Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mike_decock · 04-25-2003, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KC
I've always liked the Dalai Lama's take on this... as related by Carl Sagan:

Thanks for that quote, KC! If I ever feel the need for religion in my life, Buddhism is the first one I will explore.

-Mike...

Hugo Holbling · 04-25-2003, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl
Facts of astronomy were disputed by the Church, and scientists were threatened with torture or death, because of scripture. [...] And of course there�s Galileo. The church told him, �The first proposition, that the sun is the center and does not revolve around the earth, is absurd, false in philosophy, and from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the true Faith.�

I'm going to do something very strange here... defend the church a little.

This is a simplistic account of the Galileo affair that stacks the cards against the church and hence isn't a very useful argument, imo. Firstly, there were no "facts" in dispute - the pre-Copernican model was at the time supported both by theory and observation. Galileo had to provide his own alternative to the Aristotlean theory of motion and the continuum to counter the tower argument and use observations based on his newly-invented telescope that were anything but clear in their implications. Secondly, the actions of the church in rejecting Galileo's ideas given the circumstances of the time were very much in accordance with the latest fashions in the philosophy of science. To see why, let's examine in more detail the letter of Bellarmino that Coragyps quotes from.

Quote:

It seems to me that your Reverence and Signor Galileo act prudently when you content yourselves with speaking hypothetically and not absolutely, as I have always understood that Copernicus spoke. To say that on the supposition of the Earth�s movement and the Sun�s quiescence all the celestial appearances are explained better than by the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is to speak with excellent good sense and to run no risk whatever. Such a manner of speaking is enough for a mathematician. But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the center of the universe and only rotates on its axis without going from east to west, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting the Scriptures.

Here Bellarmino is taking issue with a new theory being taught as proven and urging caution in asserting its validity. While we may regard it as ridiculous today, at that time the teachings of the scriptures were considered the accepted orthodoxy and hence any idea that proposed to challenge them would have to be considerably better formulated and supported than Galileo's. Indeed, it would be rather more accurate to say that Galileo started the chain of events that would lead to greater investigation and the triumph of his theory but not at that time. Next:

Quote:

If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the center of the universe, that the Earth is in the third heaven, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But, as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me. Nor is it a proof that, if the Sun be supposed at the center of the universe and the Earth in the third heaven, everything works out the same as if it were the other way around. In case of doubt we ought not to abandon the interpretation of the sacred text as given by the holy Fathers.

Here Bellarmino explicitly admits that were Galileo's ideas to be proven correct, the church would have to alter its teachings and refrain from declaring Galileo wrong in principle. He then makes the sensible point that a new theory should not be prefered to the current if a (significant) measure of doubt remains as to its soundness; once again, a very reasonable approach to take. Lastly:

Quote:

If you tell me that Solomon speaks according to appearances, inasmuch as though the Sun seems to us to revolve, it is really the Earth that does so, just as when the poet says: �The shore is not receding from us,� I answer that, thought it may appear to a voyager as if the shore were receding from the vessel on which he stands rather than the vessel from the shore, yet he knows this to be an illusion and is able to correct his judgment, for his experience tells him plainly that the Earth is standing still and that his eyes are not deceived when they report that the Sun, Moon and stars are in motion.

To end his letter, Bellarmino makes the obvious point that Galileo's ideas flatly contradicted the empirical evidence of the time. Moreover, his theory of the continuum seemed a step backwards from Aristotle's and his own empirical observations from an entirely new source were quite justifiably held open to much skepticism.

To conclude: the revolving of the earth around the sun was "absurd" because it contradicted the plain facts of common sense; "false" (or, more accurately, not proven - per Bellarmino) because the theory supporting it was decidely shaky and the evidence unconvincing; and opposed to the consensus of the time, which happened to be the interpretation of the scriptures. It is difficult to suppose that any philosopher of science could disagree with Bellarmino's comments, but it would perhaps be more illuminating to ask what we would make of a theory put forward today in similar circumstances. The church was working from a tradition in which the results of investigations in the natural sciences were to be adapted to the conditions of the society taking them on, not the other way around.

(I'll just mention in closing that the first time i get called an apologist will be the last time.

)

anakata · 04-25-2003, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by emotional
Marshall Hall's Non-Moving Earth and Anti-Evolution Website

HAHAHAHAHHA that one had me burst into laughter. Are you sure it isn't a parody?

Dead Monkey · 05-05-2003, 08:52 AM

These are two articles that really worry me. We are all, aparently, condemned to death because Shrub and his buddies have only God to answer to.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15744

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15814

Valentine Pontifex · 05-05-2003, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by anakata
HAHAHAHAHHA that one had me burst into laughter. Are you sure it isn't a parody?

That one is for real.

05-05-2003, 08:52 AM	#44
Dead Monkey New Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Saginaw Posts: 2	Death by religion These are two articles that really worry me. We are all, aparently, condemned to death because Shrub and his buddies have only God to answer to. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15744 http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15814

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.