|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:58 pm Post subject: 41 |
 |
|
| 3iff wrote: |
| Quote: |
| religious faith in science |
That's not me.
...
| Quote: |
| declare it to therefore be of no interest. |
I didn't say that. |
No, I didn't mean to suggest those were you, just that I run into a lot of it.
| 3iff wrote: |
| Quote: |
| fundamentally beyond science |
It might be beyond our existing level of science but imagine how incredible our level of science would look to someone in 1912. Now try to think what new levels of science would be reached in 2112.
...
I do not see why laws of physics need to be made...they just are... (is this a trap?).
...
We also run into laws, meta laws, meta meta laws....at what point do we reach the top laws? |
That's just where I think it goes beyond science. If there are top laws, there can be no scientific explanation of how they came to be. And if there are no top laws, it would seem there'd need to be an infinite hierarchy.
No trap, just that "they just are" leaves me with a strong sense of mystery as to why.
Why there is something, rather than nothing, isn't answered by discovering some laws, when laws are part of the something being questioned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
3iff
very unbifflike
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:10 pm Post subject: 42 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
No trap, just that "they just are" leaves me with a strong sense of mystery as to why.
Why there is something, rather than nothing, isn't answered by discovering some laws, when laws are part of the something being questioned. |
I'm stuck with "they just are" because I don't have an answer. I'd really like an answer but it's out of reach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatthewV
Daedalian Member :_
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:43 pm Post subject: 43 |
|
|
Searching for the smallest particle has pushed our society pretty far. Just look at the large hadrons collider. A 27 km loop that is 100 m underground with a network of computers to process the results.
People used to think microscopes were cool. They once thought the atom was the smallest particle and that it was indivisible. And now that the Higgs Boson has been statistically shown to exist, people will start asking what is next?.
Here is another question: how long ago was the "basic" chemistry you learned about during your late teenage years first discovered? Do you really understand what it going on?
So in my mind, God is all those things that I know exist but don't have time to understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:43 pm Post subject: 44 |
|
|
| MatthewV wrote: |
| So in my mind, God is all those things that I know exist but don't have time to understand. |
So whenever you understand something you didn't before, God shrinks? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatthewV
Daedalian Member :_
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:51 pm Post subject: 45 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| MatthewV wrote: |
| So in my mind, God is all those things that I know exist but don't have time to understand. |
So whenever you understand something you didn't before, God shrinks? |
Sure. Just like how every time I put a glass of water into the ocean the ocean gets bigger.
I love the Oatmeal's new comic about religion
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:31 pm Post subject: 46 |
|
|
That's very good.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:56 am Post subject: 47 |
|
|
Regarding the first one, you all do realize a big part of the problem is he insisted on teaching heliocentrism as fact decades before corroborating evidence was possible, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatthewV
Daedalian Member :_
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:14 am Post subject: 48 |
|
|
Nope!
I was taught that religious beliefs made his life difficult.
Hey, it wasn't until 1920 that Hubble showed that our galaxy was just one of many. What year do you think it will be when we discover that our universe is just one of many? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:27 am Post subject: 49 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Regarding the first one, you all do realize a big part of the problem is he insisted on teaching heliocentrism as fact decades before corroborating evidence was possible, right? |
Depends on your alternative to heliocentrism. If it's the standard "everything revolves around the Earth" story, then the phases of Venus and sunspots are more than enough evidence and were available then. If you want a more complicated "The sun rotates around the Earth, and planets rotate around the sun" model, then you have to do something more complicated because the two theories are seemingly equivalent up to a choice of reference.
But even in the second case, there's no justification for the threats the Catholic Church made, even if Galileo was wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:01 am Post subject: 50 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
| But even in the second case, there's no justification for the threats the Catholic Church made, even if Galileo was wrong. |
I'm not suggesting they were justified, just that Galileo went looking for a fight he knew he wouldn't win. And oh ... "rest of your life in a dungeon" ... this was the "dungeon" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Il_Gioiello |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:08 am Post subject: 51 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
| If you want a more complicated "The sun rotates around the Earth, and planets rotate around the sun" model, then you have to do something more complicated because the two theories are seemingly equivalent up to a choice of reference. |
It's only more complicated given what we know today, which wasn't even postulated then. The Earth was obviously massive, there was no Newtonian physics to explain how it could move, and nothing was known about the masses of celestial objects. More on that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Tycho_Brahe.27s_geo-heliocentric_system_c._1587 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:34 am Post subject: 52 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| It's only more complicated given what we know today, which wasn't even postulated then. The Earth was obviously massive, there was no Newtonian physics to explain how it could move, and nothing was known about the masses of celestial objects. |
And that's a fundamentally lazy and unmotivated objection, since heavy objects move all the time even on Earth. The Tychonic system had an essentially equivalent problem of looking geometrically inelegant.
Kepler was basically able to get all of basic astronomy right without having Newton to guide him.
And again, the proper response to somebody getting a scientific theory wrong isn't to put him under house arrest (even if he has a nice house.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:15 am Post subject: 53 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
| The Tychonic system had an essentially equivalent problem of looking geometrically inelegant. |
Again, given knowledge that was unimaginable then. Why is moons orbiting planets, planets orbiting Sun (what we now know), more elegant than planets orbiting Sun, Sun orbiting Earth, if you don't take masses of the objects into account?
| Thok wrote: |
| Kepler was basically able to get all of basic astronomy right without having Newton to guide him. |
What, his model of the orbits of the planets based on the platonic solids nested within one spheres within platonic solids? And this view was motivated by his own religious views.
| Thok wrote: |
| And again, the proper response to somebody getting a scientific theory wrong isn't to put him under house arrest (even if he has a nice house.) |
I'm not suggesting it was proper, nor is that what it was in response to. Galileo vehemently pushed for the teaching of heliocentrism as fact, without supporting evidence, while the Church wanted to teach it as the preferred theory of the time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:29 am Post subject: 54 |
|
|
All I have to say is
| Quote: |
| Everytime someone has homosexual intercourse, God punishes us by letting Nickelback release another album. |
is freakin' hilarious.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:06 am Post subject: 55 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Thok wrote: |
| The Tychonic system had an essentially equivalent problem of looking geometrically inelegant. |
Again, given knowledge that was unimaginable then. Why is moons orbiting planets, planets orbiting Sun (what we now know), more elegant than planets orbiting Sun, Sun orbiting Earth, if you don't take masses of the objects into account? |
You seem to be using unimaginable in a way that doesn't mean what you think it means. The geometric inelegance was known to Tycho, who essentially hand waved the concern away. All it would take to overcome the problem with the Earth being heavy is to hand wave that away as well, and the fact that people were arguing for a heliocentric model of the universe meant they were willing to do that. If it was truly "unimaginable", people wouldn't have even considered the heliocentric system.
(And yes, Kepler's Platonic solids were nonsense, but they led him to elliptical orbits and laws of planetary motion that worked and made useful predictions. And that's clearly simpler than the alternative, which involves lots of epicycles and complex corrections.)
| Quote: |
| I'm not suggesting it was proper, nor is that what it was in response to. Galileo vehemently pushed for the teaching of heliocentrism as fact, without supporting evidence, while the Church wanted to teach it as the preferred theory of the time. |
And how does punishing an overzealous scientist help science? Even if Galileo was wrong, placing somebody under arrest for a scientific theory will clearly discourage people from considering that theory. And even wrong but eventually testable scientific theories have value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
3iff
very unbifflike
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:15 am Post subject: 56 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Again, given knowledge that was unimaginable then. Why is moons orbiting planets, planets orbiting Sun (what we now know), more elegant than planets orbiting Sun, Sun orbiting Earth, if you don't take masses of the objects into account? |
It's not about being elegant, it's about being correct. Moving away from the heliocentric view was against the consensus and that directly challenged the 'rulers'. The sun orbiting the earth was a stepping stone into understanding what was really happening but those in power were using religion to prevent change.
Theories have to be continually challenged without competing theories being supressed. This supression is currently happening in a different scientific field.
However, aren't we drifting away from the topic of this thread? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:14 pm Post subject: 57 |
|
|
I think extro is challenging the accuracy of what has been taught in schools for generations from the traditional standpoint. In many other areas, schools have moved on to a revisionist standpoint, but this is still being held onto when in reality, it might not be what it seems. (Don't get me wrong, the Inquisition was real and not good, but I don't think it's as "dark" as the medieval period from which it supposedly comes.)
And this is definitely still on topic. What's being discussed is the religion of the Church vs. the religion of Science.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Undercover Monk
Professor Chaos
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:56 pm Post subject: 58 |
|
|
| 3iff wrote: |
However, aren't we drifting away from the topic of this thread? |
It seems to be an occupational hazard for this forum.I think I feel the need to start a new thread. 
