ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags faith , skepticism

Reply
Old 14th December 2018, 12:08 AM   #281
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,845
Originally Posted by TimONeill2 View Post
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. [Etc., etc.].
Thank you for the long comment (beautiful picture indluded) that becomes more and more contradictory:

I am glad that we agree on something fundamental: You do not deny that "the papacy and the Holy Office's action against Galileo is one of the most savage attacks against the independence of science". What I don't understand very well is how you can later say that there is no real conflict between science and religion. Here is a good example that lasted for as long as the Inquisition was powerful and the index of banned books effective.

On the Consensus of Denialist Historians: You cite one historian of medicine, one medievalist historian, and another who is not even a historian. There is no doubt a "broad" consensus to deny that there is a conflict between religion and science. You forget another source: John Paul II, the ultra-conservative pope, who fully agrees with your thesis. If you want I can quote his shameful words about Galileo literally. I understand that someone who calls himself an atheist feels a certain discomfort from this "coincidence" and tries to overlook it. Or don't you feel uncomfortable?

I can present a much broader consensus: that of the historians of science who consider Copernican theory, or rather Galilean, as a true scientific revolution or new "paradigm" to use Kuhn's term. The idea was already launched by Kant under the concept of "Copernican turn". As you can understand, a revolution is a total change that refutes or nullifies the old science, which are all those that you recklessly cited as Galileo's antecedents. That is, the representatives of Neoplatonic and Aristotelian science and metaphysics. I am truly curious - this is not rhetoric - to know what Duns Scotus contributed to Galileo's scientific revolution according you. I insist, I would like to know what you say about it. I am afraid it is going to be nothing.

About the bibliography I use, which worries you , I can tell you the books I have at home. I have read others from the library of my university, but I would have to consult them if you insist on any specific point. From Galileo I have read the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems and I have a monograph by Johannes Hemleben. (The editions I handle are in Spanish). As for stories of science that devote ample space to Galileo or books dedicated to the subject at hand, I can cite, if you require precise quotations, those of Thomas S. Kuhn, Ernst Cassirer, L. W. H. Hull, Arthur Koestler (on Kepler), Hans Reichenbach, Imre Lakatos, Marx W. Wartofsky and others that I do not remember now... ah yes, Frederick C. Copleston, very importat for Aristotelism. I leave aside two or three stories of philosophy that devote ample space to the subject. Other Spanish authors that I have read I don't quote them, because surely you wouldn't know them. As well as a few articles that would make the list long. I also leave aside some less voluminous references, although they may be interesting, such as Ortega y Gasset's vision of the New Science.

What I cannot understand is why you know but do not take into consideration the condemnation of Bruno which expressly mentions the theory that the Earth moves ("the correct thing to say is that no-one really cared much either way until Galileo started " "No one??? The Inquisition is "No-one"????). It clearly indicates that the trial against Galileo was preceded by an interest of the Holy Office and other Catholic sectors on the subject. Here you do not seem or do not want to understand that the forces in the Church were divided into two factions, one conservative and the other more open, which ended up uniting into one: the Conservative Counter-Reformer, who kept the dogma with fire and blood for several centuries and who has not yet assimilated the great damage it caused with Galileo's condemnation and its aftermath. Galileo and his friends were too confident that the liberality of Bellarmino and others would serve as a parapet to the supporters of reaction. For various reasons this confidence failed and it turned out that the liberals were not so muchliberal. As now.
Therefore: ecclesiastical censorship and the Holy Office were the instruments that exemplify a conflict between science and religion that has not yet been resolved. We could continue with the attacks on atomism or Darwinism, which are also good examples. And I have only limited myself to Catholicism and more or less official Christianity. If we go to sects or other less "European" religions, things would get much blacker.

I would like to analyse the causes of this conflict now, but for personal reasons I will not be able to do so until the weekend. I will gladly return if you are still there with your list of insults and barbarities. It will be a pleasure to continue the conversation in a friendly manner.

Endnote: Brown's book contradicts your absurd idea about the cause of the end of paganism without the influence of the political factor. The same goes for Paul Veyne's "stuff" in several of his books. Or Rostovtzeff magna opera on Rome or Momigliano, etc. I have explained it to you above. We were talking about the end of paganism, not just intellectuals. Your previous words: "Those edicts were a symptom of paganism's decline, not its cause. Its cause was demographic". Don't invent my theories in order to refute them better. That's pretty shabby. You don't have to put photos to see that there is a hand holding Brown's book. We are able to think without pictures. We the "philosophers" even use reason.

Last edited by David Mo; 14th December 2018 at 12:24 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 01:32 AM   #282
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,845
But you have perfectly misunderstood what the only (medieval) science historian you quote says: Edward Grant. It does not deny the scientific revolution of the New Science and the defeat of scholastic theological science. But he believes that the revolution is based on a philosophically incorrect realistic concept: science discovers things themselves. Grant, for his part, makes a mistake of the same size: he believes that current science agrees with the English nominalism of the 14th century. Big mistake: 20th century science is not humean, even though Einstein thought so. But this is another debate that takes us out of the epoch. In reality the scholastic nominalists were empiricists not to reinforce the power of reason, but to subdue it to the power of faith. For science to submit to the church. It is in this sense that they were rightly called "the ancients".

This is a comment to:
Grant, Edward. “Late Medieval Thought, Copernicus, and the Scientific Revolution.”*Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 23, no. 2, 1962, pp. 197–220.

Another mistake of Grant's: to code the "Copernican" revolution only in its realism as a way to "save appearances". The revolution took mainly place at the level of method and emancipation from religious tutelage. And Copernicus did not do this.

Last edited by David Mo; 14th December 2018 at 01:36 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 08:19 PM   #283
TimONeill2
Thinker
 
TimONeill2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 142
I learned long ago that there are some discussions worth pursuing, but some are just a waste of time and effort. It's usually a sign I am in one of the latter when I read ridiculous stuff like this:

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
On the Consensus of Denialist Historians: You cite one historian of medicine, one medievalist historian, and another who is not even a historian.
This moronic comment is apparently referring to David Lindberg, Ronald Numbers and J.H. Brooke, though what this "David Mo" person says about them bears so little relationship to reality it is hard to tell which he is referring to precisely, since none of them can be designated simply as a "historian of medicine" or a "medievalist historian" and none of them is "not even a historian". Again, these are three of THE leading historians in the field of the history of science. Two of them were presidents of the History of Science Society. One was an editor of Isis. - the leading journal in the field. And one was an editor of the Cambridge History of Science while another is its current editor. To dismiss these giants in the field as "denialist historians" and to describe them the way this "David Mo" person does above is nothing less than frigging idiotic.

I am going to assuming "David Mo" isn't actually a frigging idiot, so why is he making arguments that he must know are patent frigging idiocy? Because he knows he's lost the argument. So all he's got left is trolling and idiocy, like the nonsense above.

So, now that it is clear to everyone here, including "David Mo", that he has lost the argument, my work here is done. People like "David Mo" always have to have the last word, of course, so I'll leave him to compound his humiliating defeat by doing so. I'm sure it will be more trolling and idiocy, because that's all he's got, the poor guy. It must be sad to realise you are a deluded fanatic and that you have been exposed as such to the world.
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History

Last edited by TimONeill2; 14th December 2018 at 09:45 PM.
TimONeill2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 10:34 PM   #284
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,845
Originally Posted by TimONeill2 View Post
So, now that it is clear to everyone here, including "David Mo", that he has lost the argument, my work here is done. People like "David Mo" always have to have the last word, of course, so I'll leave him to compound his humiliating defeat by doing so. I'm sure it will be more trolling and idiocy, because that's all he's got, the poor guy. It must be sad to realise you are a deluded fanatic and that you have been exposed as such to the world.
Wow, it looks like he deflated when he had to analyze a text in detail. I've never seen a supposed expert (amateur or not) with such a low response capacity. I thought I was talking to someone who, although quite bilious in character, was able to respond with arguments to arguments. This self-proclaimed winner of I don't know what imaginary fight is really childish. I've seen much better polemics in this forum. What a disappointment!
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 08:43 AM   #285
Marcus
Master Poster
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,976
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Wow, it looks like he deflated when he had to analyze a text in detail. I've never seen a supposed expert (amateur or not) with such a low response capacity. I thought I was talking to someone who, although quite bilious in character, was able to respond with arguments to arguments. This self-proclaimed winner of I don't know what imaginary fight is really childish. I've seen much better polemics in this forum. What a disappointment!
The fight between the two of you was both entertaining and educational. He certainly seems like an expert to me, although I will say he could have been more polite.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 11:19 PM   #286
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,845
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
The fight between the two of you was both entertaining and educational. He certainly seems like an expert to me, although I will say he could have been more polite.
It's not a matter of bad manners. This is secondary. Bad education often reveals the level of argumentation. When you insult so much you are not sure of yourself.

Of course, O'Neill has studied the subject, but he doesn't know as much as he appears. You can notice that he has avoided answering my objections on the New Science revolution because he is not sure there. The question about Duns Scotus and the interpretation of Kuhn's paradigm shift have left him speechless.

He knows the facts, but he has several problems:
-He is not able to fit them into valid theories.
-Because his interpretation of the data is guided by an ideology that totally coincides with the excuses of the Catholic Church for its role in the fight against science in general and the Galileo case in particular.
-He is not able to see that ecclesiastical institutions are not compact blocks. There are divisions into them that usually oppose a more reformist sector and a more intransigent one. In the Catholic Church, unfortunately, the latter tends to triumph.

That's why he selects the data he's interested in and removes the data that disproves his ideas. I would have been interested in discussing some point in more depth, but he cuts the conversation when he is interested in it with his aggressive style.

For example, Hypatia. O'Neill insists that repression against pagan culture has nothing to do with his death. This is Dzielska's thesis. But it omits the data that Dzielska herself provides. On pages 103 to 107 of her book (in my Spanish edition, corresponding to the chapter "The circumstances of Hipatia's death"), we learn of certain revealing facts that O'Neill overlooks. These are:

Hypatia was known to be a pagan philosopher. She taught in public bearing the distinctive white cloak of philosophers and her books deal with platonic subjects, especially mathematics and astronomy. So Cyril -started a "propaganda plan"- against her accusing her of "paganism," "of mixing sorcery, mathematics, astronomy and philosophy" (Note the same mixture as Augustine!). Through "this manipulation, Hypatia was presented as a dangerous witch". And Dzielska says that Hipatia's attitude was "a fight against the Church" (!). It is evident that with these data the attack of Christianity against the remains of Hellenic science is one of the components of Hipatia's murder. It may not have been the only reason for his death, but it was an essential component that belongs to the same context as the closing of the school in Athens, the burning of the small billiotheque of Alexandria (the Serapeum), the expulsion of the philosophers by Justinian and Cyril's Contra Julianum. (The phrases in quotation marks are from the book that O'Neill pretends I haven't read).

This way, O'Neill and the group of negationists -that he call "consensus"- do nothing but follow the guidelines set by the Church itself, as evidenced by the statement of Pope John Paul II who presented false "excuses" for having maintained for centuries that the earth does not move. He pretends to put the faults of a bloody and repressive tribunal on the same level as a scientist like Galileo because he was "too proud" and did not want to disguise his theory as mere speculation. True, the pride of proclaiming the truth against the criminal techniques of the power of the Church. On the same plate. This demonstrates the value that the Catholic Church still attaches to freedom of expression and research. It accepts it because it has no choice.

On this point I would like to say a little more. I will see if I have time.

Last edited by David Mo; 16th December 2018 at 12:13 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 11:55 PM   #287
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,845
For example:
Copernicus had the prudence of the investigator who still lacks the decisive proof of his thesis... (...)However, because he was unable to provide experimental evidence, he did not want to use it to publish it as definitive. (...) It was only at the end of his life, in 1543, that the famous treatise De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was published, thanks to the initiative of his disciples, who presented his discovery as a hypothesis.
As is well known, Galileo made the Copernican theory his own and advocated it with enthusiasm, but not with the same enthusiasm. It is not a simple hypothesis but a true doctrine, thus provoking the reaction of the ecclesiastical authority. [...]
With his prodigious erudition and moral strength, Copernicus embodies the image of the humanist prudent and bold. (…)
Eminent man of science and faith, he set no limits to the knowledge of reality and truth. (John Paul II, September 20th, 1993: “Al Prof. Pietro Dalpiaz, Rettore Magnifico della Università degli Studi di Ferrara”)
This text is based on two lies: that Copernicus did not believe that his theory was true and that the Inquisition acted for scientific reasons. But something worse can be deduced from him: that the Inquisition was "fair and prudent" when it imprisoned Galileo because he did not like Galileo's truth.
This is the Church in its pure state. For her, the virtue of Christian prudence is the fear to the Inquisition. And this is the same O’Neill's negationism. Very strange marriage for an “atheist”.

Last edited by David Mo; 16th December 2018 at 12:16 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2018, 12:10 AM   #288
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,845
The mess consists of mixing two different things: the struggle of the church against science throughout history and the possibility that there is a type of faith that is not contrary to science.
The first is historical evidence, which I am talking about now.
The second is another matter.

