The trial of Charles B. Reynolds for blasphemy (1887)
Context: We have now a science called astronomy. That science has done more to enlarge the horizon of human thought than all things else. We now live in an infinite universe. We know that the sun is a million times larger than our earth, and we know that there are other great luminaries millions of times larger than our sun. We know that there are planets so far away that light, traveling at the rate of one hundred and eighty- five thousand miles a second, requires fifteen thousand years to reach this grain of sand, this tear, we call the earth -- and we now know that all the fields of space are sown thick with constellations. If that statute had been enforced, that science would not now be the property of the human mind. That science is contrary to the Bible, and for asserting the truth you become a criminal. For what sum of money, for what amount of wealth, would the world have the science of astronomy expunged from the brain of man? We learned the story of the stars in spite of that statute.
“For hundreds of years the Bible was the standard, and whenever anything was asserted in any science contrary to-the Bible, the church immediately denounced the scientist. I admit the standard has been changed, and ministers are very busy, not trying to show that science does not agree with the Bible, but that the Bible agrees with science.”
A Christmas Sermon (1890)
Help us to complete the source, original and additional information
Robert G. Ingersoll 439
Union United States Army officer 1833–1899Related quotes
“The great standard of literature as to purity and exactness of style is the Bible.”
Source: Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers (1895), P. 386.
Pursuance of truth requires consideration of a creator. If you define science to exclude the possibility of a creator, it isn’t a pursuance of truth.
The universe as accepted by science in terms of size and age is not big enough or old enough to explain evolution.
Q&A: ‘Expelled’s’ Robert Marks, From an interview with Jerry Pierce, 2008-01-28, 2008-02-18 http://www.sbtexan.com/default.asp?action=article&aid=5534&issue=2/4/2008,
Source: What On Earth Is About To Happen… For Heaven’s Sake? (2013), p. 5
The Tragic Sense of Life (1913), IV : The Essence of Catholicism
Context: And why be scandalized by the infallibility of a man, of the Pope? What difference does it make whether it be a book that is infallible — the Bible, or a society of men — the Church, or a single man? Does it make any essential change in the rational difficulty? And since the infallibility of a book or of a society of men is not more rational than that of a single man, this supreme offense to the eyes of reason has to be postulated.
Source: Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers (1895), P. 115.
1896
September
The Degraded Status of Woman in the Bible
Free Thought Magazine
Chicago
14
540
http://books.google.com/books?id=TfOfAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA540&dq=%22I+have+endeavored+to+dissipate%22
Orthodoxy (1884)
Context: In 1473 Copernicus was born. In 1543 his great work appeared. In 1616 the system of Copernicus was condemned by the pope, by the infallible Catholic Church, and the church was about as near right upon that subject as upon any other. The system of Copernicus was denounced. And how long do you suppose the church fought that? Let me tell you. It was revoked by Pius VII. in the year of grace 1821. For two hundred and seventy-eight years after the death of Copernicus the church insisted that his system was false, and that the old Bible astronomy was true.