
"Do you agree with the comments made about Mormons and Muslims? People of these faiths believe the events their faith is founded on just as much as Christians believe in the events their religion is based on. What makes any of the 3 any more credible than the other 2?"
(Remember, I haven't seen the video link he first posted, and probably won't for technical reasons.)
That question is a good one, and I always answer it by going to the bible. Mormons (to go with this example) supplement that with their Book, which I find on inspection contradicts the bible in many areas. I stay with my first choice.
Muslims acknowledge that the bible has value, but then add from their Book. Ditto.
In the end, my own life course proves the value of my decision. It's good when I live by the bible and bad when I don't.

Catholics have a history- documented- of suppressing the bible by violence and subterfuge. When Luther took away their monopoly on "Christianity" it was largely over the many contradictions he found between written Catholicism and the bible. (He was well-qualified by scholarship to see this, and he was not the first.) In a very short time, the religions we now call mainstream Protestantism also suppressed the bible and those who studied it outside the churches. One famous example, well outside of Catholicism, is the controversy between the Established English church and the Dissenters, many of whom were involved in colonizing what is now the U.S. Violence and subterfuge also were the weapons in the "New World", as Roger Williams discovered.

So. If the claimed Author of the bible doesn't exist, then this is a controversy of man, like all the others his evolutionary breeding has produced. (See the Gospel According to Lorenz.) In that case there will be more of the same, on into the distant future. Then C|net might well consider blocking religious threads, not because of rancor, but because it's a waste of server disk space.

If there is such an author, then neither he nor his putative Son can be pleased with human religious history. I find that in the bible, in fact, as I've quoted here many times. I also find there a timetable for the putting of an end to it. Part of that will be putting an end to all other forms of religion, including worship of the state and its leaders. That, in turn, will solve the problems you and Clay recognize in your dialogue at the end of this thread.

The above is, I believe, an accurate summary of your acknowledged spiritual ancestors. Mine were never involved in the badness. As long as I stick with the bible, I won't be either. I will continue to draw fire from those who disagree with the bible but choose to call it a disagreement with me.

"I don't think religion is, itself, the cause"
Why not? The book your church claims ownership of shows the first controversy to be of a purely religious nature: Which god should man give obedience to? In those days obedience to instructions was the only form of worship. Genesis chapter 3.
The next form we see is in chapter 4, where 'friction between and among the two beliefs' led to the first murder. The murderer was the one who refused to listen to Jehovah.

If you find inaccuracies here, point them out. Otherwise, spend more time with your bible.

Why are you even using the Bible as evidence of anything? Do you have some proof that it is the absolute truth any more than the Koran? Aren't both books written by men? Is there a single word in either of them physically penned by Jesus or Mohammed? Is there any absolute proof that either of these men were anything more than men or anything more than each other?

As for allegedly inspired writings consider this. There is no doubt that the web site at http://www.venganza.org/ is inspired by the Flying Spaghetti Monster(FSM) even if the FSM itself is totally fictional. Does the claim that those writings are inspired by the FSM provide any sound reason to believe that the FSM is real?

Because I choose to. The bible is still the major religious text on the world stage; you initiated a thread on religion; Steven belongs to a group that claims to be in charge of the bible. Why are you surprised that I use it?
Moreover, I have more than once said that my best "proof" is its effect on my life. I have seen much other proof as well, also available to or perhaps even known by you. That proof satisfies me but does not satisfy you. We already know that.
And the bible protects you, too: Its teachings prevent me from coming to harm you for doubting My Book.

I know you entered a smiley but think this statement taken out of context

"And the bible protects you, too: Its teachings prevent me from coming to harm you for doubting My Book".

could be injurious.

I've had young people come to my door to solicit....using the line that my support helps them avoid a life of drugs and crime. I am certain that their sponsor or "mother operation" teaches them to use such expressions in their sales pitches. Why? I'd say it's a subtle threat that borders on extortion.

Sleepless nights have ill effects on most....if you get my drift.

especially since much of the thread, and most of the other, is about real men who kill other real men over differences of religious opinion.
Thanks for your concern.

I should have said "If one could stand anywhere......." rather than use the second person descriptive. As such, this sort of comment could come off sounding like a personal attack in some situations. That was not my intention. It was to be light humor only.

I'd have to add that, in humans, the notion of an eternal existence tends to remove or alleviate our fear of death...without which we'd be reluctant to put ourselves in harms way for the sake of others. We see some animals doing similar but I have to wonder if they have an understanding of death and finality.

and without any consideration as to the existance of a God, religion is a social construct that motivates individuals to cooperate. Cooperation greatly benefits the survival of individuals within a species.

Remember the philosopher in Hitchhiker's Guide? He had a proof that God didn't exist, and when God realized the reasoning was sound, "he promptly disappeared in a puff of logic."