But the two questions are illustrative of a real conflict between science and religion.

If you are interested we can continue talking. O'Neill1 does not seem to be interested.

Thank you for your patience in reading my very long commentaries, Markus.

Last edited by David Mo; 16th December 2018 at 12:14 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2018, 04:45 AM   #289
TimONeill2
Thinker
 
TimONeill2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 142
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
It's not a matter of bad manners. This is secondary. Bad education often reveals the level of argumentation. When you insult so much you are not sure of yourself.
Or you're dealing with someone who is not worth the effort.

Quote:
Of course, O'Neill has studied the subject, but he doesn't know as much as he appears. You can notice that he has avoided answering my objections on the New Science revolution because he is not sure there. The question about Duns Scotus and the interpretation of Kuhn's paradigm shift have left him speechless.
Oh, this is priceless! You are utterly delusional.
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History
TimONeill2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2018, 08:03 AM   #290
Marcus
Master Poster
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,976
Originally Posted by TimONeill2 View Post
Or you're dealing with someone who is not worth the effort.



Oh, this is priceless! You are utterly delusional.
Could you counter his points about Hypatia and Copernicus?


I'm sure there are other lurkers like me who are enjoying the discussion but don't have the knowledge to comment on the subject matter.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2018, 08:52 AM   #291
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,845
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
Could you counter his points about Hypatia and Copernicus?


I'm sure there are other lurkers like me who are enjoying the discussion but don't have the knowledge to comment on the subject matter.
I would like to know your criticism of my position, even if you are not an expert. Neither I am.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2018, 12:13 PM   #292
TimONeill2
Thinker
 
TimONeill2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 142
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
Could you counter his points about Hypatia and Copernicus?
He could make it look as though he was doing so. Like with his confused stuff about Kuhn and Duns Scotus etc., he knows just enough to throw out references as a smokescreen to give the illusion that he knows what he's talking about and is on some kind of solid ground. But he and I both know he isn't. He knows that the historians I'm referring to are the leaders in the field and the position that the "Conflict Thesis" is nonsense is the consensus of experts. But he can't admit that. So he burbles nonsense about Lindberg et al being "denialists" and scatterguns some names of other historians, none of whom support what he's saying. It's all a smokescreen because he knows he's beaten here and all he can do is make the onlookers think maybe he isn't. He's pathetic.

Quote:
I'm sure there are other lurkers like me who are enjoying the discussion but don't have the knowledge to comment on the subject matter.
That's precisely what he's counting on. I'd be happy to continue the discussion with you or anyone else if there are points you'd like to explore. But I'm not wasting any more time on a troll.
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History
TimONeill2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2018, 02:32 PM   #293
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,003
I am willing to hit at it without either background: If the church did not agree with something they condemned it and often the persons who discovered/believed it/taught it.

The church murdered and tortured people who believed things the church did not like and did their best to destroy real knowledge if it conflicted with ignorant religious beliefs (which is basically most if not all religious beliefs).
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2018, 03:42 PM   #294
Marcus
Master Poster
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,976
Originally Posted by TimONeill2 View Post
He could make it look as though he was doing so. Like with his confused stuff about Kuhn and Duns Scotus etc., he knows just enough to throw out references as a smokescreen to give the illusion that he knows what he's talking about and is on some kind of solid ground. But he and I both know he isn't. He knows that the historians I'm referring to are the leaders in the field and the position that the "Conflict Thesis" is nonsense is the consensus of experts. But he can't admit that. So he burbles nonsense about Lindberg et al being "denialists" and scatterguns some names of other historians, none of whom support what he's saying. It's all a smokescreen because he knows he's beaten here and all he can do is make the onlookers think maybe he isn't. He's pathetic.



That's precisely what he's counting on. I'd be happy to continue the discussion with you or anyone else if there are points you'd like to explore. But I'm not wasting any more time on a troll.
The Conflict Thesis is definitely what I was taught in school, but that was a long time ago, I'm inclined to believe you when you say this is not the current consensus. Perhaps some more discussion on this, and some links? I'll admit I probably won't be buying specialist books on the subject.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2018, 04:27 PM   #295
TimONeill2
Thinker
 
TimONeill2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 142
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
I am willing to hit at it without either background: If the church did not agree with something they condemned it and often the persons who discovered/believed it/taught it.
Yes. But this almost never involved the examination of the physical world. It was extremely rare for the Church to disagree with anyone who used reason to examine the rational world because it had developed the concept of "the Two Books". One was the "Book of Nature", which involved the physical cosmos, which they believed could and should be apprehended by reason because they believed it was the product of a rational Creator. The other was the "Book of God" which was the Bible and the writings of the Patristics.

Since they believed both "books" described the same cosmos if they saw a conflict they put it down to a matter of interpretation. So, in the case of the physical evidence that the earth was a sphere and Biblical texts that talked about it as though it were flat, they accepted that the latter should not be interpreted literally and read them figuratively.

The reason everyone who tries to defend the Conflict Thesis always has to circle back to Galileo is because that case was one of the very few times someone examining the physical world came into direct conflict with theological controversies. And, as I have already noted, this was because Pope Urban VIII was under pressure from conservatives to crack down on non-theologians dabbling in Biblical interpretation. This had been banned by the Council of Trent and Urban was seen by Spanish cardinals as being too lax in enforcing that ban. Galileo's academic rivals saw this as their chance to get him in trouble and stirred up a Dominican preacher to accuse Galileo of heretical ideas and the Inquisition began questioning people about Galileo's writings and conversations about the interpretation of the Bible.

Before this, no-one had cared about him believing in the Copernican model, even though everyone knew he did. Church censors had approved his book on sunspots just a few years earlier, without batting an eyelid at the defence of heliocentrism in it. The Galileo case came about because it became entangled in some theological controversies, some complex politics and some personal resentments.

And even then it was not a "religion versus science" conflict anyway, since there were theologians and scientists on both sides in the case. The Church had the overwhelming consensus of scientists on its side, since because there were still major scientific problems with heliocentrism at that stage, most astronomers thought Copernicus and Galileo were wrong.

