This is a story about Galileo Galilei. It's not the story about an enlightened scientist being persecuted by a narrow-minded Catholic Church because that story is (mostly) a myth. It's not a story about a great scientific genius either, though he was that (mainly). It's also not a story about someone being reincarnated with the soul of the old astronomer like the song by the Indigo Girls that, for a few weeks in '92, I thought was (almost) profound. (And I should point out that it not an original story but one that cribbed together from other sources.)
But like all good stories this one provides a (mostly) valuable lesson.
In Galileo's day, the predominant view in astronomy was a model first espoused by Aristotle and developed by Claudius Ptolemy in which the sun and planets revolved around the earth. The Ptolemic system had been the reigning paradigm for over 1400 years when a Polish Canon named Nicholas Copernicus published his seminal work, On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs.
Now Copernicus' heliocentric theory wasn't exactly new nor was it based on purely empirical observation. While it had a huge impact on the history of science, his theory was more of a revival of Pythagorean mysticism than of a new paradigm. Like many great discoveries, he merely took an old idea and gave it a new spin.
Although Copernicus' fellow churchmen encouraged him to publish his work, he delayed the publication of On the Revolution for several years for fear of being mocked by the scientific community. At the time, the academy belonged to Aristotelians who weren't about to let such nonsense slip through the "peer review" process.
Then came Galileo, the prototypical Renaissance man a brilliant scientist, mathematician, and musician. But while he as intelligent, charming, and witty, the Italian was also argumentative, mocking, and vain. He was, as we would say, complex. When his fellow astronomer Johann Kepler wrote to tell him that he had converted to Copernicus' theory, Galileo shot back that he had too -- and had been so for years (though all evidence shows that it wasn't true). His ego wouldn't allow him to be upstaged by men who weren't as smart as he was. And for Galileo, that included just about everybody.
In 1610, Galileo used his telescope to make some surprising discoveries that disputed Aristotelian cosmology. Though his findings didn't exactly overthrow the reigning view of the day, they were warmly received by the Vatican and by Pope Paul V. Rather than continuing his scientific studies and building on his theories, though, Galileo began a campaign to discredit the Aristotelian view of astronomy. (His efforts would be akin to a modern biologist trying to dethrone Darwin.) Galileo knew he was right and wanted to ensure that everyone else knew that the Aristotelians were wrong.
In his efforts to cram Copernicanism down the throats of his fellow scientists, Galileo managed only to squander the goodwill he had established within the Church. He was attempting to force them to accept a theory that, at the time, was still unproven. The Church graciously offered to consider Copernicanism a reasonable hypothesis, albeit a superior one to the Ptolemaic system, until further proof could be gathered. Galileo, however, never came up with more evidence to support the theory. Instead, he continued to pick fights with his fellow scientists even though many of his conclusions were being proven wrong (i.e., that the planets orbit the sun in perfect circles).
Galileo's fatal mistake was to move the fight out of the realm of science and into the field of biblical interpretation. In a fit of hubris, he wrote the Letter to Castelli in order to explain how his theory was not incompatible with proper biblical exegesis. With the Protestant Reformation still fresh on their minds, the Church authorities were in no mood to put up with another troublemaker trying to interpret Scripture on his own.
But, to their credit, they didn't overreact. The Letter to Castelli was twice presented to the Inquisition as an example of the astronomer's heresy and twice the charges were dismissed. Galileo, however, wasn't satisfied and continued his efforts to force the Church to concede that the Copernican system was an issue of irrefutable truth.
In 1615, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine politely presented Galileo with an option: Put up or Shut up. Since there was no proof that the earth revolved around the sun, there was no reason for Galileo to go around trying to change the accepted reading of Holy Scripture. But if he had proof, the Church was willing to reconsider their position. Galileo's response was to produce his theory that the ocean tides were caused by the earth's rotation. The idea was not only scientifically inaccurate but so silly it was even rejected by his supporters.
Fed up with being dismissed, Galileo returned to Rome to bring his case before the Pope. The Pontiff, however, merely passed it along to the Holy Office who issued the opinion that �the Copernican doctrine is "foolish and absurd, philosophically and formally heretical inasmuch as it expressly contradicts the doctrine of Holy Scripture in many passages..." The verdict didn't stand for it was quickly overruled by other Cardinals in the Church.
