Evangelion

Indeed.

Another reason is that there are certain Christian discussion boards which I find quite intolerable, and T-Web is one of them.

At least IIDB offers a high standard of debate with rational minds.

Sojourner553

Agreed, one can find many intelligent and interesting people here -- from all backgrounds and religious persuasions.

Of course I have found exceptions -- also from both sides.

Bede

No Sojourner, they were not. Please read some basic stuff on Galileo that was not written by Andrew Dickson White or his disciples. Hugo has offered links here and elsewhere. Galileo's attackers were primarily concerned that he was overthrowing the Aristoteliam cosmology that they had all spent their lives teaching. Galileo could not prove he was right but went around insulting everyone who disagreed with him. They used the church which allowed itself to be used after they had convinced the pope that Galileo was insulting him too.

No Catholics were claiming the scriptures were always literally true. After all, they imply a flat earth and no one believed that.

On Christian Doctrine

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Evangelion

Sojourner - I heartily concur.

Sojourner553

Bede
In your link:

Augustine cautions that an individual might not be able to correctly interpret the scriptures (including their signs and nature) – that its true meaning is to be “undertaken in dependence on God’s aid”.

His concern is with the “ambiguity of Scripture” and argues this can be reconciled by studying them within “proper words or in metaphorical classes”.

Again he is arguing the biblical stories must be supplemented with interpretation--he does not imply they are not literally true, once their proper meaning is illuminated.

My source stated Cardinal Bellarmine thought the stories themselves might not be literal events, but moral fables helpful for the common masses.

A major difference. If you have different facts to refute the above, please list them.

PS. Aren't you throwing the Andrew White metaphor around a little too much --Please demonstrate for me how this is even relevent here. Seems to me you are injecting battles with others into this thread.

Hugo Holbling

This is why i'm opposed to the reading of this incident which paints Galileo as the bastion of freethinking in an ocean of religious lunacy. In fact, neither Bacon nor Brahé found Galileo's arguments convincing and it was to take some time before his telescope was understood and hence free of the very reasonable skepticism that was attached to it. Moreover, he could not provide a theory of optics to account for what he saw and distinguish between real objects and artefacts; i.e. he had no rational grounds for justifying the validity of his data. According to Kuhn, the telescope "was not proof, but it was propaganda." (Indeed, the telescope was not significant in the eventual triumph of the Copernican model.) His theory of the tides was held in contempt, later proven to be justly so, and his theory of motion and the continuum was opposed to and considerably less impressive than the Aristotlean orthodoxy. It was this latter that meant he was attacked by those scholars who did not feel compelled to give it up on the basis of the unconclusive arguments that Galileo ranged against them.

As a result of these factors, Galileo counter-attacked, ridiculing his detractors and employing various subterfuges, such as writing in Italian to appeal to popular support and giving public demonstrations. Nevertheless, his standing with the Church was not affected and he continued to enjoy their support. It was only when he persisted in proclaiming his ideas to be the truth, in spite of the poverty of his proof at that time and having convinced very few, that the decree was issued declaring that the Copernican system could only be taught as a hypothesis, not fact, and not mentioning Galileo by name. Even so, the article from the Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to deplore the way this was carried out.

Bellarmine acted in accordance with any reasonable person in arguing that were Galileo's ideas subsequently proven correct, the Church would have to alter its teaching to accommodate them, but not before. Today we demand much the same of creationists when we refuse to renounce evolution unless and until we see evidence to the contrary and a plausible alternative. Were they to invent a new means of experiment proving such, we would be skeptical of it until its implications were clear.

The Galileo affair is interesting but i think it is more pertinent to the philosophy of science than trying to use it to show the supposed folly of the Church. It it useful because it demonstrates the poverty of methodological descriptions of science: Galileo was a great scientist precisely because he broke all the rules that later thinkers would propose as governing the praxis of science. This is more than enough to draw from the affair.

Sojourner553

This is why i'm opposed to the reading of this incident which paints Galileo as the bastion of freethinking in an ocean of religious lunacy. In fact, neither Bacon nor Brahé found Galileo's arguments convincing and it was to take some time before his telescope was understood and hence free of the very reasonable skepticism that was attached to it.

Yes. To add to your point, I have read the optics used by Galileo were so poor, that there was concern that his sighting were all due to optical distortions. Ie the physical evidence from his telescope was not really clear cut!


It was only when he persisted in proclaiming his ideas to be the truth, in spite of the poverty of his proof at that time and having convinced very few, that the decree was issued declaring that the Copernican system could only be taught as a hypothesis, not fact, and not mentioning Galileo by name.

