Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 159
  1. #16
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Luther’s only recorded comment on the issue is the above single off-hand remark (hardly a concerted campaign), during a ‘table talk’ in 1539 (four years before the publication of Copernicus’ book). The Table Talk was based on notes taken by Luther’s students, which were later compiled and published in 1566―twenty years after Luther’s death.
    It still shows that Luther believed that geocentrism was a true ordained in the scripture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    But the words I've bolded show that a major reason for Luther’s objection was Copernicus’ challenging the establishment and common sense for its own sake (as Luther saw it). At the time, there was no hard evidence for geokineticism. And Kepler, a devout Lutheran, saw no conflict between the Bible and Lutheran theology. He showed how Joshua 10:12 could be explained as phenomenological language, using Luther’s own principles of Biblical interpretation!
    I'm glad the scripture are not open to interpretation.

    Actually the geocentrists are like the YEC of today. Desperately hanging on to biblical "truth" to prop up a position which science was showing to be increasingly indefensible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    So do you have any arguments against his arguments here?
    I have nothing to argue against. Sure Galileo was not liked well as he was an arrogant and undiplomatic personality. However, that does not change the fact that it was the church which silenced him and charged him with holding a doctrine which was against scripture.

    If it was the church was without blame on this, why did the Pope feel the need to apologise? (albeit 400 years too late).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    What are you on about? The opposition to geokineticism first came from the Aristotelians at the universities. Contrast this with Cardinal Bellarmine who said it was ‘excellent good sense’ to claim that Galileo’s model was mathematically simpler. And he said:

    If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion false which has been proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me.

    Galileo's own arrogance was his downfall here, rejecting Kepler's ideas and proposing a "proof" in the tides that was nonsense.
    Except that Galileo was ultimately much closer to the truth than the geocentrists and was persecuted by the Christians for promoting an theory which was against scripture as read by the Pope and Martin Luther.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    The letter from the Pope, Galileo's former close friend, is a matter of personal politics not church dogma.
    It wasn't a private letter between friends. It was an official letter from the Holy See charging Galileo with heresy for which he could have been executed had he not recanted.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  2. #17
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    It still shows that Luther believed that geocentrism was a true ordained in the scripture.
    If allegedly one off-the-cuff comment reported long after his death means anything. And at the time, geocentrism seemed to be the best supported scientificially.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    I'm glad the scripture are not open to interpretation.
    But only one is the right one, the grammatical-historical one which is what Luther taught even if the above alleged quote didn't practise it. This is also the interpretation of the Nazi-opposing Confessing church and the slavery-opposing evangelical abolitionists like Wilberforce. Rincy prefers the "anything goes" approach, or eisegesis, or reading things into Scripture like evolution, racism or absolute geocentrism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Actually the geocentrists are like the YEC of today. Desperately hanging on to biblical "truth" to prop up a position which science was showing to be increasingly indefensible.
    Yet the pioneers of geokinetic astronomy were YECs, precisely because the Bible does NOT teach absolute geocentrism, any more than we do today when we say, "look at the pretty sunset".

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    I have nothing to argue against. Sure Galileo was not liked well as he was an arrogant and undiplomatic personality. However, that does not change the fact that it was the church which silenced him and charged him with holding a doctrine which was against scripture.
    Doing just what you praise them for: taking too much heed of the establishment scientists!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    If it was the church was without blame on this, why did the Pope feel the need to apologise? (albeit 400 years too late).
    Because of a modern PC fashion of being sorry for what someone else did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Except that Galileo was ultimately much closer to the truth than the geocentrists and was persecuted by the Christians for promoting an theory which was against scripture as read by the Pope and Martin Luther.
    The evidence for Luther is very limited, and with the Pope it was a case of feeling betrayed by his former friend. Nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible, and everything to do with personality politics and the machinations of the scientific establishment of the day.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  3. #18
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,071

    Inquisition myths

    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist
    I was quite disappointed when seeing "the opera Galileo" or some story about him at the Opera House that only used the texts of the threats made by the Church about him - about showing him the tools. At least they could have used shadows of Inquisition torture instruments if not replicas or a few good screams that opera is all about and famous for, and not for much else mind you.

    I felt like GW Bush and yelling out "Bring it on!"
    Inquisition methods were far milder than the secular methods of the day. Indeed, some monks accused of an ordinary crime uttered a heresy so they could be transferred to the far better Inquisition prisons. The death toll was also minuscule compared to that of the evolution-based regimee. Finally, killing and torturing for the faith is inconsistent with Christ's teachings, while mass murder is consistent with evolution.