Quote:
The church murdered and tortured people who believed things the church did not like and did their best to destroy real knowledge if it conflicted with ignorant religious beliefs (which is basically most if not all religious beliefs).
See above. No-one was "murdered and tortured" for anything to do with "real knowledge" about the physical world. Plenty were "murdered and tortured" over points of theology, but not over science. That is a myth.
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History
TimONeill2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2018, 01:34 AM   #296
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,845
Originally Posted by TimONeill2 View Post
Yes. But this almost never involved the examination of the physical world. Etc..
The reason everyone who tries to defend the Conflict Thesis always has to circle back to Galileo is because that case was one of the very few times someone examining the physical world came into direct conflict with theological controversies.
This isn't true. Speaking only of Spain, the Index of forbidden books of 1559 included 11 first line authors, 68 in 1584, and if we include authors in general the figure rises to 300. In addition, we should count the European authors who are forbidden. The Grand Inquisitor General Sandoval boasts in 1612 that he has banned or censored more than three hundred books "the most read in universities". Note that possessing a forbidden book was a reason for persecution by the Holy Office. This is a very illustrative example of what the Catholic Church's attitude was towards those who dared to think on their own. Scientists or non-scientists.
Of course, Copernicus' and Galileo's books were in the index, but also those of other scientists like Osiander.
Is this not a conflict between religion and science?
Galileo's academic rivals saw this as their chance to get him in trouble and stirred up a Dominican preacher to accuse Galileo of heretical ideas and the Inquisition began questioning people about Galileo's writings and conversations about the interpretation of the Bible.
Before this, no-one had cared about him believing in the Copernican model,
This is false. Luther had criticized Copernican theory long before. And although it was during a private conversation, it had been published a few years later. For its part, the Inquisition had condemned Giordano Bruno years before for his defense of the Earth movement. This indicates that, despite the fact that a section of the church supported Galileo -less than he believed-, there was already an opposing movement that ended up triumphing. It was not Galileo's character that triggered the case, but his defense of science against faith in the literal reading of the Bible. That is why he was insisted to dilute his theory by feigning that it was pure speculation.

And even then it was not a "religion versus science" conflict anyway, since there were theologians and scientists on both sides in the case. The Church had the overwhelming consensus of scientists on its side, since because there were still major scientific problems with heliocentrism at that stage, most astronomers thought Copernicus and Galileo were wrong.


This reveals very well what the negationists' concept of "consensus" is. The consensus of all the "men of faith" - as John Paul II said - against Galileo is "the Consensus". The consensus of fear is not a consensus. The same could be said of the consensus of Soviet scholars that Lenin was the most brilliant politician in the universe. There were many brave men who risked the persecution of the churches, helped Galileo and brought forth the New Science. Of course, these were not "the Consensus".

Nor is it true that the weight of the arguments was on the side of the opponents of Galileo. It is true that Galieo's system had gaps - like the parallax issue - but it had very important data in its favor, like the observation of Jupiter's satellites movement. Above all he had in his favor that it was a much simpler system, which allowed to establish calculations and predictions that the complicated geocentric theory of epicycles could not do. In addition, it eliminated a whole series of Aristotelian concepts such as natural places, the sublunar world, circular perfection, etc., etc., which were based solely on the authority of Aristotle. Galileo's system had an advantage over others, that its assertions were based on mathematics and controlled experience, not on authority.

This "consensus" against Galileo included some who considered that mathematics was diabolical or that: "those satellites are invisible to the naked eye and, therefore, cannot influence the Earth and, consequently, are useless. Then they do not exist" (Francesco Sizzi). This was the kind of "scientist" Galileo had in front of him. A mixture of theoretical and religious.

But what I find appalling about the negationists is that they justify ecclesiastical repression with the false argument that Galileo was right but did not seem right. This supposes that if a scientist maintains questionable theories about facts, religion has every right to eliminate it. That is an unfortunate justification. The superiority of science and reason is based precisely on their ability to discuss theories freely and to give the opposite opportunity to defend them, even if we believe them to be erroneous. If the church or any other power attributes to itself the right to persecute those who maintain hypotheses that they do not like, we arrive at a perversion of all truth. The theory of the two truths sounds very good. Maybe there is a truth that only affects the pure spiritual. I doubt it, but it's nice. But I have not yet seen a religion or sect that has not invaded the secular truth with its religious truth. Sooner or later. This is religion's major conflict with science. Galileo's case illustrates this perfectly.

Last edited by David Mo; 17th December 2018 at 01:36 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2018, 02:04 AM   #297
TimONeill2
Thinker
 
TimONeill2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 142
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The reason everyone who tries to defend the Conflict Thesis always has to circle back to Galileo is because that case was one of the very few times someone examining the physical world came into direct conflict with theological controversies.
This isn't true. Speaking only of Spain, the Index of forbidden books of 1559 included 11 first line authors, 68 in 1584, and if we include authors in general the figure rises to 300. In addition, we should count the European authors who are forbidden. The Grand Inquisitor General Sandoval boasts in 1612 that he has banned or censored more than three hundred books "the most read in universities". Note that possessing a forbidden book was a reason for persecution by the Holy Office. This is a very illustrative example of what the Catholic Church's attitude was towards those who dared to think on their own. Scientists or non-scientists.
Of course, Copernicus' and Galileo's books were in the index, but also those of other scientists like Osiander.
Is this not a conflict between religion and science?
Galileo's academic rivals saw this as their chance to get him in trouble and stirred up a Dominican preacher to accuse Galileo of heretical ideas and the Inquisition began questioning people about Galileo's writings and conversations about the interpretation of the Bible.
Before this, no-one had cared about him believing in the Copernican model,
This is false. Luther had criticized Copernican theory long before. And although it was during a private conversation, it had been published a few years later. For its part, the Inquisition had condemned Giordano Bruno years before for his defense of the Earth movement. This indicates that, despite the fact that a section of the church supported Galileo -less than he believed-, there was already an opposing movement that ended up triumphing. It was not Galileo's character that triggered the case, but his defense of science against faith in the literal reading of the Bible. That is why he was insisted to dilute his theory by feigning that it was pure speculation.

And even then it was not a "religion versus science" conflict anyway, since there were theologians and scientists on both sides in the case. The Church had the overwhelming consensus of scientists on its side, since because there were still major scientific problems with heliocentrism at that stage, most astronomers thought Copernicus and Galileo were wrong.


This reveals very well what the negationists' concept of "consensus" is. The consensus of all the "men of faith" - as John Paul II said - against Galileo is "the Consensus". The consensus of fear is not a consensus. The same could be said of the consensus of Soviet scholars that Lenin was the most brilliant politician in the universe. There were many brave men who risked the persecution of the churches, helped Galileo and brought forth the New Science. Of course, these were not "the Consensus".

Nor is it true that the weight of the arguments was on the side of the opponents of Galileo. It is true that Galieo's system had gaps - like the parallax issue - but it had very important data in its favor, like the observation of Jupiter's satellites movement. Above all he had in his favor that it was a much simpler system, which allowed to establish calculations and predictions that the complicated geocentric theory of epicycles could not do. In addition, it eliminated a whole series of Aristotelian concepts such as natural places, the sublunar world, circular perfection, etc., etc., which were based solely on the authority of Aristotle. Galileo's system had an advantage over others, that its assertions were based on mathematics and controlled experience, not on authority.

