surreptitious57

The scientists of yesteryear did have a belief system too but back then this was not regarded as unusual or contradictory - whereas today it would. But that belief in and of itself does not invalidate any scientific discovery or breakthrough however. When Newton formulated a proof for gravity, for example, his belief was of zero relevance. He could just as easily have discovered it had he been an atheist. So having a belief is not in and of itself a restriction on scientific investigation. As long as the two are separated and absolutely so, then it is not a problem. Indeed I would argue that what one does or does not believe is immaterial, pertaining to scientific research as long as it remains isolated from it. No one denies the work of Galileo or Copernicus or Darwin because they were Christian now - though Darwin subsequently renounced his. If something is true and objectively so, then whoever proves or demonstrates it is correct too. What else they may or may not believe is of zero concern. No human being after all is completely logical and expecting scientists to be so, is both impractical and unnecessary. We expect them to be more logical of course, just not exclusively so, however. Indeed they are, if truth be told just as human as the rest of us now

sotto voce

By optimists.

tanya

<comment on moderation removed>

FRAUD:

sotto voce's bizarre, rambling submission on the Brodie affair, issued at 08:27, contained a minor spelling error, having nothing to do with either the OP, nor with the tenor of his post. Since the error, however, related to a famous scientist's name, James Clerk Maxwell, I thought it appropriate to clarify his minor mistake, and I did so, in submitting my own post, at 09:37.

At 09:40, sotto voce, having read my rejoinder, edited his post, correcting his spelling error.

At 09:42, sotto voce submitted a new post to the forum, now with his corrected spelling mistake, and attacked me, as having "misquoted" him.

<edit>

:huh:

sotto voce

As they do now, though they usually lie about it, to keep their jobs. Indeed, many if not most scientists believed the Bible, and, being more intelligent than most, not just out of social habit; and this fact finally demolished medievalism.

There was worship of the bones of 'saints', there was garlic at the door to keep out demons, and much more besides, that boggles the minds of modern people who mostly have ungratefully accepted the benefits of Newton, Boyle, Faraday and Clerk Maxwell. But the principal casualty was transubstantiation. This dogma, that had been pronounced belatedly, after 900 years of imperial religion, had been the main offender of Europeans, because it was not only obvious fabrication theologically, it had very important, practical consequences that affected everyone. It gave enormous power to priests, who also enjoyed a measure of immunity from prosecution. This was a foolish and dangerous mix, that led to abuses of all sorts, to scandal that threatened anarchy, to war and political disestablishment of papacy.

But if there were anguished doubts about the intellectual validity of Catholicism, scientists applied the coup de grâce. They rejected the idea of commonplace, biddable men making God with their bare hands, while accepting the notion of a creator walking on water, because a creator could break his own rules if he wanted to.

For non-scientists, the undreamed-of daily benefits of applying science removed the intellectual integrity of papalism wherever these benefits were to be observed. Science and faith could co-exist in perfect harmony, even complementing each other. So medievalism died of self-inflicted wounds, due to its farcical theology, its greed and its fundamental irrationality. Nothing has changed since then; and neither can there be change, as the Vatican well knows.

mountainman

G'day from rural Australia sotto voce.

I enjoyed reading your "essay".

Specifically the puzzle you outline.



It's no puzzle if the King sponsored the view.

Did the King publish the view that he had lived on earth?




BTW I don't know why the Emperor Constantine called himself King rather than Lord God Caesar.

But that's what the source preserving the letter appears to state.

Perhaps the power went to his head at Antioch and Nicaea?

He had been campaigning for this moment for twenty years.

He had finally won the jackpot.

mountainman

By analysis of the cartonage.

sotto voce

That settles it, then.

sotto voce

G'day, mountainman. Hope you're enjoying the summer.

Thank you. I think. :thinking:


True, true. But why in the name of all that's Dionysian would the official patrician protector sponsor one whose fore-runner lived on locusts and honey?


Three hundred years before him, yes. There was no dispute about that. Arius the Bait tried it on as the first Jehovah's Witness, but got the door shut on him too often. So King Con hauled him in, in favour of more credible conmen.