Balancing Skepticism and Faith

[David Mo]

If everything he writes is like that, it was a good thing he didn't have time to read more.

If everything he writes is like that, it was a good thing he I didn't have time to read more.

Sorry.

 

[GDon]

All right, then. I've tried to read the text Tim O'Neill dedicates to vindicating Christian science and I'm still not out of my astonishment.

"Vindicating Christian science"? Have you really sunk to this level?

Tim O'Neill gives cites and tells us where he gets his information. You've given very little, not even a link to Tim's work where he "vindicates Christian science". How about showing where he is wrong?

I have consulted three versions of Augustine and they all translate "mathematics". Of course, Agustín throws the child out with the water from the bathtub. You know.

The Perseus Latin Dictionary translates 'Măthēmătĭcus' as "mathematician" or "astrologer". Given that Augustine uses it in the sense of complaining about those "making prophecies", which do you think matches the sense being used?

Actually, Agustín didn't give a damn about science. He was influenced by neoplatonism. The only truth that interested him was in the ideas in the mind of God.

Augustine was interested in the world around him and concerned by uneducated Christians making inaccurate statements about it:
https://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.​

David Mo, some sources for your views on Augustine and Copernicus would be useful. Is it possible that you are 'the believer' here, and those asking for sources are 'the skeptics'?

 

[GDon]

Hi GDon. Thanks for the kind reply and question. (Hard to keep up with the thread here).

Yes, indeed!

Some of the major tension has arisen from recognizing how skeptical I am of other religions (or even other Christian groups who profess and express their faith very differently than I do). I've realized that I was not applying similar critical thinking about my own faith and community.

Yes, I agree that that is the most honest and best approach.

For example I've long been skeptical of TV faith healers, but enthusiastically and expectantly prayed for members of my own community.

I'm not sure I understand the issue. Prayers only work if they also work for shonky TV faith healers? This sounds more like a crisis of faith involving people rather than God. (From my perspective: I'm a theist, but prayers don't seem to have enough consistent effectiveness to believe it works in individual circumstances.)

For me, those are still different on many levels, but when someone from my community started acting a speaking a lot like someone on TV, it triggered some tension. Similarly, I've appreciated hearing leaders speak/preach about passages from the bible they find particularly uplifting or challenging in a positive way, but when a recent young leader got up to preach and mimicked the tone, intonation, and content of the more experienced leaders, it struck me as very ingenuous. But it also made me aware of times I had done the same sort of thing, parroting someone else's "lessons" or "insights" without much critical thought, and that created some tension for me as well.

Again, this seems like a crisis of faith involving people rather than God.

I feel tension now when people start sentences with "God says ..." or "I believe the word of God for you is ...", whereas I welcomed that sort of talk (from certain people) in the past. I feel tension regarding the exclusivity of certain claims and language too. For example, "salvation is through Christ". If by that someone means "if you repeat this prayer after me you will go to heaven when you die" (as per my upbringing), I can't accept that. However, if someone means, "Jesus' example was one of compassion and selflessness that was ahead of its time, and through which we have a chance to perceive and pursue something divine", I still have faith for that.

If someone in your community came to you and said that prayers don't work, and preachers are making it up as they go along, and you agreed with them: what would you recommend that person to do?

 

[TimONeill2]

I get it.

Says the guy tho goes on to demonstrate that he actually "gets" little about this subject and knows even less.

According to you, the Catholic Church was rather more stupid than Luther. He had realized the implications of heliocentrism for Christian dogma.

Again you show that you didn't even read my article on Copernicus, despite loudly insisting it's wrong. First of all, we have no reference by Luther to Copernicus. We have a reported dinner table quip about "a certain astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky", but it dates to four years before De revolutionibus was published, to two years before the first edition of the Narratio and we know the Commentariolus was not in circulation in Wittenberg at this time. So - at best - this is a reference to some hearsay about Copernicus’ theory. Or it's not a reference to Copernicus at all, since Nicole Oresme, Jean Buridan, Nicholas of Cusa and Celio Calcagnini had all discussed a moving earth centuries earlier. Whoever he's referring to, the fact that Luther didn't consider this "astrologer " to be worth more than an after dinner chuckle means your claim he somehow grasped some vast threat heliocentrism posed to Christendom is clearly nonsense.

The papacy did not.

The papacy were well aware of the full details of Copernicus' hypothesis by 1533, thanks to Widmanstadt's lectures in the Vatican Gardens. So was Copernicus' friend Bishop Tiedemann Giese of Culm, who had been sponsoring his friend's work since the early 1500s. And Cardinal Nikolaus von Schönberg, who was so interested in the thesis he offered to have a copy of the pre-publication manuscript of De revolutionibus made at his own expense so he could read it in full. To pretend that these people just didn't know or understand the full theory is ridiculous. And the fact that they enthusiastically embraced it shows your fantasy that the only religious response to the theory was condemnation is just ... wrong. Again, it's not just that you don't know what you're talking about, the problem is that you're continuing to cling to absurd pseudo history while wilfully ignoring evidence. Just like a fanatic.

Suddenly, Galileo puts the subject on the table and the Church pursues the heliocentric theory with fire and blood for centuries

No, suddenly Galileo entangles the subject with the early 1600s hot button topic of who is allowed to interpret scripture at a time when this subject was politically sensitive to the papacy and so things changed. Before he began writing on how the Bible should be interpreted in light of heliocentrism, nobody cared. Galileo had been lauded by the Church for his discoveries and the fact that he was a Copernican was well-known to Church authorities and nobody cared. Once again, you don't understand the details because you don't want to - they get in the way of your ideological pseudo historical fantasy.

- all because of this damned Galileo!