    See also An Inquiry on the Inquisition.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  4. #19
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    If allegedly one off-the-cuff comment reported long after his death means anything. And at the time, geocentrism seemed to be the best supported scientificially.
    I assume you are not arguing that he said it after he died.

    The comment as to which theory was the best supported scientifically is misleading, Luther's quote made it clear his interpretation was supported by scripture, not science:

    "...sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."


    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    But only one is the right one, the grammatical-historical one which is what Luther taught even if the above alleged quote didn't practise it.
    You have no more justification for your methodology than any other. In fact, yours is less appealing in the sense that it is not the mainstream way scripture is interpreted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Yet the pioneers of geokinetic astronomy were YECs, precisely because the Bible does NOT teach absolute geocentrism, any more than we do today when we say, "look at the pretty sunset".
    That's your position now, not the position of your biblical literalist predecessors who did not have the benefit of scientific knowledge of celestial mechanics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Doing just what you praise them for: taking too much heed of the establishment scientists!
    They justified their persecution with sacred scripture, not science. Only a fool would argue that they would say that something was against scripture a a pretext the settle a disagreement between academics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Because of a modern PC fashion of being sorry for what someone else did.
    Funny, I don;t see the catholic church as being all that PC. See for example the Pope's comments equating homosexuality with climate change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    The evidence for Luther is very limited, and with the Pope it was a case of feeling betrayed by his former friend. Nothing to do with Christianity or the Bible, and everything to do with personality politics and the machinations of the scientific establishment of the day.
    Again your position requires one to believe that the Catholic church would pronounce something was against sacred scripture just to settle a disagreement between academics or to get back at a friend that had fallen out of favour. You draw a too long a bow.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  5. #20
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,589

    The Pope's comments

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Funny, I don;t see the catholic church as being all that PC. See for example the Pope's comments equating homosexuality with climate change.
    I can't quickly find the URL, but I read something yesterday (I think it was in The Australian) by a Catholic homosexual columnist who clearly said that the Pope's comments in the original speech were nowhere near doing that. He dreended the Pope as not actaully offending Catholics of his (the columnist's) persuasion at all by what he said. Someone with time on their hands might like to look it up. I read it in the physical newspaper but it may be on the web site.
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  6. #21
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    The comment as to which theory was the best supported scientifically is misleading, Luther's quote made it clear his interpretation was supported by scripture, not science:
    He made it clear that his main objection was novelty for novelty's sake, for a theory that at the time had no scientific support:
    Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    "...sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
    And Kepler argued from Luther's own interpretive method that this could be understood as relative motion. I guess Rincy never uses the term "sunset".

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    You have no more justification for your methodology than any other.
    I do: it is the way we interpret texts in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    In fact, yours is less appealing in the sense that it is not the mainstream way scripture is interpreted.
    It's more appealing, because it is the corrective to misuses like Hitler's (since you claim he used Scripture) and the Church's when they read Aristotelian cosmology into Scripture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    That's your position now, not the position of your biblical literalist predecessors who did not have the benefit of scientific knowledge of celestial mechanics.
    My grammatical-historical predecessors are the ones who developed geokinetic theory. Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology, University of King’s College, Halifax, Canada, wrote:

    Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed. It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists. [Isaac Newton and Apocalypse Now: a response to Tom Harpur’s Newton’s strange bedfellows; A longer version of the letter published in the Toronto Star, 26 February 2004.]

    [QUOTE=Rincewind]The only error is making the same mistake as Rincy in presuming that the grammatical-historical method they used was "literalist", but it gets across the right idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    They justified their persecution with sacred scripture, not science.
    It was the scientists who first objected, then persuaded the Church that their "science" was taught in Scripture. You want the church to make the same mistake with evolutionary "science", and the liberal churches read eugenics into their theology in the first decades of last century.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Only a fool would argue that they would say that something was against scripture a a pretext the settle a disagreement between academics.
    Not in that culture, where the universities were founded and supported by the Church, as part of their general fostering of learning.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  7. #22
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    He made it clear that his main objection was novelty for novelty's sake, for a theory that at the time had no scientific support:
    Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down.
    Luther did chide them for being clever which was an insult in those days. But what Luther failed to realise is that they were actually turning astronomy the right way around. The evidence for heliocentric model was in the parsimony it offered over the geocentrism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    And Kepler argued from Luther's own interpretive method that this could be understood as relative motion. I guess Rincy never uses the term "sunset".
    You would be wrong. I use the term both literally and figuratively but your probelm is you only understand it literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    I do: it is the way we interpret texts in general.
    Per it is the way a shallow reader like yourself reads texts but in generally the way people interact with texts is more complicated. An important idea in understanding a text is to compare it with the other works of the writer which provides a larger context than considering each work in isolation. The analogy of this is comparing scripture (which you take to be the work of God) and Nature (which you also take to be the work of God). Your problem is you consider scripture in isolation and ignore Nature which you believe to be of a no less divine origin as scripture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    It's more appealing, because it is the corrective to misuses like Hitler's (since you claim he used Scripture) and the Church's when they read Aristotelian cosmology into Scripture.
    No it is the way a deep reading of scripture should be performed by contextualising with the other works of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    My grammatical-historical predecessors are the ones who developed geokinetic theory. Stephen Snobelen, Assistant Professor of History of Science and Technology, University of King’s College, Halifax, Canada, wrote:

    Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed. It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists. [Isaac Newton and Apocalypse Now: a response to Tom Harpur’s Newton’s strange bedfellows; A longer version of the letter published in the Toronto Star, 26 February 2004.]
    That except seems to totally make the case on two points. One regarding a demonstration of causality, one could just as easily argue that scientific thought lead to the literalist tradition of Luther, and also citing Newton as example of theology influencing science when it is clear that Newton's legacy is almost entirely in his Scientific writing and not his theological, most of which are hair-brained.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    The only error is making the same mistake as Rincy in presuming that the grammatical-historical method they used was "literalist", but it gets across the right idea.
    Very accurately I would say on that point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    It was the scientists who first objected, then persuaded the Church that their "science" was taught in Scripture. You want the church to make the same mistake with evolutionary "science", and the liberal churches read eugenics into their theology in the first decades of last century.
    Not at all. The academics needed to ensure they were not tried for heresy and it was the church that was driving the appeasement of science with scripture. The Galileo trial is proof of how serious the church was to ensure conformity and in whose hand the whip really was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Not in that culture, where the universities were founded and supported by the Church, as part of their general fostering of learning.
    The church took an interest because it was there job to ensure that only the right sort of thing was being taught (no heresy). Your argument is that the Holy See would interpret scripture willy-nilly to settle and old score with a jilted friend, which is ludicrous.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  8. #23
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    11,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    No it's not, it's just revisionist crap. Read the article I linked to. Not too long afterwards, the Church taught Copernican astronomy to the Chinese, and allowed their own cathedrals to be used as giant sundials (meridiane). See John Heilbron's book, The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999.
    But surely the fact that the burning has taken place can not be denied!
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  9. #24
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,071
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron
    But surely the fact that the burning has taken place can not be denied!
    What are you on about? The fact remains that the church was the one that supported science in particular and learning in general. Their mistake was to wed their theology to the faulty Aristotelian science of the day.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  10. #25
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,071
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Luther did chide them for being clever which was an insult in those days.
    In a passing remark, and as the context shows, Luther chided him for trying to invent something new for the sake of novelty, as he saw it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    But what Luther failed to realise is that they were actually turning astronomy the right way around.
    Says Rincy with the benefit of centuries of hindsight, but this evidence wasn't know to anyone back then, including the geokineticists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    The evidence for heliocentric model was in the parsimony it offered over the geocentrism.
    That's not evidence as such. Cardinal Bellarmine also agreed with Galileo that the heliocentric model was mathematically simpler, but this didn't constitute proof. He was right, as historians of science recognize. Galileo's main "proof" of the tides is now known to be fallacious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    You would be wrong. I use the term both literally and figuratively but your probelm is you only understand it literally.
    Nonsense. If we can use the word "sunset" without error, then the same allowance should be made for the Bible writers in likewise using the Earth as a reference frame.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Per it is the way a shallow reader like yourself
    A deep reader who studies the grammatical and historical context, rather than a shallow hyperliteralist like you, that is when you're not postmodernist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    reads texts but in generally the way people interact with texts is more complicated.
    Of course, but I am interest in what the text actually says.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    An important idea in understanding a text is to compare it with the other works of the writer which provides a larger context than considering each work in isolation.
    Hence interpreting Scripture with Scripture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    The analogy of this is comparing scripture (which you take to be the work of God) and Nature (which you also take to be the work of God). Your problem is you consider scripture in isolation and ignore Nature which you believe to be of a no less divine origin as scripture.
    No, I recognize that Scripture is propositional revelation and nature is not, and Scripture is the unfallen revelation of God while nature is cursed because of the Fall.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    The academics needed to ensure they were not tried for heresy and it was the church that was driving the appeasement of science with scripture. The Galileo trial is proof of how serious the church was to ensure conformity and in whose hand the whip really was.
    As amply shown, the Church was at first open to Galileo's ideas, and was open again to them shortly after his death. This shows that the hostility was political not religious, heavily involving personal issues between Galileo and his former close friend who felt betrayed, the Pope. Yet the establishment Aristotelian scientists' hostility to Galileo never abated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    The church took an interest because it was there job to ensure that only the right sort of thing was being taught (no heresy).
    They encouraged learning in general, as part of the Dominion Mandate of Gen. 1:28, hence the preservation of ancient manuscripts and encouragement of translation. The monasteries were centres of innovation and industry. Galileo's idea of inertia, and indeed Newton's First Law of Motion, were anticipated by the Christian logician Buridan's concept of impetus:

