Why are the skeptics here?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What was the Church's stance during Tennessee v. Scopes? I don't recall the Catholic League donating to Scopes's legal fund.

How about during the most recent Kansas State Board of Education case involving the teaching of Intelligent Design? Did the Church rush to the aid of science?

According to http://www.americancatholic.org/News/StemCell/ ...[text shortened]... rtion, euthanasia and other attacks on innocent life."

Do you wish to modify your claim?

Dr.S: "Do you wish to modify your claim"

Of course not. If the Church opposes immoral ideas, research and actions in science, then this does not mean She opposes science as such.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are a true moron. Can scientists today PROVE the existence of wormholes? If the Church today says we believe that saying wormholes exist is a heresy could any scientist be justifiably burned at the stake in your view who wrote about wormholes?

You are a pathetic liar to pretend the Galileo case had anything to do with the Church's belief in ...[text shortened]... d teach his theories without being arrested and possibly killed.

You make me sick.

1. I haven't been following astronomy closely enough in recent years to know if empirical evidence for the existence of wormholes has been discovered. However, the existence of wormholes is a necessary corollary of astrophysical theories that have been verified empirically and are superior to other competing theories without wormholes.

This is vastly different from Galileo's model.

2. The pressure on the Church did not come from a scientist who wanted nothing more than to write and teach his theories. The pressure on the Church came from a prominent pamphleteer who was running a PR campaign throughout Europe to coerce the Church into declaring his theory (which he couldn't prove) to be true and to change its theological approach accordingly.

You need to distinguish between the Galileo of popular legend and the historical Galileo.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Why is it that a scientist is not able to state his case as being true even if all the available evidence supports it (as it did in the case of the heliocentric model), but the church is allowed to assert it's position without any evidence whatsoever?

All the available evidence did not support the heliocentric model. Google "Galileo stellar parallax".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. I haven't been following astronomy closely enough in recent years to know if empirical evidence for the existence of wormholes has been discovered. However, the existence of wormholes is a necessary corollary of astrophysical theories that have been verified empirically and are superior to other competing theories without wormholes.

This is vast

You need to distinguish between the Galileo of popular legend and the historical Galileo.

You need to stop reading the propaganda handed out by the RCC and actually think about what you're saying. Your post fails to answer my question; in your view would the RCC be justified to declare the belief in wormholes heresy and to condemn Stephen Hawking to prison for life for writing about it? Yes or no? It doesn't make the slightest difference in the world if in the Church's opinion in 1615 Galileo's theory wasn't the best explanation; it was A) True and B) Certainly not heresy. Why you can't get those simple truths through your head is a complete mystery to me.

The rest is lies and you know it. Galileo's trial occurred because of a book he had written which presented a debate between a heliocentric and geocentric view of the universe. For that he went to prison. The idea of the old man flitting around Europe stuffing pamphlets in every Church goers hand is ridiculous even for you. As is the idea that he was "pressuring" the Church; most of the time he was trying to avoid going to prison or his books being banned.

Martin Luther didn't like Copernicius theory either. At any rate, the debate was effectively ended by Newton's work in the late 1600's. But Copernicius' books were on the list of those banned until 1835. So much for the RCC just adopting the most reasonable scientific theory as Biblical doctrine!

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Dr.S: "Do you wish to modify your claim"

Of course not. If the Church opposes immoral ideas, research and actions in science, then this does not mean She opposes science as such.

Were Scopes or the opponents of the Kansas Board of Education undertaking immoral science?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. I haven't been following astronomy closely enough in recent years to know if empirical evidence for the existence of wormholes has been discovered. However, the existence of wormholes is a necessary corollary of astrophysical theories that have been verified empirically and are superior to other competing theories without wormholes.

This is vast ...[text shortened]...

You need to distinguish between the Galileo of popular legend and the historical Galileo.

The pressure on the Church did not come from a scientist who wanted nothing more than to write and teach his theories. The pressure on the Church came from a prominent pamphleteer who was running a PR campaign throughout Europe to coerce the Church into declaring his theory (which he couldn't prove) to be true and to change its theological approach accordingly.

I can’t remember from the other thread: did Galileo actually put forth a theological argument that was heretical?

NOTE: Since Luther was mentioned, I went searching a bit. Luther himself was declared an outlaw and a heretic by the Edict of Worms in 1521; he was, however protected by the German nobility, following the lead of Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony.

Take the following snippets for what they’re worth; I’m not sure who they support in this argument. They do indicate that the RCC was slower than the Protestants in denouncing the Copernican theory (may have something to do with Luther’s sola scriptura).

From http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/05-SecondaryTeaching/NSF-PLANS/1-4_PTOL-COP.htm:

The first religious leaders to denounce Copernicus for contradicting the Bible were Luther and Calvin, but they did not officially condemn him.

Martin Luther said, in his work, Tischreden:

There was mention of a certain new astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving. So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth. (Crowe 174)

From http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit3/galileo.html:

Troubles with the Church.