Galileo wasn't about to let up, though, and to everyone's exasperation, pressed the issue yet again. The Holy Office politely but firmly told him to shut up about the whole Copernican thing and forbid him from espousing the unproven theory. This, of course, was more than he was willing to do.
When his friend took over the Papal throne, Galileo thought he would finally find a sympathetic ear. He discussed the issue with Pope Urban VIII, a man knowledgeable in matters of math and science, and tried to use his theory of the tides to convince him of the validity of his theory. Pope Urban was unconvinced and even gave an answer (though not a sound one) that refuted the notion.
Galileo then wrote A Dialogue About the Two Chief World Systems in which he would present the views of both Copernicus and Ptolemy. Three characters would be involved: Salviati, the Copernican; Sagredo, the undecided; and Simplicio, the Ptolemian (the name Simplicio implying "simple-minded"). And here is where we find our hero making his biggest blunder: he took the words that Pope Urban had used to refute his theory of the tides and put them in the mouths of Simplicio.
The Pope was not amused.
Galileo, who was now old and sickly, was once again called before the Inquisition. Unlike most suspected heretics, though, he was treated surprisingly well. While waiting for his trial, Galileo was housed in a luxurious apartment overlooking the Vatican gardens and provided with a personal valet.
In his defense, Galileo tried a peculiar tactic. He attempted to convince the judges that he had never maintained nor defended the opinion that the earth moves and that the sun is stationary and that he had, in fact, demonstrated the opposite by showing how the Copernican hypothesis was in error. The Holy Office, who knew they were being played for fools, condemned him as being "vehemently suspected of heresy", a patently unjust ruling considering that Copernicanism had never been declared heretical.
Galileo's sentence was to renounce his theory and to live out the rest of his days in a pleasant country house near Florence. Obviously the exile did him good because it was there, under the care of his daughter, that he continued his experiments and published his best scientific work, Discourses on Two New Sciences. He died quietly in 1642 at the ripe old age of 77.
As the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead wrote, "In a generation which saw the Thirty Years' War and remembered Alva in the Netherlands, the worst that happened to men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof, before dying peacefully in his bed."
As Paul Harvey would say, now we know the rest of the story. So what can we learn from this tale? I think it provides different lessons for different groups of people.
For scientists it shows that if you are in agreement with most of your colleagues, you will most likely be forgotten while history remembers some crank. For advocates of Intelligent Design theory it teaches that claiming your theory is correct is no substitute for backing it up with experiments and data (even if you are right). For aggressively self-confident people the lesson is that sometimes being persistence and believing in yourself will just get you into trouble. For Catholics it provides an example of why you shouldn't insult the Pope.
I suspect that there are many more lessons that can be gleaned from this story. But I find that the real moral is not so much in the story itself but in the fact that the story even needs to be told in the first place. While I first heard the story of Galileo in elementary school, it wasn't until long, long after I had graduated from college that I finally learned the truth. No doubt some people are just now hearing about it for the first time. How is that possible?
I suspect it may have something to do with the fact that for centuries people like Bertrand Russell, George Bernard Shaw, Carl Sagan, Bertolt Brecht, and the Indigo Girls have been passing on the myth. I don't think any of them were intentionally lying. In fact, I doubt any of them ever bothered to examine the facts themselves. They didn't need to. The story fit what they already believed -- that science and religion were natural enemies -- and that was all they needed to know.
It would be easy to mock such gullibility and intellectual laziness. But the truth is that I'm probably guilty of doing the same thing quite often. Perhaps it's because I was a once a journalist (sort of) that I am more apt to believe whatever version of a story I find more interesting. As a newspaper editor I often favored David over Goliath, even when the powerful Philistine was more credible than the person slinging the stones. "Boy Shepherd Slays Powerful Giant" always makes for a better headline.
As a Christian, though, I don't have the option of favoring the position that will sell more newspapers. Instead, my duty is to side with the truth. When I hear a story that fits my agenda I should examine all the relevant facts before accepting it as Gospel. I may not always be absolutely certain which side of the line the truth lays. But I do know on thing for sure. That is the side that God will be on.