Yes. All because of Galileo's "Letter to Castelli" (1613) and, especially, his "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina" (1615). Until then, nobody cared about Galileo's Copernicanism, even though everyone knew he was a Copernican. But in the political climate of the early 160os, the Church did care about a mere mathematicus deciding that he could interpret scripture - that was reserved for theologians. So Galileo's academic enemies used this to their advantage. If that wasn't what triggered the sudden change in Church attitude, you need to explain why Copernicus was not persecuted or condemned despite the Church knowing all about his thesis since at least 1533, why various of the small number of Copernicans who were operating in Catholic Europe between the circulation of the I]Commentariolus [/I] (1514) and Galileo's warning by the Inquisition a century later were persecuted for this idea (Kepler, for example) and why Galileo could have his Letters on Sunspots (1613) scrutinised by the Church and approved, despite the fact it makes his Copernicanism absolutely explicit. You really don't have a clue about this stuff.

It is the same thing that the precautions Osiander takes to camouflage Copernicus' message have nothing to do with Luther's accusations.

If you actually knew any of the source material and bothered to read the letters between Osiande, Copernicus and Rheticus you would know that it was the scientific objections of the Aristotelians that Osiander's tactics were trying to circumvent and that he was not trying to "camouflage" anything - just to get them to begin reading the book so that they would get into the calculations and be persusaded by the argument.

It was only to deceive the Aristotelians.

No, it was not to "deceive" them or anyone else. It was to convince them, so that "in this manner, induced to leave behind their severe critique in order to pass over to the pleasures of investigation, first they will become more reasonable; then, after they have sought in vain, they will come over to the author’s opinion". Again, you don't know what you're talking about because you simply don't want to know.

(By the way, I remind you that Aristotelianism, via Thomas Aquinas, was the official doctrine of the Catholic Church and its acceptance depended on its granting the venia docendi and the nihil obstat).

You can't "remind" me of something that isn't true. Thomist Aristotelianism was hugely influential and widely accepted but it was not "official doctrine of the Catholic Church". If it was, there could not have been a flourishing anti-Peripatetic movement of Catholic Humanists of which Copernicus and his many fellow Catholics (eg his friend Bishop Giese) were a part. Over and over again you show you don't have a clue about this stuff.

And coincidentally, only coincidentally, they coincide with the clause that the Church tried to impose on Galileo in order to admit the publication of his theses. Forgive me for saying that I find your interpretation terribly naive or better biased.

It's not "my" interpretation. If you had the faintest idea what you were talking about you would have cracked open a book by any historian of science on this subject written in the last century and realised that this "interpretation" is the consensus of the experts. You are floundering around trying to defend the dusty nineteenth century Draper-White caricature of the relevant history that no modern specialist in the history of science accepts. This is because (i) you seem to have got your understand third hand from popular histories and (ii) you are crippled by irrational prejudices and false assumptions. Your confident burble above is pseudo historical gibberish as a result.

First of all, what are those respected historians of science that deny the pernicious influence of the church on evolution of science in Europe?

They are the leading historians of science working the field today. You are trying to cling to the outdated "Conflict Thesis" of the nineteenth century polemicists John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. That simplistic idea has been rejected by historians of science for almost a century in favour of the "Complexity Model" of Jonathan Hedley Brooke. This acknowledges incidences of conflict between science and religion (e.g. elements of the Galileo Affair or some of the reaction to Darwin), but shows that the relationship between religion and science can't be reduced to simplistic black-and-white generalisations about either wholesale "conflict"/"retardation" or "harmony"/"encouragement". History isn't that simple. If I thought you were actually capable of educating yourself I'd recommend the new collection of essays by the best historians of science in the field, The Warfare Between Science and Religion: The Idea That Wouldn't Die (2018)

Now the more general question: do you agree that the Christian churches, in this case, have played a regressive role against science during the centuries of their political dominance in Europe?

No. See above. And I don't believe you can make a similar simplistic argument the other way either. Have you considered actually educating yourself on what the actual experts in the field believe? Maybe you should give that a try.

I am sorry, but I don’t find normal that you consider “fanatic” those that don’t agree with your negationist ideas. This is true fanaticism!

Er, yup. I consider "fanatics" to be people who cling to outdated ideas in the face of both overwhelming expert consensus and clear evidence presented by people who know vastly more than they do out of pigheaded ideological fundamentalism. You fit the bill perfectly.

That the Christian church put an end to paganism by means of edicts of intolerance seems to me that even you cannot deny it.

That the fourth and fifth century Christian emperors continued the religious intolerance of their third century pagan predecessors is undeniable. That Roman emperors did not have the infrastructure or policing power to crush any religion by issuing edicts is also clear to anyone with a grasp of the mechanics of late Roman government. Those edicts were a symptom of paganism's decline, not its cause. Its cause was demographic. Bart Ehrman's excellent recent book The Triumph of Christianity (2018) explains why, though - again - I'm guessing you don't want to become informed by expert analysis on this subject either. Fanatics never do.

That the Christian monks who followed Cyril were tremendously hostile to anything that sounded like pagan philosophy, is evident. That they behaved terribly violently either. That Hypatia was considered by her followers as a philosopher and conservative of the teachings of the pagan philosophers (mainly platonic) either. So, that Hypatia was a victim of fanatical fundamentalist Christians but this had nothing to do with her ideological activity seems to me to be an extremely naïve or better biased interpretation.

Then you had better explain that to current scholarly experts on the matter, such as Edward J. Watts (see Hypatia: The Life and Legend of an Ancient Philosopher, 2018) and Maria Dzielska, whose book you recommended but clearly haven't read. To try to characterise her death as a reacton by fanatical fundamentalist Christians to pagan learning is another cartoonish fantasy that does not survive contact with any detailed grasp of the evidence. Not that you care. You rely on third hand cliches and have no understanding of context or even what the evidence means. Speaking of which:

The antiphilosophical environment (and science was not considered anything else then) of Christian culture is perfectly reflected in the following quotation:

Good Christians should beware of mathematicians and all those who are who are accustomed to making prophecies, for there is the danger of the mathematicians have made a pact with the devil to obnubilate the spirit and to plunge men into hell (Saint Augustine of Hippo: De Genesi al 2, XVII, 37 —my personal translation).​

Keep in mind that it comes from the most philosophical Christian of the time.

Thanks for that beautiful illustration of your wilful ignorance. Gosh - Augustine is condemning mathematics is he? How terrible! You must be right after all.

Except ... you're not.

GDon has already helpfully explained your error here, but since - in typical fanatic style - you've blithely brushed that to one side, I'll explain further. Exactly where you got this version of the quote is unclear, since a Google on it leads back only to ... your post above (the use of the obscure word "obnubilate" here is found only in your version). But there are plenty of examples of this supposed condemnation of "mathematicians" in books and online, most of which can be traced back to this version:

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." (Morris Kline, Mathematics in Western Culture, 1953, p. 3)

Kline may well have been a good mathematician, but like a lot of non-specialists who dabble in history, he was a crappy historian. If anyone actually bothers to consult the work in question, they will find it is in section entitled "Against astrology and divination" and involves Augustine making arguments against astrology also used by sceptics today. He notes that twins should have the same horoscope but notes twins do not have the same personality or live the same lives:

"The so-called constellatons of these two could certainly not have differed in any way at all. So what could be more totally unlikely than that an astrologer, gazing at these constellations in the same horoscope, would say that one of them would be loved by his mother and the other not?"

He goes on to argue that if astrologers get anything right it's "the work of treacherously deceitful spirits" and says "sometimes ... these same unspeakable spirits predict, as if by means of divination, what they themselves are going to do." And THEN we get the quote you've bungled above, which (properly translated) reads:

"For this reason, good Christian, you must be on your guard against astrologers and anyone impiously practicing divination ..."
(Quapropter bono christiano, sive mathematici, sive quilibet impie divinantium ...)

The word Augustine uses is mathematici which does not mean "mathematician" here - it means "astrologer". See the definition of this word according to Lewis and Short:

"A. Măthēmătĭcus , i, m.
1. A mathematician, Cic. de Or 1, 3, 10; id. Ac. 2, 36, 116; id. Tusc. 1, 2, 5; Sen. Ep. 88, 26.—
2. An astrologer (post-Aug.): “mathematici, genus hominum potentibus infidum, sperantibus fallax, quod in civitate nostra et vetabitur semper et retinebitur,” Tac. H. 1, 22: “nota mathematicis genesis tua,” Juv. 14, 248; Tert. Apol. 43: “qui de salute principis ... mathematicos consulit, cum eo qui responderit, capite punitur,” Paul. Sent. 5, 21, 3.—"

So you are ... just plain wrong. But I've gone into detail on this because it shows how much of a fanatic you are. Like a true fundamentalist, you seized this quote from some second-hand source and didn't bother to check it. Anyone who did the obvious thing that a real rationalist would do and went to find a copy of De Genesi ad Litteram to look at in context would realise that he is not talking about "mathematicians" in the modern sense, but astrologers and diviners. But your biases mean you can't think rationally and so you didn't bother to do this simple, rational and obvious thing. And even when GDon showed you your mistake, you stubbornly refused to back down and insisted you had "consulted three versions of Augustine and they all translate 'mathematics'". Though - strangely - you didn't cite or quote any of these supposed "three versions of Augustine" or explain how or why they would say "mathematics" when, if you had actually consulted no less than three editions of the work, you could not help but notice he was talking about astrology. So that claim was a lie.

Again, you are a fanatic. You don't know the source material, you ignore the scholarly consensus of current experts (because you aren't interested in facts) and you lie when caught out in your ignorance. You are as bad as any fundamentalist Christian. Worse, actually, since you claim to be a rationalist. You are precisely why - as an actual rationalist - I bother writing the articles on my blog.

(To be continued)

Yes, and your continuation was as full of crap as the stuff above. I've wasted enough time on you, because I know how futile it is trying to get boneheaded fanatics to see past their prejudices and wilful ignorance. If anyone else is interested or if they think you have actually made any pertinent points, I'll discuss things with them. You are a waste of time.

 

[attempt5001]

... My follow on question (if I may) would really focus on a few words-:

When you prayed for sick members of your community did you/do you believe that the prayers could lead to a supernatural cure or did you see it as a way for the community to express their support for that person?

Do you believe in a literal Heaven?

When you say "something divine" and "humans are more than the sum of their biological parts" do you mean something supernatural, or as I'd interpret it in most contexts, our ability to form social groups and societies based on mutual benefit rather than naked self interest?

Finally a second to get back to your questions P.J. I think the challenge for me is when I use terms like heaven or supernatural or divine, I have to admit that these terms are not clearly defined, at least for me. So discussing them in literal or absolute terms is hard. I like your description of mutually beneficial social groups, but when I say divine I also mean glimpsing a potential that we don't current understand or achieve completely.

Yes, when I prayed for someone I hoped (and still hope) that it will have an effect that is beyond what I could (currently at least) understand in natural/scientific terms. I've certainly been affected by prayer by being encouraged and "emotionally refreshed" and I have experienced physical sensations like tingling or warmth and have heard others say the same thing. I've heard reports of people gaining sight and hearing, and other types of physical healing but only secondhand or in ways that are difficult to verify.

 

[attempt5001]

I've noticed (not from you, per se) that even a lot of non-believers really want Jesus to be the nice guy that we were all taught he was/is. For example, it is frequently mentioned that Jesus is not quoted as having said anything about homosexuality. And surely he would have, if it displeases him/God as much as we are told.

A closer reading of the new testament lead me to say "maybe not so perfectly nice as all that". For example, Jesus apparently had no problemo with the number of people who would be going to hell for their non-belief. There are other examples, if you read the gospels with a critical eye, rather than letting them just wash over you.

