Balancing Skepticism and Faith

HansMustermann said:
Well, see, I even agree with your last two paragraphs. I just think that heliocentrism -- or rather, mis-representing it as THE problem the RCC had with Bruno or Galileo -- is a bad example. And much as I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about religion, I have a whole plank on the shoulder about rewriting history to make some ideological point, even when that point is against religion.
Click to expand...

What the Church was unable to bear was that someone cast doubts on its total power over truth, be a philosopher, a necromancer, a magician or a scientist. Religion clashed with science because science questioned the literal interpretation of the Bible. (...) And the question continues: are religious people able to endure a superior authority than their sacred books? Can science correct what is written? These are the roots of the conflict.​

I don’t understand how you can agree on this and deny that the sentence against Galileo was a typical clash between religion and science.
If the Holy Office was a religious court, if heliocentrism was a scientific theory and if heliocentrism was forbidden by the Holy Office on the basis that it was contrary to the Bible, there we have the classical conflict religion-science!
 
Oh we have a long history of conflict between science and religion. I even gave the better example of the many worlds hypothesis which the Church had suppressed for half a millennium at that point.

All I'm saying is that heliocentrism wasn't the CAUSE of Galileo's persecution, but rather the other way around. What the Holy See did was basically a thinly veiled ad-hominem circumstantial fallacy (with a sprinkling of appeal to consequence): it went from being ok with Copernicus's work, to, basically, if Galileo defends it, then it must be wrong.

And, sure, it's a problem if it can do that.
 
HansMustermann said:
Oh we have a long history of conflict between science and religion. I even gave the better example of the many worlds hypothesis which the Church had suppressed for half a millennium at that point.

All I'm saying is that heliocentrism wasn't the CAUSE of Galileo's persecution, but rather the other way around. What the Holy See did was basically a thinly veiled ad-hominem circumstantial fallacy (with a sprinkling of appeal to consequence): it went from being ok with Copernicus's work, to, basically, if Galileo defends it, then it must be wrong.

And, sure, it's a problem if it can do that.
Click to expand...

In other words, Galileo is to blame for the Church's persecution of heliocentrism for more than two hundred years. If Galileo had not appeared, heliocentrism wouldn't have got any problem. Don't you realise that this is untenable?
The difference between Galileo and Copernicus is that Galileo said directly that heliocentrism is true and Copernicus do not. Was Galileo guilty for saying the truth is true?
 
No, Galileo is "guilty" of being the kind of twit that flamed even people who were initially on his side... until they weren't.

Edit: E.g., Christopher Scheiner actually was confirming that sun spots existed, plus a couple of other observations, so he was mostly in agreement with Galileo. You'd think that would make them, you know, if not allies, at least in agreement? You know, cite each other and such, like modern scientists would do? Wrong. Because Scheiner's discovery date was before Galileo's, it apparently made him Galileo's mortal enemy. (How dare you say you're more awesome than Galileo?!;)) Galileo snuck personal attacks on Scheiner even in stuff that was flaming someone else entirely. E.g., a lot of the professors at the Colegio Romano were actually quite into Galileo's stuff, and they had confirmed some of his claims. But gods dammit, ONE of them dared have a different opinion than Galileo ONCE (bonus points for actually being more right than Galileo there), and Galileo goes into full flame war mode, including sock puppets and all, against the whole university and its professors. Etc. In an age when we didn't have a proper modern peer-review process, and yes, making an enemy of the Pope could get just about ANYTHING banned as heresy... yeah, not a very good move. A lot of those people could have taken his side -- and in fact, some still did even after being flamed by him -- but Galileo basically made sure that most would end up not being on his side.

As for heliocentrism, AGAIN, Kepler's theory was actually taught in Jesuit universities at the same time as Copernicus was banned. You realize that Kepler's model was equally heliocentric, right?
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
No, Galileo is "guilty" of being the kind of twit that flamed even people who were initially on his side... until they weren't.

Edit: E.g., Christopher Scheiner actually was confirming that sun spots existed, plus a couple of other observations, so he was mostly in agreement with Galileo. You'd think that would make them, you know, if not allies, at least in agreement? You know, cite each other and such, like modern scientists would do? Wrong. Because Scheiner's discovery date was before Galileo's, it apparently made him Galileo's mortal enemy. (How dare you say you're more awesome than Galileo?!;)) Galileo snuck personal attacks on Scheiner even in stuff that was flaming someone else entirely. E.g., a lot of the professors at the Colegio Romano were actually quite into Galileo's stuff, and they had confirmed some of his claims. But gods dammit, ONE of them dared have a different opinion than Galileo ONCE (bonus points for actually being more right than Galileo there), and Galileo goes into full flame war mode, including sock puppets and all, against the whole university and its professors. Etc. In an age when we didn't have a proper modern peer-review process, and yes, making an enemy of the Pope could get just about ANYTHING banned as heresy... yeah, not a very good move. A lot of those people could have taken his side -- and in fact, some still did even after being flamed by him -- but Galileo basically made sure that most would end up not being on his side.