    ...after leaving the arm of the thrower, the projectile would be moved by an impetus given to it by the thrower and would continue to be moved as long as the impetus remained stronger than the resistance, and would be of infinite duration were it not diminished and corrupted by a contrary force resisting it or by something inclining it to a contrary motion

    In contradiction to Aristotle, Buridan argued that God had imparted impetus to the celestial bodies when He created them in Creation Week, and were made of ordinary elements not some quintessense.

    Centuries earlier, John Philiponus had similar ideas, and was cited by the young Galileo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Your argument is that the Holy See would interpret scripture willy-nilly to settle and old score with a jilted friend, which is ludicrous.
    Yet many historians agree that the debate was political not religious, as documented.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  11. #26
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,071

    Exclamation Atheist documents that much of the Galileo affair is myth, not fact

    What is the most misunderstood historical event?
    The Galileo Affair
    Tim O'Neill, Atheist, Medievalist, Sceptic and amateur Historian

    Most people understand the trial of Galileo Galilei as a key example of religious bigotry clashing with the advance of science and the textbook case of "Medieval" ignorance and superstition being superseded by reason and science. In fact, the whole rather complex affair was not the black-and-white "science vs religion" fable of popular imagination and the positions of both Galileo and of the various churchmen involved were varied and complex. The popular conceptions of the Galileo Affair are marked by a number of myths:

    1. "Galileo proved the earth went around the sun and not the other way around."

    Actually, he did not. … So while Galileo argued strongly for the Copernican model, he did not "prove" heliocentrism conclusively. He was also wrong about several key details—particularly the shape of planetary orbits (he rejected Kepler's theory of elliptical orbits and clung to circular ones) and his idea that the tides were caused by the earth's rotation. The idea that he proved heliocentrism is myth.

    2. "The Church rejected science, condemned heliocentrism and was ignorant of the science behind Copernicus' theory."

    This is also a myth. In fact, many of Galileo's staunchest champions and defenders were churchmen and many of his attackers were fellow scientists. Centuries before Galileo the Catholic Church had rejected the idea that there was something wrong with the rational analysis of the physical world, accepting the argument that since God was rational, his creation was rational and so could be apprehended by rational inquiry. … Galileo himself was lauded and revered for his learning and the Jesuit Order, in particular, claimed him as one of their own, since he was Jesuit-educated. Initial objections to his telescopic observations were overturned when Jesuit astronomers of the Collegium Romanum made their own telescopes and repeated his results. …

    3. "The Church condemned heliocentrism because it believed the Bible had to be interpreted literally."

    The Catholic Church did not (and does not) teach that the Bible had to be interpreted literally. In fact, the idea of Biblical literalism is a very modern notion - one that arose in the USA in the Nineteenth Century and is exclusively a fundamentalist Protestant idea. [A mistake: most Church Fathers, including those that the Catholic Church regards as saints and even the exclusive subset of saints, Doctors of the Church such as Basil the Great, did mainly use literal interpretation, including of Genesis. Also, ‘literal’ at the time meant according to the grammar and historical context of the text itself, including figurative language.—C.F.] … As Cardinal Bellarmine noted in his 1616 ruling on Galileo's writings:

    If there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the centre of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than that what is demonstrated is false. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.

    Bellarmine was no scientific ignoramus, since he had previously been a university lecturer in natural philosophy in Flanders and was well acquainted with the state of the cosmological debate. So he knew, as Galileo knew, that most scientists of the time still favoured geocentrism and heliocentrism was far from proven. As it happens, once heliocentrism was proven, the Church reconsidered and reinterpreted those scriptures precisely as Bellarmine proposed they should. …

    4. "Galileo was imprisoned in chains, tortured and threatened with being burned at the stake."