Fair point and worth further consideration. I am very cognizant that I may simply be creating a theism that "suits my fancy". I think the exploration is more fundamental than that, but it's a possibility

 

[attempt5001]

Thinking in terms of miracles as defined as breaking the natural order in a physical way (as opposed to wonder). So, yep, the kind of thinking of the lone survivor of a plane crash or something preventing them getting on that plane. But I think that extends to the general idea of God blessing some people - the wealthy person saying "I'm so blessed" or the winner of a football match - it may sound like humility in that they're not ascribing it to their own work/ability, but actually they're suggesting they are favoured by a god who can and does act in the world, blessing some and not others. And doesn't it then follow that those who are disadvantaged in life somehow deserve their fate?

Similarly, the genie kind of god that grants prayers like wishes if only you just pray enough, believe the right things or repent in the right way.

In terms of what this actually looks like in the real world, it all really looks pretty arbitrary. And maybe the position of faith that God knows and sees a far bigger picture is as valid a response as rejecting such concepts of God as not reflecting love and justice.


I'm actually pretty familiar with both kinds. Plenty in the latter for a sceptic to get stuck into

"There but for the grace of God go I" is a particularly peculiar example of this. Like, too bad God's grace didn't apply to the poor schmuck you're comparing yourself to.

People probably mean well when they say these things though. It's just another way of saying, "I was lucky."

Agreed with you both that the implications of some of those terms are not as pleasant as they appear on the surface.

And my faith is definitely dependent on a presumption that God knows and sees a far bigger picture. I'm okay with not being able to know/comprehend all of that and will try to be willing to say "I don't know" as suggested earlier (good advice). I do like trying to explore and question it though, hopefully with some humility.

 

[attempt5001]

attempt5001,

Here is a piece of plywood lying on the ground. The length represents theism/non-theism, the width is knowledge/non-knowledge, (gnosticism/agnosticism).

Let's make strong theism the far end of the plywood. Strong atheism is one at the near end. (A strong atheist says "I see evidence that god doesn't exist," and a non-strong one says "I don't see evidence that god does exist.")

Gnosticism is on the left edge of the plywood; agnosticism on the right edge. In between are degrees of knowledge. We can place people in varying locations on the surface of the plywood, depending on their belief/faith/certainty.


The two men I mentioned in a previous post are both gnostic theists, standing at the far left corner. They each have a strongly held belief in their (version of) Christianity and they each KNOW it is correct -- and that the other's version is wrong.

You have begun to move from that corner of the plywood; you need to measure the distance of that movement, and not be afraid of the journey. Honest doubt and honest questioning can't be wrong, no matter what a religion or its adherents say.



Incidentally, to answer a question that you asked about those incidents, I told each of them that I would not discuss religion and would not accept their proselytizing. I had to reiterate that multiple times. The one who is still my friend will forget now and again, and I'll say, "You're doing it again!" He laughs, and stops doing it.

Good image. And thanks for the encouragement for the journey. What do you think would make a good third dimension on the plot? Maybe time spent exploring their position on the 2D surface?

I'm glad to hear you're still friends with one of your more zealous friends.

 

[attempt5001]

I think you will find that there will always be tension between skepticism and faith. They are impossible to reconcile, especially for a Christian. If you explore skepticism, you will always hit an idea that challenges Christian belief. You will hear your pastor/priest/whatever say something in their sermon that will make you internally chuckle, "OK, I know that isn't true." Your friend will tell you about how their prayers saved their loved one from some health scare and you will ask yourself, "And the doctors, what . . . just twiddled their thumbs?" You will begin to doubt.

The question will become: Can I keep my relationships with the faithful friends and communities intact even though I don't really believe what they do? I think in this day and age it's easier because so many people have begun to cast aside all the inconvenient bits of religious lore in favor of a practical kind of Spirituality, "OK, the Catholic Church is against birth control and pre-marital sex and they think the bread and wine physically become the body and blood of Christ. I don't really believe any of that. I still love God though, and that's what counts!" It's a pantomime, IOW, that most people act out in order to remain part of a socio-cultural construct that has been a big part of their life up until that point while still living their lives as they see fit.

Maybe you can do that forever. I'd wager, though, that at some point one of two things will happen: 1)You will find the pantomime becomes tedious to keep up and slowly drop the faithful or 2)You will find skepticism spiritually unsatisfying and re-embrace the faith communities you love -not that you will become unskeptical in most aspects of though, you will just cease to question faith because it feels better emotionally than the alternative.

For me, I went down path 1. I could never reconcile my Catholic upbringing with the reality science and critical thought lead me to.

Thanks for the thoughts xjx (my autocorrect changed that to xox, but fortunately I caught it). They definitely have the hallmarks of someone who has gone through it. You're right that it can be a difficult balancing act, but at present, I feel like the balance (and even tension) are more genuine than the apparent ease of embracing only one.

 

[Thor 2]

I think you will find that there will always be tension between skepticism and faith. They are impossible to reconcile, especially for a Christian. If you explore skepticism, you will always hit an idea that challenges Christian belief. You will hear your pastor/priest/whatever say something in their sermon that will make you internally chuckle, "OK, I know that isn't true." Your friend will tell you about how their prayers saved their loved one from some health scare and you will ask yourself, "And the doctors, what . . . just twiddled their thumbs?" You will begin to doubt.

The question will become: Can I keep my relationships with the faithful friends and communities intact even though I don't really believe what they do? I think in this day and age it's easier because so many people have begun to cast aside all the inconvenient bits of religious lore in favor of a practical kind of Spirituality, "OK, the Catholic Church is against birth control and pre-marital sex and they think the bread and wine physically become the body and blood of Christ. I don't really believe any of that. I still love God though, and that's what counts!" It's a pantomime, IOW, that most people act out in order to remain part of a socio-cultural construct that has been a big part of their life up until that point while still living their lives as they see fit.

Maybe you can do that forever. I'd wager, though, that at some point one of two things will happen: 1)You will find the pantomime becomes tedious to keep up and slowly drop the faithful or 2)You will find skepticism spiritually unsatisfying and re-embrace the faith communities you love -not that you will become unskeptical in most aspects of though, you will just cease to question faith because it feels better emotionally than the alternative.