As for heliocentrism, AGAIN, Kepler's theory was actually taught in Jesuit universities at the same time as Copernicus was banned. You realize that Kepler's model was equally heliocentric, right?
Click to expand...

What do you want to discuss? Why did Galileo have few friends or why did the Church condemn heliocentrism during two centuries?

How many Jesuits continued to explain heliocentrism after the Church condemned it as heresy? Where? Can you give me the reference? Thank you.
 
HansMustermann said:
As for heliocentrism, AGAIN, Kepler's theory was actually taught in Jesuit universities at the same time as Copernicus was banned. You realize that Kepler's model was equally heliocentric, right?
Click to expand...
Kepler wrote "Epitome of Copernican Astronomy", an astronomy book on the heliocentric system published by Kepler in the period 1617 to 1621. According to Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler

Epitome of Copernican Astronomy was read by astronomers throughout Europe, and following Kepler's death, it was the main vehicle for spreading Kepler's ideas. In the period 1630 - 1650, this book was the most widely used astronomy textbook, winning many converts to ellipse-based astronomy.​

Just a nitpick: While Copernicus's original work was banned in 1616, a revised edition with 9 changes to indicate his heliocentric model to be a theory was available for publishing after 1620. All the calculations and reasoning behind his model was still available to be studied.
 
I'd also add that the "just a theory" part, or rather its absence, only bothered anyone when it came from Galileo. When an earlier pope revised the calendar, it didn't bother anyone that to base the real calendar on it, you kinda have to take it as real.
 
GDon said:
Kepler wrote "Epitome of Copernican Astronomy", an astronomy book on the heliocentric system published by Kepler in the period 1617 to 1621. According to Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler

Epitome of Copernican Astronomy was read by astronomers throughout Europe, and following Kepler's death, it was the main vehicle for spreading Kepler's ideas. In the period 1630 - 1650, this book was the most widely used astronomy textbook, winning many converts to ellipse-based astronomy.​

Just a nitpick: While Copernicus's original work was banned in 1616, a revised edition with 9 changes to indicate his heliocentric model to be a theory was available for publishing after 1620. All the calculations and reasoning behind his model was still available to be studied.
Click to expand...

Where was it read, in Rome? In Toledo? Or in London? Because the Jesuits who defended the mathematical model of Copernicus were forced to abandon it by Brahe after Galileo's condemnation. And that was the modern sector of the Catholic Church.
 
HansMustermann said:
I'd also add that the "just a theory" part, or rather its absence, only bothered anyone when it came from Galileo. When an earlier pope revised the calendar, it didn't bother anyone that to base the real calendar on it, you kinda have to take it as real.
Click to expand...

Of course, but Galileo was still forbidden in Catholic-controlled universities. Of course, the index of banned books lost influence over time. Nobody paid any attention to it in the very Catholic Spain of Generalissimo Franco. Other index were more effective. But the clash between religion and science had already taken place. Which is what we are discussing... Or so I thought.
 
David Mo said:
Don't be angry, but I think that's absurd.
Click to expand...

Is it, though? I'm talking about abuse of power in a god-sanctioned dictatorship. Is it that hard to believe that if you annoy those in power, they'd bring you before a kangaroo court on some BS charges? I could give examples from the USSR and such, but surely being from Spain you can find some abuses of power from Franco's time too.
 
David Mo said:
Where was it read, in Rome? In Toledo? Or in London? Because the Jesuits who defended the mathematical model of Copernicus were forced to abandon it by Brahe after Galileo's condemnation. And that was the modern sector of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...

Also, I just can't let this slide. I tried, but I can't.

Tycho Brahe died in 1601. So I'm REALLY interested in learning exactly how an undead Brahe managed to argue with anyone after 1616. You'd think the Inquisition would start to suspect necromancy if you're engaging in debates after being dead for 15 years. Kinda hard to disguise being a corpse after 15 years, if nothing else :p
 
HansMustermann said:
Also, I just can't let this slide. I tried, but I can't.

Tycho Brahe died in 1601. So I'm REALLY interested in learning exactly how an undead Brahe managed to argue with anyone after 1616. You'd think the Inquisition would start to suspect necromancy if you're engaging in debates after being dead for 15 years. Kinda hard to disguise being a corpse after 15 years, if nothing else :p
Click to expand...

Brahe's theory, of curse.
 
Thor 2 said:
Just to interrupt this squabble a moment, I find it interesting and irritating, the way the religious talk about TRUTH so much. It's as if they think by saying it loud and assertively, they will drum out any opposition.

