Vorkosigan

Hugo, did you read the Sivin article in the other thread about the Catholic Church and heliocentricism in China?

HD's assertion is easily demonstrated. One need only look at the long struggle over the age of the earth and later, evolution. The fact that the adjustment process happened largely without violence and authoritarian suppression does not make it less of an adjustment. Last time I focused on the 17th century thinker Ray, who struggled to fit the evidence of change in organisms and an old earth with theology as he understood it, as an excellent example of this struggle taking place within a single individual.

All authoritarian belief systems, from Christianity to Communism, face this inevitable conflict between the actual nature of reality and their claims, where they make claims about the nature of reality. If we were discussing Lysenko and the whole problem of Neo-Lamarckism in Soviet Biology after WWI, you would have no trouble accepting HD's thesis for that particular authoritarianism. Why then do you reject it for this one?

Vorkosigan

Family Man

Thank you. I'm hoping to get the second half out by the end of the month.

I don't know for sure, but here's an educated guess. The ancient attitude was "nature abhors a vacuum." Nature and God was often intertwined in the scholarly thought of the time, suggesting that God abhors a vacuum. In addition, in theological terms, a vacuum would suggest a lack of purpose. How could God create something without a purpose?

I suspect it was something along those lines.

Jeremy Pallant

I think this would do better in Science and Skepticism.

Hugo Holbling

I did indeed read the Sivin paper, Michael, and an interesting one it was too. Have you been able to locate Musgrave's piece that i recommended?

I was responding to godmustbecrazy, not HD. To answer your question, i tend to prefer not to reject theses but instead to defend one then another because i find Mill's (and later Churchland's) arguments for proliferation convincing. In this case, probably the most challenging reply would be to say that i disagree that Christianity is an authoritarian system, but to keep the thread in S&S i must add the caveat that i refer to a (history of) science context. Another possibility we could discuss is the very idea that a claim about the nature of reality can differ from reality itself in an unproblematic way - a question that is far from answered, of course.

Vorkosigan

I must disagree. Christianity makes claims about the nature of reality based on its authority as the guardian of truth revealed from god. Whether Christianity was authoritarian in a history of science context evades this problem; obviously, individual scientists struggled with the evidence and their beliefs, so to that extent they struggle with cognitive dissonance induced inevitably by doctrines that have no sync with reality. This was not authoritarian, not so much because of anything inherent in Christianity, but simply because by the time science got rolling, the Church had lost the temporal power it needed to control discourse. Where it had that power, it exerted what efforts it could, as in Spain, for example.

What do you mean by "unproblematic" here?

Vorkosigan

Hugo Holbling

I should hope so, or there'd be nothing to discuss.

Perhaps not: the historical context is much more important, including how Christians actually acted. Your characterisation runs the risk of oversimplifying the individuals involved and how they responded to events, although you halfway note this yourself. An interesting angle to pursue may be to ask how much of the Church's efforts in Spain, say, were politically driven; that is, was the motivation theological, political, or what degree of both?

As you know, the relation between what we suppose may constitute reality and what that reality is is frought with difficulties. I presume Joel will be along shortly to offer a remark or two on that score.

Majestyk

I've seen a few references here that speak of science and religion as if, they are entities unto themselves. Although there may be institutions dedicated to each, they and the institutions are abstract constructs of individual humans. They are shadows of the people who create them. Take away the humanity and they cease to exist. Therefore when speaking of them we should refrain from granting them the property of autonomy.

Science and religion are methodologies used to explain the world around us. The differences between them lie in the manner in which they make that attempt. One is indifferent to evidence and resistant to change. The other is dependent on evidence and seeks change. One allows a true understanding of ourselves and the world in which we exist. The other perpetuates our ignorance.

People who adhere strongly to one method as opposed to the other can not help but to conflict with one another. Hence, the metaphor of two armies locked in combat, is not wholly inaccurate.

My personal metaphor would be: Two people fallen into a jungle. One attempts to explore the surroundings, venturing into area, which cannot be seen from their current position. The other begs, pleads, and demands that they stay where they are because spirits will take care of them if, they do and be angry if, they do not. The one that seeks to know more travels ahead anyway. The other follows, reaping the rewards of the first but never stops repeating the warning to not go further.

Bede

Masjestyk,

You start so well but from the second passage on, your post is utter codswollop. So let's ignore the rest and concentrate on your excellent first paragraph.

Science is certainly not autonomous and demarcation has been a constant headache for those trying to label it as something special. To abuse your jungle metaphor, we have one person who both asks questions about how big the trees are and which way is north, but also asks what the fuck am I doing here and where am I going. To restrict yourself to one category of question would be foolish and isn this case, probably fatal. But the questions merge and split in a way that even being in two minds is dangerous.

Religion is no more resistant to change than anything else. Most implied religious resistance has really been political resistance from the current elite. But take that away and you have the constantly evolving spectrum of beliefs and ideas that make up all the religions of the world. Perhaps you meant to say that science is resistant to change and religions turn with the wind?

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

lpetrich

Bede:
Religion is no more resistant to change than anything else. Most implied religious resistance has really been political resistance from the current elite. ...

However, it can sometimes be difficult to distinguish religion and politics. Consider the present-day Middle East.

Majestyk

Bollocks.