For me, I went down path 1. I could never reconcile my Catholic upbringing with the reality science and critical thought lead me to.

Yes I think so.

It has been suggested that some Christians today can, putting a modern day interpretation on Biblical scripture, be quite comfortable with it. I find it hard to imagine minds as ductile as this. The famous American philosopher Daniel Dennett shared my skepticism I think.

When Dennett gave his presentation “The Evolution of Confusion” the main topic of discussion was “Non Believing Clergy”, as he and his colleague were studying the cases of clergymen who had lost their faith. Dennett formed the opinion that many lost their faith whilst studying at the seminary, when confronted with the detail of scripture, and the dubious history thereof.

 

[attempt5001]

Yes, indeed!


Yes, I agree that that is the most honest and best approach.


I'm not sure I understand the issue. Prayers only work if they also work for shonky TV faith healers? This sounds more like a crisis of faith involving people rather than God. (From my perspective: I'm a theist, but prayers don't seem to have enough consistent effectiveness to believe it works in individual circumstances.)


Again, this seems like a crisis of faith involving people rather than God.


If someone in your community came to you and said that prayers don't work, and preachers are making it up as they go along, and you agreed with them: what would you recommend that person to do?

Hi GDon. Thanks again for the reply. These were primarily "take a look in the mirror" moments for me. My upbringing and community have shaped my ideas of faith and God, so critically evaluating for former, included the latter by necessity for me as well. I thought initially that this process would result in my concluding that "God is nowhere" (i.e., everything I attributed to God was just selective religious attribution of regular events). Instead, my current feeling is more akin to "God is everywhere" (i.e., God is evidenced by people, communities, actions, etc. much more broadly than I considered before).

Your last question is a tricky one and would depend on the individual. As I've mentioned, I don't want to discourage anyone, particularly if they are struggling. If I felt it would be helpful, I would encourage them to think of God and faith in a broader context then "cause and effect" prayer, or religious teaching, similar to what I am going through now. But I know that isn't an easy road. I think that those accustomed to being taught about faith and religion can be particularly inclined to simply follow the next strong opinion presented (whether it's a different faith, or atheism) and can end up no further ahead in terms of having lasting peace of mind.

 

[ynot]

I think you will find that there will always be tension between skepticism and faith. They are impossible to reconcile, especially for a Christian.

Yes I think so.

But not impossible to compartmentalize and deny/ignore that there is any tension or conflict. Obviously doesn’t apply to attempt5001.

I guess theists “buddying-up” to science are attempting to bring it closer to their theism.

 

[Thor 2]

But not impossible to compartmentalize and deny/ignore that there is any tension or conflict. Obviously doesn’t apply to attempt5001.

I guess theists “buddying-up” to science are attempting to bring it closer to their theism.

Yes it is most refreshing to see attempt5001 trying to come to grips with the issue rather than "compartmentalize and deny/ignore". Commendable. All too unusual from my limited observations.

Science is the way God does stuff.

 

[attempt5001]

But not impossible to compartmentalize and deny/ignore that there is any tension or conflict. Obviously doesn’t apply to attempt5001.

I guess theists “buddying-up” to science are attempting to bring it closer to their theism.

Yes it is most refreshing to see attempt5001 trying to come to grips with the issue rather than "compartmentalize and deny/ignore". Commendable. All too unusual from my limited observations.

Science is the way God does stuff.

Thanks for the kind words gentlemen (I assume). It's been great to have some intelligent, respectful and challenging back and forth with folks like yourselves who think differently than me and express themselves clearly. Your responses and questions clearly show that you've read and considered my responses as well, rather than running through a list of pre-set "atheist speaking points", which I really appreciate.

Also, maybe scientists are "buddying-up" to God by devoting their lives to exploring and understanding the world around them and the laws that govern it.

I've got lots to think about and will take some time and space to do so. I may let this thread run its course at this point, but I'll try to engage on some other topics in hopes of finding similarly productive discussion. I'll weigh back in on this topic after some time if I have more thoughts to "put out there".

I was quite hesitant to start this thread, but am very glad I did. My sincere thanks to everyone who took the time the contribute.

 

[Thor 2]

Most warm good wishes to you attempt5001.

 

[David Mo]

Says the guy tho goes on to demonstrate that he actually "gets" little about this subject and knows even less.

[Etc., etc.]

Thank you for your comment which I find perfectly confusing and anecdotal.

Believe it or not, I've read a few things on this subject, including the books you say I haven't read and a few more. What do you think of Paul Veyne, for example? Don't insist that I read your writings. I find them uninteresting, for the reasons I said in another comment that you have apparently not read. I don't read your blog. You don't read my comments. We are even.

I'll try to be concise because I don't have much time to respond to you.

You contradict yourself: You cannot say that Copernicus' theses were well known before De revolutionibus was published and that Luther had not heard of them. Or that something Luther said didn't become "viral," even if it was said in conversation. To claim that Osiander's cautious prologue was only to deceive the Aristotelians (to make them sting = to deceive) is an unfounded assumption. Osiander must have been very naive to think that such a ploy would deceive the rabid Artiotelians. You may or may not believe it. But the caution against the objections of the churches cannot be disdained either.

The Catholic Church was strongly commited heliocentrism before the Inquisition took action against Galileo. I remind you that Bruno was condemned for affirming the movement of the earth among other things. The correct thing to say is that certain sectors of the Catholic Church did not oppose Galileo's theses. That there are dissensions between moderates and conservatives is common in the Church in many periods. But that in this case the moderates turned to be ultra-conservatives when they saw that the Inquisition appeared, this cannot be denied by you. In fact, it would be more correct to say that they changed their minds as soon as they saw that Galileo was unwilling to lower his neck and recognize the absolute power of the Church over science with precautions such as those taken by Copernicus-Osiander.

