Religion and Atheism

[Ormond]

 

The study is using the standard scientific phrasing and I'm using the standard way everybody outside a given field always interprets it. Scientific results always come with this kind of probabilistic statement. If you read the rest of the abstract, they quantify it for you and it's the usual 95% confidence interval. Given that there are quite a few other studies of this type, it's a fairly safe bet that religious people are indeed happier.

As a psychologist I want to agree with your main point here. There have been a great many studies that have found a positive correlation between various measures of religiosity and happiness.

It should be pointed out, though, that most of these studies are from the United States, and some recent studies seem to show the correlation is much smaller in cultures where being religious is less of a norm. There is also a great deal of disagreement as to why the correlation occurs. Much of it is because participation in religious organizations provides people with social support, which is itself strongly related to happiness. And of course like every other complex social-psychological phenomenon, the finding that "religious people are happier" is statistical, not absolute -- there remain many individual religious persons who are quite unhappy and many individual non-religious persons who are quite happy, even though it averages out that religious persons are happier.  

[The Mance]

Because God is something to measure our decisions against. In a way I feel atheistic decision making can be summarized to "it's what I feel like, right now."

Well, sure, as long as you recognize that what any given atheist is "feeling like right now" is the cumulative emotional expression of millions of years of human evolution, thousands of years of cultural development, and likely decades of lived experience by an empathetic herd animal influenced by respected peers, family members, and social and cultural mores.  

[Altherion]

On the first comment, you must then concede that collective belief is not a reasonable basis to suggest accurate belief.

If many people believe something, it is more likely to be accurate than if only a single person believes it and cannot convince anyone else. Of course, this is not absolute -- every new scientific discovery is a possible exception -- but such discoveries are rare so it is true more often than not. Moreover, it doesn't actually matter if a belief can be proven to be accurate, the important thing is for it to be useful. In science, engineering, etc. the two are identical because it is possible to determine the accuracy of a belief to a reasonable extent and relying on obviously inaccurate beliefs will cause problems. However, in general, this is not the case: for most non-scientific beliefs (even ones that most people agree on such as "stealing is wrong"), "accuracy" is not a well-defined concept.

On the second paragraph, there is no "goal".  Like the good Mr O'briain said, science knows it doesn't know everything.  Otherwise it'd stop.  Your position is that science has limitations.  I say that is just too bold a declaration to make.

I meant "goal" in the sense of "answering the fundamental questions about our universe." And yes, my position is absolutely that science has limitations. I'm not sure how it is possible to be a scientist and not understand that (which is why, in my first post, I said that I find the New Atheists embarrassing -- those of them that are scientists have either somehow managed it or are pretending to do so). There are practical limitations, there are theoretical limitations of the scientific method and, if those aren't enough for you, there are limitations that come from scientific or mathematical understanding itself (e.g. Ser Scot's favorite: Gödel's incompleteness theorems). It is not a bold declaration at all; it's an idea that has nearly universal acceptance among scientists and philosophers.

[TerraPrime]

As to why an outside perspective be better than a human one? Because the outside perspective is probably free from personal bias, maybe wiser than we are etc.

This begs the question that there is an "outside perspective." That is actually the crux of the disagreement between theists and atheists - is there some supernatural entity out there?

This belief also assumes that the outside perspective gives one whit about humanity to want to give us guidance. But I suppose if you want to accept that a supernatural entity exists, it is not that much more of a burden to assume that it takes a special interest in humanity.

I think that people criticize the Bible because they cherrypick from it. The Bible has to be understood as a whole text. Otherwise, most Christians shouldn't be eating shellfish or pork, dressing in things that are a mix of polyester and cotton etc...

Cherry-picking Biblical passages to criticize is a valid response to those who hold that the entire Bible is inerrant and true. That is a specific claim that can be refuted by showing how a few passages are not true. But not all Christians believe that the entire Bible is without errors.

But what if actual evidence shows something that you disagree with personally? For example, evidence shows that taxes are a dead weight loss to the economy. Does that mean you advocate for no taxes at all which means we won't have public roads, schools etc...?

You're eliding the multiple meanings of "believe," which is a common event. The way we "believe" taxation is important is not the same way that people "believe" in a god. If you equate the two, you're saying you are approaching your faith in the same way that you analyze the pros and cons of taxation, which I find it hard to... believe. Faith is the defining element of being religious, imo, and faith does not operate in the same realm as other forms of analyzing reality. But I guess it's possible that there are people who see their believe in God as the same as how they see their tax forms. That's very sad, if it's true, but to each their own.

 

Another example is with male headship of the family. Feminist criticism has been made of Christianity because Christianity places males in a place of headship. But that's where the feminist analysis of Christianity often ends. But then the Bible tells us that husbands ought to love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, to love their wives as their own bodies etc...

So in a way, cherrypickers would say that Christianity doesn't value females as much as males. But a better analysis and understanding of the text within the context of the Bible as a whole proves otherwise. Because if husbands are to give themselves up for their wives, how can one say that wives aren't valued?

A point of clarification: Do you think that putting women in the position of being protected and sacrificed for signifies that the Bible treats women as equal, that it gives women agency, and that it allows women the same range of self-determination as men get? If you do, then it's no wonder you think the Bible is not a sexist work. Most feminists will disagree, imo, with the view that women should be protected by their husbands and sacrificed for, especially as a form of balance against being submissive to the husband's will and decisions, is what gender equality looks like.

Arguing that the Bible is not sexist is a very difficult task, attempted by many and by my standards, succeeded by none. The best you can achieve is to apologize for the sexism by saying that human vessels are flawed in receiving Divine revelation and perverted the will of God by their own cultural limitations. Although, how you can pervert something as important as the downfall of humanity from Eden, I don't know, and I am somewhat skeptical about the worthiness of a Divine being who cannot communicate clearly what it wants to express. But that's nit-picking, I suppose.

 

I agree. But I ask you this, how do you find truth in atheism?

From my perspective as an atheist, religious people don't "find the truth" from religion, either. They're just collectively inventing a reality to share and convince each other that this is the truth. Which is, really, what we all do, religious or not. It doesn't make theism and religion any better, or more deserving of being followed.

[Biglose]

 

Arguing that the Bible is not sexist is a very difficult task, attempted by many and by my standards, succeeded by none. The best you can achieve is to apologize for the sexism by saying that human vessels are flawed in receiving Divine revelation and perverted the will of God by their own cultural limitations. Although, how you can pervert something as important as the downfall of humanity from Eden, I don't know, and I am somewhat skeptical about the worthiness of a Divine being who cannot communicate clearly what it wants to express. But that's nit-picking, I suppose.

Not really. Take it into historical context and done.

Gender equality is kind of not really doable outside of a really developed world. It kind of takes the industrial revolution and a bit on top of it to even get started. So yeah a historical book does not promote gender equality is like bah it does not promote building airplanes....

Not only would it not have been around at the time, even if you would tell people about it, they could no use that knowledge.

So if you want to awnser the question if the bible was sexist, well you would need to look how it influenced history. If you consider the roman attitude towards relationships, the christian one was definitly an improvement from a female perspective.

 

 

[TerraPrime]

Not really. Take it into historical context and done.

Gender equality is kind of not really doable outside of a really developed world. It kind of takes the industrial revolution and a bit on top of it to even get started. So yeah a historical book does not promote gender equality is like bah it does not promote building airplanes....

Well, at least we agree on that part, which is what I said is apologetics - you admit that it's sexist, but you accept that it's a product of the cultural context and you don't think we should continue to hold to those sexist ways depicted in the Bible. So, cool. My response was to Daemrion who was arguing that the Bible is NOT sexist.

 

Not only would it not have been around at the time, even if you would tell people about it, they could no use that knowledge.

I know, right? Why would an omnipotent supernatural being have chosen to impart its edicts to humanity at a time when it knows we cannot fully grasp the meaning? Assuming that God is perfect, then it must mean that... He intended the message to be corrupted by culturally inescapable sexism? And homophobia? And xenophobia? Beats me.

 

 

[Seli]

 

...

I meant "goal" in the sense of "answering the fundamental questions about our universe." And yes, my position is absolutely that science has limitations. I'm not sure how it is possible to be a scientist and not understand that (which is why, in my first post, I said that I find the New Atheists embarrassing -- those of them that are scientists have either somehow managed it or are pretending to do so). There are practical limitations, there are theoretical limitations of the scientific method and, if those aren't enough for you, there are limitations that come from scientific or mathematical understanding itself (e.g. Ser Scot's favorite: Gödel's incompleteness theorems). It is not a bold declaration at all; it's an idea that has nearly universal acceptance among scientists and philosophers.

The issue that the so-called new atheists raise is that religions (and many philosophers) make claims that are unequivocally within the domain of science, and have been shown to be less than connected to the real world.

And the tools of science, of philosophy, can be used on religious claims regardless. And frankly, any claims that make the positions of earth, of humans special ought to be taken with a ton of scepticism. Since we are such a tiny fraction of all the time and space of this universe.

[TrueMetis]

Because it's about really about understanding the text in the context of the whole. For example, in Leviticus there are a whole bunch of rules about not eating pork, shellfish, not wearing clothes made of mixed materials etc. So if you cherrypicked that you would think that Christians aren't allowed to eat pork, shellfish, wear clothes of more than one material etc. But when you read Mark 7:18-23, you have to reconcile the earlier passages with the later passage and gain a holistic understanding of what the message of the Bible is about. Your understanding of the passages on Leviticus is enhanced by your understanding of the passage in Mark and vice versa. And in Mark, it's quite explicit what Jesus does say.

I'm still not buying how stating something the bible explicitly says, just as explicitly if not more so than Mark, is cherry picking. Because it does in fact say something that contradicts it later doesn't change the meaning of what it explicitly said. Especially when

“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? ¹⁹ For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.”

is just plain wrong cause plenty of the things you eat can kill you. Though I suppose it wouldn't be wrong by what they thought the heart was. And their probably using a defile differently then I would... But then I don't recall the no pork and shellfish passages being because it would infect your thoughts.

Which brings us to another problem, we're using a book that's been translated 3-4 time IIRC. Who's to say we're using the right words?

Hey, where's the mixed fabric change of opinion?

Another example is with male headship of the family. Feminist criticism has been made of Christianity because Christianity places males in a place of headship. But that's where the feminist analysis of Christianity often ends. But then the Bible tells us that husbands ought to love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, to love their wives as their own bodies etc...

So in a way, cherrypickers would say that Christianity doesn't value females as much as males. But a better analysis and understanding of the text within the context of the Bible as a whole proves otherwise. Because if husbands are to give themselves up for their wives, how can one say that wives aren't valued?

Because maybe women don't want to be infantilized? Honestly your interpretation doesn't make it all that much better.

So I might quote from a specific passage, but the idea and argument behind quoting that specific passage comes from an understanding of the whole text rather than just that little bit of text quoted. I think that's probably the best I can explain it.

I will point out again, that we don't have the whole text. No one does. And two, plenty of people also claiming to have an understanding of the whole text, come to completely different conclusion than you. What makes you interpretation the right one?

To use a Game of Thrones example, we may cherry pick the fact that Jaime Lannister killed Aerys to argue that he's evil. But then as we read ASOS and read about the wildfire plot we realize perhaps that Jaime killing Aerys was actually a good thing. Having read more of the text and understanding the context of his actions will influence our view of Jaime's character. In effect, I wouldn't use the fact that Jaime killed Aerys to argue that he's a wholly good person (which would also be cherry picking), but having understood it and read about his other actions, I can draw a conclusion that Jaime is probably a morally gray character who has done some good and some bad things.

I can perhaps even draw a conclusion that Jaime is a good person at heart who is desperately trying to be evil because that's all he's been told he can be since he was seventeen. But I'd probably have to read the text and context a bit more carefully.

See, it would be more like Game Of Thrones stating out right that Jaime is evil in third person omniscient, then later giving us a 3rd person limited perspective of someone else saying Jaime is not evil. At best this is two different perspectives which is fair enough, at worst a contradiction within the text.

I agree. But I ask you this, how do you find truth in atheism?

I don't, I'm an atheist because my answer to the question "do you believe in deities?" is no. Atheism is a position on one given subject.

For truth, that is that which is factual or in accordance with reality, I go with science. Which for hundreds of years has had people saying "science can't explain X" and then figuring X out.

It's absolutely how free speech works. It's not how the first amendment works, but that's not really relevant in England.