But there is also evidence Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), wrote before this time that the earth was NOT located at the center of the universe:

"The earth is not in the centre of the Sun's orbit nor at the centre
of the universe, but in the centre of its companion elements, and united
with them. And any one standing on the moon, when it and the sun are
both beneath us, would see this our earth and the element of water upon
it just as we see the moon, and the earth would light it as it lights
us." (Jean Paul Richter, THE NOTEBOOKS OF LEONARDO DA VINCI, Volume II
Dover Publications, Inc., New York,1970, p 137)

Da Vinci encrypted his notes using mirror writing—showing more wisdom than Galileo? {note this also predates Copernicus REVOLUTIONIBUS ORBIUM COELESTIUM (1543)}


As a result of these factors, Galileo counter-attacked, ridiculing his detractors and employing various subterfuges, such as writing in Italian to appeal to popular support and giving public demonstrations

We are in agreement here.


. It was only when he persisted in proclaiming his ideas to be the truth, in spite of the poverty of his proof at that time and having convinced very few, that the decree was issued declaring that the Copernican system could only be taught as a hypothesis, not fact, and not mentioning Galileo by name..

We disagree here. It clearly mentions Galileo by name and states it was for specific actions including holding and teaching a false doctrine as true AND teaching principles contrary to the authority of the Holy Scriptures.



Bellarmine acted in accordance with any reasonable person in arguing that were Galileo's ideas subsequently proven correct, the Church would have to alter its teaching to accommodate them, but not before

No one is arguing the Church had to alter its teachings. The Church has not altered many of its teachings that many feel are in conflict with modern science today. {Example: Do witches exist, are exorcisms real?}

The Trial of Galileo is about intellectual freedom. Does one have the freedom to disagree with authority and pursue their own path.

Today we demand much the same of creationists when we refuse to renounce evolution unless and until we see evidence to the contrary and a plausible alternative. Were they to invent a new means of experiment proving such, we would be skeptical of it until its implications were clear

But no one is demanding creationists change their religion – only to butt out of science –UNLESS THEY FOLLOW SCIENTIFIC METHODS AND PROOFS in their conclusions. They are free to try, but they must follow the rules in order to be taken seriously.

To be comparable: the Catholic Church could have excommunicated Galileo rather than putting him under house arrest, threatening torture. (Galileo was a religious man and the social/religious ostricism might have scared him to keep quiet, rather than political threats.)

(Perhaps this is what you meant when you note that the Catholic Encyclopedia states TODAY they do not agree with the METHODS used against Galileo. )

Again the Trial of Galileo is about intellectual freedom (the loss of POLITICAL rights for ones personal views).

The fact is -- there must be intellectual freedom – so that Galileo –AND MANY OTHERS – could build a foundation of science that could clearly replace older views/superstitions.

The pursuit of science must exist in a climate permitting individual/intellectual freedom FIRST in order to thrive -- for it is unlikely for one ICONOCLAST by him/herself to be able to accomplish this without building on the scientific findings of others first.

Hugo Holbling

I apologise for stepping out of my depth. I'm fairly clued-up on the philosophy of science, but this is something for you and Bede.

Perhaps. Even so, the problem that Bellarmine had was the treating of an hypothesis as truth; something which stills concerns us today.

I respectfully still disagree. Not only did Galileo have the freedom to pursue his own path, but he was also supported in this until he crossed the very same line that we insist upon in philosophy of science today. It just so happens that the orthodoxy of the time was influenced by theological considerations, but this is incidental to the fact that a poorly supported theory could not be expected to overturn ideas that were obvious to everyone.

While i agree with you, the history of ideas would seem to suggest that iconclasts find a way, irrespective of the methodological constraints placed upon them by philosophers and those wise after the fact. Galileo is such an interesting case study because he exemplifies the redescription necessary to bring about a change in thinking by talking about familiar things in different ways. Such traits appear common to all similar events, as Kuhn showed and Rorty is building on. In this case, the Copernican revolution took root as a result of the work of many people, not one individual. Try to see it from the churchmen's point-of-view: would you give up your interpretation of the scriptures, which was supported by Aristotlean theory and the evidence of common sense, on account of a system as poorly regarded as Galileo's seemed?

In any case: i thank you for your patience and appreciate you BC&A types taking the time to allow my non-apologist disagreement.

Sojourner553

Hi Hugo.
Good posts by the way.

Even so, the problem that Bellarmine had was the treating of an hypothesis as truth; something which stills concerns us today.

Yes. This also applies to science today– as one rarely works with 100% of the facts/evidence.

That is, How are minority scientific views to be treated viz-a-viz orthodoxy scientific views? {Do you agree with the statement if I put in the word “scientific” as an adjective? How about if I then take this adjective out?}


Re:
The Trial of Galileo is about intellectual freedom. Does one have the freedom to disagree with authority and pursue their own path.

I respectfully still disagree. Not only did Galileo have the freedom to pursue his own path, but he was also supported in this until he crossed the very same line that we insist upon in philosophy of science today.

I would argue Galileo was more likely tolerated (not supported or assisted), before he “CROSSED THE LINE” (as you put it) and claimed the MINORITY view that the heliocentric system was fact. “Crossing the line” appears to be the pivotal point where we disagree. What was his “just” treatment after he “crossed the line” with orthodox views?


It just so happens that the orthodoxy of the time was influenced by theological considerations, but this is incidental to the fact that a poorly supported theory could not be expected to overturn ideas that were obvious to everyone.

This is not about “expecting to overturn ideas” this is about the freedom to EXPRESS a minority opinion. Religion is really a sub issue here.

So let me give you an example, where I take religion out of the picture: Say, “Orthodoxy” could be a POLITICAL body instead of a religious one:

As one example: Lysenkoism flourished in Stalin Russia, because in communist ideology it was “obvious” any biology based on genetics was a bourgeoisie plot. Were the Stalinists correct then in outlawing minority opinions that countered Lysenko? How about imprisoning proponents that publicly disagreed with Lysenko’s views?

I think I am hearing one has the right to “think” differently, just not “express” it as fact:

If so, do apply this CONSISTENTLY for us: Lysenko’s opponents could “think” differently in communist Russia, as long as they kept quiet ?– or if they taught any opposing views were "merely" exercises in fantasy then this was ok? (I think the Stalinists did follow this btw—not unlike the Catholic Church.)



re:
The pursuit of science must exist in a climate permitting individual/intellectual freedom FIRST in order to thrive -- for it is unlikely for one ICONOCLAST by him/herself to be able to accomplish this without building on the scientific findings of others first.

While i agree with you, the history of ideas would seem to suggest that iconclasts find a way, irrespective of the methodological constraints placed upon them by philosophers and those wise after the fact.

I disagree completely. There is a reason why science flourishes during renaissances and not during dark ages (in any culture.) It is the environment of freedom. I would argue local cultures have swallowed up/stifled many geniuses throughout the ages.



Galileo is such an interesting case study because he exemplifies the redescription necessary to bring about a change in thinking by talking about familiar things in different ways. Such traits appear common to all similar events, as Kuhn showed and Rorty is building on. In this case, the Copernican revolution took root as a result of the work of many people, not one individual.

Of course. That is why it is important not to stamp out the ideas of any one person along the chain of connections. (with mild reference to James Burke.) Is not Kuhn in agreement here?



Try to see it from the churchmen's point-of-view: would you give up your interpretation of the scriptures, which was supported by Aristotlean theory and the evidence of common sense, on account of a system as poorly regarded as Galileo's seemed?

S’xuse me, but no authoritarian body “likes” to give up their pet views, or give opposing viewpoints an equal pulpit.

As I stated earlier some religious groups still have not given up their favorite interpretation of the scriptures for some of the findings of science. (Creationism is one example.) The issue is whether authoritarian bodies can FORCE others not to express their minority opinions in public.

Creationists are free to express their opinions today. The issue is whether they can ” term them “scientific”, as the scientific community has strict definitions as to what this label can entail (in weeding out theories – not just religious based ones.)

They are free to label their views “religious” of course (even though not all religions agree with Creationism), nor is anyone physically preventing them from expressing the views themselves as fact.



In any case: i thank you for your patience and appreciate you BC&A types taking the time to allow my non-apologist disagreement.

“non-apologist disagreement” -- too many negatives here to trip me up. What is your meaning? - is this the same as an apologist agreement? Smile.

Anyway you are a very pleasant debater! Have a good day/ evening!

Sojourner

Bede

Sojourner,

Augustine is quite clear that parts of the bible are metaphorical and figurative.

You are right to say that authoritarian systems stiffle many ideas and that occasionally will stiffle a good one. But this is an historically uninteresting observation. As a 21st century liberal I completely support the right of people to make unsubstantiated statements and insult those who disagree with them. For instance, I'm not saying Yuri should be thrown in jail.

However, you said that Galileo got into trouble because his views conflicted with scripture and hence appeared to be endorsing a science/religion conflict scenario. Hugo has helped us establish that this is objectively wrong and you seem to now accept this. BTW, excommunication was a much more serious punishment than house arrest and G would have had to refuse to recant to merit such severe treatment.

Leonardo is not claiming a heliocentric model - the earth is not the centre of the sun's orbit in the Ptolemaic system either. Even if Leo had said such a thing he would deserve no credit as he had not the evidence to show the proposition is not absurd. Picking out unsupported lucky guesses and claiming they were great insights gets us nowhere.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason