We must never forget that it was catholic monks in europe who introduced gunpowder by translating muslim texts, who taught all the sciences, studied the equivalent of chemistry, who translated greek, muslim and roman texts on maths, etc.
@@oddoutdoors They invented it, yes, but it did have to come to Europe afterwards. I think the point was that the monks were fine with engaging in the science that had invented it, even if they weren’t the first to.
@@oddoutdoors that's why he said the monks *introduced* it and not invented it, introducing means something very different from inventing it (although introducing it was still very important)
Lol what kind of science do you participate in? Gotta watch out for any studies you participate in considering your God commits genocide and condones slavery. Not sure how you can justify what your holy book literally states with any basic humanitarian instinct. Please rethink your beliefs. You don't hold a rational worldview.
@@HelloThere-xx1ct And science has never changed position with new information or has never been influenced by the "beliefs" of the times? I would imagine that Lichewitz participates in science that is not afraid to question and test theories.
@@davidleannsorondo9493 I guess my point is that supporting a genocidal god you can't demonstrate exists makes me question any person's reasoning skills.
@@HelloThere-xx1ct , the guy has a right to be Catholic. It is his choice, I myself am Catholic too. Everyone does or should have the freedom and choice to believe in a religion, including scientists.
A great discussion Fr. Casey. I believe that there is no conflict between science and religion. I was raised with both growing up, but mainly science. You can have both, it's very simple! There are also scientists today who are religious people, and there is nothing wrong with that! Everyone has the freedom to believe in God and religion. All they have to do, is not let their religious beliefs get involved with their scientific work. I myself am a Catholic and I love science, always have since I was a kid! I'm planning on going into paleontology when I get older. But all in all, you can have both!
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! I just had this argument with one of my students. Immediately when he accused the Catholic Church for persecuting scientists because of their scientific research, I told him that I don’t believe it. You just clarified everything. I’m a music director and composer, not a scientist. I explained that among the most important composers were Catholic monks and Priests. Even the invention of notation and rhythmic notation was done by a priest. And who could forget Saint Hildegard of B. Thanks again.
They were definately persecuted, because it opposed their belief system of "geo centric universe" and "god created man idea". The main reason was Science was way MORE POWERFUL than religion. Science revolutionieed the life of man, Took him to the surface of the moon, opened him to vast universe of truths and facts, above all, ideas that could replicate. It powered him with electricity, connectivity, accessibility and mobility. It eradicated hundreds of diseases and found thousands of life saving medical inventions. And his way to future is paved by Science, not religion. While BIBLE is intact and non revisable, Science have an ever expanding and revisable universe of ideas. What have religion offered in the same span of time?
To be fair, most of the conflict between religion and science is an Evangelical issue, not a Catholic once. However, that makes the title of the video slightly flawed. It would have been more appropriate to name it "The (False) Battle Between Science and the Catholic Church".
Thank you Father as always! The work you are doing for The Church is a blessing. We can't move forward as a Church without recognizing the errors of the past, for those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. May God have mercy on us for our transgressions. This is what we need to see. The errors committed by people within The Church must come to light but also showing the world the good that it is has done as well. May the Holy Spirit continue to guide you Father. God bless 🙏🏻
You know what? I actually DO have enough humility to admit that I don't know enough of what I'm talking about here, so...I think I'll ask a friend of mine. He's an astrophysics teacher and an Atheist, so bias, yeah, maybe, but it's good to hear both sides, too.
I think you missed the bigger kicker with Galileo was that he (or anyone) could not mathematically prove and provide observational evidence to why a heliocentric model should be favored or taught in place of geocentric ones. He could only give anecdotal evidence that heliocentric models were "simpler" (and that's a very generous adjective). Calculus wasn't codified/refined yet (Newton and Leibniz), and there was no observational evidence to support one of the model's basic assumptions of Earth moving (James Bradley 1727). It would be more precise to say Galileo was demonstrated right in hindsight, but for all the wrong reasons. Furthermore, Galileo was entreating that a heliocentric model be taken as true on such grounds, rather than settling for the logical answer of teaching both models as yet unconfirmed theories. Given his contemporary fame, his illogical dogmatism which led to heliocentric theory being banned should be argued to have actually impeded scientific progress.
Ok,. But a more important question is: how do you reconcile a saint bishop that ordered a mob attack. How come? Is he really a saint? Isn't the church infallible?
@XunQianBaiDu Good point! First of all, I am not really say the church is not. My point is: How should I wrap my head around the fact that he was a saint declared by the church and he may have made attrocities? (I don't know but maybe there is more like him)
@@xunqianbaidu6917 but if you don't put it into practice... are you really doing the right thing? or if your way of putting into practice is not righteous, can you really say he was doing the right thing? "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven."
Father Casey I am confused. So Saint Cyril was a bad and violent man? Then how is he a Saint? What is your opinion on the Churches teaching on canonized saints?
He was a sinner like us or any other saints, We shouldn't question his sainthood validity based on a single point of his life. He sure was controversial, but he also was a great theologian credited for defending orthodoxy till his death
Giordano Bruno was not convicted by the church. It was decided, that - simplified - he was not chirstian. Therefore the court of the church had no jurisdiction over the case. They only excommunicated him, which was just, because he had not the right faith for a member of the church. And the church judges asked the civil court of Rome not to convict him to death. The death penalty, of course, was not the right punishment anyway. By the laws of the time, they would have to ban and outlaw him with a chance to leave the country before. They had even to give him the chance, to heal the injury, which he did to the law, in this case by promise to come back to mother church. Well, I doubt, that Bruno would have done it. Perhaps the problem for the judge was, that he worked as magician, when he was arrested. For this the death penalty was normal. But, if I remember right, he wasn't accused of it.
Oooooooooooookay, so I linked this to my astrophysics friend, and he said (I'm paraphrasing), "He's right (referring to you, Casey), but he's not saying anything new. It's not in physics, but in the science around sex, that Catholics lag behind. Scientific ignorance is more an Evangelical thing, not a Catholic thing."
Thanks Fr. Casey! Just a note from an Italian native speaker: "Secchi" (Angelo Secchi) is pronounced "Sekki" in Italian. Thanks for this informative video!
I know you are trying to do apologetics/outreach here, and that is fair, but why do you call St. Cyril of Alexandria a “bad man” if he is a Saint, a Church Doctor, and a Church Father? Are we better Saints than the Saints?
Galileo was personal friend of the Pope and the first director of the Pontific Academy of Science. He actually made statements about the role of scriptures and sciences and believe the first could never be wrong but not understanded propperly due to limitations in knowledge. And was for all the records a very devote man, not the nicest one if you ask some of his peers. It is sad that for so much time people have use his name to propose an idea he would totally despite and goes against his very being. Scholars have fixed this missunderstanding since a long time ago, but some people preffer the story.
Just going off my memory as a protestant, but the last three Popes have had positive things to say about evolution. One even grabbed a line from Teilhard de Chardin, a priest who tried to use evolution to prove the existence of God.
@@abyssimus so far, i only hear them say that evolution is compatible with the creation theology. But i have some objections for theology of man. Example for this, the evolution from ape-like ancestors to human-like ancestors begs a sorites paradox. One should ask when did the creatures become humans? When did they gain immortal souls, or how. When did God choose to make such creatures His People. Etc. Then that would lead to inquiry how sin came into this word - in evolutionary historical context.
@@thethirdjegs I've occasionally heard this: The particular point in which our primate ancestors evolved to be "true" sentient humans with a soul as opposed to simply animalistic instincts was the creation of Adam and Eve, and "true" humanity started from then on.
2000 years is a lot of history, one would expect that a few bad examples can be found. One point that should be added here is that both Galileo and Bruno did bait and unnecessarily antagonize many in the Church. I suspect that Hypatia did too.
The simplest dynamical model of the Solar System describes it in terms of a barycentre somewhere between the Sun and Jupiter, and incidentally roughly on the Sun's surface. The other planets can be considered to orbit this barycentre in ellipses and their own contribution to its motion is insignificant. This is just a standard presentation of heliocentrism in modern language, obviously based on Occam's razor, and large numbers of Catholic astronomers will support it. I was finally convinced myself when I saw the Pluto-Charon system in 2015. Say this in the 1600s and the Inquisition would be on to you. When exactly did the Church change her position, and was the Holy Spirit advised of the need to change His mind? Should this comment be on the Index? My own apparent contribution to celestial mechanics is to say that the motion of a Trojan around the Lagrangian points L4 and L5 is like the nutation of a spinning top. It is not an orbit. I've done the computer simulations both of Trojan behaviour and of spinning top behaviour, and this is how I interpret it. Could I be a heretic given the heliocentrism implicit in my views? Would anyone like a demolition of some of the rubbish written by Lenin? There's always a problem with bishops and politicians posturing as experts on science.
That IS quite a rap sheet for a priest, yeah, but I'm with him on everything other than Hermeticism. Thing is, I can get away with it now, an I can get away with it because I'm not a priest. Patrick had a show going on a few nights ago, eh, where he specified that--and I didn't know this--"heresy" doesn't mean "bad" in the church. It just means, well, "not Catholic". See, I always thought the word "heresy" had very negative connotations: that people were punished for it because it was seen as a bad thing. Patrick cleared that up for me, eh. I like him. Been watching his "Pause to Chat with Fr. Pat" lately because he's very chill, and I'm having a hard time right now. My favourite aunt was just diagnosed with cancer. It's...not good. Well, no, okay, we don't know how BAD it is yet, actually, which is part of the "not good", because...you know...the waiting.
@Landenulf94, sister, but thank you. She was hospitalised last night with blood clots in her lung, and we're waiting for an update. God...but I'll talk to her today if I can. I know how hospitals work. SLOWLY. So she'll have plenty of time just to talk, but letting her sleep is important too, of course. My mom says you don't feel sick when you're asleep, which is true.
Also, I'm GROSSLY oversimplifying here, absolutely, but I don't think the church WOULD have a problem with Hypatia's philosophy, given that Christianity is more or less a mix of Judaism and Platonic philosophy. There's a lot I'm leaving out there, but those are the GENERAL two legs of the structure.
Bruno was a lapsed priest who liked the whammen and gave up his cassock, went on the run to go as a freelance philosopher, and was more science fiction than science. Being burnt at the stake alive by the Inquisition is utterly brutal over-punishment IMHO.
You laugh off the Church's murder of Giordano Bruno for "thought crimes" as no big deal because his scientific views were not the MAJOR reason for his murder. You even seem to applaud this action because his thought crimes were in opposition to Catholic teachings. You even smirk about his "rap sheet" as though he actually had one and not the church that murdered him for not accepting its "magic thinking. No matter how you try to dress it up the fact remains--the Catholic Church has a long and bloody history of killing people who think for themselves.
Sure. The relationship between Europeans and Africans has been "tumultuous." This handful of cherry-picked examples does nothing to disprove the overall hostility of religion to science. The underlying claim that the Bible is a magic book is a shocking denial of science. By the way, challenging the virgin birth is a *scientific challenge*. Claiming that these persecutions had "nothing to do with science" is grossly dishonest. Moreover, Galileo was not tortured because he was *famous*. The church had no qualms about torturing humans.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 Churches hold no legal authority. That's half the point of the video, if you aren't under the moral leading, you can't be punished by either set of laws, theological or legal. 2 doesn't really help, it just means someone else also could have destroyed it. That's doesn't mean the church didn't hide it's evil, you wouldn't exactly get the evil guy admitting they are the one doing the wrongs.
Today, the thought of the god hypothesis, as an explanation in any discipline of science, is ridiculous. Religion has had its day. Label it as archaic and move on.
I look at you and I literally want to cry beautiful young man what are you doing,,, You are blind you are blind there is no way if you knew Jesus you’d be staying in there in that costume
Excuse me? Of course he knows Jesus, hence why he is a visible member of His Catholic Church and is obedient to the Roman Pontiff, the Divine Office established by Christ. Perhaps it is you who does not know Jesus well enough and has not looked at all the facts in an objective manner? To refer to his Franciscan habits as a costume I personally find very insulting.
The church has a problem with scholarship. Good scholarship has brought forth abundant evidence that the story of Jesus is a mishmash of past religious and spiritual beliefs, not an independent truth.