On the outskirts of Melbourne there is a small church my brother used to belong to. The church was named the TLC ........ so "Tender Loving Care" I naively deduced. Wrong! TRUTH and LEARNING CENTRE!
Click to expand...

Hi Thor 2. Maybe we can squeeze back some real-estate in this thread ;)

I think a lot of that language comes from the new testament verse where Jesus is credited as having said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me". This is often used to back up claims of truth, and exclusive insights thereabouts.

It bears mentioning though that the religious hardly have exclusive claim to this language/behaviour. How many espoused political views contain the words "in my humble opinion" for example? Not too many I've heard. And in the "Religious, are you mad" thread, there have been authoritative pronouncements regarding the sanity of whole cultures :/
 
Yeah, he did, although it's not a very original claim. Zoroastrianism had a big hardon about Truth long before Jesus.

Edit: and presenting religious nonsense as THE truth is even older. E.g., the Buddha's "4 noble truths." Oh-la-la, it must be not just truths, but NOBLE truths, because they say so themselves.

That said, it's one of those claims that don't make sense even semantically, because it needs one to reify one of the terms in that equality. It's like saying "my cat is the dreaming". What does it even mean?

And if you want to drag that other thread in, it's been a long standing observation of mine that there seems to be an equivalent of Gresham's law for religions. To wit, Gresham's law states that "bad money drives out good". Having read Mircea Eliade and generally looked a bit into several religions, it seems to me like the more stupid or crazy religions drive out the less stupid and crazy ones.

Or rather, that the madder the notions the people must believe, the more uncomfortable the cognitive dissonance, and the more they'll fight to push the madness upon others.
 
Last edited:
attempt5001 said:
Hi Thor 2. Maybe we can squeeze back some real-estate in this thread ;)

I think a lot of that language comes from the new testament verse where Jesus is credited as having said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me". This is often used to back up claims of truth, and exclusive insights thereabouts.

It bears mentioning though that the religious hardly have exclusive claim to this language/behaviour. How many espoused political views contain the words "in my humble opinion" for example? Not too many I've heard. And in the "Religious, are you mad" thread, there have been authoritative pronouncements regarding the sanity of whole cultures :/
Click to expand...

Many people think they have the truth about some things. Not many people think they have the absolute truth about everything. Even those people think they have the truth for some reasons. Not many people think that these reasons cannot be discused.

The gospels says that Jesus "is the Truth". He has the absolute truth about everything. They say that you cannot dispute Jesus' reasons because he never said any reason. He only sets orders that you have to obey by the force of faith.

These are the foundations of the conflict between religion and reason (science). These are the dangers of religion.
 
David Mo said:
Many people think they have the truth about some things. Not many people think they have the absolute truth about everything. Even those people think they have the truth for some reasons. Not many people think that these reasons cannot be discused.

The gospels says that Jesus "is the Truth". He has the absolute truth about everything. They say that you cannot dispute Jesus' reasons because he never said any reason. He only sets orders that you have to obey by the force of faith.

These are the foundations of the conflict between religion and reason (science). These are the dangers of religion.
Click to expand...

I'm with you for the most part there David Mo, though I think the implied "reason" is wrapped up in the claim of Christ being God incarnate. Not sure exactly what you mean by "force of faith", but I agree, claims of absolute truth are one of the main dangers of religion.
 
I dunno about David, but MY problem with using that is that it's circular. Jesus is X because he says so himself. Technically what Jesus does there is a whole lot of ipse dixit fallacies, but those whose reason why the bible is true is that the bible says so are just doing circular reasoning. Ultimately it boils down to just asserting that the bible is true without any other support, which is to say it's just some handwaving to mask that it's an ipse dixit itself, rather than anything even vaguely resembling reason.
 
attempt5001 said:
Hi Thor 2. Maybe we can squeeze back some real-estate in this thread ;)

I think a lot of that language comes from the new testament verse where Jesus is credited as having said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me". This is often used to back up claims of truth, and exclusive insights thereabouts.

It bears mentioning though that the religious hardly have exclusive claim to this language/behaviour. How many espoused political views contain the words "in my humble opinion" for example? Not too many I've heard. And in the "Religious, are you mad" thread, there have been authoritative pronouncements regarding the sanity of whole cultures :/
Click to expand...


Yes I can see the Biblical justification for making claims of truth, but I think the loud and repeated statements betrays a lack of belief in that truth. If you look at the words mouthed by the clergy at funerals for example - "In sure and certain hope ........." you will see what I mean. If someone is sure and certain they shouldn't feel compelled to make such a claim.

Sure some do make authoritative statements outside a religious context although I try not to do this myself. Possibly I may do at times and please pull me up if I do. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom