L
LateCatholic
Guest
Am I seriously dealing with someone that believes the Church was NOT anti-science in the middle ages?
Come on. So then what is this:
How much clearer can it get?
- Status
Come on. So then what is this:
How much clearer can it get?
S
Sbee0
Guest
Obviously not clear enough for you since the article doesn’t say that at all. The Church was pro science, always was. The persecution happened but if Galileo wasn’t arrogant and didn’t actually mock the church and call the pope a simpleton things would probably and mostly likely certainly have been a lot different.Sbee0:
Am I seriously dealing with someone that believes the Church was NOT anti-science in the middle ages?
Come on. So then what is this:
After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves - The New York Times
How much clearer can it get?
I bet you didn’t know that. See- it’s always better to be informed instead of regurgitating talking points.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
A whole lot clearer, apparently. Your thesis has been slowly and unceremoniously debunked over the past fifty years. Not sure where you have been those years.Sbee0:
Am I seriously dealing with someone that believes the Church was NOT anti-science in the middle ages?
Come on. So then what is this:
After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves - The New York Times
How much clearer can it get?
Try…
http://www.jameshannam.com/medievalscience.htm
OR
OR
D
deMontfort
Guest
Start:
Last edited:
T
TULIPed
Guest
How many babies die in the U.S. each year for lack of health care?
L
LateCatholic
Guest
Come on. What are you seriously trying to say with that point?
https://health.usnews.com/health-ne...ality-a-case-study-in-health-care-disparities
Welcome to the Republican concept of “pro-life”:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obamacare-pregnancy-abortion_us_587fdc68e4b02c1837e9742d
L
LateCatholic
Guest
If you want to somehow say all those murders the Church committed in the past were about “heresy” and not “science”, go for it. I mean, Bruno says the earth isn’t the only planet in the Universe (true), he’s told to recant, he doesn’t, then he gets sentenced to death by the Pope for it. What’s your response? That the Pope actually didn’t kill him, the secular authorities carried out the sentence? Or that it was about heresy not science? Please. Also, please respond regarding the recent apology for treatment of Galileo and how the Church acknowledges it was wrong for 350 years.
Look - If you want to say the Church is now pro-science, great. That’s what I want.
So you are pro-evolution, pro-climate change, pro-stem cell research?
Pro-Big Bang, pro-plurality of worlds, pro-vaccine?
Why are you arguing with me if you are pro-science? Or is it just lip service and you hate science but you are smart enough to realize science, as a worldview, is true?
A simple example. The Church says you cannot believe in evolution unless you acknowledge a ‘divine hand’ in it’s execution. That’s NOT science.
L
LateCatholic
Guest
I feel like I am in the twilight zone here. It is FACT that, in 1616, the Church declared it heresy to say the earth revolves around the sun. Galileo refused to recant, and he was imprisoned (Bruno, of course, was killed). As late as 1990, Cardinal Ratzinger was defending the Church’s decision to condemn Galileo - saying the political and religious implications of the time period were more important than the accuracy of the science. If that’s not “anti-science”, what is?
Then, in modern times, the Church opens an official investigation into its condemnation of Galileo 350 years ago. In 1992, the Pope himself releases a FORMAL apology. Heliocentrism, declared heretical in 1616, is now NOT heretical - even though it has been accepted science for centuries.
I mean, seriously. If you want to say the Church is not anti-science now, great, let’s discuss it. But in the past? You’ve got to have a little bit of fairness, ok?
S
Sbee0
Guest
I see you ignored my response above. That’s ok you’re entitled to your talking points even if they are completely wrong and misinformed.
The Church was never anti science. Fact, not opinion. A little research isn’t that difficult if you’d like to learn more and become informed on the topic.
That’s ok you’re entitled to your talking points even if they are completely wrong and misinformed.The Church was never anti science. Fact, not opinion. A little research isn’t that difficult if you’d like to learn more and become informed on the topic.