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:51 pm Post subject: 59 |
|
|
The point is there's a lot of ignorance about the role of the Catholic Church in science. Many people will see a comic like the above ... Galileo "proved" the Earth orbited the Sun, and was condemned to a "dungeon" ... and not notice how ridiculous it is. His "house arrest" was in a spectacularly beautiful place, and he was very well cared for, had visitors freely, and continued to write. His house arrest was not for his scientific work, which the Catholic Church encouraged him to pursue. Galileo had begun a campaign of teaching, across Europe, that it was fact that the planets had perfect circular orbits around the Sun. This was false, it contradicted Kepler, and Jesuit astronomers were able to verify it was false. The Church had said that heliocentrism was a tenable hypothesis, and that it was open to any supporting evidence, and it was. Galileo insisted on butting heads with the Church, and the fact is his science was bad. Other scientists of the day saw that. Perfectly circular orbits - he insisted on teaching that as fact, despite evidence to the contrary. Then he also claimed the tides were caused by the rotation of the Earth (nothing to do with the moon), which his contemporaries could rightly see was incorrect. He proceeded not as true scientists do today, nor as they even did then, but proceeded as a popularist, broadcasting his alleged findings (which were FALSE) to the world, attempting to convince all before the science was done.
The fact is the Catholic Church, even then, as today, was a great benefactor of science, and we would be behind where we are now without the support they gave to scientific inquiry.
Oh ... wikipedia has a nice little summary of the "conflict thesis" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
| Quote: |
| The conflict thesis is the proposition that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science and that the relationship between religion and science inevitably leads to public hostility. The thesis, refined beyond its most simplistic original forms, remains generally popular. However, historians of science no longer support it. |
The "conflict thesis" is just one of those things some people want to believe. It isn't supported by facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:04 pm Post subject: 60 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Why is moons orbiting planets, planets orbiting Sun (what we now know), more elegant than ...? |
We don't actually know this, because it isn't true. In fact, Moon and Earth both orbit the center of mass of the two together (and this center of mass orbits the Sun). Because the Earth is so much more massive than the Moon, this center happens to be well inside the Earth. But the Earth is slightly farther from the Sun on a new moon than it is on a full moon (if you compare identical points in the Earth-Moon's orbit of the sun). (However, for the rest of this note I'll pretend that the Moon orbits Earth, etc., just for simplification.)
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| ... more elegant than planets orbiting Sun, Sun orbiting Earth, if you don't take masses of the objects into account? |
There's a big if. It isn't, especially, except that you now have this huge system of Sun, ... , Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune travelling together in this relatively small ellipse around Earth, while the individuals travel in an ellipse around the Sun. It just seems silly to be taking that huge path of Neptune and perturbing it by the much smaller path of the Sun around the Earth.
In the other cases where we take a whole system (i.e. Earth-Moon) and have the system orbit a much larger thing, the path of the smallest element in the entire system still looks sane. The distance from Earth to Moon is less than a third of 1% of the distance of Earth-Moon to the Sun. If you were to look at just the path of the Moon around the Sun, you'd feel pretty comfortable that it is orbiting the Sun, with just a tiny wobble in and out due to it orbiting the Earth.
On the other hand, if you were to plot the path of Jupiter around the Earth, it would be wildly confusing. Jupiter's orbit is roughly 484 million miles from the Sun, and Earth's is roughly 93 million miles. It takes Jupiter almost 12 of our years to orbit the Sun, so it's path around the Earth is this Spirograph path with 12 big loops that are around a fifth of its entire orbit.
Here's the closest I could find, but the size of the loops would be a little less than half of these.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:34 pm Post subject: 61 |
|
|
| Hindsight is 20-20. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:56 pm Post subject: 62 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
The point is there's a lot of ignorance about the role of the Catholic Church in science. Many people will see a comic like the above ... Galileo "proved" the Earth orbited the Sun, and was condemned to a "dungeon" ... and not notice how ridiculous it is. His "house arrest" was in a spectacularly beautiful place, and he was very well cared for, had visitors freely, and continued to write. His house arrest was not for his scientific work, which the Catholic Church encouraged him to pursue. Galileo had begun a campaign of teaching, across Europe, that it was fact that the planets had perfect circular orbits around the Sun. This was false, it contradicted Kepler, and Jesuit astronomers were able to verify it was false. The Church had said that heliocentrism was a tenable hypothesis, and that it was open to any supporting evidence, and it was. Galileo insisted on butting heads with the Church, and the fact is his science was bad. Other scientists of the day saw that. Perfectly circular orbits - he insisted on teaching that as fact, despite evidence to the contrary. Then he also claimed the tides were caused by the rotation of the Earth (nothing to do with the moon), which his contemporaries could rightly see was incorrect. He proceeded not as true scientists do today, nor as they even did then, but proceeded as a popularist, broadcasting his alleged findings (which were FALSE) to the world, attempting to convince all before the science was done.
The fact is the Catholic Church, even then, as today, was a great benefactor of science, and we would be behind where we are now without the support they gave to scientific inquiry.
Oh ... wikipedia has a nice little summary of the "conflict thesis" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis
| Quote: |
| The conflict thesis is the proposition that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science and that the relationship between religion and science inevitably leads to public hostility. The thesis, refined beyond its most simplistic original forms, remains generally popular. However, historians of science no longer support it. |
The "conflict thesis" is just one of those things some people want to believe. It isn't supported by facts. |
Except that it IS supported by the facts .. by these facts that you've just presented!
Someone proposed a theory that the church didn't agree with, so the church arrested him and didn't allow him to teach anymore. We're done now; further discussion should be unnecessary.
Whether or not it was a comfortable prison is irrelevant. It's still prison.
Whether he was ultimately right or wrong is irrelevant. They used their power to stop the discussion.
If you disagree with what someone teaches, then discredit him by pointing out the flaws in his argument. Do not ARREST him. That is an abuse of power, plain and simple. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:35 pm Post subject: 63 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
Someone proposed a theory that the church didn't agree with, so the church arrested him and didn't allow him to teach anymore. We're done now; further discussion should be unnecessary.
Whether or not it was a comfortable prison is irrelevant. It's still prison.
Whether he was ultimately right or wrong is irrelevant. They used their power to stop the discussion.
If you disagree with what someone teaches, then discredit him by pointing out the flaws in his argument. Do not ARREST him. That is an abuse of power, plain and simple. |
Except extro is saying it wasn't that the church disagreed with Galileo's teaching, but rather they disagreed with his going beyond what they deemed prudent.
Accuse the Church of despotism in that instance if you will, but not of being opposed to Science.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:22 pm Post subject: 64 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Except that it IS supported by the facts .. by these facts that you've just presented! |
You're a classic case, Zag. You have the facts about Galileo and the Church distorted in your mind, and furthermore, you ignore all other facts that say the "conflict thesis" is just fabricated comic-book hogwash. But you so desperately WANT to believe the Church has held back science, rather than know the truth, which is that it has advanced it, that you are incapable of being rational about this.
| Zag wrote: |
Someone proposed a theory that the church didn't agree with, so the church arrested him and didn't allow him to teach anymore. We're done now; further discussion should be unnecessary.
Whether or not it was a comfortable prison is irrelevant. It's still prison.
Whether he was ultimately right or wrong is irrelevant. They used their power to stop the discussion.
If you disagree with what someone teaches, then discredit him by pointing out the flaws in his argument. Do not ARREST him. That is an abuse of power, plain and simple. |
I'm not suggesting it wasn't an abuse of power, but it wasn't against science. The details are relevant.
It was not because they disagreed with the scientific theory. Galileo could have and was encouraged by the Church to pursue that theory. It was not even solely because he insisted on teaching as fact, without supporting evidence, what the Jesuits and others could observe to be false (perfectly circular orbits, tides caused by the Earth's rotation on its axis). He could have gotten away with that, and the Church would not have hunted him down and brought him in. It was because Galileo made it into a personal battle which he brought to Church leaders, depicting them as fools, and while you might agree they were, the fact is they were right and rational about the science where Galileo was wrong. Abuse of power, yes, but not against science, but against Galileo being a deliberate thorn in their side, which was not being done in the name of science.
And of course it's relevant that the "prison" was comfortable. There's a big difference between being thrown in a dungeon versus being appointed a palace with a personal servant, and meeting regularly with other thinkers of the time, and completing one's writings - arguably his greatest works. Sure, abuse of power. But in effect, more like sponsorship of his work than imprisonment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Undercover Monk
Professor Chaos
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:38 pm Post subject: 65 |
|
|
while I have chosen not to take sides in this particular part of the debate I have found it very interesting. Its similar to how I feel arguing with a friend of mine about almost anything. she decides what she believes and then rejects anything that doesnt fit with her worldview as untruth. Im not trying to be high and mighty here cause I tend to do that on some issues. But I am also accutely aware of the impact of revisionist history. The knowledge of history is directly influenced by the bias of those who write the history books. Some facts are deemed irrelavent or immaterial in one volume while others view the same facts as crucial. Always remember there are 3 sides of every story; yours, mine, and the truth.
