Balancing Skepticism and Faith
- Thread starter attempt5001
- Start date
-
- Tags
- faith skepticism
David Mo
Philosopher
I can't because the lines you quoted are ambiguous. When I wanted to clarify them, he began to insult. If you re-examine my attempt of dialogue, you will see that my objections have never been answered.
Therefore, I chose to go to his sources (Lindberg and Numbers) which are more qualified, less hysterical... and equally wrong.
David Mo
Philosopher
Your theory has some serious deficiencies.
The Church did not attack only Galileo's interference in the interpretation of the Bible. It would have been enough for the Church to condemn these interferences. The Church (and Luther before it) condemned heliocentrism before Galileo (Bruno), with Galileo and after Galileo (Inquisition). The problem was the clash between heliocentrism and religious dogma.
By demanding that heliocentrism be interpreted as hypothesis, not truth, the Church attributed to itself the power to tell science what it should think in the name of religion. This was repeated again with other theories and supposes an interference of religion in the scientific field that has lasted centuries.
It is not true that the opposition to Galileo was "scientific" and that it was "absurd" to defend heliocentrism in Galileo's time. Geocentrism had more problems than heliocentrism and its objection was based only on the subject of parallax (I said this based on Hull and others and Liundberg recognizes it). The rest of the objections were dogmatic: heliocentrism contradicted Aristotle and the Bible. The problem of parallax disappeared if the distance to the stars was increased, as it really is. Galileo's observations with the telescope, although not definitive, clearly pointed in that direction. Bruno also had intuited it and paid with his life.
What the Church did was to send against Galileo the mob of its "scientists", who were but an appendix of Catholicism and the Church. It cannot be said that Galileo's conflict was between scientists. This is to deform things so that they exonerate the church from a conflict in which it was primarily responsible.
The clash between Galileo and the Church is a peak in the conflict with religion and science. It was so spectacular because the Church was losing its totalitarian power on culture and science. After that, it began a process of slow decline of this power that lasted centuries. Now is in its lower point. Bu it continues in its borders.
GDon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
I didn't find them ambiguous. But still, I am asking about YOUR claim. You said that:
O'Neill knows things but integrates them poorly into a theory because of ideological biases. What I call the “negationists” thesis is to deny that there was a religious conflict between the Church and Galileo and to try to present it as a scientific conflict.
Did O'Neill ever deny that there was a religious conflict there? Because he obviously claimed that there were religious elements as well as scientific elements involved, as per the very quote I gave from him earlier. If you found that quote ambiguous, then what are you basing your claim on?
This is important because part of your objection to him is that he denies that there was a religious conflict. I believe you have strawmanned his argument, thus much of your response is irrelevant.
Can you confirm that you are claiming that Tim O'Neill denies that there was a religious conflict between the Church and Galileo?
Last edited:
GDon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
My theory is that the idea that there is a conflict between science and religion generally is wrong.
If it was correct, then should you plot "growth in scientific knowledge over time" against "conflicts with religion", you would expect to see the number of conflicts rise as scientific knowledge grows.
But you don't. You see basically a straight line with a number of blips, representing "the usual suspects" of Galileo, Darwin and a few others. (Even you note that there was a peak in Galileo's time, suggesting a decline or a levelling out of the number of conflicts after Galileo rather than an increase.)
Was Bruno condemned for promoting heliocentrism? Can you provide a source please? According to Wiki, the charges of heresy laid against him didn't include teaching heliocentrism. And if he had held to heliocentrism before Galileo, but wasn't charged for heresy for holding that view, that is additional data for my argument.
Tim O'Neill has a lengthy article on Giordano Bruno on his excellent "History for Atheists" website, where he investigates whether Bruno was condemned for promoting heliocentrism. Well worth a look! https://historyforatheists.com/2017/03/the-great-myths-3-giordano-bruno-was-a-martyr-for-science/
A source supporting your view that Bruno was condemned by the Church for holding to heliocentrism would be useful. Thanks.