What I don't know is how you have the cheek to deny that the papacy and the Holy Office's action against Galileo is one of the most savage attacks against the independence of science. To pretend that this attack would not have taken place if Galileo had not thought of proposing the allegorical interpretation of certain passages of the Bible is ridiculous and reveals a total ignorance of the history of previous centuries and those that followed. The same ignorance you demonstrate when I ask you for bibliographic references of historians who support your negationism (the non-existent "consensus") and you send me to a Wikipedia article that cites only a couple or three marginal historians. What are your sources? Wikipedia? The same ignorance you show when youquote the Christian background list of the New Science and you put into it all the metaphysical cosmology that Galileo threw to the ground. Including authors who have nothing to do with science such as Duns Scotus, William of Occam, Albert the Great or mathematical mystics such as Nicholas of Cusa, etc. Where did you get such nonsense? The New Science is a rupture with Aristotelian metaphysics, but also with platonic-humanist metaphysics. This rupture, not continuity, was based on the elaboration of a mathematical-experimental method that not even Copernicus had glimpsed and that begins with Galileo and ends with Newton. It is this method, which demanded independence of research and a truth alien to dogmas, that the Church was condemning for several centuries, until it had no choice but to agree with Galileo: when science and religious superstition clash, science must be right. It took some time to get here, but it ended up getting here.

By the way, if you haven't heard that Aristotelian metaphysics had become the essential core of Catholic thought before Galileo I recommend you take a look at the Capellone degli Spagnoli of Santa Maria Novella in Florence. It will save me from having to look for obvious quotes from you.

The other nonsense is that the triumph of Christianity had nothing to do with the persecution of the pagans. Apart from other considerations, there are two main political reasons that put an end to paganism: the repeated repressive edicts against them and the need to become a Christian in order to make an administrative career in the State. Peter Brown has a magnificent book on this subject that he would recommend if he thought he was going to read it. That the edicts and persecutions against paganism were not the main cause can be discussed. But that they existed cannot be denied in a debate on repression intelectuals even by a negationist like you. And if they existed, it was because of something, wasn't it? Or was it because the emperors liked to play floral games with the laws? Therefore, that Hypatia was the leader of an intellectual circle that brought together pagans and Christians cannot be ignored in any way among the causes of their "martyrdom".

And I don't know what other things of yours I have to dismantle. Oh yes, mathematics and Augustine. I think I've already answered that in another comment. Look for it, please. A precision: In Augustine's time one cannot speak properly of a separation between science and theology. Even reputed philosophers mixed the two, especially in this period. Augustine takes advantage of it and christianizes neoplatonism (not Plato, by the way). In those circumstances the union between mathematics and astrology was a manifestation of the conflict between the pagan fortune tellers and Christianity. The first was the strongest rival (stronger than the cult of the classical gods) and for Augustine the use of mathematics was linked to it. That is why in the condemnation of the divinatory arts Augustine throws the child (mathematics) along with the water (divination). I hope that his scarce knowledge on the subject will not prevent him from recognizing that when we talk about science in the fourth century we are not talking about what we mean by science in the twenty-first century.

You are right. I also have other better things to do than wait you to provide data that you do not want or cannot give. It's the bad thing about arguing with amateur experts.

 

[xterra]

I've got lots to think about and will take some time and space to do so. I may let this thread run its course at this point, but I'll try to engage on some other topics in hopes of finding similarly productive discussion. I'll weigh back in on this topic after some time if I have more thoughts to "put out there".

I was quite hesitant to start this thread, but am very glad I did. My sincere thanks to everyone who took the time the contribute.

As people here say, a thread like this puts the "E" in ISF -- a reference to the old name of the forum, the James Randi Educational Forum.


Stick around. Most people here are pretty nice. Read some of the other threads, not only the ones on religion. And don't agonize too much over your dilemma.

 

[attempt5001]

Most warm good wishes to you attempt5001.

As people here say, a thread like this puts the "E" in ISF -- a reference to the old name of the forum, the James Randi Educational Forum.


Stick around. Most people here are pretty nice. Read some of the other threads, not only the ones on religion. And don't agonize too much over your dilemma.

Many thanks. See you around the forum.

 

[MRC_Hans]

As people here say, a thread like this puts the "E" in ISF -- a reference to the old name of the forum, the James Randi Educational Forum.


Stick around. Most people here are pretty nice. Read some of the other threads, not only the ones on religion. And don't agonize too much over your dilemma.

Seconded.

Hans

 

[TimONeill2]

Bluster-merchants like "David Mo" desperately need to have the last word, so I figured if I said I was tired of responding to him he would come back with another string of assertions. These guys don't really care about being right, they just need to create the illusion of being so. Notice how the response below, like all of his posts, is another collection of claims made with (seeming) great confidence and swagger, but citing no scholarship, referring to no relevant books or papers and drawing on no evidence or source material. This guy doesn't care about that stuff - he just makes faith statements and, in the face of carefully argued, well-sourced, scholarly counter-arguments, he just repeats his faith statements. He is a fanatic.

Thank you for your comment which I find perfectly confusing and anecdotal.

Spare me your passive aggressive faux politeness. There is nothing "anecdotal" about what I said, so that's nonsense right off the bat. But I'm sure you were "confused" by a response that draws on real knowledge and scholarship - that would be foreign to you.

Believe it or not, I've read a few things on this subject, including the books you say I haven't read and a few more.

As others have noted, your posts have been remarkably free of any citations of any scholars. And you keep blurting out assertions of positions that run counter to what modern scholars actually agree. So it is pretty easy to believe if you read on these subject at all it is not monographs by specialist experts but secondary works by non-specialists who just parrot the nineteenth century crap you're frantically clinging to. The only book you've cited so far has been Dzielska on Hypatia, though that backfired when it turned out I had read it and you obviously haven't, given that Dzielska argues the opposite to you. So don't try to fake some specialist knowledge here - it is quite clear you have none.

What do you think of Paul Veyne, for example?

I think his stuff has no relevance to anything being discussed here that I can see. Now you seem to be desperately flinging out a name in the hope that it looks like you know what you're talking about. See above about bluster merchants.

Don't insist that I read your writings. I find them uninteresting, for the reasons I said in another comment that you have apparently not read. I don't read your blog. You don't read my comments. We are even.

I read your weak dismissal of my blog articles and responded to it HERE. You skipped over my response. And I'm sure anyone reading this exchange has already detected the contradiction in "I've read your blog and it's bad" and "I don't read your blog".

I'll try to be concise because I don't have much time to respond to you.

Yes, it's usually at around this point that bluffing bluster merchants suddenly become remarkably short on time.

You contradict yourself: You cannot say that Copernicus' theses were well known before De revolutionibus was published and that Luther had not heard of them.

Luckily for me, I did not say that. I noted the fact that, contrary to your claims, we have good evidence that they were well known to various very senior members of the Catholic Church (Bishop Tiedemann Giese, Pope Clement VIII, Cardinal Franciotto Orsini, Cardinal Giovanni Salviati, Bishop Giampietro Grassi, Cardinal Nikolaus von Schönberg), so your idiotic claim that the Church hierarchy was unaware of his theory until 1543 is garbage. I then noted that Luther's reported quip dates to 1539, which is four years before De revolutionibus and two years before the Narratio . Given that we know that the Commentariolus was not in circulation in Wittenberg at this time, then - at best - Luther was working from some hearsay version of what Copernicus said. And that's if he was talking about Copernicus at all, which is far from certain.

Or that something Luther said didn't become "viral," even if it was said in conversation.

When Luther really wanted to condemn something, he made sure it "went viral" by publishing thundering pamphlets or books on the subject. IF he was referring to Copernicus in this passing comment at dinner, he didn't consider the subject more than a brief bon mot over the after-dinner cheese. So he hardly saw heliocentrism as some great problem - unlike things he did write against, like the Papacy, rebellious peasants and Jews.

To claim that Osiander's cautious prologue was only to deceive the Aristotelians (to make them sting = to deceive) is an unfounded assumption.
Osiander must have been very naive to think that such a ploy would deceive the rabid Artiotelians. You may or may not believe it. But the caution against the objections of the churches cannot be disdained either.

More nonsense. You need to learn to read better. Again, Osiander was not trying to "deceive" anyone. He was trying to persuade them to read the book by making its thesis seem like a calculating device at first until they got into the calculations and realised the truth of the cosmological model. And this is not an "unfounded assumption" or any kind of "assumption at all". Osiander TELLS us this in his letter to Copernicus and Rheticus dated April 20, 1541, which I quote at length in my article and quoted the relevant key phrase in a previous post here. Either you can't read or you are just trying to bluster past evidence you can't argue with.

The Catholic Church was strongly commited heliocentrism before the Inquisition took action against Galileo. I remind you that Bruno was condemned for affirming the movement of the earth among other things.

Oh God - another myth! The Roman Inquisition worked from precedent and case law (see Thomas F. Mayer , The Roman Inquisition: A Papal Bureaucracy and Its Laws in the Age of Galileo, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013, p.152, 169 and extensively elsewhere). If Cardinal Bellarmine had condemned Bruno for that in 1599, why was there any inquiry and assessment into heliocentrism when he investigated Galileo just 17 years later in 1616? That should have been a settled question by then and the 1616 inquiry would simply have referred to it rather than putting the issue to expert assessment. Bruno was not condemned for anything to do with heliocentrism and the 1616 ruling was the first time the Church had decided to rule on the question. So - wrong. You really don't have the faintest clue about this stuff.

The correct thing to say is that certain sectors of the Catholic Church did not oppose Galileo's theses.

No, the correct thing to say is that no-one really cared much either way until Galileo started dabbling in Biblical exegesis. In 1616 lots of people cared about that. If I thought there was any chance you might be interested in actually educating yourself rather than staying mired in ignorance I'd suggest you read Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible ( University of Notre Dame Press, 1991). But I realise fundamentalists like you don't like books by real scholars - they prefer to cling to their faith and bluster their way through arguments by shouting assertions.

That there are dissensions between moderates and conservatives is common in the Church in many periods. But that in this case the moderates turned to be ultra-conservatives when they saw that the Inquisition appeared, this cannot be denied by you. In fact, it would be more correct to say that they changed their minds as soon as they saw that Galileo was unwilling to lower his neck and recognize the absolute power of the Church over science with precautions such as those taken by Copernicus-Osiander.

That the more conservative forces chose to condemn heliocentrism post-1616 is not something anyone can "deny", but luckily for me I have never done so. The problem is that you claim (i) they had done so formally earlier, (ii) they didn't do so with Copernicus because they were somehow unaware his thesis was an actual cosmology. Both these claims are dead wrong. This is why no historian of science on the planet accepts what you claim.

What I don't know is how you have the cheek to deny that the papacy and the Holy Office's action against Galileo is one of the most savage attacks against the independence of science.

Now you're just making things up. Where did I say this? Quote me. This should be funny to watch ...

To pretend that this attack would not have taken place if Galileo had not thought of proposing the allegorical interpretation of certain passages of the Bible is ridiculous and reveals a total ignorance of the history of previous centuries and those that followed.

Gosh. I guess all those historians of science and specialists in Galileo studies must be wrong then. Luckily we have "David Mo" - a random internet person who cites no-one and doesn't seem to have any grasp of the source material - to help us all see what's right. Lucky us.

The fact is that from when Copernicus first presented his thesis in 1514 to the first inquiry into Galileo's ideas a century later, the Church did not care about heliocentrism. They left it to the astronomers to argue over. And this was not because they were somehow so ignorant of it that they didn't understand it was an actual cosmology or that they didn't grasp that it contradicted a literal interpretation of certain scriptures - it's just that until the Counter-Reformation began to hot up into a real war (see "the Thirty Years War") and that began to have severe political ramifications for the Papacy, the Church was not as rigidly doctrinaire on this issue as you are assuming. You would know this if you had any detailed understanding of the context of all this stuff, but you don't and you can't gain any because you are a wilfully ignorant fanatic.

The same ignorance you demonstrate when I ask you for bibliographic references of historians who support your negationism (the non-existent "consensus") and you send me to a Wikipedia article that cites only a couple or three marginal historians. What are your sources? Wikipedia?

Oh God - this is hilarious. Does this guy really think no-one is going to notice that I cited a whole book, published just a couple of months ago, detailing the whole myth of the outdated "Conflict Thesis" and containing essays by some of the most prestigious historians of science working in the field today? Here's that citation again: Jeff Hardin and Ronald Numbers (ed.s), The Warfare Between Science and Religion: The Idea That Wouldn't Die (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018). And I posted the Wikipedia link because - as with all Wiki articles - it is a summary of the topic with quotes and full references. This saved me the effort of writing up such a summary myself. Finally, "a couple or three marginal historians"?! This is hilarious. David Lindberg? Ronald Numbers? J.H. Brooke? "Marginal historians"?! You have absolutely no clue at all. Both Lindberg and Numbers are Sarton Medal winners (look it up) and former presidents of the History of Science Society. Lindberg was also general editor of the eight-volume Cambridge History of Science. Numbers was editor of Isis (look it up) and is currently editing the new edition of the Cambridge History of Science. Brooke was editor of the British Journal for the History of Science and president of the British Society for the History of Science. These are THE leading modern historians of early science - they do not get any more prestigious than these giants in the field. And by calling them "marginal historians" you have just demonstrated both your near total and complete ignorance of the subject and how utterly idiotic your posts on it are. What a joke.

The same ignorance you show when youquote the Christian background list of the New Science and you put into it all the metaphysical cosmology that Galileo threw to the ground. Including authors who have nothing to do with science such as Duns Scotus, William of Occam, Albert the Great or mathematical mystics such as Nicholas of Cusa, etc. Where did you get such nonsense?

Gosh - see above re those "marginal historians" like Lindberg, Numbers, Brooke etc. My list of the natural philosophers you mention shows that plenty of people were using reason and proto-scientific inquiry to explore the natural world during the Middle Ages and laying the foundation for the full flowering of real science while they did so. The Church had not problem with any of this - in fact, it encouraged it (most of those guys were churchmen). To say they have "nothing to do with science" is utterly ridiculous and - again - shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

The New Science is a rupture with Aristotelian metaphysics, but also with platonic-humanist metaphysics. This rupture, not continuity, was based on the elaboration of a mathematical-experimental method that not even Copernicus had glimpsed and that begins with Galileo and ends with Newton.

Gosh - more statements of faith, straight out of the nineteenth century. Anyone who wants to bring themselves into the present day can read works like Edward Grant, The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts (Cambridge University Press, 1996) and realise that there was as much continuity as discontinuity and that this "mathematical-experimental method" had medieval roots. They may also grasp things that "David Mo" doesn't, like the fact that what was being rejected was Aristotelian physics, not metaphysics. Don't be like "David Mo" - actually read books by scholars, rather than get your "knowledge" from crap on the internet.

The other nonsense is that the triumph of Christianity had nothing to do with the persecution of the pagans. Apart from other considerations, there are two main political reasons that put an end to paganism: the repeated repressive edicts against them and the need to become a Christian in order to make an administrative career in the State. Peter Brown has a magnificent book on this subject that he would recommend if he thought he was going to read it.

*Chuckle*. What do you mean the book that was sitting here on my desk even as I read your hand-waving above?



God, this is hilarious. I read Brown's book when it was first published in 1996 and am just now consulting his new edition for an article I'm writing. So please tell us what exactly you think Brown says that contradicts a single thing I've said. This didn't go so well for you when you tried to cite Dzielska and I'm telling you now that it will not end well for you here either. You are completely out of your depth.

That the edicts and persecutions against paganism were not the main cause can be discussed. But that they existed cannot be denied in a debate on repression intelectuals even by a negationist like you.

I've also got my copy of the Codex Theodosianus in front of me. Please cite the edicts that attack intellectuals and ban learning. This is getting too funny for words.

And if they existed, it was because of something, wasn't it?

See above. Full citations please.

Therefore, that Hypatia was the leader of an intellectual circle that brought together pagans and Christians cannot be ignored in any way among the causes of their "martyrdom".

Funny then that none of the sources say this was the issue.

And I don't know what other things of yours I have to dismantle. Oh yes, mathematics and Augustine.

Hoo boy! Now things get really hilarious ...

I think I've already answered that in another comment. Look for it, please. A precision: In Augustine's time one cannot speak properly of a separation between science and theology. Even reputed philosophers mixed the two, especially in this period. Augustine takes advantage of it and christianizes neoplatonism (not Plato, by the way). In those circumstances the union between mathematics and astrology was a manifestation of the conflict between the pagan fortune tellers and Christianity. The first was the strongest rival (stronger than the cult of the classical gods) and for Augustine the use of mathematics was linked to it. That is why in the condemnation of the divinatory arts Augustine throws the child (mathematics) along with the water (divination).

Utter garbage. Again, the word does not mean "mathematics" in the modern sense, it means "astrology". And mathematics was not "thrown out" by Augustine or anyone else. Which is why it was ensrhined in the Quadrivium of the Seven Liberal Arts and formed part of the foundation of all medieval education. No-one read this condemnation of astrology by Augustine and "threw out" mathematics, because (unlike you) they could read and understand what he was saying. You are wrong.

You are right. I also have other better things to do than wait you to provide data that you do not want or cannot give. It's the bad thing about arguing with amateur experts.

*Chuckle*. If irony could be harnessed for energy that sentence above could power a small country. It's a good thing your pompous flatulance above is so funny, otherwise your wilful ignorance would actually be rather sad. Go away.