Sources:
1
Hmph. I pride myself on my knowledge of obscure, or unknown, history, and that is the first time I've heard that. Thank you. It is a very interesting story to learn from.
posted on 07.12.2004 1:44 AM2
Good post. And if anybody makes reference to Andrew Dickson White, I might scream.
posted on 07.12.2004 2:14 AM3
Wow, far away, indeed, from the anti-Church bias I learned in high school. Which fit with the rest of the social ideas, mostly that religion and religious belief is the cause of most worldly problems.
Instead, PRIDE seems to be one of the main causes of Galileo's problems, combined with being part right and part wrong (on the tides). Being part wrong is definitely to be avoided if one wants to lead a revolution in science.
posted on 07.12.2004 6:02 AM4
It's not the first time I've heard the details about Galileo's life; I've even posted about it. It does fill in some gaps in what I've heard, however, and it's a much more thorough treatment of it than I gave. Nice work.
posted on 07.12.2004 9:07 AM6
Bravo to Joe Carter for a thought provoking, quality article. Two [atheistic] thumbs up.
posted on 07.12.2004 11:28 AM7
Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man talked about the part of the story where Galileo called the pope a simpleton. Thanks for sharing this well-written post, Joe. :)
posted on 07.12.2004 12:41 PM8
Joe, I applaud your efforts. However, there are those who believe debate can consist of one word commentary...You see it in the political realm (Haliburton...Enron..Bob Jones (OK that one is 2 words)
In this arena the word "Galileo" serves the same purpose for many. What would be interesting is to see if any of your readers, who have used "Galileo" in this manner...will STOP doing so now that you have posted this.
My hunch is no. At least from experience with other message boards. One reason I no longer do a ton of research just to refute a claim on a message board.
But having your own blog, makes the research worthwhile...we can link to this in months to come. Again, kudos.
posted on 07.12.2004 1:21 PM9
For another myth (and this is for humble from the just below thread which seems to have been stopped by the blog-owner) here is a good article on the Crusades:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-madden110201.shtml
Humble, you mentioned the Crusades in your latest post in that other thread. This is your only point I would take exception to. But just read this short article and decide for yourself.
posted on 07.12.2004 3:25 PM10
Your spin on the story would make it seem like the Christian churches of that era were whole heartedly embracing heliocentricism over geocentrism. What did Martin Luther have to say?:
"People listen to an unknown astrologer who tries to show that the earth rotates, and not the heavens nor the firmament nor the sun and the moon. Everyone who hankers after being thought clever forthwith devises some new-fangled system, which of course is considered to be the very best of all systems. This fool desires to overthrow the entire system of astronomy; but Holy Writ tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
It was Calvin who said, "Who is it who dares to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Ghost?"
It was declared by the Catholic Church's Congregation of Bishops and Cardinals in 1633, "That the earth is not the center of the Universe, and that it moves even with a daily rotation, is indeed an absurd proposition, and is false in philosophy; and theologically considered, at the least is erroneous in Faith."
While it is certainly plausible that rival scientists had issue with Galileo, for right or wrong reasons, to then jump to the conclusion that the church was for Galileo's heliocentrism is faulty logic.
posted on 07.12.2004 3:27 PM11
Joe, I read your blurb and I read Appledoorn's blurb (no citations???!!!!) and I mystified as to what "myth" about Galileo you consider to have been debunked?
Is that he was not, in your opinion, really "persecuted" by the church because he was sentenced to house arrest (um, who cares?)
Or is it that Galileo was an asshole and not a "virtuous" scientist (um, who cares?)
Because the nutshell version of the story appears to be unchanged: Galileo says the earth rotates around the sun (citing his observations of Venus, for example) and the Church says "no, the sun rotates around the earth until it's proved to our satisfaction."
Joe says,
"I suspect it may have something to do with the fact that for centuries people like Bertrand Russell, George Bernard Shaw, Carl Sagan, Bertolt Brecht, and the Indigo Girls have been passing on the myth."
You expect the Indigo Girls to recite the "version" you compiled here? Why? The bottom line is Galileo was persecuted for heretical belief which was essentially true. That is the take home point. Nothing in your "version" refutes that.
A "myth"? Be serious.
"The story fit what they already believed – that science and religion were natural enemies – and that was all they needed to know."
The Indigo Girls believe that science and religion are "natural enemies"? I bet all the scientists I know who are happy to defend their faith (i.e., their religious beliefs) would be suprised to hear (especially from the Indigo Girls) that science and religion are "natural enemies."
Why would they be surprised? Because science and religion have nothing to do with one another. That is the POINT of the Galileo story, which you seem to want to call a "myth" only because you believe that this "revelation" weakens science somehow. Wrong. On the contrary, it suggests that for some strange reason you are threatened by science.
"No doubt some people are just now hearing about it for the first time. How is that possible?"
It is possible because it is not clear how your version of the story is any different from the version I learned in elementary school or the version I saw on "Cosmos" many years ago.
This blog gets weirder all the time.
posted on 07.12.2004 3:54 PM12
"Your spin on the story would make it seem like the Christian churches of that era were whole heartedly embracing heliocentricism over geocentrism."
I didn't get that out of his post at all.
posted on 07.12.2004 3:57 PM13
Solar,
I didn't read the link, just out of sheer laziness, but the Children's Crusade (the 5th?) and the sacking of Constantinople (is Istanbul, not Constantinople, been a long time gone, Constantinople, why did Constantinople get the works? That's nobody's business but the Turks) aren't exactly pinnacles of Christendom. I should have been more specific, and I apologize. Those were the horrors of the Crusades that I was thinking of. The actual "Let's kick the Muslims off of the Earth" sentiment I can agree with, and I wish the Crusades had actually succeeded.
If that makes any moderate Christians or atheists uncomfortable, tough. Islam is a travesty, and is right behind Buddhism and Atheism for most number of deaths caused in the name of religion.
posted on 07.12.2004 4:06 PM14
You need to learn the history of that era a little more.
posted on 07.12.2004 4:17 PM15
HD says
"Islam is a travesty, and is right behind Buddhism and Atheism for most number of deaths caused in the name of religion."
Oy, where to begin? How about:
"Atheism" isn't a religion, you ignorant bigot.
posted on 07.12.2004 4:17 PM16
Larry Lord,
Check out of the thread beneath this one, and you'll have some context for Humble's writing that without throwing in a treatise of explanation...
Humble, I didn't mean to imply above that you don't know the history of that era (it's an era of history not many really know or that gets presented often or accurately in more popular media), but just read that short article. It made the rounds alot back in Nov. '01 and had an effect of blunting alot of kneejerk anti-Christian bad history demogoguing...
posted on 07.12.2004 4:22 PM17
Mr. Moderate,
Your spin on the story would make it seem like the Christian churches of that era were whole heartedly embracing heliocentricism over geocentrism.
Actually, I only mentioned the Catholic Church but we can examine what the Protestants thought if you like.
What did Martin Luther have to say?
True, Luther is reported to have said that during a dinner conversation. Luther, though, wasn’t much of a scientist.
It was Calvin who said, "Who is it who dares to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Ghost?"
Actually, Calvin never said that. In fact, he never mentioned Copernicus by name and it is not even known if he was aware of the astronomer or his work.
It was declared by the Catholic Church's Congregation of Bishops and Cardinals in 1633, "That the earth is not the center of the Universe, and that it moves even with a daily rotation, is indeed an absurd proposition, and is false in philosophy; and theologically considered, at the least is erroneous in Faith."
That was the year of Galileo’s trial so we shouldn’t be surprised to find that quote. Keep in mind that at that time, the theory was still unproven. Scientists have a tendency to stick with wrong theories until they are overthrown.
While it is certainly plausible that rival scientists had issue with Galileo, for right or wrong reasons, to then jump to the conclusion that the church was for Galileo's heliocentrism is faulty logic.
It would also be faulty to think it was a really a dispute over science (at least as we would define the term). The fight was between a worldview that embraced Aristotle’s cosmology and one that favored Pythagorean mysticism.
No one jumped to Galileo’s conclusion because it was still an untested hypothesis. If the old Italian had spent half as much trouble testing his theory as arguing about it he might have saved himself a lot of heartache.
posted on 07.12.2004 4:39 PM18
Larry--You atheists have been using Galileo has a broadbrush to paint Christians as anti-science for decades (probably centuries). Joe is showing that the real story is a bit more nuanced (thought you anti-Bush types liked nuance). Galileo's problem was that he went against the established scientific order. Those scientists used their political contacts in the Church to get him branded a heretic. Nowadays if you go against the established scientific order, you don't get grants or tenure. Ask Bjorn Lomburg what happens when you go against the established order, it ain't pretty.
posted on 07.12.2004 4:42 PM19
Larry,
I really think that the ordained minister, Michael Newdow, would disagree with your assertion that atheism is NOT a religion. A quick Google search turns up several atheistic religions. Just because you don't happen to participate in the organized denominations of atheism does not mean there is not an organized religion based on atheism.
One could also argue (quite strongly, actually) that Communism, Naziism, and Ba'athism (the Arabic variant of Naziism) are also religions. I won't suck up more bandwidth laying out the case for atheism being a religion.
posted on 07.12.2004 4:44 PM20
BTW--Bjorn Lomburg wrote a book de-bunking "global warming" and has been subject to many personal attacks by the established scientific order. Just in case anybody didn't know.
posted on 07.12.2004 4:44 PM21
What I came away with is that institutions can be demonized beyond the facts via intentional or unintentional means.
I don't think the author intended the piece to act as a pass for the actions of the 17th century RCC Theocracy, or as a point by point exhaustive historical treatise.
I also liked the part about ID needing legit evidence to be accepted.
Different readers likely draw different lessons from it. That's what makes it a good article imo.
22
Yoel Natan quoted in "The Jewish Trinity Sourcebook" (2003) on pp. 59-60:
Wedel wrote about Galileo: Even Galileo (1564–1642 AD), wrote horoscopes at the Medicean court … John of Saxony, a Parisian astronomer of the fourteenth century, felt it necessary to defend the publication of a purely astronomical work by emphasizing its utility for the practical science of judgments.
Neil Spencer wrote:
Kepler was obsessed with metaphysics, and believed the universe was organized according to the principles of Pythagorean mathematics.” Kepler wrote a number of metaphysical treatises. Though Kepler attempted to devise a new method of computing astrological influences in the heliocentric (Sun-centered) universe, he did not succeed.”
Neil Spencer wrote that Galileo:
… had a lifelong interest in astrology, repeatedly casting his own chart to ascertain his correct birth time (‘rectification’) by comparing the events of his life to his chart. Galileo also drew up horoscopes for various wealthy clients including the Duke of Tuscany, and for his daughters, whose stars were found fit only for their lifelong incarceration in a nunnery.
23
Joe & Macht
You know how this discussion arose in this board. It came about with the discussion of if religion is a stimulus or a retardant of scientific progress. The long drawn out discussion of Galileo therefore is not something out of the blue but to address this assertion.
True, Luther is reported to have said that during a dinner conversation. Luther, though, wasn’t much of a scientist.
Neither were most of the bishops and cardinals. The point isn't if the people had the intellectual authority to make those decisions, the question is if they did so based on religion to the detriment of science. Would one of Luther's followers be willing to accept the basis for heliocentricism at all? Even to this day there is a group of creationists who are so extreme as to advocate for geocentrism.
posted on 07.12.2004 5:14 PM24
"Bjorn Lomburg wrote a book de-bunking "global warming" and has been subject to many personal attacks by the established scientific order"
No, Lomburg wrote a non-peer reveiwed book that used crappy statistics to supposedly debunk global wamring and was called on it. He chose to make the fact that people pointed out that he had nothing resembling experitse in any physical science, much less environmental science, into a personal attack. Now, it is possible that some people did attack him personally -- scientsits are human, and thus have their share of jerks. But the Skepitacl Environmentalist was destoryed on the scientific basis. The Cato institute, that haven of left leaning, liberal environmental wackos, called it out on its lousy science, as did Skpetic magazine -- another home for wild-eyed leftist bomb throwers.
Joe:
Galileo was tried before the Inquisition, was found guilty, and was punished. How, please, does that not constitute attack based on putting religious belief ahead of scientific findings? And please explain to me what the heck the Church was doing waying in on a matter of science as if it was a matter of theology? Galileo may have been a jerk, his friend the Pope may have protected him form the worst of the punishments, but, in the end, the Church punished him for publishing scientific resultsd at odds with their theology.
All your article does is hihglight the fact that Galileo was, in fact, punsihed by the CHurch for his scientific work -- and that the Pope of the day was either a hypocrit (the uncharitable view) or put the well being of his friend -- and thus lived up to the duty to be charitable -- ahead of strict adherehnce to cannon law (the charitable view).
posted on 07.12.2004 5:14 PM25
"I won't suck up more bandwidth laying out the case for atheism being a religion."
Good. Because you have no case. I could care less whether some website says it's a religion for atheists. Not believing in something for which there is zero evidence does not mean I am religious. Period. End of story. Or do you want me to educate you about your religious beliefs in the non-existence of Ploink Ploink, the impossibly huge SpiderBat from Galaxy 423NR who killed God and Jesus shortly after the 2000 elections?
I didn't think so. Bigot.
"Ask Bjorn Lomburg what happens when you go against the established order, it ain't pretty."
Sure. Ask Pons and Fleishman what happens when you go against the established order. Or Jacque Benveniste (from INSERM). Or Peter Duesberg.
Has Bjorn been tried for "heresy" by the "order of established scientists"? Has he been sentenced to house arrest by the "established order"?
Oh, and let's be accurate: Bjorn wrote a book which was interpreted by some people as an attempt to "debunk" various theories for the period of global warming WHICH THE PLANET EARTH HAS CERTAINLY ENTERED.
A book such as the one Bjorn wrote could have major policy implications, especially in the current political climate where we have a President who does not appear "friendly" to scientists. Given the implications of Bjorn's book, it is expected -- indeed, it should be ENCOURAGED -- for a "spirited debate" to ensue.
Huge amounts of ink have been spilled re: Bjorn's book. That is the way science works. If Bjorn is right, he will be vindicated. If he is wrong, he will be criticized not because he was wrong, but because he made a mistake about something that is VERY VERY VERY IMPORTANT.
Does any of this sound familiar to anyone?
"You atheists have been using Galileo has a broadbrush to paint Christians as anti-science for decades (probably centuries)."
That's because he was persecuted by the church because he wrote a book claiming (correctly) that the sun rotated around the earth.
Several commenters have said that Galileo lacked the necessary "proof". Bogus. What was the church's proof that the sun and other planets rotated around the eart? They had NONE (anyone care to argue about that? I relish the though).
"Those scientists used their political contacts in the Church to get him branded a heretic."
Two comments: what is your PROOF for this statement? And what the hell was the Church doing "branding" scientists for beliefs contrary to scripture in the first place? That's sick. It's disgusting. Why should a church be telling a scientist what to think about *the natural world*. You don't hear the "established order of scientists" telling church's what to think about the *spiritual world* (e.g., the color or shape of "souls", the number of angels that can dance on a pin, how many levels of purgatory there are, how hot the fires of hell are, etc.)
To the extent that the Bush Administration applied political litmus tests to scientists in their interviews for various *scientific* appointments, they are behaving just like the church did in Galileo's day: like asses.
posted on 07.12.2004 5:20 PM26
Rob Smith:
BTW--Bjorn Lomburg wrote a book de-bunking "global warming" and has been subject to many personal attacks by the established scientific order.
First, and personal attacks against Lomburg are unwarranted. But that said, his book was attacked because it was crap. The Libertarian CATO institute, and the Libertarian-leaning Skeptics Society both trashed it, and they can NOT generally be considered friendly to environmentalist causes. If they trashed it, they did so because it's junk science, not because of any overriding political agenda.
In my estimation, it's to their credit that they trashed the book, because accepting what Lomburg wrote uncritically would have fit their political agenda better; instead, they took the correct path, and decided to call crap "crap," even if that crap would have helped them.
posted on 07.12.2004 5:21 PM27
*sigh*
Larry,
I have not yet once called you any names, insulted you, or even told you what I really think of your screeds. Do us all a favor, and don't do any of those things, either. Also, don't call me a bigot. Well, I suppose you have the right to, but you are just showing your ignorance when you do it.
I have PLENTY of evidence that atheism is a religion, it would just be unfair to the host of this site (who is paying for our little snipe-fest) to use up his bandwidth on something the host, and the majority of his guests, already agree with. You are in the minority here, and if you don't like it, leave. I don't remember this site being "advertised" as a place to debate the existence of God. It is more "advertised" as a place where believers in God can chat about the issues of the day, from an Evangelical viewpoint. Or did I totally misconstrue the name "the evangelical outpost" to mean the latter, rather than the former?
Global Warming is a theory that debunks itself. Of course we are in a warming trend. We have about 10 degrees F mean temperature to RISE before we are at the mean temperature of the Middle Ages. Which means the Earth cooled down while Humans have been here. Which also means it has warmed while Humans have been here. The theory of Global Warming being caused by Humans is silly. The Earth has warmed and cooled, regardless of Human activity. Am I the only one who remembers that there were at least three Ice Ages in North America? With only one of them occuring while Humans were present? The number one cause of warming and cooling of the Earth is the Sun. And we do not affect the Sun, in any way, shape, or form.
posted on 07.12.2004 5:43 PM28
Humble Devildog:
Humor me with a brief answer: Which definition of religion does atheism fit? Certainly not 1, 2, or 3. Perhaps 4, although I think you'll have to admit that definition 4 is not what most people think of when they hear the word "religion."
Global Warming is a theory that debunks itself.
It's nice that you think so. Unfortunately, the vast majority of climatologists and earth scientists seem to disagree with you. I'm sure your credentials would dwarf theirs, however, so I can see why we should take your word for it over theirs.
The truth is that in the mainstream scientific community, there is no debate about whether global warming is actually occurring, or whether human activity contributes to it. The only debate concerns to what degree human activity has an effect.
Your comment about how much we affect the sun is baloney, and demonstrably so. Put a sun shield in the windshield of your car on a hot day some time. Did it keep the interior of the car cooler? Yes. Now replace your windshield with a magnifying glass. Did it warm the interior of your car? Yep. Did you have to somehow alter what the sun does to effect that difference in temperature? Of course not.
posted on 07.12.2004 6:10 PM29
HD, tgirsch took the words right out of my mouth (and spelled them better than I do).
As to this comment of yours,
"Also, don't call me a bigot. Well, I suppose you have the right to, but you are just showing your ignorance when you do it. "
Oh, really? According to Webster's, a bigot is:
1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite.
2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
All right, with that in mind, particularly the last sentence in the definition 2, let's refresh ourselves with HD's post:
"The actual "Let's kick the Muslims off of the Earth" sentiment I can agree with, and I wish the Crusades had actually succeeded."
I repeat, HD: you are a bigot. Rather than chastise me, I'd have expected you to proudly admit it. It's not often that people publicly proclaim their genocidal fantasies on blogs. It is interesting (to say the least) to see such fantasies broadcast by a commenter who claims to be chatting "about the issues of the day, from an Evangelical viewpoint."
I don't recall Jesus spending much of his time preaching about exterminating other religious groups. Is that in some fifth gospel that I haven't read? The Gospel According to Doctor Strangelove, perhaps?
posted on 07.12.2004 6:27 PM30
Ptolemy often gets a bad rap in history. His cosmology was actually very accurate with observations into Copernican times. Ptolemy's solar system was geometrically wrong, but it did work well to explain the observations of the day.
It was almost a toss-up in accuracy for many decades, even after 1609, when Kepler released his analysis of Brahe's data and suggested elliptical orbits, the Ptolemic Cosmology worked well enough to be extremely useful.
The RCC did plenty of nasty things to scientists (and damn near anyone) during this time. Incidentally many of the scientists they destroyed advocated ideas we now know are wrong.
But Galilleo was cut slack by comparison to Giordano Bruno for example. A scientists who was burned alive by the RCC around the same time period, ostensibly for insisting other stars might be suns with planets.
And this was one point Joe Carter was illustrating.
31
Larry,
It would be impossible to commit genocide on Muslims, as "Muslim" is not a genotype. It is a faith-based religion that advocates the conquering, subjugating, and killing of non-Muslims. While many, if not most, Arabs are Muslim, I have said NOTHING about wanting to kill Arabs, only eliminating Islam. Islam is the religious version of Naziism, and actually shares many beliefs with Naziism. So, I have no problem with wanting Islam wiped out, no more than I have a problem with wanting Naziism, or Communism, or Socialism wiped out. I would think that, as an atheist, you would side with the Christians on this one, since Islam makes no distinction between Christians and atheists. Jews are the only ones they single out for special treatment.
Theologically, I have problems with Islam, but they are no more severe than my problems with the Roman Catholic Church. In the past 800+ years, though, the RCC has dropped most of it's desire to subjugate non-RCC cultures, while Islam has not dropped it's desire to subjugate the non-Islamic cultures. In fact, Islam seems to have gotten worse about it.
Let's look at the last sentence of definition 2, shall we? You are not the final arbiter of whether or not I am "blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion." In fact, I seem to recall that I have been quite open and honest about some of the warts in Christianity's history. So, nope, I'm still not a bigot. I am, however, a Christian who believes you atheists have made a poor decision, and I would like to change your minds, but that is for God to decide, not you or me.
Nice try, though. Too bad I'm not as ignorant as you say I am.
Hm. You don't recall Jesus advocating the elimination of other religions? Well, not in so many words, no, He didn't. But, if His disciples were to go forth and be witnesses to Him, then other religions would have to go away, now, wouldn't they? Jesus' and God's plan is for ALL Humans to become Christian, but by choice, not by imposition. If all Humans become Christian, then all other religions would have to be eliminated. (I know that it will never happen, but I can dream, can't I?)
It would seem that Larry would qualify for def.4 of religion. He certainly is zealous, and he seems to have a conscientious devotion to atheism, so yep, definition 4 it is. Atheism is a religion. Or, at least Larry is a religious atheist. Thanks for the help, tgirsh. It's not the source for definitions I would have used (the one I would have used removes much of the faith-based connotations from the definition), but it still applies.
posted on 07.12.2004 7:11 PM32
DS says, "It was almost a toss-up in accuracy for many decades, even after 1609"
Really? Why did Cardinal Bellarmine state during Galileo's trial in 1615 that "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
This is religious interference in matters where religion has no business: basic science. That is not to say that religious people can't be scientists and vice versa. Rather, the point is religious dogma (e.g., scripture or the interpetation of scripture by "enlightened" persons) should not be used to decide what can and cannot be said by scientists. That is what the story of Galileo is about and that is why the story is important.
Look at it this way. Back in Galileo's day, many scientists and religious people believed in astrology and creationism. Today, only a handful of (completely irrelevant) scientists believe in astrology or creationism. But you'll still find plenty of non-scientists and fundamentalist religious people who believe in such baloney. That is the effect which dogmatic uncritical thinking has on the human brain. Science always moves forward because science is a process of learning and acquiring knowledge about the natural world. Religious leaders do their best to keep up with science or hold science back.
DS says
"Incidentally many of the scientists they destroyed advocated ideas we now know are wrong."
How do we know those ideas are wrong? Oh yeah: those darn scientists again.
DS again:
"But Galilleo was cut slack by comparison to Giordano Bruno for example. And this was one point Joe Carter was illustrating."
If you say so. That point was lost on me. Perhaps the point was lost because I was not taught by Carl Sagan or the Indigo Girls that Galileo received the harshest treatment known in the entire history of religious persecution of scientists. Because I was not aware of this particular feature of the "myth" of Galileo (also known as a "straw man"), I could not appreciate this subtle point.
posted on 07.12.2004 7:32 PM33
Interesting post Joe. Thanks.
From my own reading I was also lead to believe that the Jesuit astronomers of Pope Urban VIII's day were quite into copernician theory.
As another aside, the whole issue of whether the earth travels around the sun is somewhat out of date in some respects. Since Einstein, it has been made it quite clear that motion is relative. So in effect the earth does travel around the sun, but also the sun does travel around the earth. I guess the earth travelling around is much easier to map mathematically though...
posted on 07.12.2004 7:41 PM