So for you to make such a sweeping statement, Zag is ludicrous.
| Quote: |
| Someone proposed a theory that the church didn't agree with, so the church arrested him and didn't allow him to teach anymore. We're done now; further discussion should be unnecessary. |
Objection, if it please the court is Zag really asking us to believe he knows the reasoning behind the actions of a group of men that took place hundreds of years ago. And that we shouldn't question him because he is an expert witness.
Also are we forgetting that back in those days religion was intimately tied to politics. And yet it is religion the atheist blame for all the horrors and atrocities commited. Do you really think every Catholic priest and bishop was a true believer. Get real absolute power corrupts absolutely so how do we know he didnt piss off some King and they just used religion as an excuse to try and silence him.
This isn't an open and shut case of look the church is evil and hates science. In fact I know a lot of christian and not one of them has ever tried to burn science books or lynch a biology teacher. We are not the ignorant hicks you guys make us out to be. You yourself Zag have complimented me as a rational player in our mafia games, yet Im a christian. I believe in God. Does the rational part of my brain turn off on Sundays? Do you think I have been brain-washed? Do you think I don't question my own beliefs? I seem to have rambled farther than I originally meant to. My apologies.
My point is the matter being discussed isn't as simple and clear cut as Zag would have us believe. Nothing ever is. As I said in the post-modernism thread Truth can not be owned.
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:00 pm Post subject: 66 |
|
|
Sorry, I thought you were claiming that it wasn't an abuse of power. Clearly it was.
Shutting down (by fiat) discussion on a topic is anti-science. It's not the worst anti-science that can happen, but it still is.
| Quote: |
| You have the facts about Galileo and the Church distorted in your mind, and furthermore, you ignore all other facts that say the "conflict thesis" is just fabricated comic-book hogwash. |
Possibly true, but my point was that I didn't need to distort the facts from what you yourself presented. Just your description of what happened describes an anti-science abuse of power. If I knew nothing about the case and had absolutely no preconceived notions, I would draw that conclusion just from your description, the one from which you seemed to draw the opposite conclusion. Sure, it probably wasn't "as bad" as the possibly-wrong common belief would lead one to believe. That doesn't mean it wasn't an anti-science abuse of power.
You're both right, that I am inclined to think worse of the church than is probably true, especially in the time period from 1300's to 1700's. On the other hand, it's pretty hard to defend a lot of what went on... and by "pretty hard" I mean "completely impossible." (and this includes the Jesuits). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:45 pm Post subject: 67 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| You're both right, that I am inclined to think worse of the church than is probably true, especially in the time period from 1300's to 1700's. On the other hand, it's pretty hard to defend a lot of what went on... and by "pretty hard" I mean "completely impossible." (and this includes the Jesuits). |
This kind of leads me into a question of why a mistake (even by an institution) is so unforgivable. I can see that there are points in history in which there is a hypocritical element by a certain portion of the Church, but ultimately the basis of forgiveness is still in the Church's doctrine. In the end, the institution is still made up of people who ought to confess their imperfection. Even if they don't, at least their religious text still confesses it.
I repent of the Apartheid. I repent of the Crusades. I repent of the Inquisition. I repent of the politicking of the Church as it tried to establish a person of their choosing on thrones. I repent of the religious fanaticism that oppressed slaves, women, the LGBTQ community, and other religions. I repent of the leaders in the Church who did things like embezzle money, sexually assault minors and unwilling participants, condemn adulterers and divorcees while doing those things themselves, beat their children, and who generally do not share the love of Christ.
I really do believe it is unfair how frequently Christ is rejected simply because his followers don't have it together, but at the same time, I'm not surprised. I do think the Christians who reject the above people are way off base, but then they aren't much different than a goodly number of their leaders. Anyway, this whole post is maybe a little jumbled, but ultimately I wish people could look past the mistakes that seem to be a product of humanity.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:55 pm Post subject: 68 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You have the facts about Galileo and the Church distorted in your mind, and furthermore, you ignore all other facts that say the "conflict thesis" is just fabricated comic-book hogwash. |
Possibly true, but my point was that I didn't need to distort the facts from what you yourself presented. Just your description of what happened describes an anti-science abuse of power. If I knew nothing about the case and had absolutely no preconceived notions, I would draw that conclusion just from your description, the one from which you seemed to draw the opposite conclusion. |
A scientist acquaintance of mine comes to my home and presents me with his new theory. I can see it is flawed, that observable facts contradict it. Nevertheless he insist he will teach it as fact. Furthermore, he does so by walking up and down my street with a bullhorn, announcing his theory, and that I'm too stupid to comprehend it. He continues this until I muscle the bullhorn away from him and stomp it into the sidewalk. While that may have been an unjust destruction of property - while I may have lost my head - it was not anti-science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:01 pm Post subject: 69 |
|
|
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| I really do believe it is unfair how frequently Christ is rejected simply because his followers don't have it together, |
I don't believe that's happening here. I hope you don't think it is. I have a whole lot more respect for Jesus and his teachings than I do for the organizations that surround them. It is partly endemic to any large bureaucratic organization: Power-hungry people without scruples will always find their way up. The larger and more political the organization the more sure it is. The defense against this is to limit the power of any individual or small group of individuals, something that Catholic Church has been traditionally bad at doing.
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| I repent of the religious fanaticism that oppressed slaves, women, the LGBTQ community, and other religions. I repent of the leaders in the Church who did things like embezzle money, sexually assault minors and unwilling participants, condemn adulterers and divorcees while doing those things themselves, beat their children, and who generally do not share the love of Christ. |
Your use of the past tense is a bit premature in several of those cases. This possibly applies more to other Christian sects, but it still applies to the Catholic Church. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:10 pm Post subject: 70 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| A scientist acquaintance of mine comes to my home and presents me with his new theory. I can see it is flawed, that observable facts contradict it. Nevertheless he insist he will teach it as fact. Furthermore, he does so by walking up and down my street with a bullhorn, announcing his theory, and that I'm too stupid to comprehend it. He continues this until I muscle the bullhorn away from him and stomp it into the sidewalk. While that may have been an unjust destruction of property - while I may have lost my head - it was not anti-science. |
You'd have a much better analogy if you talked about how proponents of 'Intelligent Design' are never allowed to present at scientific conferences and don't have their papers accepted in scientific journals. It would be a lot closer to the same thing. Still wrong, but closer.
You'd be closer still if you argued that my own involvement in trying to keep 'Intelligent Design' from being taught in our schools as 'science' is the same thing. But here's the difference: if its proponents want to build their own schools, pay for them, even invite others to come learn, I support their right to do so.
Your analogy is just stopping someone from being a public nuisance and from slandering you. You might even do that if you agreed with what he was trying to teach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:12 pm Post subject: 71 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
| I really do believe it is unfair how frequently Christ is rejected simply because his followers don't have it together, |
I don't believe that's happening here. I hope you don't think it is. |
I don't, hence the comment that the post was a little jumbled. As I was typing, my thoughts kind of snowballed.
You are correct about the tense. Again, I got lost in the flow. 
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:49 pm Post subject: 72 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Your analogy is just stopping someone from being a public nuisance and from slandering you. You might even do that if you agreed with what he was trying to teach. |
And I wouldn't do it even if I disagreed, but he was not making me out to be a fool. Same as with the Church and Galileo. Galileo publicly mocked and insulted the Pope, after the Pope gave him permission to write about heliocentrism. That got him the little slap on the wrist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatthewV
Daedalian Member :_
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:58 pm Post subject: 73 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Zag wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You have the facts about Galileo and the Church distorted in your mind, and furthermore, you ignore all other facts that say the "conflict thesis" is just fabricated comic-book hogwash. |
Possibly true, but my point was that I didn't need to distort the facts from what you yourself presented. Just your description of what happened describes an anti-science abuse of power. If I knew nothing about the case and had absolutely no preconceived notions, I would draw that conclusion just from your description, the one from which you seemed to draw the opposite conclusion. |
A scientist acquaintance of mine comes to my home and presents me with his new theory. I can see it is flawed, that observable facts contradict it. Nevertheless he insist he will teach it as fact. Furthermore, he does so by walking up and down my street with a bullhorn, announcing his theory, and that I'm too stupid to comprehend it. He continues this until I muscle the bullhorn away from him and stomp it into the sidewalk. While that may have been an unjust destruction of property - while I may have lost my head - it was not anti-science. |
Somehow I doubt this is what he did!
I am guessing it was something in the mildly-offensive-but-mostly-passive type of protest. Like those Anti-Gay Baptists that people today celebrate the blocking of.
What if they were right? (yeah, I am also highly skeptical of this and would do things to encourage them to keep their theories to themselves. ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:15 am Post subject: 74 |
|
|
| MatthewV wrote: |
| Somehow I doubt this is what he did! |
Somehow? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatthewV
Daedalian Member :_
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:21 am Post subject: 75 |
|
|
| Somehow = I wouldn't trust any evidence showing he did or didn't. Maybe a newspaper article or something equivalent.. and I doubt that exists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:29 am Post subject: 76 |
|
|
| So do you have any belief at all about what occurred regarding Galileo, the Catholic Church, and how he came to be under house arrest? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MatthewV
Daedalian Member :_
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:57 am Post subject: 77 |
|
|
Before reading this thread: I would have said that the Church slowed scientific progress. Now I would say they slowed the teaching of a somewhat radial and contradictory viewpoint and slowly reached the same conclusion as most people have-- the earth almost certainly orbits the sun.
Today, scientific progress of stem cells is being slowed because there is a legitimate ethical argument that needs to be addressed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
3iff
very unbifflike
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:18 am Post subject: 78 |
|
|
Snippets from Wikipedia so accuracy may be questionable.
"If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the center of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion false which has been proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me."
—Koestler (1959), p. 447–448. My bolding.
"Galileo's trial in 1633 involved making fine distinctions between "teaching" and "holding and defending as true". For advancing heliocentric theory Galileo was forced to recant Copernicanism and was put under house arrest for the last few years of his life."
House arrest might be a prettier prison but it's still a prison. House arrest was unacceptable for Aung San Suu Kyi, but it was used because she disagreed with those in power. It might be that he/she wasn't 'right' but those that ordered the imprisonment were wrong.
"Meanwhile the Church remained opposed to heliocentrism as a literal description, but this did not by any means imply opposition to all astronomy; indeed, it needed observational data to maintain its calendar."
Because the church was insistent that the bible was true, contrary views could not be tolerated, even if observational evidence showed otherwise. They have their 'cause' to protect and have to resort to ignoring the facts or manipulating data to save face. This still happens today.
"A proportion of the public still believes in the geocentric model. Approximately one in five Americans believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, according to surveys in 1999, 2006. Approximately one third of Russians believe in the geocentric model, according to a survey in 2011." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:02 pm Post subject: 79 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| I have a whole lot more respect for Jesus and his teachings than I do for the organizations that surround them. It is partly endemic to any large bureaucratic organization: Power-hungry people without scruples will always find their way up. The larger and more political the organization the more sure it is. The defense against this is to limit the power of any individual or small group of individuals, something that Catholic Church has been traditionally bad at doing. |
Which is why capitalism inevitably leads to corporatism unless you do something to stop it. I have nothing against capitalism per se (cue incredulous gasps) but it's clear to me that it is just as flawed without coherent regulation as any other system. (Sorry, wrong thread...)
My own Christian denomination in the UK comes from a "congregational" tradition - the local church takes all the decisions, but we have a centralised financial and administrative centre because that makes sense on a national scale. They cannot impose anything on the local church but we have an annual Assembly that makes recommendations (for instance, we have just decided that we are happy for local churches to conduct civil partnership ceremonies for homosexual couples - something I am immensely proud we have done. But it's up to the local church whether it wants to adopt that policy. My local church has already begun the process.)
In passing, I will note that the Lectionary* reading a couple of sundays ago was about how Jesus sent out the disciples to preach the Good News and he sent them to peoples' houses rather than to temples and synagogues because he'd figured out that "churches" were a very bad place to learn religion... 
*it's an agreed series of Bible passages that means that the same texts can be studied by the same people at the same time.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 2:46 pm Post subject: 80 |
|
|
Some would not bother to read this given the source, but it is filled with enough details that it can fairly well be verified or disputed on the facts, and the picture painted is not so as to hold Church politics as harmless, nor individual motives justified, but certainly not anti-science. It's a longer read, but I think worth it to get a less simplistic picture than "heliocentrism - heresy - house arrest". (one could skip the first 7 paragraphs, and start at "Galileo was born at Pisa, February 18, 1564.")
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0021.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