Wasn't one of the people opposed to heliocentrism Tycho Bache, leading astronomer of his time? He argued against it using the science of his time, did he not? So how can you say that the opposition to Galileo was not "scientific"? As Tim O'Neill correctly pointed out to you, opposition was both scientific (that is, for the science of that time) and religious.
Can you at least confirm that Tycho Bache, leading astronomer for his time, provided reasons based on the science of his time against heliocentrism, please?
So, to be clear: are you claiming that there were no scientific arguments (for that time) against Galileo at all? Or are you claiming that there were some scientific and religious arguments against Galileo?
The former is demonstrably wrong. The latter is what O'Neill is claiming. Which one do you think it is?
If that was the peak, then that implies that the growth of science in the four hundred years since Galileo shows no increase in conflict with religion. How do you explain that, if science generally conflicts with religion? Shouldn't the peak be NOW?
Last edited:
GDon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
Right, and if most scientific discoveries today are irrelevant to religion, then that shows that an inherent conflict between science and religion doesn't exist. Otherwise there would be MORE conflicts as scientific knowledge grows, rather than the peak being in the past.
No religious groups are against stem cell research as far as I know. Some are against embryonic stem cell research: not because of the science, but on how embryos are used.
Certainly that still constitutes an influence on what scientists can do. But unless science has a position on the morality of the use of embryos, it isn't a clash in the same way as heliocentrism and evolution clashed with religion. Still, admittedly it is a clash, in the same way as some groups don't want the North Koreans to do further research into building nuclear weapons.
What scientific research is the Church trying to subtly repress at the moment, in your view? Other than embryonic stem cell research.
Last edited:
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 13,844
One issue being that philosophy and religion moves incredibly slowly compared to science. Religion doesn't debate the facts of Evolution which is 150 years old, they debate the ickiness of it and how their dogma feels better and use that as a basis to have it removed from schools even today.
Another issue is that science isn't simple like it used to be and with religious people having great difficulty understanding the simpler concepts they have no hope of understanding what is going on as science progresses. They still think Evolution is cutting edge and will believe any religious organization that claims dinosaur fossils are 6000 years old.
There's the ick factor and the claim of moral high ground interfering with science again.
Science does have a position. Ethics in science is a whole other branch of science. It's why there is severe limits on even the most mundane human experiments and universities have science ethics committees.
No, nothing like that. The groups you mention who don't want N. Korea advancing nuclear research are hypocrites. They don't try to end all nuclear weapons, just the ones certain countries have. At least religions want all embryonic stem cell research stopped and not just that done at certain labs.
They are still trying to stop scientific research done by students in high schools. They lobby to have parents allowed to pull children out of classes they disagree with, namely biology. The are still pushing for teaching intelligent design as science. The preach against the science of glbal warming and against protection of the environment.
Thor 2
Philosopher
The way the religious tend to be the frontmen of the global warming deniers has been evident for some time. Surprising how this fact just seems to wash over so many. I have my own ideas as to why this is so and it is quite obvious, what are yours?
David Mo
Philosopher
Why do you ask me something I've already answered? I don't care what O'Neill thinks if he doesn't accept a civilized debate. I'm talking about his sources, which I think are more serious than him.
David Mo
Philosopher
If you ask so many questions, I can't answer them all. Shortly:
The terms of Bruno's conviction are not known with certainty. The documents were burned. Sources cite the theory of infinite worlds which, in Bruno’s case, implied heliocentrism.
Tycho Brahe was a "medieval" scientist. A mere data compiler. As far as I know, he rejected basically the heliocentrism for theological and dogmatic reasons. His theory was unsuccessful and had nothing to do with Galileo's condemnation.
The scientists involved in the Galileo case were priests at the service of the Catholic Church or members of church-controlled universities. Above all, they gave "Aristotelian" reasons, which were those according the Catholic doctrine. The only scientific reason Lindberg mentions was the problem of parallax. I agree with him. It was the only objection that had any weight. In the rest, Galileo was ahead of them, above all by his method.
Your personal argument seems wrong to me. It is not that the more science, the more conflict, but the more science, the less religion. This indicates the superiority of science in the conflict, but this depends on particular circumstances. For example, it seems that Catholic religion holds up better among intellectuals in countries with religious plurality than in others where it has been imposed for centuries as an obligatory belief.