“Giordano Bruno was a mjaor advocate against the virgin birth, denied transubstantiation, questioned the miracles of jesus, supported pantheism and possibly even believed in reincarnation and hermetic occultism … that is quite a rapsheet for a priest”. Are you under the mistaken impression that he wasn’t within his own right to believe and to express all those concepts? How can you take the side of an organization, the catholic church who committed atrocities like burning alive people for their opinions. Incidentally, advocating against the virgin birth, denying transubstantiation, etc … are all scientific positions, therefore Giordano Bruno was murdered by the catholic church because of his scientific beliefs. As far as Galieleo goes, you said that "he spent the rest of his life in his villa in Florence" ... he actually spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Hardly a light sentence. Your neglecting to mention this shows your lack of sincerity and your intention to manipulate your viewers. The reason other scientists in subsequent years have been recognized by the catholic church is simply because the catholic church could no longer halt the tide of science and decided to switch sides to survive, but make no mistake about it the seeds of obscurantism are still well and alive within the catholic church and its members. If you don't believe me, try and tell a practicing catholic that you don't believe in the virgin birth, or transubstantiation or the miracles of jesus and see his reaction toward you. The real question we should ask ourselves is what kind of person are you father Casey who can stomach belonging to an organization that committed such horrendous acts? I think that you and everybody else who adheres to the catholic church should take a long look at your conscience an re-evaluate your stand.
It is far too easy for someone to judge any group by its worst member, even if that one is different from all the rest.
We must never forget that it was catholic monks in europe who introduced gunpowder by translating muslim texts, who taught all the sciences, studied the equivalent of chemistry, who translated greek, muslim and roman texts on maths, etc.
The Chinese invented gunpowder. But what do I know as an actual expert in the field?
@@oddoutdoors They invented it, yes, but it did have to come to Europe afterwards. I think the point was that the monks were fine with engaging in the science that had invented it, even if they weren’t the first to.
@@oddoutdoors that's why he said the monks *introduced* it and not invented it, introducing means something very different from inventing it (although introducing it was still very important)
As a catholic scientist, this topic interests me very much. I'm very hyped to see what father Casey and Patheos have for us in the near future!
Lol what kind of science do you participate in? Gotta watch out for any studies you participate in considering your God commits genocide and condones slavery. Not sure how you can justify what your holy book literally states with any basic humanitarian instinct. Please rethink your beliefs. You don't hold a rational worldview.
@@HelloThere-xx1ct And science has never changed position with new information or has never been influenced by the "beliefs" of the times? I would imagine that Lichewitz participates in science that is not afraid to question and test theories.
@@davidleannsorondo9493 I guess my point is that supporting a genocidal god you can't demonstrate exists makes me question any person's reasoning skills.
@@HelloThere-xx1ct , the guy has a right to be Catholic. It is his choice, I myself am Catholic too. Everyone does or should have the freedom and choice to believe in a religion, including scientists.
A great discussion Fr. Casey. I believe that there is no conflict between science and religion. I was raised with both growing up, but mainly science. You can have both, it's very simple! There are also scientists today who are religious people, and there is nothing wrong with that! Everyone has the freedom to believe in God and religion. All they have to do, is not let their religious beliefs get involved with their scientific work. I myself am a Catholic and I love science, always have since I was a kid! I'm planning on going into paleontology when I get older. But all in all, you can have both!
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! I just had this argument with one of my students. Immediately when he accused the Catholic Church for persecuting scientists because of their scientific research, I told him that I don’t believe it. You just clarified everything. I’m a music director and composer, not a scientist. I explained that among the most important composers were Catholic monks and Priests. Even the invention of notation and rhythmic notation was done by a priest. And who could forget Saint Hildegard of B. Thanks again.
They were definately persecuted, because it opposed their belief system of "geo centric universe" and "god created man idea".
The main reason was Science was way MORE POWERFUL than religion. Science revolutionieed the life of man, Took him to the surface of the moon, opened him to vast universe of truths and facts, above all, ideas that could replicate. It powered him with electricity, connectivity, accessibility and mobility. It eradicated hundreds of diseases and found thousands of life saving medical inventions. And his way to future is paved by Science, not religion. While BIBLE is intact and non revisable, Science have an ever expanding and revisable universe of ideas.
What have religion offered in the same span of time?
To be fair, most of the conflict between religion and science is an Evangelical issue, not a Catholic once. However, that makes the title of the video slightly flawed. It would have been more appropriate to name it "The (False) Battle Between Science and the Catholic Church".
Thank you Father as always! The work you are doing for The Church is a blessing. We can't move forward as a Church without recognizing the errors of the past, for those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. May God have mercy on us for our transgressions. This is what we need to see. The errors committed by people within The Church must come to light but also showing the world the good that it is has done as well. May the Holy Spirit continue to guide you Father. God bless 🙏🏻
This is never repeated enough
You know what? I actually DO have enough humility to admit that I don't know enough of what I'm talking about here, so...I think I'll ask a friend of mine. He's an astrophysics teacher and an Atheist, so bias, yeah, maybe, but it's good to hear both sides, too.
I think you missed the bigger kicker with Galileo was that he (or anyone) could not mathematically prove and provide observational evidence to why a heliocentric model should be favored or taught in place of geocentric ones. He could only give anecdotal evidence that heliocentric models were "simpler" (and that's a very generous adjective). Calculus wasn't codified/refined yet (Newton and Leibniz), and there was no observational evidence to support one of the model's basic assumptions of Earth moving (James Bradley 1727). It would be more precise to say Galileo was demonstrated right in hindsight, but for all the wrong reasons. Furthermore, Galileo was entreating that a heliocentric model be taken as true on such grounds, rather than settling for the logical answer of teaching both models as yet unconfirmed theories. Given his contemporary fame, his illogical dogmatism which led to heliocentric theory being banned should be argued to have actually impeded scientific progress.
From this video's view, this would not matter, is it right for a scientist to be so treated because his theory is right, wrong or unprovable.
Ok,. But a more important question is: how do you reconcile a saint bishop that ordered a mob attack. How come? Is he really a saint? Isn't the church infallible?
@XunQianBaiDu Good point! First of all, I am not really say the church is not. My point is: How should I wrap my head around the fact that he was a saint declared by the church and he may have made attrocities? (I don't know but maybe there is more like him)
@@xunqianbaidu6917 but if you don't put it into practice... are you really doing the right thing? or if your way of putting into practice is not righteous, can you really say he was doing the right thing? "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven."
Loved your video!
thank you, this video helped clarify a lot of my brother's doubts.
Father Casey I am confused. So Saint Cyril was a bad and violent man? Then how is he a Saint? What is your opinion on the Churches teaching on canonized saints?
He was a sinner like us or any other saints, We shouldn't question his sainthood validity based on a single point of his life. He sure was controversial, but he also was a great theologian credited for defending orthodoxy till his death
Good one. Fascinating. Can’t wait. (Shudder) for your talk on the inquisition!
Giordano Bruno was not convicted by the church. It was decided, that - simplified - he was not chirstian. Therefore the court of the church had no jurisdiction over the case. They only excommunicated him, which was just, because he had not the right faith for a member of the church. And the church judges asked the civil court of Rome not to convict him to death. The death penalty, of course, was not the right punishment anyway. By the laws of the time, they would have to ban and outlaw him with a chance to leave the country before. They had even to give him the chance, to heal the injury, which he did to the law, in this case by promise to come back to mother church. Well, I doubt, that Bruno would have done it. Perhaps the problem for the judge was, that he worked as magician, when he was arrested. For this the death penalty was normal. But, if I remember right, he wasn't accused of it.
You can be a great scientist and a great theist, but if you're using either one to do the other, you're doing them both wrong.
Oooooooooooookay, so I linked this to my astrophysics friend, and he said (I'm paraphrasing), "He's right (referring to you, Casey), but he's not saying anything new. It's not in physics, but in the science around sex, that Catholics lag behind. Scientific ignorance is more an Evangelical thing, not a Catholic thing."
Thanks Fr. Casey! Just a note from an Italian native speaker: "Secchi" (Angelo Secchi) is pronounced "Sekki" in Italian.
Thanks for this informative video!
Please choose different background music, or drop it entirely. It is very distracting and unnecessary.
So if Cyril of Alexandria was such an antisemitic tyrant, why is he still a saint?
If you get time. Can you speak about the Catholic Church, and how they persecuted the gnostic Cathars. ?.
I know you are trying to do apologetics/outreach here, and that is fair, but why do you call St. Cyril of Alexandria a “bad man” if he is a Saint, a Church Doctor, and a Church Father? Are we better Saints than the Saints?
Galileo was personal friend of the Pope and the first director of the Pontific Academy of Science. He actually made statements about the role of scriptures and sciences and believe the first could never be wrong but not understanded propperly due to limitations in knowledge. And was for all the records a very devote man, not the nicest one if you ask some of his peers. It is sad that for so much time people have use his name to propose an idea he would totally despite and goes against his very being.
Scholars have fixed this missunderstanding since a long time ago, but some people preffer the story.
Subtitles: Vietnamese🇻🇳🇻🇳🇻🇳🇻🇳🇻🇳
Is evolution of man compatible with the theology of man?
Just going off my memory as a protestant, but the last three Popes have had positive things to say about evolution. One even grabbed a line from Teilhard de Chardin, a priest who tried to use evolution to prove the existence of God.
@@abyssimus so far, i only hear them say that evolution is compatible with the creation theology.
But i have some objections for theology of man.
Example for this, the evolution from ape-like ancestors to human-like ancestors begs a sorites paradox. One should ask when did the creatures become humans? When did they gain immortal souls, or how. When did God choose to make such creatures His People. Etc.
Then that would lead to inquiry how sin came into this word - in evolutionary historical context.
@@thethirdjegs I've occasionally heard this: The particular point in which our primate ancestors evolved to be "true" sentient humans with a soul as opposed to simply animalistic instincts was the creation of Adam and Eve, and "true" humanity started from then on.
Forget about that. Embrace the true doctrine of Creation, not the molecules to man mythology.
@@kevinrhatigan5656 that was high level sarcasm 🤣
2000 years is a lot of history, one would expect that a few bad examples can be found.
One point that should be added here is that both Galileo and Bruno did bait and unnecessarily antagonize many in the Church. I suspect that Hypatia did too.
The simplest dynamical model of the Solar System describes it in terms of a barycentre somewhere between the Sun and Jupiter, and incidentally roughly on the Sun's surface. The other planets can be considered to orbit this barycentre in ellipses and their own contribution to its motion is insignificant.
This is just a standard presentation of heliocentrism in modern language, obviously based on Occam's razor, and large numbers of Catholic astronomers will support it. I was finally convinced myself when I saw the Pluto-Charon system in 2015. Say this in the 1600s and the Inquisition would be on to you. When exactly did the Church change her position, and was the Holy Spirit advised of the need to change His mind? Should this comment be on the Index?
My own apparent contribution to celestial mechanics is to say that the motion of a Trojan around the Lagrangian points L4 and L5 is like the nutation of a spinning top. It is not an orbit. I've done the computer simulations both of Trojan behaviour and of spinning top behaviour, and this is how I interpret it. Could I be a heretic given the heliocentrism implicit in my views?
Would anyone like a demolition of some of the rubbish written by Lenin? There's always a problem with bishops and politicians posturing as experts on science.
So many topics I can use in my 7/8 grade Religious Ed class!! I love this channel.
That IS quite a rap sheet for a priest, yeah, but I'm with him on everything other than Hermeticism. Thing is, I can get away with it now, an I can get away with it because I'm not a priest. Patrick had a show going on a few nights ago, eh, where he specified that--and I didn't know this--"heresy" doesn't mean "bad" in the church. It just means, well, "not Catholic". See, I always thought the word "heresy" had very negative connotations: that people were punished for it because it was seen as a bad thing. Patrick cleared that up for me, eh. I like him. Been watching his "Pause to Chat with Fr. Pat" lately because he's very chill, and I'm having a hard time right now. My favourite aunt was just diagnosed with cancer. It's...not good. Well, no, okay, we don't know how BAD it is yet, actually, which is part of the "not good", because...you know...the waiting.
So sorry about your aunt. Wish you and your family the best and God bless you all and help you in this hard time!
@@pjenni11, thanks. Much appreciated. 🙂
@Landenulf94, sister, but thank you. She was hospitalised last night with blood clots in her lung, and we're waiting for an update. God...but I'll talk to her today if I can. I know how hospitals work. SLOWLY. So she'll have plenty of time just to talk, but letting her sleep is important too, of course. My mom says you don't feel sick when you're asleep, which is true.
Also, I'm GROSSLY oversimplifying here, absolutely, but I don't think the church WOULD have a problem with Hypatia's philosophy, given that Christianity is more or less a mix of Judaism and Platonic philosophy. There's a lot I'm leaving out there, but those are the GENERAL two legs of the structure.
@@xunqianbaidu6917, yeah no what?
It seems that the most effective lies are those that slant the truth so it's hard to tell what is real and what is not.
When did Patheos become Prager U?
Bruno was a lapsed priest who liked the whammen and gave up his cassock, went on the run to go as a freelance philosopher, and was more science fiction than science. Being burnt at the stake alive by the Inquisition is utterly brutal over-punishment IMHO.
1 Corinthians 15:3-4
How about a talk on how the Bible and science are totally contradictory?
How did jesus forget to tell us about germs?
Not only that, but he taught in parable the exact opposite, that it's what comes out of the mouth not what goes into it that makes us unclean.
Nice video thank you 🙌🏼
Sometimes.... sometimes, I wonder your future in the Church
Thank you Father. I enjoyed your video.
You laugh off the Church's murder of Giordano Bruno for "thought crimes" as no big deal because his scientific views were not the MAJOR reason for his murder. You even seem to applaud this action because his thought crimes were in opposition to Catholic teachings. You even smirk about his "rap sheet" as though he actually had one and not the church that murdered him for not accepting its "magic thinking. No matter how you try to dress it up the fact remains--the Catholic Church has a long and bloody history of killing people who think for themselves.
Thank you, Father.
Sure. The relationship between Europeans and Africans has been "tumultuous."
This handful of cherry-picked examples does nothing to disprove the overall hostility of religion to science. The underlying claim that the Bible is a magic book is a shocking denial of science.
By the way, challenging the virgin birth is a *scientific challenge*. Claiming that these persecutions had "nothing to do with science" is grossly dishonest.
Moreover, Galileo was not tortured because he was *famous*. The church had no qualms about torturing humans.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 You mean they haven't revealed any records of it, Just like the pe do church has their mass cover ups to this day.
@@xunqianbaidu6917 Churches hold no legal authority. That's half the point of the video, if you aren't under the moral leading, you can't be punished by either set of laws, theological or legal. 2 doesn't really help, it just means someone else also could have destroyed it. That's doesn't mean the church didn't hide it's evil, you wouldn't exactly get the evil guy admitting they are the one doing the wrongs.
Good try at rationalizing, but no religious institution should ever have had the power to kill anyone merely over differences of theological opinion.
@Brian Farley And in many cases, it was the secular government that was killing people, with the church saying "look, at least have a trial first."
Excellent, now to send this to all of my pagan friends.
Today, the thought of the god hypothesis, as an explanation in any discipline of science, is ridiculous. Religion has had its day. Label it as archaic and move on.
Your premise is 100% BS - and you know it.
Is this what they call Cathsplaining? Oh no, I just made it up. Go me.
I look at you and I literally want to cry beautiful young man what are you doing,,,
You are blind you are blind there is no way if you knew Jesus you’d be staying in there in that costume
Excuse me? Of course he knows Jesus, hence why he is a visible member of His Catholic Church and is obedient to the Roman Pontiff, the Divine Office established by Christ.
Perhaps it is you who does not know Jesus well enough and has not looked at all the facts in an objective manner?
To refer to his Franciscan habits as a costume I personally find very insulting.
The church has a problem with scholarship. Good scholarship has brought forth abundant evidence that the story of Jesus is a mishmash of past religious and spiritual beliefs, not an independent truth.
It's not false. You are religious and biased in that way.
“Giordano Bruno was a mjaor advocate against the virgin birth, denied transubstantiation, questioned the miracles of jesus, supported pantheism and possibly even believed in reincarnation and hermetic occultism … that is quite a rapsheet for a priest”. Are you under the mistaken impression that he wasn’t within his own right to believe and to express all those concepts? How can you take the side of an organization, the catholic church who committed atrocities like burning alive people for their opinions. Incidentally, advocating against the virgin birth, denying transubstantiation, etc … are all scientific positions, therefore Giordano Bruno was murdered by the catholic church because of his scientific beliefs. As far as Galieleo goes, you said that "he spent the rest of his life in his villa in Florence" ... he actually spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Hardly a light sentence. Your neglecting to mention this shows your lack of sincerity and your intention to manipulate your viewers. The reason other scientists in subsequent years have been recognized by the catholic church is simply because the catholic church could no longer halt the tide of science and decided to switch sides to survive, but make no mistake about it the seeds of obscurantism are still well and alive within the catholic church and its members. If you don't believe me, try and tell a practicing catholic that you don't believe in the virgin birth, or transubstantiation or the miracles of jesus and see his reaction toward you. The real question we should ask ourselves is what kind of person are you father Casey who can stomach belonging to an organization that committed such horrendous acts? I think that you and everybody else who adheres to the catholic church should take a long look at your conscience an re-evaluate your stand.