|
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. |
11th December 2018, 05:13 AM | #241 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,539
|
Great article (and subsequent discussion) about Sam Harris' Horrible Histories. |
__________________
/dann "Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx |
|
11th December 2018, 07:56 AM | #242 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
Thank you again for your thoughtful response. One of the things that makes me doubt that you are the real Tim O'Neill is that here you have been presented as an expert (amateur, but expert) and your interventions do not seem it for two reasons: because the tone seems more like someone who wants to turn this into Capulets and Montagues, but in the internet, which has much less charm. Secondly because you seem hooked on discussing details rather than looking at the overall comments I've tried to make.
As for the former, I suggest you relax. No one is more right because he insults his opponent more. As for the details: you know perfectly well that Copernicus wrote a single work with his complete theory: Revolutionibus orbium coelestium. You know that what he had written before were manuscripts (Comentariolus or letters) or treatises on partial subjects (only three texts in total, if I am not mistaken). You know perfectly well that the Revolutions were only edited with a prologue that disavowed the real scope of Copernicus' work. Whether or not he authorized this stratagem, we don't know because he received the edition on his deathbed. Anyway this implies an involutntary autocensure. You know, or you should know, that the relative indulgence of the Catholic Church was practically from the beginning conditioned to the presentation of heliocentrism as a speculative (mathematical) hypothesis with no real value (just what the prologue attributed to Osiander said). And you know that years after Copernicus' death the Catholic Church joined with the Lutheran Church to actively pursue everything that sounded like Copernicanism. Do you deny that the churches actively pursued the New Science because it undermined the principles of your authority over faith and scientific knowledge? This is what must be made clear first and foremost. Then let us demystify everything you want. Regarding Hypatia: to say that Hypatia was persecuted by the band of violent monks of Cyril for political reasons is like saying nothing. The whole culture of antiquity and of the Christian Empire in particular is an amalgam of politics, philosophy and religion. Hypatia was not the goddess of paganism that some like to recreate. It is not clear whether or not she was pagan and her philosophy was rather an esoteric school than what we understand by philosophy after the Enlightenment. It happened to many like Socrates, Plato or the Pythagoreans. But it is clearthat it represented a circle in which pagans and educated Christians gathered in search of a common wisdom and this is what the band of fanatical monks who bloodily tored her could not tolerate. Because the policy she defended was not that of the power of intolerance of the Church. That's why Hypatia can still be seen as a symbol of independence of thought in the face of fanaticism and Christian violence, in this case. Do you agree with this? Now the more general question: do you agree that the Christian churches, in this case, have played a regressive role against science during the centuries of their political dominance in Europe? I am interested in that and not in your task of demystification of what you want. |
11th December 2018, 10:18 AM | #243 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
My pleasure ynot. I appreciate you considering and trying to understand my responses, even though its not easy. And yes, "born and raised", so even recognizing the word "indoctrination" as accurate, rather than offensive has taken some time and effort. (Some of the glasses have darker tints it turns out, but I'll try to set those aside along with the rosy ones). Thanks for the encouragement.
Per your second point, I think kellyb's description of "neural networks" is both figuratively and literally true and can explain a lot of the the pace and struggle associated with change. I'm actually sometimes surprised by how quickly and extremely some people change their thinking. And I'm sometimes a bit skeptical as to whether some haven't swapped one form of indoctrination for another, (although seeing someone "break free" from a damaging mind-set is fantastic). I think it's a lot easier to change what you say you believe than to change your reactions and default behaviours, especially under stress. I.e., your conscious mind is a lot easier to change than your subconscious. And yeah, it's hard to answer hypotheticals with much confidence, though it's interesting to contemplate them. I think in general terms though that mankind's efforts to explain a sense of the divine exists outside of (and predates) religious texts. Maybe I'd have been a star-gazing neanderthal many thousands of years ago |
11th December 2018, 10:24 AM | #244 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
Thanks for sharing the link. I've assumed there are lots of forums like this, but have been hesitant to seek them out. Funny maybe that I chose this forum to open up this discussion, but I didn't want to presume an endpoint (e.g. ex-Christian) before getting started (not assuming that's what all the posters there are doing, it was just helpful for myself).
|
11th December 2018, 11:27 AM | #245 |
Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 142
|
What a tangled non-sequitur. You yourself have already noted that I do not claim to be any kind of "expert", just someone with a very good knowledge of the work of those who are. Secondly, my tone has never risen above some mildly amused sarcasm in the face of someone who keeps making statements about history that are either demonstrably wrong or contradicted by the both the evidence and the professional consensus of scholars. Finally, your "overall comments" are wrong precisely because your "details" are wrong. Laughably so. So this "doubt that you are the real Tim O'Neill" schtick makes zero sense.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History |
|
11th December 2018, 11:29 AM | #246 |
Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 142
|
|
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History |
|
11th December 2018, 12:24 PM | #247 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
11th December 2018, 12:38 PM | #248 |
Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 142
|
|
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History |
|
11th December 2018, 12:47 PM | #249 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
11th December 2018, 01:15 PM | #250 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
Hi P.J. Thanks for the reply. I'll have to do a little more experimenting with the quoting tools here to get the hang of it better. Once I've finished this reply, I'll (respectfully) trim the quoted portion from yours for ease of others reading the thread. I'm really enjoying the thoughts and perspectives being shared in the thread and am glad others are finding it engaging and interesting too. I agree with your assessment that what I'm describing needn't necessarily be theistic. I suppose the fact that it is not unequivocally so is precisely where the faith aspect comes in. And I agree many people and communities (both theistic and atheistic) demonstrate these traits we both appreciate. So religious affiliation (or lack thereof) is not a reliable predictor of character. We are agreed also that not every part of the NT fits well into my tidy summary ... sorry, gotta run here. I'll get back to your questions shortly. Am pondering definitions of both "supernatural" and "heaven". Back soon I hope. |
11th December 2018, 05:20 PM | #251 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
I think you will find that there will always be tension between skepticism and faith. They are impossible to reconcile, especially for a Christian. If you explore skepticism, you will always hit an idea that challenges Christian belief. You will hear your pastor/priest/whatever say something in their sermon that will make you internally chuckle, "OK, I know that isn't true." Your friend will tell you about how their prayers saved their loved one from some health scare and you will ask yourself, "And the doctors, what . . . just twiddled their thumbs?" You will begin to doubt.
The question will become: Can I keep my relationships with the faithful friends and communities intact even though I don't really believe what they do? I think in this day and age it's easier because so many people have begun to cast aside all the inconvenient bits of religious lore in favor of a practical kind of Spirituality, "OK, the Catholic Church is against birth control and pre-marital sex and they think the bread and wine physically become the body and blood of Christ. I don't really believe any of that. I still love God though, and that's what counts!" It's a pantomime, IOW, that most people act out in order to remain part of a socio-cultural construct that has been a big part of their life up until that point while still living their lives as they see fit. Maybe you can do that forever. I'd wager, though, that at some point one of two things will happen: 1)You will find the pantomime becomes tedious to keep up and slowly drop the faithful or 2)You will find skepticism spiritually unsatisfying and re-embrace the faith communities you love -not that you will become unskeptical in most aspects of though, you will just cease to question faith because it feels better emotionally than the alternative. For me, I went down path 1. I could never reconcile my Catholic upbringing with the reality science and critical thought lead me to. |
__________________
Hello. |
|
11th December 2018, 11:20 PM | #252 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
|
12th December 2018, 01:25 AM | #253 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
I get it. According to you, the Catholic Church was rather more stupid than Luther. He had realized the implications of heliocentrism for Christian dogma. The papacy did not. Suddenly, Galileo puts the subject on the table and the Church pursues the heliocentric theory with fire and blood for centuries - all because of this damned Galileo! It is the same thing that the precautions Osiander takes to camouflage Copernicus' message have nothing to do with Luther's accusations. It was only to deceive the Aristotelians. (By the way, I remind you that Aristotelianism, via Thomas Aquinas, was the official doctrine of the Catholic Church and its acceptance depended on its granting the venia docendi and the nihil obstat). And coincidentally, only coincidentally, they coincide with the clause that the Church tried to impose on Galileo in order to admit the publication of his theses. Forgive me for saying that I find your interpretation terribly naive or better biased.
But, in any case, the discussion of your misinterpretations of the Hypatia case and the Galileo case interests me less than its surprising conclusion. First of all, what are those respected historians of science that deny the pernicious influence of the church on evolution of science in Europe? Now the more general question: do you agree that the Christian churches, in this case, have played a regressive role against science during the centuries of their political dominance in Europe? I am interested in that and not in your task of demystification of what you want. I am sorry, but I don’t find normal that you consider “fanatic” those that don’t agree with your negationist ideas. This is true fanaticism! That the Christian church put an end to paganism by means of edicts of intolerance seems to me that even you cannot deny it. That the Christian monks who followed Cyril were tremendously hostile to anything that sounded like pagan philosophy, is evident. That they behaved terribly violently either. That Hypatia was considered by her followers as a philosopher and conservative of the teachings of the pagan philosophers (mainly platonic) either. So, that Hypatia was a victim of fanatical fundamentalist Christians but this had nothing to do with her ideological activity seems to me to be an extremely naïve or better biased interpretation. The antiphilosophical environment (and science was not considered anything else then) of Christian culture is perfectly reflected in the following quotation: Good Christians should beware of mathematicians and all those who are who are accustomed to making prophecies, for there is the danger of the mathematicians have made a pact with the devil to obnubilate the spirit and to plunge men into hell (Saint Augustine of Hippo: De Genesi al 2, XVII, 37 —my personal translation).Keep in mind that it comes from the most philosophical Christian of the time. Practically the only one who deserves this name of such in the manuals. You can imagine what the other venerable fathers of the Church were saying about pagan philosophy (Aristide, Tertulian, etc.). By the way, You don't remember the ban on pagan philosophy by Justinian either? Wasn't it intolerance? Have you never heard of the Inquisition and the index of forbidden books? Were these not a sign of the Church's anti-scientific fanaticism either? Are we fanatics who denounce this? You complain that I remind you of things you already know. I am seeing if you are able to draw the right consequences from the facts we know because that is your problem. (To be continued) |
12th December 2018, 02:38 AM | #254 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,567
|
I'm not Tim O'Neill, but since your question is relevant to our own discussion, I hope you don't mind if I respond as well. BTW, you should read O'Neill's articles. If you find problems with his sources and conclusions, then I'd love to read them.
But think about it: why would the church oppose the evolution of science in Europe if it didn't oppose 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" is so demonstrably wrong: most scientific discoveries are irrelevant to religion. Even evolution was supported from the start by biologists who were Christians, but then an allegorical approach towards Genesis had been around for a long time. Only those who took Genesis literally had issues. Most historians of science have rejected the "conflict model". From here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis The "conflict thesis" is a historiographical approach in the history of science which maintains that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science and that the relationship between religion and science inevitably leads to hostility... The thesis retains support among some scientists and in the public,[1] while all historians of science reject the thesis, especially in its original strict form...Please look into this, if you doubt it. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. You are doing a disservice to the men and women in history who worked on advancing the knowledge of humanity by propagating myths about how science developed. Copernicus's heliocentrist theory passed pretty much without controversy for 70 years until Galileo. Where Galileo started to fall afoul of the Catholic Church was when he started arguing that Scripture supported heliocentrism, leading to charges of heresy. But even after that, Copernicus's own work supporting heliocentrism was allowed to be published after minor modifications. Really, that is your own personal translation? Because the word "mathematicians" seems to be translated as "numerologists"/"astrologers" elsewhere, which makes sense in context regarding "mathematicians and all those who are who are accustomed to making prophecies". Are you sure that "mathematicians" is the best way to translate the word there? Seriously, you come across as very naive. PLEASE look into this yourself. Fact check O'Neill's sources! That may be useful. And perhaps double-check your own translations with other sources. |
12th December 2018, 04:03 AM | #255 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
(Continued).
About Copernicus, Galileo and the Holy Church. The anti-Copernican religious movement did not wait for Galileo. It had its own sources in the intransigence and totalitarianism of the churches, much stronger in the Catholic church for political and social reasons. Copernicus had gotten rid of the Inquisition for several reasons. He had never directly opposed the authority of the Church. His texts were manuscripts, of limited circulation, dedicated to the Pope and with a prologue tending to diminish their effects. Finally, but not lastly, he had never developed an experimental basis for his theory. This one could be described by his opponents as a mere possibility, rather than an empirical certainty. But when Galileo begins to carry out observations that disqualify Aristotelian-Ptolemaic astronomy (natural places, geocentrism, etc.) everything changes. Now we are not talking about possibilities, but about new science and certainty. Niccolo Lorini, Dominican, and other religious begin their preaching against Galileo in 1612 in these terms: that it has come to their ears that a certain Galileo, following a certain Copernicus is exposing theories about the Earth and other points that contradict what the Bible says and the interpretations of the holy fathers, like Thomas Aquinas. That it is his duty to make him aware of the Holy Office, which is what he does. And the Holy Office takes it into consideration and begins to study the subject. Friends who are aware of the denunciation begin to turn away from Galileo and beg him to say that his theory is only plausible (Christof Grienberger or Cardinal Bellarmino). And let the Bible not be mentioned, because not even its claim that it can be considered allegorical - something that is in common use today - will be accepted. In other words, let it follow the path of Copernicus. Note that Galileo has only one alternative. Either he retracts himself or he confronts the Church in the name of science. As he does not desdice -in the beginning- he ends up in the Holy Court and in domestic prison for the rest of his life, with the express prohibition of publishing anything. If he hadn't recanted, he would have ended up like Giordano Bruno for sure. His great sin has been to oppose science to the authority of the Church, which is perfectly reflected in the self-accusation that he is forced to pronounce: He acknowledges himself to be suspected of heresy for having maintained the "false opinion that the Earth is not the center of the universe and moves". Note that it is to maintain scientific theories. It is not question to speak of the sex of angels. And that "abjures, curses and abhors the aforementioned errors" (the scientists) "and any other error, heresy or sect contrary to the Holy Church" (that is, the Church is the indisputable authority for whatever it likes to command). In other words, Galileo's abhorrent crime was to discover that there is a scientific method to discover the truth that the Church cannot control. The church could not tolerate and that is why the Holy Inquisition fought with blood and fire until it could no longer. Of course, the church ended up recognizing that the Earth revolves around the Sun and that science cannot be contradicted by papal encyclicals even with the help of the Holy Spirit. Only four centuries later. If this is not to hinder the path of science on the basis of superstition and intransigence, you will tell me that you understand by that. (To be continued) |
12th December 2018, 05:45 AM | #256 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
|
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
12th December 2018, 07:36 AM | #257 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
All right, then. I've tried to read the text Tim O'Neill dedicates to vindicating Christian science and I'm still not out of my astonishment. To illustrate his thesis that the church supported science, he gives a list of philosophers and others that is a hotchpotch. Aristotelians, scholastics, fideists... And to my very amazement, some who didn't even talk about things like science. If everything he writes is like that, it was a good thing he didn't have time to read more.
"Precedents of the new science" like Nostradamus and Paracelsus or less. |
12th December 2018, 07:39 AM | #258 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
All right, then. I've tried to read the text Tim O'Neill dedicates to vindicating Christian science and I'm still not out of my astonishment. To illustrate his thesis that the church supported science, he gives a list of philosophers and others that is a hotchpotch. Aristotelians, scholastics, fideists... And to my very amazement, some who didn't even talk about things like science. If everything he writes is like that, it was a good thing he didn't have time to read more.
I have consulted three versions of Augustine and they all translate "mathematics". Of course, Agustín throws the child out with the water from the bathtub. You know. Actually, Agustín didn't give a damn about science. He was influenced by neoplatonism. The only truth that interested him was in the ideas in the mind of God. |
12th December 2018, 09:16 AM | #259 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,215
|
Interesting though this is, it should really be in it's own thread rather than derailing this one.
|
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion "Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills |
|
12th December 2018, 09:43 AM | #260 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,567
|
|
12th December 2018, 10:04 AM | #261 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
|
12th December 2018, 10:08 AM | #262 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,567
|
"Vindicating Christian science"? Have you really sunk to this level?
Tim O'Neill gives cites and tells us where he gets his information. You've given very little, not even a link to Tim's work where he "vindicates Christian science". How about showing where he is wrong? The Perseus Latin Dictionary translates 'Măthēmătĭcus' as "mathematician" or "astrologer". Given that Augustine uses it in the sense of complaining about those "making prophecies", which do you think matches the sense being used? Augustine was interested in the world around him and concerned by uneducated Christians making inaccurate statements about it: https://www.pibburns.com/augustin.htm Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.David Mo, some sources for your views on Augustine and Copernicus would be useful. Is it possible that you are 'the believer' here, and those asking for sources are 'the skeptics'? |
12th December 2018, 10:29 AM | #263 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,567
|
Yes, indeed!
Yes, I agree that that is the most honest and best approach. I'm not sure I understand the issue. Prayers only work if they also work for shonky TV faith healers? This sounds more like a crisis of faith involving people rather than God. (From my perspective: I'm a theist, but prayers don't seem to have enough consistent effectiveness to believe it works in individual circumstances.) Again, this seems like a crisis of faith involving people rather than God. If someone in your community came to you and said that prayers don't work, and preachers are making it up as they go along, and you agreed with them: what would you recommend that person to do? |
12th December 2018, 11:15 AM | #264 |
Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 142
|
Says the guy tho goes on to demonstrate that he actually "gets" little about this subject and knows even less.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Except ... you're not. GDon has already helpfully explained your error here, but since - in typical fanatic style - you've blithely brushed that to one side, I'll explain further. Exactly where you got this version of the quote is unclear, since a Google on it leads back only to ... your post above (the use of the obscure word "obnubilate" here is found only in your version). But there are plenty of examples of this supposed condemnation of "mathematicians" in books and online, most of which can be traced back to this version: "The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." (Morris Kline, Mathematics in Western Culture, 1953, p. 3) Kline may well have been a good mathematician, but like a lot of non-specialists who dabble in history, he was a crappy historian. If anyone actually bothers to consult the work in question, they will find it is in section entitled "Against astrology and divination" and involves Augustine making arguments against astrology also used by sceptics today. He notes that twins should have the same horoscope but notes twins do not have the same personality or live the same lives: "The so-called constellatons of these two could certainly not have differed in any way at all. So what could be more totally unlikely than that an astrologer, gazing at these constellations in the same horoscope, would say that one of them would be loved by his mother and the other not?" He goes on to argue that if astrologers get anything right it's "the work of treacherously deceitful spirits" and says "sometimes ... these same unspeakable spirits predict, as if by means of divination, what they themselves are going to do." And THEN we get the quote you've bungled above, which (properly translated) reads: "For this reason, good Christian, you must be on your guard against astrologers and anyone impiously practicing divination ..." (Quapropter bono christiano, sive mathematici, sive quilibet impie divinantium ...) The word Augustine uses is mathematici which does not mean "mathematician" here - it means "astrologer". See the definition of this word according to Lewis and Short: "A. Măthēmătĭcus , i, m. 1. A mathematician, Cic. de Or 1, 3, 10; id. Ac. 2, 36, 116; id. Tusc. 1, 2, 5; Sen. Ep. 88, 26.— 2. An astrologer (post-Aug.): “mathematici, genus hominum potentibus infidum, sperantibus fallax, quod in civitate nostra et vetabitur semper et retinebitur,” Tac. H. 1, 22: “nota mathematicis genesis tua,” Juv. 14, 248; Tert. Apol. 43: “qui de salute principis ... mathematicos consulit, cum eo qui responderit, capite punitur,” Paul. Sent. 5, 21, 3.—" So you are ... just plain wrong. But I've gone into detail on this because it shows how much of a fanatic you are. Like a true fundamentalist, you seized this quote from some second-hand source and didn't bother to check it. Anyone who did the obvious thing that a real rationalist would do and went to find a copy of De Genesi ad Litteram to look at in context would realise that he is not talking about "mathematicians" in the modern sense, but astrologers and diviners. But your biases mean you can't think rationally and so you didn't bother to do this simple, rational and obvious thing. And even when GDon showed you your mistake, you stubbornly refused to back down and insisted you had "consulted three versions of Augustine and they all translate 'mathematics'". Though - strangely - you didn't cite or quote any of these supposed "three versions of Augustine" or explain how or why they would say "mathematics" when, if you had actually consulted no less than three editions of the work, you could not help but notice he was talking about astrology. So that claim was a lie. Again, you are a fanatic. You don't know the source material, you ignore the scholarly consensus of current experts (because you aren't interested in facts) and you lie when caught out in your ignorance. You are as bad as any fundamentalist Christian. Worse, actually, since you claim to be a rationalist. You are precisely why - as an actual rationalist - I bother writing the articles on my blog.
Quote:
|
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History |
|
12th December 2018, 11:22 AM | #265 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
Finally a second to get back to your questions P.J. I think the challenge for me is when I use terms like heaven or supernatural or divine, I have to admit that these terms are not clearly defined, at least for me. So discussing them in literal or absolute terms is hard. I like your description of mutually beneficial social groups, but when I say divine I also mean glimpsing a potential that we don't current understand or achieve completely.
Yes, when I prayed for someone I hoped (and still hope) that it will have an effect that is beyond what I could (currently at least) understand in natural/scientific terms. I've certainly been affected by prayer by being encouraged and "emotionally refreshed" and I have experienced physical sensations like tingling or warmth and have heard others say the same thing. I've heard reports of people gaining sight and hearing, and other types of physical healing but only secondhand or in ways that are difficult to verify. |
12th December 2018, 11:34 AM | #266 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
|
12th December 2018, 11:44 AM | #267 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
Agreed with you both that the implications of some of those terms are not as pleasant as they appear on the surface.
And my faith is definitely dependent on a presumption that God knows and sees a far bigger picture. I'm okay with not being able to know/comprehend all of that and will try to be willing to say "I don't know" as suggested earlier (good advice). I do like trying to explore and question it though, hopefully with some humility. |
12th December 2018, 11:49 AM | #268 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
|
12th December 2018, 11:59 AM | #269 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
Thanks for the thoughts xjx (my autocorrect changed that to xox, but fortunately I caught it). They definitely have the hallmarks of someone who has gone through it. You're right that it can be a difficult balancing act, but at present, I feel like the balance (and even tension) are more genuine than the apparent ease of embracing only one.
|
12th December 2018, 01:09 PM | #270 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,174
|
Yes I think so. It has been suggested that some Christians today can, putting a modern day interpretation on Biblical scripture, be quite comfortable with it. I find it hard to imagine minds as ductile as this. The famous American philosopher Daniel Dennett shared my skepticism I think. When Dennett gave his presentation “The Evolution of Confusion” the main topic of discussion was “Non Believing Clergy”, as he and his colleague were studying the cases of clergymen who had lost their faith. Dennett formed the opinion that many lost their faith whilst studying at the seminary, when confronted with the detail of scripture, and the dubious history thereof. |
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard. |
|
12th December 2018, 02:17 PM | #271 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
Hi GDon. Thanks again for the reply. These were primarily "take a look in the mirror" moments for me. My upbringing and community have shaped my ideas of faith and God, so critically evaluating for former, included the latter by necessity for me as well. I thought initially that this process would result in my concluding that "God is nowhere" (i.e., everything I attributed to God was just selective religious attribution of regular events). Instead, my current feeling is more akin to "God is everywhere" (i.e., God is evidenced by people, communities, actions, etc. much more broadly than I considered before).
Your last question is a tricky one and would depend on the individual. As I've mentioned, I don't want to discourage anyone, particularly if they are struggling. If I felt it would be helpful, I would encourage them to think of God and faith in a broader context then "cause and effect" prayer, or religious teaching, similar to what I am going through now. But I know that isn't an easy road. I think that those accustomed to being taught about faith and religion can be particularly inclined to simply follow the next strong opinion presented (whether it's a different faith, or atheism) and can end up no further ahead in terms of having lasting peace of mind. |
12th December 2018, 03:06 PM | #272 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
12th December 2018, 07:06 PM | #273 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,174
|
|
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard. |
|
12th December 2018, 09:14 PM | #274 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
Thanks for the kind words gentlemen (I assume). It's been great to have some intelligent, respectful and challenging back and forth with folks like yourselves who think differently than me and express themselves clearly. Your responses and questions clearly show that you've read and considered my responses as well, rather than running through a list of pre-set "atheist speaking points", which I really appreciate.
Also, maybe scientists are "buddying-up" to God by devoting their lives to exploring and understanding the world around them and the laws that govern it. I've got lots to think about and will take some time and space to do so. I may let this thread run its course at this point, but I'll try to engage on some other topics in hopes of finding similarly productive discussion. I'll weigh back in on this topic after some time if I have more thoughts to "put out there". I was quite hesitant to start this thread, but am very glad I did. My sincere thanks to everyone who took the time the contribute. |
13th December 2018, 12:27 AM | #275 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,174
|
Most warm good wishes to you attempt5001.
|
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard. |
|
13th December 2018, 12:52 AM | #276 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
Thank you for your comment which I find perfectly confusing and anecdotal.
Believe it or not, I've read a few things on this subject, including the books you say I haven't read and a few more. What do you think of Paul Veyne, for example? Don't insist that I read your writings. I find them uninteresting, for the reasons I said in another comment that you have apparently not read. I don't read your blog. You don't read my comments. We are even. I'll try to be concise because I don't have much time to respond to you. You contradict yourself: You cannot say that Copernicus' theses were well known before De revolutionibus was published and that Luther had not heard of them. Or that something Luther said didn't become "viral," even if it was said in conversation. To claim that Osiander's cautious prologue was only to deceive the Aristotelians (to make them sting = to deceive) is an unfounded assumption. Osiander must have been very naive to think that such a ploy would deceive the rabid Artiotelians. You may or may not believe it. But the caution against the objections of the churches cannot be disdained either. The Catholic Church was strongly commited heliocentrism before the Inquisition took action against Galileo. I remind you that Bruno was condemned for affirming the movement of the earth among other things. The correct thing to say is that certain sectors of the Catholic Church did not oppose Galileo's theses. That there are dissensions between moderates and conservatives is common in the Church in many periods. But that in this case the moderates turned to be ultra-conservatives when they saw that the Inquisition appeared, this cannot be denied by you. In fact, it would be more correct to say that they changed their minds as soon as they saw that Galileo was unwilling to lower his neck and recognize the absolute power of the Church over science with precautions such as those taken by Copernicus-Osiander. What I don't know is how you have the cheek to deny that the papacy and the Holy Office's action against Galileo is one of the most savage attacks against the independence of science. To pretend that this attack would not have taken place if Galileo had not thought of proposing the allegorical interpretation of certain passages of the Bible is ridiculous and reveals a total ignorance of the history of previous centuries and those that followed. The same ignorance you demonstrate when I ask you for bibliographic references of historians who support your negationism (the non-existent "consensus") and you send me to a Wikipedia article that cites only a couple or three marginal historians. What are your sources? Wikipedia? The same ignorance you show when youquote the Christian background list of the New Science and you put into it all the metaphysical cosmology that Galileo threw to the ground. Including authors who have nothing to do with science such as Duns Scotus, William of Occam, Albert the Great or mathematical mystics such as Nicholas of Cusa, etc. Where did you get such nonsense? The New Science is a rupture with Aristotelian metaphysics, but also with platonic-humanist metaphysics. This rupture, not continuity, was based on the elaboration of a mathematical-experimental method that not even Copernicus had glimpsed and that begins with Galileo and ends with Newton. It is this method, which demanded independence of research and a truth alien to dogmas, that the Church was condemning for several centuries, until it had no choice but to agree with Galileo: when science and religious superstition clash, science must be right. It took some time to get here, but it ended up getting here. By the way, if you haven't heard that Aristotelian metaphysics had become the essential core of Catholic thought before Galileo I recommend you take a look at the Capellone degli Spagnoli of Santa Maria Novella in Florence. It will save me from having to look for obvious quotes from you. The other nonsense is that the triumph of Christianity had nothing to do with the persecution of the pagans. Apart from other considerations, there are two main political reasons that put an end to paganism: the repeated repressive edicts against them and the need to become a Christian in order to make an administrative career in the State. Peter Brown has a magnificent book on this subject that he would recommend if he thought he was going to read it. That the edicts and persecutions against paganism were not the main cause can be discussed. But that they existed cannot be denied in a debate on repression intelectuals even by a negationist like you. And if they existed, it was because of something, wasn't it? Or was it because the emperors liked to play floral games with the laws? Therefore, that Hypatia was the leader of an intellectual circle that brought together pagans and Christians cannot be ignored in any way among the causes of their "martyrdom". And I don't know what other things of yours I have to dismantle. Oh yes, mathematics and Augustine. I think I've already answered that in another comment. Look for it, please. A precision: In Augustine's time one cannot speak properly of a separation between science and theology. Even reputed philosophers mixed the two, especially in this period. Augustine takes advantage of it and christianizes neoplatonism (not Plato, by the way). In those circumstances the union between mathematics and astrology was a manifestation of the conflict between the pagan fortune tellers and Christianity. The first was the strongest rival (stronger than the cult of the classical gods) and for Augustine the use of mathematics was linked to it. That is why in the condemnation of the divinatory arts Augustine throws the child (mathematics) along with the water (divination). I hope that his scarce knowledge on the subject will not prevent him from recognizing that when we talk about science in the fourth century we are not talking about what we mean by science in the twenty-first century. You are right. I also have other better things to do than wait you to provide data that you do not want or cannot give. It's the bad thing about arguing with amateur experts. |
13th December 2018, 07:51 AM | #277 |
So far, so good...
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: On the outskirts of Nowhere; the middle was too crowded
Posts: 4,047
|
As people here say, a thread like this puts the "E" in ISF -- a reference to the old name of the forum, the James Randi Educational Forum. Stick around. Most people here are pretty nice. Read some of the other threads, not only the ones on religion. And don't agonize too much over your dilemma. |
__________________
Over we go.... |
|
13th December 2018, 08:48 AM | #278 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
|
13th December 2018, 10:45 AM | #279 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,894
|
|
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
13th December 2018, 11:41 AM | #280 |
Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 142
|
Bluster-merchants like "David Mo" desperately need to have the last word, so I figured if I said I was tired of responding to him he would come back with another string of assertions. These guys don't really care about being right, they just need to create the illusion of being so. Notice how the response below, like all of his posts, is another collection of claims made with (seeming) great confidence and swagger, but citing no scholarship, referring to no relevant books or papers and drawing on no evidence or source material. This guy doesn't care about that stuff - he just makes faith statements and, in the face of carefully argued, well-sourced, scholarly counter-arguments, he just repeats his faith statements. He is a fanatic.
Spare me your passive aggressive faux politeness. There is nothing "anecdotal" about what I said, so that's nonsense right off the bat. But I'm sure you were "confused" by a response that draws on real knowledge and scholarship - that would be foreign to you.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The fact is that from when Copernicus first presented his thesis in 1514 to the first inquiry into Galileo's ideas a century later, the Church did not care about heliocentrism. They left it to the astronomers to argue over. And this was not because they were somehow so ignorant of it that they didn't understand it was an actual cosmology or that they didn't grasp that it contradicted a literal interpretation of certain scriptures - it's just that until the Counter-Reformation began to hot up into a real war (see "the Thirty Years War") and that began to have severe political ramifications for the Papacy, the Church was not as rigidly doctrinaire on this issue as you are assuming. You would know this if you had any detailed understanding of the context of all this stuff, but you don't and you can't gain any because you are a wilfully ignorant fanatic.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
God, this is hilarious. I read Brown's book when it was first published in 1996 and am just now consulting his new edition for an article I'm writing. So please tell us what exactly you think Brown says that contradicts a single thing I've said. This didn't go so well for you when you tried to cite Dzielska and I'm telling you now that it will not end well for you here either. You are completely out of your depth.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
History for Atheists - New Atheism and Myths About History |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|