But they are parameters that are not easy to measure. I would not rush to conclusions at this point.
The conflict between science and religion is most clearly observed at times and places where religion has sought to supplant or impose itself on science. Galileo is a paradigmatic case because the Catholic religion was threatened in its totalitarian power (Protestantism and Nuova Scienza together) and responded harshly. That is why it is a high point. As it has been losing power, it has been giving in to its pressure until it hides in specific issues such as creationism or morality.
Last edited:
David Mo
Philosopher
If you put a tiger in a cage you can't say that the tiger is no longer dangerous.
GDon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
You can't make a claim about what someone is arguing, and then say you don't care what he thinks. Tim O'Neill did NOT deny that there were religious objections to Galileo, only that there were scientific ones as well. You have strawmanned him, and based your responses on that strawman.
"The terms of Bruno's conviction are not known with certainty." But YOU are the one to claim that Bruno was persecuted for promoting heliocentrism. There is no evidence for that. Bruno's idea of infinite worlds does not support heliocentrism. Roman-era philosophers like Plutarch proposed something similar, without the need to invoke heliocentrism.
David, this does seem to be a pattern with you, I'm sorry to say. You throw out something, then say it can't be known with certainty, and then ignore evidence against the idea. Again, read Tim O'Neill's article on Bruno, where he cites scholars to build his conclusion.
If Bruno believed in heliocentrism, and he wasn't charged with heresy for this (and that seems to be the case), then it adds support to the idea that Copernicus's theory wasn't overly controversial until Galileo.
Yes, the problem of parallax. And yet you claimed just earlier 'It is not true that the opposition to Galileo was "scientific"'.
But there were more non-theological reasons than just parallax, including:
(1) Stars would have to be incredibly huge
(2) The model of a rotating earth was disputed due to the lack of then-observable eastward deflections in falling bodies (though this objection came a few years after Galileo)
(3) Galileo proposed that the tides were physical proof that the earth rotated. His contemporary Johannes Kepler believed that it was the moon that caused the tides. Galileo's theory was shown to be wrong because there were two tides a day rather than one (which was implied if a rotating earth was the cause of the tides.)
Then you have conceded the point as far as I can see. I have been arguing against the idea that more scientific knowledge results in more religious conflicts. My argument isn't wrong because you want to argue something else!
It has been very frustrating trying to argue with you, David. Evidence gets ignored and the goal posts moved. You strawmanned Tim O'Neill's points and my "personal argument". I'll make this my last post to you on this topic in this thread.
Last edited:
Egg
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,585
The way you stated it is not a fact. You'll find "the religious" on both sides of the debate. It would be more accurate stated the other way around, so that: the frontmen of the global warming deniers tend to be religious (or at least make a point of claiming to be to garner support - I suspect most of the real "frontmen" run energy companies).
Last edited:
Thor 2
Philosopher
A confusing post - must be an egg thing.
That energy companies, (the fossil fuel burning ones that is), are climate change deniers is a given of course. That however is beside the point I am making here and a smoke screen. You might as well throw in a few others who have a financial benefit from things warming up a bit. Air conditioner manufacturers also perhaps?
The religious I suspect imagine their god is in control, hands firmly on the helm so to speak. Some of the more extreme think we are in end times, and welcome what appears to be a catastrophic climax.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Personally I think the problem wasn't even as much the scriptures or the church as just Galileo. Yes, there were a couple of blowhard cardinals, but I think the church as a whole, and especially the Jesuits, were a lot more ready to accept new ideas at the time.
And defending the church may sound weird from an antitheist like me. But bear with me.
For a start, most of the problem with Copernicus was that his theory didn't match the data. His circular orbits didn't actually predict the movement of the planets, whereas the old epicycles did. In fact to make it even work at all, Copernicus basically made a hash of it to keep using the old epicycles and a reference frame centered on Earth.
So basically we had a new theory that matched the data far less well than the old theory. I think even in modern science that wouldn't fly very far. That the learned men at the time -- which, yes, most were in the church or universities run by the church -- let it fly even as a hypothesis, is actually more generous than it deserved, IMHO.