This "consensus" against Galileo included some who considered that mathematics was diabolical or that: "those satellites are invisible to the naked eye and, therefore, cannot influence the Earth and, consequently, are useless. Then they do not exist" (Francesco Sizzi). This was the kind of "scientist" Galileo had in front of him. A mixture of theoretical and religious.

But what I find appalling about the negationists is that they justify ecclesiastical repression with the false argument that Galileo was right but did not seem right. This supposes that if a scientist maintains questionable theories about facts, religion has every right to eliminate it. That is an unfortunate justification. The superiority of science and reason is based precisely on their ability to discuss theories freely and to give the opposite opportunity to defend them, even if we believe them to be erroneous. If the church or any other power attributes to itself the right to persecute those who maintain hypotheses that they do not like, we arrive at a perversion of all truth. The theory of the two truths sounds very good. Maybe there is a truth that only affects the pure spiritual. I doubt it, but it's nice. But I have not yet seen a religion or sect that has not invaded the secular truth with its religious truth. Sooner or later. This is religion's major conflict with science. Galileo's case illustrates this perfectly.
Another tangle of nonsense and blunders from "David Mo". If anyone else thinks he makes any points that seem convincing here, let me know and I'll explain how he's wrong. He's like a walking illustration of the Dunning Kruger Effect.
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History
TimONeill2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2018, 03:31 AM   #298
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,845
Originally Posted by TimONeill2 View Post
Another tangle of nonsense and blunders from "David Mo". If anyone else thinks he makes any points that seem convincing here, let me know and I'll explain how he's wrong. He's like a walking illustration of the Dunning Kruger Effect.
I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm stating my point of view in case anyone wants to read it. Convincing is not in my power. It depends on everyone's open-mindedness.

The way you escape to my objections shows that you are not in the open-mindness field. I can understand that you take the side of church in this matter. Il y a des athées bien singuliers. But your aggressive –elusive– comments show that you have more than a disagreement. You hate the atheist position and are very comfortable with the Catholic position. You will know why.

Last edited by David Mo; 17th December 2018 at 03:52 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2018, 03:51 AM   #299
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,845
And here we leave the historical terrain and enter into the current debate on the science-religion conflict. The problem with religions is that they all have a holy book that is full of atrocities, including those relating to matters of fact. There are two ways to deal with this fact: by closing one self into the holy book (fundamentalism) or by opening up the possibility of a "spiritual" interpretation of it. That is to say, recognizing that Galileo was also right in his theological implications. When science and book do not coincide, the book must be interpreted allegorically. Of course, this presents a religious conflict: one should not believe what the book says, but rather the interpretation that some "wise" men make of the book. The word of God is not heard, but its interpretation. It is logical that fundamentalists do not like this solution. It sounds like covert atheism to them. And they don't lack some reason. A god that is unable to speak directlyby himself seems no god.

The fact is that the Church has adopted Galileo's theses up enven to this point. But instead of acknowledging it, it is looking for a thousand excuses for why it screwed up to the bottom in everything that confronted Galileo. The reason is not only the pride of the popes and bishops, but acknowledging this opens up a terrible doubt: if Luther and the Popes were wrong about Galileo in everything, why should we now believe what their successors say?

Rousseau was very clear. Instead of believing books and popes, the true Christian should seek God within, in a personal dialogue between heart and reason. But of course, this means closing the churches. And that's why the Inquisition went after him and that's why the current church and its "atheist" reinforcements are looking for a thousand ways not to recognize that Galileo was right on all fronts.

Last edited by David Mo; 17th December 2018 at 03:55 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2018, 10:18 AM   #300
TimONeill2
Thinker
 
TimONeill2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 142
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm stating my point of view in case anyone wants to read it. Convincing is not in my power. It depends on everyone's open-mindedness.
The close-minded fanatic preaches "open mindedness". Hilarious.

Quote:
The way you escape to my objections shows that you are not in the open-mindness field.
I'm not in the "wasting my time trying to convince a fanatic" field. Life is too short.


Quote:
I can understand that you take the side of church in this matter. Il y a des athées bien singuliers. But your aggressive –elusive– comments show that you have more than a disagreement. You hate the atheist position and are very comfortable with the Catholic position. You will know why.
I take the side of objective and rational analysis of history in this matter. Which is why I have the actual historians who specialise in the study of the Galileo and the historiograpy of the debunked Conflict Thesis on my side, whereas you have no historians at all on yours, despite your false claims to the contrary. And your pretentious claim that your creaking and ridiculous defence of outdated nineteenth century myths is somehow "the atheist position" would be highly amusing to historians who are unbelievers such as Ronald Numbers and Maurice Finocchiaro.
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History
TimONeill2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2018, 02:34 PM   #301
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,803
Originally Posted by TimONeill2 View Post
Another tangle of nonsense and blunders from "David Mo". If anyone else thinks he makes any points that seem convincing here, let me know and I'll explain how he's wrong. He's like a walking illustration of the Dunning Kruger Effect.
Sorry, can't be bothered.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 12:51 AM   #302
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,845
Originally Posted by TimONeill2 View Post
I take the side of objective and rational analysis of history in this matter. Which is why I have the actual historians who specialise in the study of the Galileo and the historiograpy of the debunked Conflict Thesis on my side, whereas you have no historians at all on yours, despite your false claims to the contrary. And your pretentious claim that your creaking and ridiculous defence of outdated nineteenth century myths is somehow "the atheist position" would be highly amusing to historians who are unbelievers such as Ronald Numbers and Maurice Finocchiaro.
I'm not interested in the labels that people give themselves or the medals you wear around your neck. I'm interested in what they say. And what you and Numbers say is exactly what Christian apologetics says. Strange atheism.

For example, in Science without God: Natural Laws and Christian Beliefs, numbers devotes the first pages to showing that "Christianity encouraged the search for natural explanations".

The argument is very weak for several reasons. The first is that it does not explain what this supposed "incentive" is based on. The second because is based on a quite elementary sophism. Numbers is dedicated to place the adjective Christian in all philosophers and scientists who defended a certain -relative- independence of science and concludes that since all are Christians Christianity encourages the independence of science from the Midle Ages to Newton. The list includes Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes and some others who were persecuted from Christian courts or had to flee in exile.

Numbers forgets a small detail: Christianity was the only thought in Europe for centuries. All intellectuals were Christians by conviction or fear. An atheist philosopher, a Muslim or a Jew would have ended up at the stake or in exile, as in fact some did. Of course, he would never have been able to publish a line in a Catholic country. That is why until the Enlightenment all musicians, painters, philosophers, poets and were Christians in Europe. How could an illustrious historian like Numbers not have realized such a basic fact? Was he blinded by his "atheism"?

