Irritating To The Believer

[triadboy]

How about even one that indicates that Copernicus' ideas, which were circulated even prior to their publication, ever got him in trouble or would have gotten him in trouble?

His ideas rejected the 'central-ness' of Earth. They went against the Bibles assertion that the Earth was the center of everything.

The astronomer and professor at Bologna Cecco d'Ascoli was burnt alive by the church in 1327 for daring to suggest that men may live on the other side of the world.

The philosopher and dreamer Bruno was burnt at the stake by Rome in 1600 for daring to suggest that the earth goes round the sun.

Around 1513, Copernicus first wrote down his discovery that the earth goes round the sun. This discovery, one of the greatest in the history of human thought, would be violently opposed by ignorant Christian churches for the next three hundred years.

The thinker and writer Campanella was tortured for subscribing to the Copernican theory.


It doesn't take a genius to read those tea-leaves

 

[Leif Roar]

His ideas rejected the 'central-ness' of Earth. They went against the Bibles assertion that the Earth was the center of everything.

Which particular assertions would that be?

The astronomer and professor at Bologna Cecco d'Ascoli was burnt alive by the church in 1327 for daring to suggest that men may live on the other side of the world.

Astrologer, not astronomer. As to why he was sentenced for heresy, there seems to be various explanations given.

http://59.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CE/CECCO_D_ASCOLI.htm
http://www.bede.org.uk/conflict.htm
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ce/CeccodAs.html

I'd particularly like to direct you to the second of those three links, as it seems it directly attacks what I presume is your source for your statement.

[SNIP]
The thinker and writer Campanella was tortured for subscribing to the Copernican theory.

Again, a quick search on the web brings up dissenting views:

http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/campanella.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03221b.htm
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Weber - History/Campanella.htm
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ca/Campanel.html
http://www.ilnarratore.com/anthology/campanella/campanella.html

Note, neither of these sources are really substantial (but then neither were yours). I only present them here as contradictory sources which you should have found yourself.


(Edited to remove a pointless dig.)

(Edited to add)

Oh, almost forgot about your reference to Giordano Bruno:

http://www.cin.org/zenit/bruno.html
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/bruno.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/brun-f16.shtml
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html


Seriously, you need to take a close look on the sources you use, and consider if they are sufficient. I would say that they are not.

(Edited to fix quoting.)

 

[Leif Roar]

I came across a very interesting article on the subject of historical conflict between christianity and science - "Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science" by Lindberg and Numbers (who, from what I am able to ascertain, appears to be authorities on the history of science.)

The article can be found at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html


(Edited to fix layout.)

 

[triadboy]

I'd particularly like to direct you to the second of those three links, as it seems it directly attacks what I presume is your source for your statement.

Gee, you use biased sites too.

 

[triadboy]

I came across a very interesting article on the subject of historical conflict between christianity and science - "Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science" by Lindberg and Numbers (who, from what I am able to ascertain, appears to be authorities on the history of science.)

It was not a matter of Christianity waging war on science. All of the participants called themselves Christians, and all acknowledged biblical authority.

If a scientist acknowledges biblical authority - doesn't that taint the results?

 

[Leif Roar]

If a scientist acknowledges biblical authority - doesn't that taint the results?

F = ma

Hmmm... No, looks pretty untainted to me.

The scientific work stands on its own, no matter what position the author holds on religious subjects. Only if the argumentation or logic concerning his scientific works are based on biblical authority would it be a flaw in the work.

 

[Leif Roar]

Gee, you use biased sites too.

It's quite possible that some of the sites I've referred to were biased - I haven't done more than a cursory check on them. However, my reason for referring to the sites above were different for your reason for referring to your sources. You tried to back a claim, while I only showed that you there were dissenting sources you had neglected.

Also, there's a difference between having a bias and disagreeing. The article in question doesn't strike me as particularly biased - rather it seems to me to be a fairly objective attack on the errors and flaws in White's work on the subject.

 

[ceo_esq]

As I mentioned before, the cases of Campanella and Bruno were already examined here (you might have to scroll a bit down the thread). Neither one helps triadboy's case. Why are we going through this exercise again?

 

[triadboy]

The scientific work stands on its own, no matter what position the author holds on religious subjects. Only if the argumentation or logic concerning his scientific works are based on biblical authority would it be a flaw in the work.