Free speech in England means people have to give you a platform? That's pretty fucking bizarre. (also not American so wasn't thinking about the first amendment)

[TrackerNeil]

So if you want to awnser the question if the bible was sexist, well you would need to look how it influenced history. If you consider the roman attitude towards relationships, the christian one was definitly an improvement from a female perspective.

Does that mean if I can show that the internment of Japanese-Americans helped further the cause of racial understanding that the internment wasn't truly racist?

[Stubby]

 

If many people believe something, it is more likely to be accurate than if only a single person believes it and cannot convince anyone else. Of course, this is not absolute -- every new scientific discovery is a possible exception -- but such discoveries are rare so it is true more often than not. Moreover, it doesn't actually matter if a belief can be proven to be accurate, the important thing is for it to be useful. In science, engineering, etc. the two are identical because it is possible to determine the accuracy of a belief to a reasonable extent and relying on obviously inaccurate beliefs will cause problems. However, in general, this is not the case: for most non-scientific beliefs (even ones that most people agree on such as "stealing is wrong"), "accuracy" is not a well-defined concept.

I meant "goal" in the sense of "answering the fundamental questions about our universe." And yes, my position is absolutely that science has limitations. I'm not sure how it is possible to be a scientist and not understand that (which is why, in my first post, I said that I find the New Atheists embarrassing -- those of them that are scientists have either somehow managed it or are pretending to do so). There are practical limitations, there are theoretical limitations of the scientific method and, if those aren't enough for you, there are limitations that come from scientific or mathematical understanding itself (e.g. Ser Scot's favorite: Gödel's incompleteness theorems). It is not a bold declaration at all; it's an idea that has nearly universal acceptance among scientists and philosophers.

First bold: And yet I proved otherwise upthread.

Second bold: I will hazard a guess here - I reckon more beliefs with widespread appeal have been proven to be harmful than useful. One only has to look at our current world. Anti-vaxxers?  Undoubtedly harmful.  The 'year one' believers in Cambodia?  Undoubtedly harmful.  Traditional medicine exponents in Asia that lead to the massacre of animals?  Undoubtedly harmful. The middle east is littered with harmful beliefs.  White supremacy? Undoubtedly harmful. I could of course go on, but the point is made.

Third bold: Perhaps I should qualify what I meant.  I meant that we have no idea at this point in time where science will take us.  Never is a long time. Do you seriously think that people running around in the 1700's would have thought that we would have planes?  Only 40 years ago, the idea that people could wring their hands about beliefs with people all over the world instantaneously would have been preposterous.

Finally, your link about Godel was incomplete and didn't work.

[Jo498]

The issue that the so-called new atheists raise is that religions (and many philosophers) make claims that are unequivocally within the domain of science, and have been shown to be less than connected to the real world.

One problem with the "new atheists" is that they take religion mainly as competing with science. This is fundamentally wrongheaded and justified almost only wrt a (historically) recent strain of (mostly American) fundamentalism. I can understand the reaction in the face of young-earth-creationism intruding into school curricula but it does not help if one responds narrow-mindedly to such a development. YE creationism is itself confused about the relation of science and religion and its claims pseudo-scientific rather than religious.

(Forget the stories about Galileo, there are usually told in a distorted fashion and were about "science vs. science", not religion vs. science. Google for "Renaissance mathematicus" blog to find an account by an atheist historian of science).

Religious questions are mainly about domains empirical science cannot say much (or anything at all) about. Either because they are too "fundamental"(like the absolute foundation or "end" of being), but more often because they are about ethics or more generally how one should live. (They are more likely to clash with differing philosophical or political ideas about how one should live (including society and economy) than with natural science.)

Similar things are true about philosophy; since Feynman's blabbering about how he hated the obligatory philosophy in college in his popular books, there is a certain strain of scientist who think that philosophy would intrude into the domain of physics. This is usually a misunderstanding or plain wrong and usually stems from ignorance or historical confusion because until the 1700s/1800s the domains of those subjects were not quite as distinct as they became with specialization in academics. But even in this earlier era philosophers (if not also scientists themselves like Descartes or Leibniz) were almost always admirers of (natural) science in the narrower sense and of mathematics and often tended to err "in favor of science" rather than the other way round. E.g. Kant taking Euclidean geometry and Newtonian mechanics as so fundamental they had to be understood as "a priori" sciences.

[Buckwheat]

But I ask you this, how do you find truth in atheism?

You do not, you just do not pretend that you find it in old texts and/or whatever one or other priest tells you. Atheism is no belief that you can find answers/truth from any given source, it is the absence of it.

One problem with the "new atheists" is that they take religion mainly as competing with science.

This. Very true and informative post, thank you.

[Grimbold]

Im not quite sure that science doesn't have what it takes to answer questions pertaining to religion only.

 

If im not mistaken The Moral Landscape: How Science can determine human values by Sam Harris, a book i've only just started, is about exploring that specific question.

[Kyoshi]

I haven't read any of the "new atheist" books so I can't say much on that. But the context in which I have seen atheists pitting science against religion is with school curricula and public assemblies (which are mainly in schools where I come from). In those cases, I think it becomes absolutely necessary to present a scientific alternative to the 6-days-of-creation version.

[Grimbold]

I haven't read any of the "new atheist" books so I can't say much on that. But contexts in which I have seen atheists pitting science against religion is with school curricula and public assemblies (which are mainly in schools where I come from). In those cases, I think it becomes absolutely necessary to present a scientific alternative to the 6-days-of-creation version.

People often make use of Creationism trying to make it's way into public schools, but, from i've seen via debates, the target of the argument has a broader sense, that is, the general attempt of religion to try and have classes - or like they were called in my day Religion and Morality or smth of the kind - in schools.

In my simplistic view, i really dont see why religion should be in school. I often ask "don't you already have sunday school and the likes for that?"

The only time i had a religious class in public school was back in the 5th grade with a priest lecturing a morals class, which to us kids was basically resess or a class where one would get a free high grade.

[Kyoshi]

I was actually in a public school where religion was taught as a core subject. There was a formal teacher and everything, not a priest whose main aim was to instill morality in young ones. I hated it. If you didn't agree that the world was created in 6 days and that women were made from men's ribs, well, you were in trouble. They tested us on that stuff. You had to know on what day god made the animals, when the seas were made, etc. I remember one question that asked: [paraphrased] What was god's grandest creation, so grand in fact, that he had to take the next day off? This was all serious stuff. And through all of it, I had to learn how my people had been ignorant, blasphemous, uncivilised, etc. in practicing the indigenous religions I'd grown up observing. It was an imposing, imperial force that went beyond my obligatory Sunday attendance.

In my experience, it's not a hypothetical situation or debate. It does happen. The only reason I believe it was taken out of the syllabus is because we switched education systems to something the Australians were doing, I think. And that didn't have Religious Studies. Parents went up in arms over it for a while. There was a huge intake in the churches' Sunday school programs after that because everyone was worried over our inevitable moral decay.

I think that's what scared me away from religion. I was living with the constant fear of going to hell. Two strikes and you're out sort of thing.

[Stubby]

One problem with the "new atheists" is that they take religion mainly as competing with science. This is fundamentally wrongheaded and justified almost only wrt a (historically) recent strain of (mostly American) fundamentalism. I can understand the reaction in the face of young-earth-creationism intruding into school curricula but it does not help if one responds narrow-mindedly to such a development. YE creationism is itself confused about the relation of science and religion and its claims pseudo-scientific rather than religious.

(Forget the stories about Galileo, there are usually told in a distorted fashion and were about "science vs. science", not religion vs. science. Google for "Renaissance mathematicus" blog to find an account by an atheist historian of science).

Religious questions are mainly about domains empirical science cannot say much (or anything at all) about. Either because they are too "fundamental"(like the absolute foundation or "end" of being), but more often because they are about ethics or more generally how one should live. (They are more likely to clash with differing philosophical or political ideas about how one should live (including society and economy) than with natural science.)

Similar things are true about philosophy; since Feynman's blabbering about how he hated the obligatory philosophy in college in his popular books, there is a certain strain of scientist who think that philosophy would intrude into the domain of physics. This is usually a misunderstanding or plain wrong and usually stems from ignorance or historical confusion because until the 1700s/1800s the domains of those subjects were not quite as distinct as they became with specialization in academics. But even in this earlier era philosophers (if not also scientists themselves like Descartes or Leibniz) were almost always admirers of (natural) science in the narrower sense and of mathematics and often tended to err "in favor of science" rather than the other way round. E.g. Kant taking Euclidean geometry and Newtonian mechanics as so fundamental they had to be understood as "a priori" sciences.

The bolded part is simply a very limited view of how science and religion interact in the modern world.

Do you not think that religion and science clash in other ways?  Like these for example:

Abortion

Refusal of Blood Transfusions

Refusal of Autopsies

Preaching about the evil of condoms on a continent devastated by the AIDS virus

Opposition to genetic research

Declaring certain (non-harmful) foods as forbidden, in a world with mass hunger issues

Refusal of c-sections

Opposition to voluntary euthanasia

The reliance by some people on "faith healing" at the expense of modern medicine.

I could go on, but it is enough to note that you have made some impressive philosophical points in your post.  Unfortunately you have clearly overlooked many real-world examples.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kyoshi,

Sounds like they made "Sunday School" a regular graded class.  Unpleasant.

[TrueMetis]

One problem with the "new atheists" is that they take religion mainly as competing with science. This is fundamentally wrongheaded and justified almost only wrt a (historically) recent strain of (mostly American) fundamentalism. I can understand the reaction in the face of young-earth-creationism intruding into school curricula but it does not help if one responds narrow-mindedly to such a development. YE creationism is itself confused about the relation of science and religion and its claims pseudo-scientific rather than religious.

Is this another "the bible wasn't considered factual until recently" claims? Because people used to point to the bible as justification for all sorts of shit. I mean you mention Galileo, and people used biblical passages to support geocentrism, including the inquisition that charged Galileo with heresy because heliocentrism "explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology." Galileo Trial

(Forget the stories about Galileo, there are usually told in a distorted fashion and were about "science vs. science", not religion vs. science. Google for "Renaissance mathematicus" blog to find an account by an atheist historian of science).

Calling it science vs science is just as distorted. The Catholic Church didn't submit Galileo to an inquisition just because he couldn't prove his hypothesis, which in of itself would be deeply anti-science, but because his actions were seen to oppose papal authority. Because amongst other things Galileo read the parts of the bible that supported Geocentrism as non-literal. As opposed to the RCC at the time which read those passages as literal.

I mean I think anti-vaxxers, creationists, and global warming deniers are nuts, but if I was to force them not to speak their opinion because the evidence does not support their conclusion, then I am not on science's side. And if I add additionally that this is happening because it violates church doctrine than I am really not on science's side. The Galileo incident however is much worse than that, because while he couldn't prove heliocentrism he had many observations that leaned in that direction.

[Rorshach]

I'm not going to do much more than pop into the thread, but I'll point out - re Galileo - that, indeed, his interpretation of the Bible was a problem. But, as it happens, it was a minor problem, and not (as indicated in the post above) because scripture said that the earth doesn't move, and this had to be taken literally.

There were instances before where passages had been reinterpreted, and that did not in itself present a problem for the Catholic Church. After all, they did hold with a four-fold way of reading the Bible (and still do, I believe), so as not to hold as truth something that clearly was wrong. 

And then we arrive at part of the problem. Because there was, at the time of Galileo, nothing clearly wrong with a stationary Earth. In fact, there were (at that time) quite a few arguments for and against, and all Galileo had done was to dismiss Ptolemy (through his observations of Venus and how it has phases like the moon). However, Tycho Brahe had a geocentric (or, rather, a geo-heliocentric) model which didn't Galileo's observations couldn't dismiss. And Galileo's system had a few problems of its own, first and foremost the problem of parallax and the problem of star sizes, none of which he had good answers for.

Given that, the Church saw little point in changing its interpretation. Galileo, however, being ... well, reading about him, I guess "himself" is the right word here, took it upon himself to reinterpret the Bible according to his own system (or, rather, Copernicus' system). Which was a rather big faux pas. Galileo wasn't in a position to reinterpret anything, as he wasn't a trained theologican. 

However, the larger picture (on this matter) as presented by Jo498 is correct - the dispute owed more to scientific questions. Furthermore, more than it owed to religion, it owed to Galileo's personality - and the personality of the pope (that is, the pope of 1634, not the pope of 1616).