It is also easy to offer some counterargument that refutes Christian exegesis.

If Christianity is so inspiring of the independence of science it is not understood that during the centuries that Christianity was overwhelmingly dominating, --the High Middle Ages--, all free and independent thought of the Church was wiped off the map. What is more, everything that was not adulation of God and Christian kings was forced to disappear. In the High Middle Ages there were no great painters, great philosophers, great poets and no more music than strictly religious. Isn't it strange? Where was the incentive power of Christianity?

I could give other reasons, but I don't want to lengthen the comment. These are enough to prove that Numbers is a strange atheist. Not only does he repeat a typical Christian apology argument, but he does it so badly that you don't know where he got his prestige as a historian.

By the way, I am basing my comments on Johannes Hemleben, Thomas S. Kuhn, Hans Reichenbach, Lewis W. H. Hull, Marx. W. Wartowfsy and others. If they are not experts in the history of science, I no longer know what you are talking about. Do you know?

(By the way, the defense of the no ovelapping thesis is rather better defended by Stephen Jay Gould. I recommend you Rocks of Ages, for example, which you will certainly like. I don't. But it's more serious).

Last edited by David Mo; 18th December 2018 at 01:00 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 12:50 PM   #303
TimONeill2
Thinker
 
TimONeill2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 142
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
And what you and Numbers say is exactly what Christian apologetics says.
"You and numbers both say grass is green. Yet I've also heard NAZIS say grass is green! Therefore you and Numbers are Nazis!"
Great "logic" you have there.

Quote:
The argument is very weak for several reasons.

Please write to the Hilldale and William Coleman Professor of the History of Science and Medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and let him know. I'm sure the George Sarton Medal winner and editor of the Cambridge History of Science will be devastated to learn his reasoning has been undone by a random internet nobody.

Quote:
By the way, I am basing my comments on Johannes Hemleben, Thomas S. Kuhn, Hans Reichenbach, Lewis W. H. Hull, Marx. W. Wartowfsy and others. If they are not experts in the history of science, I no longer know what you are talking about. Do you know?
"By the way I am gesturing vaguely to Johannes Hemleben, Thomas S. Kuhn, Hans Reichenbach, Lewis W. H. Hull, Marx. W. Wartowfsy and others to try to make it look as though I know what I'm talking about."
Fixed that for you.
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History
TimONeill2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 12:59 AM   #304
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,845
Originally Posted by TimONeill2 View Post
"You and numbers both say grass is green. Yet I've also heard NAZIS say grass is green! Therefore you and Numbers are Nazis!"
Great "logic" you have there.




Please write to the Hilldale and William Coleman Professor of the History of Science and Medicine at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and let him know. I'm sure the George Sarton Medal winner and editor of the Cambridge History of Science will be devastated to learn his reasoning has been undone by a random internet nobody.



"By the way I am gesturing vaguely to Johannes Hemleben, Thomas S. Kuhn, Hans Reichenbach, Lewis W. H. Hull, Marx. W. Wartowfsy and others to try to make it look as though I know what I'm talking about."
Fixed that for you.
If what I write bothers you so much, why do you read it? If you don't know what to say why you answer?

You seem to have a problem.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 03:53 PM   #305
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,666
@ TimONeill2

I have been watching this stoush between you and David and feel David has the better of you. Your credibility would be enhanced significantly if you were to refrain from comments such as these:


Quote:
Bluster-merchants like "David Mo" desperately ….

This moronic comment is apparently referring to David Lindberg, …….

I am going to assuming "David Mo" isn't actually a frigging idiot, so why is he making arguments that he must know are patent frigging idiocy?

Oh, this is priceless! You are utterly delusional.

Another tangle of nonsense and blunders from "David Mo".

The close-minded fanatic preaches "open mindedness". Hilarious.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 06:42 PM   #306
attempt5001
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 426
I agree with Thor2. These sorts of comments severely diminish, rather than strengthen your position.
attempt5001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th December 2018, 09:33 PM   #307
Zivan
Muse
 
Zivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 816
Originally Posted by attempt5001 View Post
I agree with Thor2. These sorts of comments severely diminish, rather than strengthen your position.
+3

All the insults and name calling just sound like an immature schoolyard bully. Completely out of place for an intellectual discussions.
__________________
"Zivan" = "Ziva N" = I am a female, but keep being mistaken as a male on the forum. My mistake for using an "n" instead of "N" on my forum name.
Zivan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 12:56 AM   #308
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,845
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
@ TimONeill2

I have been watching this stoush between you and David and feel David has the better of you. Your credibility would be enhanced significantly if you were to refrain from comments such as these:
Originally Posted by attempt5001 View Post
I agree with Thor2. These sorts of comments severely diminish, rather than strengthen your position.
Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
+3

All the insults and name calling just sound like an immature schoolyard bully. Completely out of place for an intellectual discussions.
Thank you for your attempts to normalise the debate. I hope that you will be successful and that we will continue to discuss things. The subject seems to me very interesting and very illustrative of the attitude of certain "atheists" who try to reduce the debate by siding with the supposedly moderate sectors of the Church.

I apologize for my English. Reviewing what I had written, I realize that it gets worse when I write long comments. I hope what I say is understood, at least.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 04:17 PM   #309
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,039
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
@ TimONeill2

I have been watching this stoush between you and David and feel David has the better of you.
Where do you feel that David Mo has the better of Tim O'Neill? Can you point to an actual argument where you see David Mo has the stronger side? Say, for example, on Copernicus?
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 04:31 PM   #310
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,666
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Where do you feel that David Mo has the better of Tim O'Neill? Can you point to an actual argument where you see David Mo has the stronger side? Say, for example, on Copernicus?