Let's say a scientist from the middle ages determines the Earth is much older than the Bible would lead one to believe. What would be the reaction of the Church to such a claim? It's his word against the word of God.

Consider Galileo's plight.

“Scripture gives no false information.” – St Augustine

"Historically, the Church fought venomously against each new scientific advance. But after fruitlessly criticizing each new scientific achievement, the Church soon flip-flopped its position and embraced the new discovery as a 'gift from God to mankind.'
– David Mills (Science Shams & Bible Bloopers, p362)

The lifeblood of Alexandria – as of other cities – was trade, particularly the export of grain and papyrus to the rest of the Mediterranean, and developments in astronomy allowed sailors to do away with the consultation of "oracles" and priests and be able to risk year-round navigation out of sight of the coast.

As early as 300 BC Aristarchus had argued for a heliocentric theory, a sun-centred universe, though many thinkers continued to support an earlier Aristotelian system which had the Earth at the centre of several 'spheres' – despite various observed 'anomalies' in the movement of the planets.

400 years after Aristarchus, Ptolemy worked out a system of 'epicycles' to explain away the irregularities and maintain the geocentric, Aristotelian view. The Christians seized upon this Ptolemaic system with relish and their thinking never moved beyond that point.

In the following centuries, mariners were forced, once more, to rely on "oracles" and the ship's Bible. Hazards of the sea consumed unfortunate sailors and, with so many cities in headlong decline, maritime trade collapsed.

Banned by church, it was the rediscovery of the heliocentric theory by Copernicus which got Galileo into trouble in the 1600s.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/science.html

 

[ceo_esq]

“Scripture gives no false information.” – St Augustine

Did you not read the passage I cited above, where St. Augustine suggests that Scripture should not be interpreted as providing authoritative information about non-spiritual matters that human beings are capable of discovering through reason and experience (read: science)?

 

[triadboy]

Did you not read the passage I cited above, where St. Augustine suggests that Scripture should not be interpreted as providing authoritative information about non-spiritual matters that human beings are capable of discovering through reason and experience (read: science)?

Yes I read it. Here's another item about St Augustine from The Discoverers:

...St Augustine himself had argued that the literal meaning of Scripture should always be taken as correct, unless the contrary was "strictly demonstrated." Since man's everyday experience "tells him plainly that the earth is standing still," and, from the nature of the case, the rotation of the earth and its revolutions around the sun could not be "strictly demonstrated,' the literal Scriptures must be defended. King Soloman's observation that the sun "returns to its place" must mean precisely what he said.

He seems to be using scripture for non-spiritual matters.

 

[Leif Roar]

Let's say a scientist from the middle ages determines the Earth is much older than the Bible would lead one to believe. What would be the reaction of the Church to such a claim? It's his word against the word of God.

Any particular reason why you're resorting to hypotheticals?

Consider Galileo's plight.

We have considered the case of Galileo before. It was not the simple case of "The Church opposing unpleasant truths" as you want it to be.

“Scripture gives no false information.” – St Augustine

"Historically, the Church fought venomously against each new scientific advance. But after fruitlessly criticizing each new scientific achievement, the Church soon flip-flopped its position and embraced the new discovery as a 'gift from God to mankind.'
– David Mills (Science Shams & Bible Bloopers, p362)

"Although it is not difficult to find instances of conflict and controversy in the annals of Christianity and science, recent scholarship has shown that the warfare metaphor to be neither useful or tenable in describing the relationship between science and religion."
-- Lindberg and Numbers, Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science

I really suggest you read the above article.

In the following centuries, mariners were forced, once more, to rely on "oracles" and the ship's Bible.

This is simply not the case. From Britannica:

"Although astrolabes have been traced to the 6th century, they appear to have come into wide use from the early Middle Ages in Europe and the Islamic world. By about the mid 15th century, astrolabes were adopted by mariners and used in celestial navigation."

"Plausible records indicate that the Chinese were using the magnetic compass around AD 1100, western Europeans by 1187, Arabs by 1220, and Scandinavians by 1300."

Celestial navigation doesn't need a heliocentric world-view to work anyway, so why your source tries to establish a link between "The Christians" agreeing with the Ptolemic model with epicycles (like everybody else at the time) and this assumed lack of navigational aids is beyond me.

(Edited to add the last two paragraphs)

 

[triadboy]

Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science

I really suggest you read the above article.

The article is backed by the ASA:

The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.

I have a hard time believing "Scientists" who relate to the Word of God. Gee, do you think they are bias in their reporting of history? <sarcasm>

This pretty much cements your agenda.

I would love to hear your personal religious beliefs. Of course, you won't reveal them because they are so ridiculous.

 

[Leif Roar]

The article is backed by the ASA:


I have a hard time believing "Scientists" who relate to the Word of God. Gee, do you think they are bias in their reporting of history? <sarcasm>

Poisoning the well, are we? The article stands or falls on its own merits, no matter who backs it. Do you have any issues with any of the arguments presented in the article?

This pretty much cements your agenda.

I would love to hear your personal religious beliefs. Of course, you won't reveal them because they are so ridiculous.

I'm agnostic and not do not subscribe to the authority of the bible, Jesu' divinity, the Christian concept of God, the existance of the devil or any of the other tenets of the Christian faith. While I am listed as a member of the Norwegian church, that is a matter of convenience rather than faith or theology, as I consider that the church has a useful social function. I do not go to church, I do not study the bible, I do not pray, I do not believe in faith-healing or miracles.

My "agenda" is to point out the errors and flaws in your argumentation for the simple reason that you are wrong, and I loathe to see such shoddy research and argumentation as you present here. You claim to be a skeptic, but you are certainly not skeptical in your approach to this subject; you unquestionably accept one particular view on the matter, base your statement on opinion pieces and ignore all arguments and evidence that's contrary to your claim. In short, you behave precisely in the same manner as does a biblical literalist discussing evolution versus creationism. And I expect better from someone who alleges to be a skeptic.

Skepticism starts at home.

 

[ceo_esq]

Yes I read it. Here's another item about St Augustine from The Discoverers:



He seems to be using scripture for non-spiritual matters.

Boorstin is making him look that way, but it's hard to tell. I can't find the original citations anywhere.

However, even if true, what does it mean? We know Augustine, the Church following his example, advocated a non-literal interpretation of the Bible when the literal interpretation would contradict facts about the physical world shown by available science, mathematics, reason or experience. For Augustine (a non-scientist living in the late 4th and early 5th century), heliocentrism likely did not yet fall into this category, so a literal interpretation would have seemed prudent to him until shown otherwise.

Edited to add:

"One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: 'I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.'"

- St. Augustine

 

[ceo_esq]

The article is backed by the ASA:



I have a hard time believing "Scientists" who relate to the Word of God. Gee, do you think they are bias in their reporting of history? <sarcasm>

Who cares what the ASA thinks? The author of that piece, David Lindberg, is probably one of the world's 4 or 5 top experts on the history of early science (writing in English). The bibliography on the History of Science Society website calls his The Beginnings of Western Science "The best, most comprehensive introduction to the history of science in the ancient and medieval West." (It's also a good read.) The sooner you introduce yourself to his work the more quickly you'll learn something relevant to this thread.

 

[triadboy]

The sooner you introduce yourself to his work the more quickly you'll learn something relevant to this thread.

I read the article by Lindberg and Numbers. I agreed with some of the things they said and I disagreed with some of it. They definitely try to dampen the disagreements produced by the Science/Religion conflict.

The 'warfare' analogy by White may have been a little strong, but White may have been so outraged by the audacity of the Church leaders to impose their 'science' on everyone. However, this article portrayed the antagonism too lightly. My guess is reality is somewhere in between.

You act like all scholarship about the Science/Religion conflict derives from White. I don't believe that.

 

[ceo_esq]

However, this article portrayed the antagonism too lightly. My guess is reality is somewhere in between.

I agree that this article glossed over some conflicts, but it did acknowledge that serious conflicts had existed at different times with regard to particular issues - just that the conflict was far less significant than usually presumed, and such conflicts as did exist but weren't treated in this short article were simply beyond the article's intended scope.

I really think you'd like The Beginnings of Western Science, and it's one of the major works out there for a general audience on the subject ... it covers a lot more aspects (not just the presence or absence of religious conflicts, either).

You act like all scholarship about the Science/Religion conflict derives from White. I don't believe that.

I don't believe it either, although I can accept that he was influential.

Edward Grant, whom I cited earlier, has a long chapter towards the end of his most recent book - God and Reason in the Middle Ages (2001, also part of the Cambridge History of Science series) - called "The Assault on the Middle Ages", in which he examines how, from approximately the end of the Middle Ages through the 20th century, the pejorative misconception of the medieval period as an age of irrationality and ignorance was constructed, developed, and promoted. The myth of the war between Christianity and science is one of the by-products of this long process.

