lpetrich

Like medieval Muslims and ancient Hellenic pagans?

I also note that theoretical science did not intersect with technology very much until the 18th cy., but that is more a function of what was well-developed. Dr. Isaac Asimov points to Ben Franklin and his lightning rod in this connection as a turning point in the relationship of science and technology.

Before then, some had had an elitist approach toward theoretical science, especially mathematics, disdaining practical value. A quote attributed to Pythagoras stated that there are three kinds of people who go to sports matches: the lowest are those who go to buy and sell, the in-between to compete, and the highest of all to come and watch.

BF did NOT invent the lightning rod by studying the Bible. Instead, he had been studying static electricity and he noticed that lightning had the appearance of a giant electric spark. So he did his famous kite experiment to see if storm clouds get electrically charged, and he found out that they did. Since he had found out that metals conduct electricity much more easily than nonmetals, he got the idea that using a metal rod would help conduct the lightning away. Thus, the lightning rod.

And how did the clergy react? Did they embrace this invention with open arms? Had they commissioned BF's researches?

At the time, the believed that lightning was sent by either God or some evil devil, and that ringing church bells would either appease God or ward off devils. They even baptized some bells for anti-lightning duty.

But guess what happened to bell-ringers during thunderstorms.

It took the clergy several years to adopt this invention to protect their favorite structures.

One eminent clergyman explained a Boston earthquake by claiming that God was looking for another way to punish those sinful Bostonians after they had protected themselves from God's wrath with lightning rods.

And there was some gunpowder stored in a church in Italy; those who stored it there had thought that the church's sanctity would mean that it would never get struck by lightning.

But one day, it got struck by lightning ... and ... BOOM!!!

True, the Soviet Union ultimately collapsed, but that's not what the cold warriors had thought -- and I am old enough to remember the last years of the Cold War. They never tired of telling us what a superpower the Soviet Union had been, and they sometimes seemed like the wanted to defect, just so they could be on the winning side.

Also, during that time, Japan and Taiwan have made impressive economic strides, though about religion they tend to be eclectic and non-fanatical, to the extent that they care about it.

And in the US itself, the South, the most religious part of the US, has long lagged behind the North. All their self-proclaimed piety did nothing to change that; it was air conditioning and Texas oil and pork barrel, especially military pork barrel, that did so.

(something brings to mind a cartoon pig dressed as a soldier)

Bede

Ipetrich, all that stuff about clerical resistance to lightening rods is a nineteenth century myth invented by Draper and White to further the alleged Conflict they were trying to convince us of. It didn't really happen - even Cardinal Bellarmine (Galileo's opponent) had realised ringing bells in storms was not going to be much use.

NOGO's stupidity has bored me, so I'll be leaving off this thread. I think you too need to read some up to date history of science before you pontificate about it.

Ron, why were barbers also surgeons? Why were theologians also natural philosophers? Why were all the first modern scientists also Christians? Your point is good because it shows we are justified in looking for a causal connection.

And I'll bet my bottom dollar that Radorth is in a higher grade than NOGO...

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

lpetrich

I note that Bede does not give any alternative picture of how lightning rods were received by the clergy; Bellarmine had been an exceptional figure in being skeptical of the efficacy of bell-ringing.

And I'm surprised that Bede is not making a hero out of Andrew Dickson White, because ADW had been a liberal/modernist Xian who had distinguished between "theology" and "religion".

And back then, one could not get anywhere without being a member of some Xian sect. And one would not get very far if one was in the wrong sect at some particular spot. Thus, Kepler was serious enough about being a Protestant that he preferred not to convert to Catholicism just because the current ruler of his residence had happened to be a Catholic.

As to barbers being surgeons, that is only a natural extension of the use of cutting instruments.

NOGO

While studying at the Lutheran Faculty of Tubingen Kepler came acroos the copernican system. (By the way, the faculty prohibited people from speaking publicly about the copernican system.) This system was influenced by Aristarchus (310–230 B.C.), a Greek astronomer who was probably first to propose a heliocentric theory of the universe. He wrote a book On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun and Moon, in which he argues for a geometric explanantion for the distances of the sun and moon. This was clearly influenced by Pythagoras who believed that everything can be explained by numbers and mathematics.

Kepler was greatly influenced by this belief that mathematics can explain the world. This thought became his lifetime work. He published a book which essentially attempted to demonstrate that the distance between the planets can be explained by the five Pythagorean solids. His idea goes something like this. Mercury's orbit was part of a sphere which can be placed within a geometric solid (like tetrahedron for example). This solid can then be placed precisely inside another sphere which happens to be part of the Venus's orbit and so on for each of the six known planets. He even assigned musical score to each planet to show the harmony of the system, a very Pythagorean thing to do. This book whose name I forget was clearly influence by ancient Greek philosophers and astronomers.

This fantastic thought of geometric harmony in the universe occurred to him as he was teaching. He started to think that it was a divine inspiration. God had chosen him to reveal the workings of the universe to mankind. He became very excited but unfortunately all his attempts to fit the real life data to his theory failed and he eventually he had to abandon it.

His teacher Brahe Tycho told him that he should base his theories on data and not trying to fit data to his theories. Tycho had spent all his life accumulating data on planetary motion. One can see his bias at work here. If Kepler's inspired theory was correct then all of Tycho's lifework was useless. His emphasis on data can readily be understood. This will mark a turning point in Kepler life and is totally responsible for his future success. This also marked a turning point in the devlopement of science.

Kepler turned to Tycho's data and after long and arduous work, eventually figured out that the orbits were elliptical. Kepler achieved what he always dreamed about, that is to explain the planets' motion mathematically.

One must have a clear understanding of the turning point in this story. It came about when Kepler abandoned the idea that one can just dream geometry and mathematics and come up with an inspired answer. Reliance of observed data was the key. However one must know that from the start what inspired Kepler was the idea that mathematics would eventually explain it. He never deviated from this thought for very long.

And this idea that mathematics can explain the world is the basis for modern science and we owe it to the ancient Greeks.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

NOGO

Bede's ignorance of Kepler's life has been clearly demonstrated. His contention that Kepler was inspired by Christianity is just wishful thinking and is totally groundless.

Arguements failling, Bede is thus forced to resort to name calling.

Bede

NOGO,

It is good to see you have done some research on Kepler. Will you now admit that you were wrong about his being excommunicated and wrong that eliptical orbits were called heresy (although Galileo refused to accept them, largely, one thinks, because he didn't think of them).

Let's listen to Kepler. Here he is in one of his notebooks:

"I give you thanks, Creator and God, that you have given me this joy in my creation, and I rejoice in the works of your hands. See I have now completed the work to which I was called. In it I have used all the talents you have lent to my spirit." (cited by Kaiser)

And again:

"The chief aim of all the investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by Godand which he revealed to us in the language of mathematics." (cited by Kline).

"God, in creating the universe and regulating the order of the cosmos... has fixed according to those dimensions the number of the heavens, their proportions and the relations of their movements." (cited by Schaffer)

We learn two things here. Kepler's inspiration was religious (he was no freethinker in your sense) and that he believed in an orderly universe because he believed God created one.

His first idea involved idea of using the five regular solids of Euclid and indeed the last quote refers to this. It was pure neo-Platonic mysticism but, as NOGO rightly points out, it didn't work. But Kepler knew, as he states, that a rational God invented a rational universe. He could not be so careless as to let the orbit of Mars be out by just eight minutes. Those eight minutes Kepler later called his "gift from God" because they forced him to ditch his first idea and find another. His faith demanded it and his faith was rewarded.

Eliptical orbits had no classical precedent. Even Ptolemy, who knew full well that Aristotle's cosmology did not work, used dozens of circles to try and save the phenomena. The system was still not perfect, but it would do for the ancient Greeks who made no further advance. But it would just not do for Kepler because the God who pushed and inspired him could not be that careless.

Hence we have a textbook case of how the faith in the law giving Christian God drove His worshiper to find how He had fashioned the world. Not as the greatest human minds like Aristotle had thought He should, but the way He actually did it.

NOGO, I am happy to meet you half way, but you must ditch this bigotted anti-Christian approach where you cannot abide it causing good to anything. Even Michael, who hates Christianity with a vengence, has previously stated it probably had a broadly neutral effect. You twisted the story of Kepler to suit your own purposes in a way that would fail you in any college. None of this means Christianity is true - just that it happened to push people in the right direction.

Ipetrich, there was no clerical resistance to lightening rods. Just resistance from lots of people who couldn't quite believe that the best defence against it was to attract it deliberately. I remember being confused about this as a kid and can't blame people for not wanting to risk their lives and buildings on a strange idea from across the sea. I have no problem with ADW's politics but he was a crap historian!

Ron, I have often felt (as a leftie Christian and the religious right will hate me for this) that Communism and Christianity have much the same PR problem. Both were founded on noble ideals, both were forged in the minds of brilliant men, both preached an utopian kingdom, both were felt to be worth killing for and both must now live with their history, trying to work out what went wrong and still put those noble ideals into practice. Perhaps they can learn from each other.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

NOGO

I read Kepler's life story some 24 years ago. My emphasis was on his science so it is true that I did not remember much of the rest.

As for the heresy question I must maintain it because it is a fact. You just need to do some research on that, Bede. You are probably right about Galileo.

Kepler was excommunicated because he could not accept the Lutheran doctrine of ubiquity of the body as well as the spirit of Christ at communion. He was asked to sign the Formula of Concord which he refused. He was thus denied the sacraments. Kepler appealed this decision to the church council in Wirttemberg but to no avail.
True this had nothing to do with his science at least on the surface but it does show the problems Kepler had with the church. I may add to this the fact that his mother was also accused of witchcraft which would have gotten her tortured and if found guilty burned at the stake.

Perhaps but where is Christianity in this?
Ancient Greeks also tried to explain planetary motion with the belief that the universe must have been made with complete harmoneous laws. (Aristarchus for example)

I prefer to believe that Kepler abandoned this theory because he knew that the rest of the scientific community would never accept it as formulated. Strange that his faith also made him think that he had the right answer. As I said before, Bede, attributing everything to God is an automatic reflect of the religious mind. I simply do not read as much into as you do.

"Rational God", "rational universe" can you honestly say that Kepler got this from Christianity.

"Elliptical orbits had no classical precedent ... "

Really! Bede I do not like to insult people, as you seem to like to do, but this statement is as ignorant as it can get. Sorry, and here is why.

As I tried to show in my post Kepler abandoned the idea that the solution would come down from heaven. He did not take the appraoch that you are suggesting that goes something like this. Oh! aren't ellipses nice let's see if they work. This was his approach with the 5 solids. Instead he turned to Tycho's data. It was this attempt to match the data to any theory that produced the elliptical model.

Put another way - the orbits are elliptical, therefore if he was trying to match the data to his model - it had to be elliptical. No precedent is required. IT CAME FROM EMPERICAL DATA and emperical data showed elliptical paths. Emperical data also showed the way to his second law.

Bede: "You twisted the story of Kepler to suit your own purposes in a way that would fail you in any college. "

Who is showing bias here?
Which part of my post do you deny?

Do you deny that Kepler got nowhere until he based his work on Tycho's data?
Do you deny that Tycho told him that Kepler's theories had to match his data?
Do you deny that Kepler was influenced by ancient Greek astronomers and philosophers such as pythagoras, aristarchus, Euclid, Plato.
Do you deny that ancient Greek were the first to believe that mathematics can explain the world?
Do you deny that Kepler believed that mathematics would eventually explain the planet orbits?

Which parts do you deny?

What I can see now, Bede, is that you finally start to show evidence for what you claim and it is rather weak.

I would like to know what the others think of Bede's evidence.

lpetrich

The idea of a Divine Geometer is rather unbiblical -- the Biblical God is not depicted as having much interest in geometrical patterns.

Also, Bede is reduced to simply asserting that ADW had been in error, without attempting to provide any actual evidence. I will concede that I have looked for critical evaluations of ADW's account of the reception of the lightning rod, and that I did not have much success.

Ron Garrett

Because they already had the sharp pointy things one needed to drill holes in heads to release Satan and his demons. Here I think you're being a bit over-broad. The ones we take seriously today were on the Aristotelean/Thomist side,but I think we take them seriously and ignore all the others because our progress in understanding the cosmos have swept the others away, leaving only the ones who showed some vague semblance of a reality based understanding of the universe. Where would one start this lineup? With Bacon. Descartes? Pascal? It seems rather plain that they were Christians because it was impossible that they would be otherwise in those cultures and ever get publsihed or receive grants for research and study. I actually feel we can credit these men for finally undermining the iron hand rule of the church with incontrovertible empiricism in the face of bigotry, oppression and deadly threat. But I don't think any of them saw themselves as iconoclastic, just looking for the truth. Same thing that brought me out of religion. I was raised a Christian because in my community it was not possible that I could be otherwise. I pursued theology looking for truth as well, and there may indeed be some there in some form for someone to someday discover, and when they can demonstrate their claims absent the voodoo of baseless and emotional "faith", I'll jump on board. As someone who does market research for a living, I can assure you that the vast majority of demographic data one gathers about persons or populations is coincidental, not causal. For instance, it is of no import that a group of European scientists were Christian when all were raised in a community where all babies are baptised at birth and all must attend religious institutions for basic advanced instruction. It is in fact all but impossible for them to have been otherwise. It is of no more predictive or explanatory use that to ask "Why is that all those Irish people are in Ireland?"

If so, Rad's school had a mandatory promotion policy and a lot of grade inflation.

Cheers,
Ron

Radorth

Choir snickers and claps. Ron feels good.

Let's see if I can grasp the implications here, having an IQ of only 190 or something. Some of these men (and others, like Locke) wrote volumes about Christ, are famous for quotes which only a "fundy" would dare use now, seemed to praise Jesus personally, willingly and openly, but there was no other way to get grants? Is that what you are telling us?

Maybe I am slow. All I've ever seen are some obscure notes by Newton to prove your theory. Got an 18th century fragment of a secret diary or something?

Rad