You misunderstand me. I cannot claim any expertise on the subject matter but am just commenting on the manner the argument was being conducted. I read a good deal of it and gained the impression that David presented his argument well, whereas Tim resorted to name calling.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 04:57 PM   #311
Marcus
Master Poster
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,976
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
You misunderstand me. I cannot claim any expertise on the subject matter but am just commenting on the manner the argument was being conducted. I read a good deal of it and gained the impression that David presented his argument well, whereas Tim resorted to name calling.
Tim did resort to name calling, however, he clearly has a more comprehensive grasp of the subject matter. I'm not at all convinced that his arguments amount to Catholic apologetics.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2018, 11:55 PM   #312
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,845
Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
Tim did resort to name calling, however, he clearly has a more comprehensive grasp of the subject matter. I'm not at all convinced that his arguments amount to Catholic apologetics.
I think it's the other way around. O'Neill knows things but integrates them poorly into a theory because of ideological biases. What I call the “negationists” thesis is to deny that there was a religious conflict between the Church and Galileo and to try to present it as a scientific conflict. I think they have several important conceptual flaws. Even the data they provide act against them if they are not misinterpreted. In my opinion these are the flaws:

-They present Aristotelian science as an independent knowledge of ideology and religious institutions.
-They equate Aristotelian-metaphisical science with the New Science. They pretend that the two have equal arguments, although themselves give the elements to think otherwise.
-They present the conflict as multifaceted. It includes political, scientific, personal aspects... This is true -and nobody denies it-, but it does not justify ignoring the conflict between religion and science that is at its centre.
-Finally - and this is the most serious thing for me - they try to justify the action of the Church (the Inquisition). The problem for them is that Galileo did not have sufficient arguments to defend that his theory was true and that he should have submitted to the Church instead of provoking it.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2018, 12:00 AM   #313
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,845
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
Where do you feel that David Mo has the better of Tim O'Neill? Can you point to an actual argument where you see David Mo has the stronger side? Say, for example, on Copernicus?
Copernicus is probably the least I know of the three authors we've discussed.
But in Galileo the theory of Tim and the other negationists sinks to the bottom. Is there anything I said that doesn't convince you? Do you think there wasn't a science-religion conflict between Galileo and the Church?
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2018, 05:33 PM   #314
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,039
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
But in Galileo the theory of Tim and the other negationists sinks to the bottom. Is there anything I said that doesn't convince you?
A lot of it is you misreading Tim O'Neill's points, and responding so broadly that you are strawmanning his point. For example, you write just above:
O'Neill knows things but integrates them poorly into a theory because of ideological biases. What I call the “negationists” thesis is to deny that there was a religious conflict between the Church and Galileo and to try to present it as a scientific conflict.
Did O'Neill ever deny that there was a religious conflict there? I'll quote him from an earlier post:
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.
Can you quote O'Neill to the effect that he denies that there was a religious conflict between the Church and Galileo, please?

I have more, but lets start with that one.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2018, 05:52 PM   #315
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,039
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Copernicus is probably the least I know of the three authors we've discussed.
I think Copernicus and the treatment of his "On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres" is an important test case. O'Neill has provided a wealth of information, both in this thread and on his website. But let me use Wiki as a starting point so you don't think me biased on this point. You can tell me if anything seems incorrect.

From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola...#Heliocentrism
Some time before 1514 Copernicus made available to friends his "Commentariolus" ("Little Commentary"), a manuscript describing his ideas about the heliocentric hypothesis...

About 1532 Copernicus had basically completed his work on the manuscript of Dē revolutionibus orbium coelestium; but despite urging by his closest friends, he resisted openly publishing his views, not wishing—as he confessed—to risk the scorn "to which he would expose himself on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of his theses."[65]

In 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered a series of lectures in Rome outlining Copernicus's theory. Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals heard the lectures and were interested in the theory. On 1 November 1536, Cardinal Nikolaus von Schönberg, Archbishop of Capua, wrote to Copernicus from Rome:
Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you... For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe... Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject ...[71]
The immediate result of the 1543 publication of Copernicus's book was only mild controversy... Catholic side opposition only commenced seventy-three years later, when it was occasioned by Galileo.

In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected," on the grounds of ensuring that Copernicanism, which it described as a "false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture," would not "creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth."[139] The corrections consisted largely of removing or altering wording that the spoke of heliocentrism as a fact, rather than a hypothesis...

The corrections to De revolutionibus, which omitted or altered nine sentences, were issued four years later, in 1620.
In brief, using the data above:

1. Copernicus's theories were discussed while he was still alive in "a series of lectures in Rome outlining Copernicus's theory. Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals heard the lectures and were interested in the theory."

2. On his death, his work attracted "only mild controversy" then and for the following seventy years.

3. When Galileo promoted the theory of heliocentrism and how the Bible supported the idea, Copernicus's book was banned in 1616, pending changes to nine sentences. "The corrections consisted largely of removing or altering wording that the spoke of heliocentrism as a fact, rather than a hypothesis"

4. The corrected version was available for publishing four years later in 1620.

Is all that correct, in your view? We can discuss the implications of a conflict between science and religion once we agree on a baseline. (I ask that you quote me if you are responding directly to one of my points. Thanks.)

Last edited by GDon; 21st December 2018 at 05:57 PM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2018, 11:57 PM   #316
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,845
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
A lot of it is you misreading Tim O'Neill's points, and responding so broadly that you are strawmanning his point. For example, you write just above:
O'Neill knows things but integrates them poorly into a theory because of ideological biases. What I call the “negationists” thesis is to deny that there was a religious conflict between the Church and Galileo and to try to present it as a scientific conflict.
Did O'Neill ever deny that there was a religious conflict there? I'll quote him from an earlier post:
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.
Can you quote O'Neill to the effect that he denies that there was a religious conflict between the Church and Galileo, please?

I have more, but lets start with that one.
To say what O'Neill thinks about the conflict between Galileo and the Church is difficult because he answered my questions with insults and because he have been directed mainly to Hypatia and Copernicus.

I will talk about the authors he cited as sources, from whom I have read some things. For example, David C. Lindberg: “Galileo, the Church and the Cosmos" in When Science and Christianity Meet, edited by David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers.

To say that the conflict between Galileo and the Church had many facets is not to say anything. Everyone recognizes that. If that is the myth they want to dismantle, it is a myth they have invented or which refers to authors who are not relevant in the history of science, such as Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins. What negationists try to do is hide the science-religion conflict within the others, making it irrelevant. This is a fallacy because the science-religion conflict is the dominant one and the one that had had the most consequences for the future.
I mentioned in a previous comment Lindberg's line of argument, which coincides with Numbers. It is full of fallacies. For example: that the conflict would not have taken place had it not been for Galileo's obstinacy and bad character. In other words, it was due to something accidental.

Also that the conflict would not have taken place if Galileo had not provoked it by mentioning that the Bible could not oppose science and had to be reinterpreted when there was conflict.
This is false for several reasons. The problem arose naturally. It had already been alluded to by some ecclesiastical authority - Bellarmino I think I remember. Galileo was deceived by this and believed that his proposal was going to be supported.

Furthermore the conflict with the heliocentric theory had already been mentioned by Luther and had been picked up in the indictment against Giordano Bruno. If he slept for years, it is because, unlike Bruno, Copernicus was known by few people "and even less read" -- these are Lindberg's words --, because he presented a model with little experimental evidence and because he had been tempered by Osiander's prologue, reducing it to a mere hypothesis.

All this implies that the problem was posed in a natural way. It was a conflict that had to break out sooner or later if science wanted to free itself from ecclesiastical authority. It is absurd to pretend that the cause of the conflict is an accidental event when it has spread over the centuries.

Another argument by Lindberg and Numbers: The conflict was not between science and religion, but between scientists. Lindberg maintains the idea that there is no conflict between ideas, but between people (again the accidental). This idea is absurd because there would be no conflict between people - in this case, at least - if they did not have contrary ideas. In any case, Lindberg and Numbers' idea tries to remove the religious authority from the conflict once again. But it is based on an important error: the equation of Aristotelian medieval science with modern science. Lindberg acknowledges that they are not the same, but then forgets to draw conclusions. What negationists hide is that Aristotelian science was not something independent of the church, but was a way of exercising its totalitarian power. Its methods and objectives were decided by its submission to theological power. That is why medieval scientists were unable to develop a method, such as the hypothetico-deductive one, which implied freedom of research. That is why, in the conflict with Galileo, their main arguments were the subjection to the authority of Aristotle and the Bible (Lindberg acknowledges this, but here he does not draw the right conclusions either).

There are more fallacies in the denialist position, but almost all are based on one: they ignore that the conflict between religion and science was inevitable and was due to the fact that the Church was a totalitarian power. That is to say, that it sought a total dominion - and they achieved it in good part for some centuries - of the whole life of its subjects, from their daily practices to the systems of ideas that were developed under its dominion. Such power, as demonstrated in other cases of totalitarianism, is incompatible with the development of a science based on reason and experience.

If O'Neill agreed with these objections, he could have said so. I would have liked to agree with him. But nothing would have happened if we had not agreed. But since he got nervous and slipped out of the debate, just when it was becoming more interesting, we cannot known. If you, GDon, know something or want continue making objections, I would be delighted. You can see that I am interested in the subject.

Last edited by David Mo; 22nd December 2018 at 12:07 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2018, 12:04 AM   #317
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,845
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
In brief, using the data above:

1. Copernicus's theories were discussed while he was still alive in "a series of lectures in Rome outlining Copernicus's theory. Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals heard the lectures and were interested in the theory."

2. On his death, his work attracted "only mild controversy" then and for the following seventy years.

3. When Galileo promoted the theory of heliocentrism and how the Bible supported the idea, Copernicus's book was banned in 1616, pending changes to nine sentences. "The corrections consisted largely of removing or altering wording that the spoke of heliocentrism as a fact, rather than a hypothesis"

4. The corrected version was available for publishing four years later in 1620.

Is all that correct, in your view? We can discuss the implications of a conflict between science and religion once we agree on a baseline. (I ask that you quote me if you are responding directly to one of my points. Thanks.)
I don't know what conclusion you draw from these data. If you tell it we can discuss.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2018, 02:42 AM   #318
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,039
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
To say what O'Neill thinks about the conflict between Galileo and the Church is difficult because he answered my questions with insults and because he have been directed mainly to Hypatia and Copernicus.
It's not difficult to say what O'Neill thinks. I quoted him on the topic in my post to you! But I am asking you about something that you are claiming. Can you quote O'Neill to the effect that he denies that there was a religious conflict between the Church and Galileo, please?

Last edited by GDon; 22nd December 2018 at 03:10 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2018, 03:06 AM   #319
GDon
Graduate Poster
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,039
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don't know what conclusion you draw from these data. If you tell it we can discuss.
The summary: Copernicus's work on heliocentrism had interest from the Church while he was still alive; it attracted mild controversy after his death in 1543; it was banned in 1616 after Galileo used it to support heliocentrism and to claim that Scriptures support heliocentrism; it was corrected and then available for publishing by 1620 after nine sentences were corrected that had spoke of heliocentrism as a fact rather than a hypothesis.

My conclusion: the Church didn't see heliocentrism being taught as a theory as a problem, even after Galileo. At that time, there were problems with proving heliocentrism to be a fact that wouldn't be overcome until later. From the Wiki entry I gave earlier on Copernicus:
The physical and mathematical arguments [against heliocentrism] were of uneven quality, but many of them came directly from the writings of Tycho Brahe, and Ingoli repeatedly cited Brahe, the leading astronomer of the era. These included arguments about the effect of a moving earth on the trajectory of projectiles, and about parallax and Brahe's argument that the Copernican theory required that stars be absurdly large.
The difference between how Galileo and Copernicus were treated is that Copernicus didn't try to attack the Church's position on Scripture. Galileo did, and apparently insulted the Pope (intentionally or unintentionally) for good measure. But the science -- heliocentrism -- could still be read about, as long as it was framed as a theory.

This is supported in the Wiki entry on Galileo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galile..._heliocentrism
Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the opinion that heliocentrism was physically true...

Bellarmine's instructions did not prohibit Galileo from discussing heliocentrism as a mathematical and philosophic idea, so long as he did not advocate for its physical truth.
It's as I wrote to you in an earlier post: the idea that "science conflicts with religion" in any general way is prima facie absurd. Why would the Church oppose any science that didn't conflict with dogma? Because in most cases -- physics, mathematics, medicine, architecture, engineering, etc -- there is no conflict with dogma. Advances in those fields have no affect. That's why the idea that "science conflicts with religion" in any general way is so demonstrably wrong: most scientific discoveries are irrelevant to religion.

Your thoughts?

Last edited by GDon; 22nd December 2018 at 04:30 AM.
GDon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2018, 10:53 AM   #320
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,301
Originally Posted by GDon View Post
It's as I wrote to you in an earlier post: the idea that "science conflicts with religion" in any general way is prima facie absurd. Why would the Church oppose any science that didn't conflict with dogma? Because in most cases -- physics, mathematics, medicine, architecture, engineering, etc -- there is no conflict with dogma. Advances in those fields have no affect. That's why the idea that "science conflicts with religion" in any general way is so demonstrably wrong: most scientific discoveries are irrelevant to religion.
Your thoughts?
That maybe true today but not so true when many discoveries were made. Evolution, and by extension the entire field of biology. Astronomy when it was discovered there wasn't a place called heaven in the heavens would be another. Religions and "the Church" also have no trouble jumping in and influencing what scientists are allowed to study. Stem cell research as an example.

All of this is based on perceived attacks on their dogma that science doesn't care about but all science is slowed by such antics. When one group of people has the power to decide what other people are allowed to know about there is going to be conflict. We see a more extreme example under the dictatorship of the Soviet Union where there was an official position on all science and no scientist was allowed to study anything out of that without losing everything. The church has simply been forced to be more subtle because of a lack of KGB equivalent and scientists being spread even outside their sphere of control
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:12 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.