 

[Bubbles]

QUOTING

"Historically, the Church fought venomously against each new scientific advance. But after fruitlessly criticizing each new scientific achievement, the Church soon flip-flopped its position and embraced the new discovery as a 'gift from God to mankind.'
– David Mills (Science Shams & Bible Bloopers, p362)
________________

I will accept the premise of that statement. Let me go somewhere else with it.

What follows is a statement of the history of science on issue X (a hypothetical issue):

1) For centuries, the scientific community was unanimous on issue X that theory A was true. Later, the scientific community realized that A was untrue and embraced B, now unanimously believed to be true.

Let me phrase that slightly differently:

2) Historically, the scientific community tenatiously defended the proposition that theory 'A' was correct, fighting every alternate theory. But after fruitlessly defending a failed theory, the scientific community soon flip-flopped its position and embraced the new theory as an 'advance in human knowledge.'

Now, would you argue with the accuracy of statement 1 (In general, of course)? Would you disagree that statement 2 is nothing more than statement 1 in harsher language? Would you argue with me in stating that there is no substantive difference between statement 2 and the Mills quote?

A few other thoughts:

The term 'central' is being used ambiguously. Christian tradition has tought that God created partly in order for there to be beings that can freely choose to love him. Now, this statement may or may not be true, and it is not my intention to arguew that question. IF, however, that statement in believed to be true, then one wouold believe in a centrality of PURPOSE for the Earth. Whether or not the Earth is SPATIALLY central is irrelevant. The size of the universe does no more to PROVE mans' cosmic insignificance than does the size of a whale.
________________

Quoting
________________

I have a hard time criticizing a discipline trying to discover 'truth'. It is much easier criticizing an institution that teaches mythology as history.
________________

Have you considered the possibility that theology and philosophy just might be no less attempts to discover truth than science? Now, the facts are different in the three cases, but I assure you that people undertake studies in each area for the reason that they desire to more fully know what is true. Of course, you will gladly point out all of the times that Christianity has been wrong, bring up all of the disagreements in the history of philososphy, and then act like this is TOTALLY different from the historey ofd science in which idea after idea has been proposed, accepted, defended, and then discarded. . .

 

[triadboy]

QUOTING

"Historically, the Church fought venomously against each new scientific advance. But after fruitlessly criticizing each new scientific achievement, the Church soon flip-flopped its position and embraced the new discovery as a 'gift from God to mankind.'
– David Mills (Science Shams & Bible Bloopers, p362)
________________

I will accept the premise of that statement. Let me go somewhere else with it.

What follows is a statement of the history of science on issue X (a hypothetical issue):

1) For centuries, the scientific community was unanimous on issue X that theory A was true. Later, the scientific community realized that A was untrue and embraced B, now unanimously believed to be true.

Let me phrase that slightly differently:

2) Historically, the scientific community tenatiously defended the proposition that theory 'A' was correct, fighting every alternate theory. But after fruitlessly defending a failed theory, the scientific community soon flip-flopped its position and embraced the new theory as an 'advance in human knowledge.'

Now, would you argue with the accuracy of statement 1 (In general, of course)? Would you disagree that statement 2 is nothing more than statement 1 in harsher language? Would you argue with me in stating that there is no substantive difference between statement 2 and the Mills quote?

It seems to me you are comparing apples and oranges.

In the Mills statement you have an institution - the church - who believe in invisible creatures, strange curses put on mankind, completely ridiculous phenomenon like virgin births and resurrections, people who can make "the sun stand still", an assnine explanation for the variety of languages...The Tower of Babel incident, an amazingly short timespan for the universe, etc. (I could go on and on and on)

...fighting against a discipline that uses experimentation and a prior knowledge base to systematically (carefully) come to a conclusion. THEN they throw the conclusion out to others to examine and disprove! Only after it withstands world analysis does it become a 'theory'.

I have a hard time criticizing a discipline trying to discover 'truth'. It is much easier criticizing an institution that teaches mythology as history.
________________

Have you considered the possibility that theology and philosophy just might be no less attempts to discover truth than science? Now, the facts are different in the three cases, but I assure you that people undertake studies in each area for the reason that they desire to more fully know what is true.

Theology tries to discover what happens in the "afterlife". Which is a place for frightened people who can't face their own mortality.