Last edited:
S
Sbee0
Guest
Completely wrong. Comical that you’re speaking on behalf of a Church and a faith that you said yourself you reject.HarryStotle:
If you want to somehow say all those murders the Church committed in the past were about “heresy” and not “science”, go for it. I mean, Bruno says the earth isn’t the only planet in the Universe (true), he’s told to recant, he doesn’t, then he gets sentenced to death by the Pope for it. What’s your response? That the Pope actually didn’t kill him, the secular authorities carried out the sentence? Or that it was about heresy not science? Please. Also, please respond regarding the recent apology for treatment of Galileo and how the Church acknowledges it was wrong for 350 years.
Look - If you want to say the Church is now pro-science, great. That’s what I want.
So you are pro-evolution, pro-climate change, pro-stem cell research?
Pro-Big Bang, pro-plurality of worlds, pro-vaccine?
Why are you arguing with me if you are pro-science? Or is it just lip service and you hate science but you are smart enough to realize science, as a worldview, is true?
A simple example. The Church says you cannot believe in evolution unless you acknowledge a ‘divine hand’ in it’s execution.
Last edited:
L
LateCatholic
Guest
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The problem with your “kitchen sink” argumentation is that you suppose by creating a perfect storm of accusations you will simply overwhelm anyone who might object to your litany of claims. Not so.
We can take each of your points in sequence, if you wish, but I won’t go on to any other point until you properly address this one.
Bruno wasn’t executed for claiming the earth wasn’t the only planet in the universe. He was charged with a number of more significant heretical views. Unfortunately, Napoleon carted off and destroyed all the Church documents that contained the actual charges, so those will not ever be recovered.
Inventing history from whole cloth is not a good way to do history.
There is some good historiography going on at the moment that does shed some light on Bruno, but obviously you don’t know about much of that and wouldn’t likely be persuaded, in any case. That is on you. Just like no matter how much actual evidence is brought forward showing Christine Blasey Ford is not credible, you will still believe her.
So I post this link not for your benefit but for anyone interested in what good scholarship can tell us about the subject, rather than what your closely held, but mistaken beliefs are.
So, yes, the execution of Bruno was not about science because he was not a scientist, never practiced science, and actually dismissed science as a method because of his preference for mysticism.
You can read all about it here, if you have a mind. I don’t think you will, however, because, like Bruno, you prefer the imaginings and conjectures of your own heart than actual and demonstrable facts.
The short version for those who legitimately do not have the time is this:
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Sbee0:
Last edited:
L
LateCatholic
Guest
This sub-thread, quite off-topic, is about the Church being “pro-science”. The theory of evolution clearly states that no divine force is required to explain the diversity of life. The official statement from the Church is that you can believe in evolution, but you MUST believe God had a hand in it. You are welcome to explain that reasoning, like I said, I’m not hear to nitpick. But the very fact that the Church (or someone speaking for it) uses the term “atheistic evolution” alone shows the an anti-science bias. There is no such thing as “atheistic evolution”. There is no such things as “theistic evolution”. In science, there is simply “evolution”. If you claim evolution only works if God was involved, you are anti-science. It doesn’t mean you are wrong, but it certainly means you are against the scientific method.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Well no actually, NO theory of evolution – at least NO version of the theory that I am familiar with – positively states that no divine force is required to explain the diversity of life.
No qualified scientist would claim THAT because science says absolutely nothing about divine forces, although Giordano Bruno, who was NOT a scientist – contrary to the opinions of some misinformed persons – might say some things about divine forces.
The most that science will ever propose is that natural forces can, hopefully, fully explain evolution. Science will attempt to explain how those forces come into play, but not even that equates to a positive statement that “no divine force is necessary.” Divine forces are never even talked about with reference to science. Science is completely silent about whether divine forces do or don’t come into play. That is not the same as claiming “No divine force is necessary.”
How would science know that? Is science into the study of divine forces, categorizing them, and ruling them out categorically? Nope.
Now until science arrives at “a theory of everything” that completely and sufficiently explains everything without reference to divine forces, then perhaps someone, a scientist even, might rule out any need for divine forces, but we aren’t there yet. So you are jumping the gun just a little.
No, science, wisely, does not speak of divine forces so for you to claim, therefore, divine forces have been ruled out by science is, logically speaking, tripe.
You need to look up the expression Don’t let your method become your metaphysics.
In logical terms, that is to beg the very question you are tying to answer. In figurative terms it is like a drunk searching for his lost keys under a lamppost because “The light is better over here.”
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
That would be because we ARE in the Twilight Zone.
No, actually, it only means the Church might have an anti-atheistic evolution bias. And that would not be a bias if atheism is demonstrably false.
You would have to prove that both science and evolution are both inherently atheistic in order to claim that an anti-atheistic bias equates to an anti-science or an anti-evolution bias.
Again, that is begging the question, and not demonstrating or proving your claim – a shell game with words, and no real nits left to pick because they went scurrying up your sleeve.
Last edited:
L
LateCatholic
Guest
It absolutely does. The theory explains the diversity of life and it does not state that divine force is required. Darwin mentioned a “Creator” several times in his later editions. In fact, he explicitly stated that God “breathed” life into the laws of evolution, but that the laws did not require direct intervention.
But that is neither here nor there. NO scientific theory requires divine or supernatural processes. Then it is NOT science. That’s not an opinion, that’s a definition. Why are you arguing this?
I really have no idea what you are trying to say. It’s like very sentence is supporting my position. I say science doesn’t require God. This is definition. Evolution is science. You then say evolution is silent on whether divine forces are necessary. That is not true. Evolution is also “silent” on whether a 1000 pink unicorns are required as well. But it doesn’t mean pink unicorns exist, or even imply it. Evolution stands on its own without God. Period. That doesn’t mean God isn’t real. It doesn’t mean God didn’t create the laws of evolution and 'turn them on, if you will. But you don’t need divine force to validate evolution.
Replace ‘divine forces’ and ’ God’ in your argument with something like ‘leprechaun’. Your argument does not change. Science does not require God - that’s the definition. You want to switch to philosophy of science or something else, let’s go. But let’s stay on target here.
L
LateCatholic
Guest
This is why I say it’s like the twilight zone with you. Two posts ago I said the Church allows for belief in evolution as long as you acknowledge God has a hand in the process. You said no. Now you say it DOES require a theistic bias. What is your point? Everything you say agrees with me. Let’s cut to the chase - do you think that evolution is the best explanation we have to explain the diversity of life? If not, what is your position? If yes, do you think God was involved and directed the process, or not? If no, you believe in the scientific version of evolution. If not, you believe in something else. Intelligent Design perhaps? Please lay your cards on the table. I call.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
This example of pink unicorns exactly proves my point. By being silent on pink unicorns, the theory of evolution does not thereby claim unicorns DO NOT or COULD NOT exist. In fact, with a little epigenetic or genetic manipulation, science might even be able to turn horses pink and add a horn of matted hair to their foreheads.
Your claim that the theory “doesn’t mean pink unicorns exist, or even imply it,” is true, but that does not mean the theory logically implies that pink unicorns do not or cannot exist . Your claim amounts to an argument from silence, which doesn’t hold water.
Your grasp of logic is tenuous, which is why your argument is flawed. Just because you do not or cannot see something does not mean it doesn’t exist. Think about it.
The theory of evolution is silent on the laws of physics, for the most part, which is why you don’t have evolutionary biologists challenging physicists on whether quarks or boson particles exist. The theory does not depend upon whether they do or don’t and so the theory doesn’t make any claims either way. This is inarguable, and yet you argue.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
This is sophistry, actually.
Yes, doing science or laying out a scientific theory does not require recognition of God, but that does not imply God is not required in the process of evolution, should it be true. The theory of evolution is not a theory of everything.
The theory of evolution says nothing about gravity and makes no claims about gravity, that does not mean the theory of evolution rules out gravity nor that it claims gravity does not exist. It also doesn’t mean gravity is not required for evolution to occur.
So you cannot claim, “I say evolution doesn’t require gravity,” just because the theory says nothing about gravity, just as you cannot claim, “I say science doesn’t require God,” just because science pretends God does not exist or because it says nothing about God.
Last edited:
- Status