It wasn't until 1621 that Kepler published a corrected Copernican theory that actually matched the data. Which really should have been when it started deserving any consideration at all.
Incidentally, just to make it clear, to the bitter end Galileo was NOT proposing Kepler's theories. In fact, he systematically was against EVERYTHING by Kepler, down to Kepler's theory that the moon causes the tides. But his conflict with the church started before 1621 anyway, so Galileo was not proposing the theory that worked, but Copernicus's original theory which was flat out wrong.
The problem was specifically Galileo, and the biggest problem was his troll personality. He'd feel right at home on Reddit, is all I'm saying.
Galileo couldn't just argue science. He had to mock or outright insult anyone who had any other argument than his. And it wasn't confined his heliocentrism book.
E.g., although Galileo himself didn't have any better theory of comets, he viciously attacked Orazio Grassi, the author of a theory about a comet recently observed, the Jesuit Collegio Romano where Grassi was a professor of maths, Christopher Scheiner (a German astronomer and Jesuit whose only fault was claiming to have discovered sun spots before Galileo; Galileo hated him for that), and the quality of professors at the Collegio Romano. In fact, the whole text is more trolling with constant disparaging remarks about those than making its own case. Incidentally, Grassi was more right than Galileo there, and had the maths to prove it.
Galileo also wasn't above using sockpuppets. E.g., he published a subsequent (and even more insulting) article under the name of one of his disciples, although now the consensus is that it's mostly written by Galileo himself.
But let's get back to the heliocentrism dispute. Pope Urban VIII was actually quite favourable to Galileo at the start. He actually talked to him, asked some questions from the position of the science at the time (which meant Aristotelian), and actually encouraged him to write a book comparing the two systems and showing what the new theory does better than the old. Which, frankly, would be the scientific position even today.
What Galileo did was make the representative of the Aristotelian system be an idiotic buffoon called Simplicio, i.e., the simpleton. And he put the Pope's words in his mouth, sometimes distorted to make the argument more stupid. Basically he flamed the pope, to put it in modern vernacular.
The Pope, unfortunately, took it badly. And that's when the biblical arguments came out, because without them, the Inquisition would have no jurisdiction to try the case.
And defending the church may sound weird from an antitheist like me. But bear with me.
For a start, most of the problem with Copernicus was that his theory didn't match the data. His circular orbits didn't actually predict the movement of the planets, whereas the old epicycles did. In fact to make it even work at all, Copernicus basically made a hash of it to keep using the old epicycles and a reference frame centered on Earth.
So basically we had a new theory that matched the data far less well than the old theory. I think even in modern science that wouldn't fly very far. That the learned men at the time -- which, yes, most were in the church or universities run by the church -- let it fly even as a hypothesis, is actually more generous than it deserved, IMHO.
It wasn't until 1621 that Kepler published a corrected Copernican theory that actually matched the data. Which really should have been when it started deserving any consideration at all.
Incidentally, just to make it clear, to the bitter end Galileo was NOT proposing Kepler's theories. In fact, he systematically was against EVERYTHING by Kepler, down to Kepler's theory that the moon causes the tides. But his conflict with the church started before 1621 anyway, so Galileo was not proposing the theory that worked, but Copernicus's original theory which was flat out wrong.
The problem was specifically Galileo, and the biggest problem was his troll personality. He'd feel right at home on Reddit, is all I'm saying.
Galileo couldn't just argue science. He had to mock or outright insult anyone who had any other argument than his. And it wasn't confined his heliocentrism book.
E.g., although Galileo himself didn't have any better theory of comets, he viciously attacked Orazio Grassi, the author of a theory about a comet recently observed, the Jesuit Collegio Romano where Grassi was a professor of maths, Christopher Scheiner (a German astronomer and Jesuit whose only fault was claiming to have discovered sun spots before Galileo; Galileo hated him for that), and the quality of professors at the Collegio Romano. In fact, the whole text is more trolling with constant disparaging remarks about those than making its own case. Incidentally, Grassi was more right than Galileo there, and had the maths to prove it.