    In November 2009 the comedian and actor Stephen Fry (actor) joined the late Christopher Hitchens in a televised debate with two Catholics on the question of whether the Catholic Church was "a force for good in the world." Fry and Hitchens won the debate hands down, but at one point Fry referred passionately to "the fact that [Galileo] was tortured" by the Inquisition. In his book The End of Faith, Sam Harris seems to be trying to refer to Galileo when he talks of the Church "torturing scholars to the point of madness for merely speculating about the nature of the stars". Voltaire famously wrote of how Galileo "groaned away his days in the dungeons of the Inquisition" and the idea that Galileo only backed down because of his (understandable) fear of being burnt at the stake is a mainstay of the fables about the Galileo Affair. All these ideas are nonsense.

    In fact, far from groaning in any dungeons, Galileo spent all of his 1633 trial as the honoured guest of various senior churchmen in several luxurious palaces and apartments in Rome. Despite Fry's passionate claim, he was never tortured nor was he in any genuine danger of being so, both on account of his age but also because of the willing and even enthusiastic way he co-operated with the inquiry (though his friendship with many key players in the Church would also have helped if there had been any genuine risk here). The accounts of his trial show that at no stage was he ever in any danger of execution - a punishment reserved for what were considered the most serious cases of unrepentant or relapsed heresy. And he did not live out his days in any "dungeons".


    5. Galileo was condemned simply for using science to question Church teachings, which was forbidden by the Church.

    As noted above, the Church did not condemn scientific inquiry - in fact, most people at the time that we would call "scientists" (a term not used until 1833, when it was first coined by William Whewell) were also churchmen. And it was not even a problem for someone to show that a traditional interpretation of Scripture or a teaching of the Church had to be reinterpreted by reference to a new understanding of the physical world. The Church taught that divine revelation and the revelations of reason all came from the same ultimate source and so if they seemed to be in conflict, it was our understanding that was the problem. As quoted above, Cardinal Bellarmine noted to Galileo that if heliocentrism could be objectively demonstrated then the scriptures that seemed to support geocentrism should and would be reassessed. Though he added "but this is not a thing to be done in haste".


    Conclusion

    The Galileo Affair was a complex series of events which involved a lot more than just science and religion. It was set against the backdrop of the aftermath of the Reformation and the Catholic Church's aggressive attempts to shore up and reassert its authority. It was also bound up with the personalities involved: the rival scientists who started the suspicions about Galileo out of professional jealousy, the ambitious but scientifically illiterate preacher who fanned the flames, the sensitive Pope who felt snubbed and humiliated by one of Galileo's books and Galileo himself, who could be arrogant and abrasive to the point where even his allies despaired.

    A careful examination of the evidence shows that the modern fable that is most people's understanding of the Affair bears little resemblance to historical fact.

    Many of my fellow atheists, especially the ones of the more outspoken variety, would do well to brush up their history when it comes to Galileo and to tread carefully when invoking this subject.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 20-02-2015 at 07:23 AM.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  12. #27
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,071
    See also the detailed account:
    Why the Universe does not revolve around the Earth
    Refuting absolute geocentrism
    by Robert Carter and Jonathan Sarfati
    Published: 12 February 2015
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  13. #28
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    See also the detailed account:
    Why the Universe does not revolve around the Earth
    Refuting absolute geocentrism
    by Robert Carter and Jonathan Sarfati
    Published: 12 February 2015
    Is that the same Bob Carter who was getting paid >$1,500 a month by the Heartland Institute to criticise mainstream climate science?

    Edit: I see now that no it is a different Carter. This on if a creationist preacher like Jono but formerly a marine biologist.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  14. #29
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    I suppose (unlike Carter and Sarfati) at least O'Neill has a background in history (MA in medieval literature) but he doesn't seem to know much about science. His blog post on why history is not science portrays a very narrow view of science and argues credibly that history is not like that but it is basically a strawman. I note too that the misconceptions listed above were not relied on in my arguments. I never claimed any of the point listed by O'Neill as misconceptions.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  15. #30
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    16,562
    So Jono are you saying that the Catholic Church is much more sensible then the Prodo churches that your outfit has evolved from?
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Does God Exist?
    By Paul S in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 5602
    Last Post: 18-07-2018, 09:19 PM
  2. Replies: 242
    Last Post: 08-03-2017, 10:16 PM
  3. Galileo fan club (Mr.G)
    By Sinister in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 27-11-2008, 04:11 PM
  4. picking your nose
    By chesslover in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-04-2004, 10:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •