I found an article by Jim O’Neill at the Canada Free Press that’s basically a screed condemning atheists for ruining God’s good name. I don’t know enough about politics or history or science or anything at all, sadly, but I’ll do what I can to defend the atheist position anyway.
Why have we drifted so far from our spiritual heritage? Once you’ve taken a look at the centuries of unremitting atheistic left-wing attacks on Christianity—both from within and without—the answer is obvious.
The ploys that the atheists (in particular Far Left atheists, and most obsessively, Far Left homosexual atheists) have used to undermine, ridicule, and diminish the influence of Christianity are manifold, clever, and ruthless—they run the gamut from the sublime to the ridiculous.
The “ridiculous” is a link to World Net Daily and its announcement in 2004 of a rewritten, more “politically correct” version of the bible, one intended to soften the wording of homosexual passages, among other things. Amazon sells it. I found a write-up about it at bible-researcher.com:
It is claimed that the adjustments are made according to widely-accepted theories of translation, and that they represent the true meaning and intention of the original. Yet it is plain to see that the drift of this version has little to do with any concern for the meaning of the original text. In fact, what we see here is an application of the ‘post-modern’ hermeneutical approach which says that because our apprehension of the text is inescapably subjective (‘all translation is interpretation’), the original text itself has no fixed meaning. It is whatever we wish to make of it.
I wonder if “apprehension” was supposed to be comprehension. Or appreciation? Although I approve of the idea of facing the gospel with “a feeling of evil to come” or a “sudden numbing dread.” (see definitions of apprehension)
And I’ve written before about translations, or interpretations if it’s preferred, that have been done of the bible. It’s hardly surprising that something like this would exist. Does it need to exist? Probably not. Is it newsworthy? Only in terms of the fact that it was mildly controversial.
Back to O’Neill:
Another favorite ploy is to spread myths and lies about Christianity. … Christianity is largely responsible—a good case can be made that it is exclusively responsible—for the fact that science exists at all
He’s writing here about Galileo and the academic debates that resulted from his work on cosmology. He’s claiming none of it had to do with religion specifically so those who’d accuse Christians as being behind his troubles don’t have their facts straight. I can’t say he’s right or wrong about that but I don’t think it can be denied that the Catholic church supported the Ptolemic view of the universe over the heliocentric one because it better fit the supposedly relevant bible verses about how god created everything. I also found an essay by Marc Anthony Robles that mentions a letter Galileo wrote to his friend and student, Castelli, arguing that the bible shouldn’t be taken as literal when it comes to the universe’s design. The Papal Government got a hold of the letter but deemed it non-threatening. This annoyed Galileo enough to write someone else, the Grand Duchess Christina of Lorraine.
In this letter he motivated himself to make Copernicus’ theory a biblical scripture defying, world changing, and reality. In this letter he openly and directly attacked the Ptolemaic view, the teachings of Aristotle and more detrimentally the biblical scriptures.
The government got to read this one, too. He already had opponents in the church and this tactic was hardly going to make him more popular. It doesn’t matter if some Christians agreed with him, the leaders sure as hell didn’t.
Back to O’Neill:
One example of the contractive influence of atheism—one could say a stellar example—can be found in America’s space program, or lack thereof. NASA under Progressive control has gone from a “To boldly go where no one has gone before” attitude, to their new motto of “There’s No Place Like Home.” Go get ‘em “Dorothy.”
He links to an article about NASA not wanting to be cultural outreach program and I have no idea what that has to do with atheism.
Personally, I think much of the money going into NASA is essentially wasted. Yeah, innovative technology gets designed and put to interesting uses on and off the shuttles but think what that cash could do if it was earmarked for communities or medicine instead.
Back to what he said about Christians and science, though – I’m well aware that the Catholic church has been the monetary sponsor for investigation and research throughout history. They were the only ones with any money to put into it for a while, weren’t they? If anyone was going to do scientific research at all, they had to under the watchful eyes of their devout patrons, and were likely devout themselves. But a true scientist would still seek universal truths, not just look for proof that the bible’s right about shit.
More about this will be in a part two to come later today or tomorrow, depending on how long it takes me to write it.