Galileo also wasn't above using sockpuppets. E.g., he published a subsequent (and even more insulting) article under the name of one of his disciples, although now the consensus is that it's mostly written by Galileo himself.
But let's get back to the heliocentrism dispute. Pope Urban VIII was actually quite favourable to Galileo at the start. He actually talked to him, asked some questions from the position of the science at the time (which meant Aristotelian), and actually encouraged him to write a book comparing the two systems and showing what the new theory does better than the old. Which, frankly, would be the scientific position even today.
What Galileo did was make the representative of the Aristotelian system be an idiotic buffoon called Simplicio, i.e., the simpleton. And he put the Pope's words in his mouth, sometimes distorted to make the argument more stupid. Basically he flamed the pope, to put it in modern vernacular.
The Pope, unfortunately, took it badly. And that's when the biblical arguments came out, because without them, the Inquisition would have no jurisdiction to try the case.
Last edited:
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Oh, the end times are almost upon us. As I calculated in another thread, Ragnarök is only *ahem* over a billion years away
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 13,844
I disagree. Pat Robertson is not an oil frontman, he is a religious leader who tells his millions of followers global warming is a lie. He also has had the ear of many U.S. presidents. He's not the only one.
I think the reason is simple. The religious right has an agenda that is simply anti-"liberal". Their supporters tend to be uninformed on most things, they just regurgitate what they hear from the pulpit. "Liberals" are the devil incarnate so everything they do, or say, is evil. Therefore global warming is a direct lie from the devil's, to "liberals", mouths'
Egg
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,585
I'm not sure what would be confusing. When you talk about "the religious", you're referring to the majority of the world's population, covering a vast range of philosophies, traditions, beliefs and practices. While a certain amount of generalization when discussing religion is inevitable and probably just practical, to suggest this enormous group tends to be the climate denier frontmen is not a fact, it's nonsense.
I think with climate denial, we're actually really only talking about a very small subset of a subset of "the religious". Are you aware of any particular denial movement in any major religions other than Christianity? Within Christianity, it would seem to mostly only be prevalent in the more fundamentalist denominations and generally in the US (although those US denominations do have some global influence).
So, I don't think this is an attitude or belief we can describe as representative of the religious or even an accurate representation of the church The current pope, for example, has been an outspoken proponent for fighting climate change.
I wouldn't be so sure that Robertson isn't an oil frontman, albeit indirectly. There's a political/religious deal for money and influence and the agendas have become blurred.
Last edited:
Thor 2
Philosopher
Yea that makes sense.
You know I lived in Thailand for over 6 years and found 100% of the people had never heard of global warming. They are virtually all Buddhist. One has to wonder how conversant many of the folk in Africa and South America are with the subject.
I am not talking about these folk, (you knew that didn't you), but the religious in the West. We had a prime minister in Australia during a dark time in our recent history. A Catholic and a climate change denier, surprise, surprise.
A very small subset yes sure.
A very small subset that vote for Trump, (most here know he is in the climate change denier camp but this may be news to you), who somehow appeals to the religious.
As qayak said Pat Robertson is right up there, waving the denial banner. He has quite a following does Pat. That's why he's got so much cash.
Egg
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,585
Yea that makes sense.
You know I lived in Thailand for over 6 years and found 100% of the people had never heard of global warming. They are virtually all Buddhist. One has to wonder how conversant many of the folk in Africa and South America are with the subject.
I am not talking about these folk, (you knew that didn't you), but the religious in the West. We had a prime minister in Australia during a dark time in our recent history. A Catholic and a climate change denier, surprise, surprise.
A very small subset yes sure.
A very small subset that vote for Trump, (most here know he is in the climate change denier camp but this may be news to you), who somehow appeals to the religious.
As qayak said Pat Robertson is right up there, waving the denial banner. He has quite a following does Pat. That's why he's got so much cash.
So, should I take from this that when you say "the religious", you are specifically referring to white western evangelicals and maybe some of the more conservative Catholics? A bit like the folks who talk about "immigrants" when they really mean terrorists and gang members?
I guess that makes sense of your statement about Trump's appeal, since this.