But a writer I trust had another view, about a sub-topic of ingrained beliefs:
"Even time indefinite [God] has put in [men's] heart" (Ec 3:11)

You include an nice list of logical fallacies but fail to apply them to specific statements of the presentation.

The only double blind study of prayer that I've seen supports the statements made. I'd be interested in any similarly rigorous studies you're aware of.

Why would you not call Mormons and Muslims delusional? They believe many fantastic things that you know could not possibly be true. If you had a patient that told you on several occasions that he was regularly getting instructions from angels would you call him delusional?

You do raise an interesting question regarding the common recurrence of religiosity. Recent evolutionary psychological thought posits that religiosity does not incur any survival benefit but is the result of a predisposition caused by several psychological characteristics that do carry survival benefit. Fascinating, really.

Dan

I'm doing this from memory because I have no great desire to re-visit the video.

The first fallacy is the assumption that events science labels improbable did not/cannot happen. That is a fallacy because the scientific method itself cannot be proven to be the sole (or even a valid) pathway to truth; (2) the presentation repeatedly made the unprovable assumption that absence of evidence is evidence of absence; (3) the presentation was apparently designed primarily as a critique of Christian belief. The method first presented supposedly improbable views of various religions in a manner that most Christians would accept and then applied the ridicule to Christian thought based, among other things, on the presumption that because the other religions had allegedly similar (but 'obviously' false) claims that the Christian claims must be false also. And so forth. The presentation also implicitly assumed that presence of logical flaws equates to erroneous conclusions. Ultimately, the presentation could be summarized as "we do not find the claimed evidence for religion convincing so you should not find it convincing either". You will have to excuse my reluctance to believe that particular appeal to authority.

I know that you are familiar enough with logical thought to have recognized these problems as well as the others. If you did not, it is because you chose not to think critically about the content of the presentation.

There have been any number of studies of prayer over a lot of years, but I do not know of any that have really good study design. I do, however, know that a lot of people who read the medical literature are biased toward rejecting studies as being 'flawed' if they disagree with the outcome and I have little doubt that the author of the original clip would have been susceptible to that bias. One of the fundamental problems involved in constructing a well designed study of prayer is adequate control. One interview I heard recently with a medical researcher (a 'Speaking of Faith' podcast) discussed the problem. When he tried to design a study to investigate the effects of prayer he could not find an acceptable control group because the vast majority of patients already believed that somebody was praying for them. You have to understand that I'm not saying there is a lot of scientific support for prayer. I just claimed that the authors presented a rather skewed view of what has been done. The results in the studies I've seen are literally all over the map. Actually, the thing I find most curious is that scientists bother to investigate prayer at all. Scientists are not allowed to invoke the supernatural, so if an investigator DID find a significant 'prayer effect' how would (s)he explain it?

I have no great desire to apply the label 'delusional' to anybody who sincerely believes whatever (s)he wants to believe. Not even atheists. I have to admit I am sometimes tempted to call atheists delusional but I try not to. I do believe that Mohammed and Joseph Smith were either delusional or out-and-out liars but that is another question. Their followers are, for the most part, mistaken but not delusional. If I had a patient who regularly reported contact with angels I would have to consider the possibility that he was having delusions. I would also have to consider the possibility that he was in fact having contact with angels. That's not such a hard concept is it? You have no RATIONAL basis for claiming CERTAINTY that angels do not exist.

I am not going to claim that religiosity has any survival benefit at all. I mentioned the question of religiosity and survival because if there were no factual basis for religious belief (and if evolution were the explanation for life) then there would have to be some evolutionary explanation for religiosity. I have no opinion on the 'evolutionary psychological thought' you mentioned. Most of the survival benefit that Christians claim has nothing to do with temporal experience anyway.

Unfortunately my post was submitted before I was done. Having problems getting this function to work properly it seams the program doesn't like my spell checker and doesn't know the difference between delete and enter, that said.

I was going to say in the last paragraph.....That the formation of a religion doesn't seam all that difficult. Many new religions were attempted in the eighties most of them failed. It seams that given a favorable political environment that just about anyone can create a religion with a few followers and of courses any new religion has to have a new twist doesn't it or it would be the old one.

Amazing how God choice a fairly brief period doing developed human history to form most of modern day religions. Starting with Buddha then Jesus, then Mohamed. Seams no one likes to be out done. It doesn't take to keen an observation to see that there's a little rivalry amongst the religions not to mention the nations of this world.

I once asked a minister......If there is a heaven after we die then where were we before we were born? He replied "a thought in God's mind". He lied, it's never mentioned in the Bible.

I will give you a few, but you'll have to do your own research beyond that. Here's one of the better known references:

Ps 139:13-17
For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother's womb.
14 I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them. NASU

As you can see, the psalmist says that his entire life was known to God before he came into existence.

Here's another:

2 Thess 2:13 because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. NASU

which means God knew, and chose, believers before time began (i.e. the beginning).