1616:

• The Church officially declares that the heliocentric theory is "philosophically false and at least an erroneous belief."
• De Revolutionibus was officially banned.
• Galileo was called to an audience with Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, who cautioned him verbally to stop teaching and defending the Copernican model in public.

1624:

• Galileo writes "A Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems", ably defending the Copernican system.
• Seeks permission from Pope Urban VIII to publish it, but is rebuffed.

1632:

• Galileo's Dialogue is published in Florence, written in Italian (Tuscan), not Latin.
• It was an instant success & widely acclaimed.
• Galileo unfortunately played directly into the hand of his enemies.

The Trial of Galileo

1633:

• Galileo is summoned by the Roman Inquisition and a document is produced alleging that Bellarmine in 1616 specifically forbade him to discuss the Copernican system in any way (modern scholarship has shown that this document is a forgery, or at best trumped up).

Galileo faced two specific charges:

• Disobedience of Bellarmine's 1616 order.
• Misleading censors who published his book.

What was really going on in the background was that enemies of Galileo convinced Pope Urban VIII that a character in the Dialogue named Simplicio who ineptly defended the Ptolemaic system was a thinly veiled caricature of the Pope himself. This provided a pretext for making an example of Galileo, albeit on trumped up charges. Galileo was his own worst enemy in this situation, as he vastly overestimated his influence in Rome, and the degree to which his well-deserved fame would protect him.

Publicly humiliated and threatened with torture, Galileo had no choice but to admit guilt, and "abjure, curse and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies..."

House Arrest

Galileo was placed under house arrest at his villa in Arcetri near Florence until his death in 1642. Despite this, in 1636 he finished "The Two New Sciences" describing his experiments in mechanics.

• Unable to get published due to his conviction, the manuscript was smuggled out of Italy and published in Protestant Leyden in 1638.
• This book helped lay the foundations of classical physics.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You need to stop reading the propaganda handed out by the RCC and actually think about what you're saying. Your post fails to answer my question; in your view would the RCC be justified to declare the belief in wormholes heresy and to condemn Stephen Hawking to prison for life for writing about it? Yes or no? It doesn't make the slightest difference in t ...[text shortened]... bate was effectively ended by Newton's work in the late 1600's. The rest is hogwash.

1. I never said the Church was justified in declaring heliocentrism (or wormholes, for that matter) heresy or in imprisoning a person for holding to that view.

2. Galileo's theory wasn't the best explanation just "in the Church's opinion" - it wasn't the best explanation scientifically. Period.

As an aside, Galileo's model isn't "true" (even today) for a number of reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#The_view_of_modern_science

The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view. (Hoyle, 1973, p. 78)

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Were Scopes or the opponents of the Kansas Board of Education undertaking immoral science?

"Scopes" or "Kansas" is a case I know nothing about. I do not follow all the newsstories from the States.

The evolution-creationism debate in the US is a controversy which is for the most part a political debate disguised as a scientific one. The RC Church should simply stay out of party politics. Only in case there are no party political issues at stake the Church can comment on this debate in my view.

Originally posted by vistesd
The pressure on the Church did not come from a scientist who wanted nothing more than to write and teach his theories. The pressure on the Church came from a prominent pamphleteer who was running a PR campaign throughout Europe to coerce the Church into declaring his theory (which he couldn't prove) to be true and to change its theological approach according estant Leyden in 1638.
• This book helped lay the foundations of classical physics.

Thanks for the summary.

did Galileo actually put forth a theological argument that was heretical?

Galileo did put forth theological arguments[1]. It wasn't his theological arguments that were wrongly condemned as heresy; but it was the fact that he made theological arguments in the first place that brought him under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition.

That and the fact that he charged up to Rome to force Pope Urban to declare his theory true.

Unable to get published due to his conviction, the manuscript was smuggled out of Italy and published in Protestant Leyden in 1638.

I take it, then, that scientists in Protestant countries had nothing to fear from the Inquisition? If so, then the reason scientists did not accept Galileo's model to be true until the 18th century was not because they feared the Inquisition; but because they recognised that his model was simply not the best one around (at the time).

---
[1] For instance:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.html

Originally posted by ivanhoe
"Scopes" or "Kansas" is a case I know nothing about. I do not follow all the newsstories from the States.

The evolution-creationism debate in the US is a controversy which is for the most part a political debate disguised as a scientific one. The RC Church should simply stay out of party politics. Only in case there are no party political issues at stake the Church can comment on this debate in my view.

The Scopes trial is one you should familiarize yourself with.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm

An excellent movie about it called Inherit the Wind has been made and remade several times. I highly recommend any version of it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Thanks for the summary.

[b]did Galileo actually put forth a theological argument that was heretical?

Galileo did put forth theological arguments[1]. It wasn't his theological arguments that were wrongly condemned as heresy; but it was the fact that he made theological arguments in the first place that brought him under the juri ...[text shortened]... Inquisition?

---
[1] For instance:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.html[/b]

Completely untrue. I found the prior thread "Theory and Prediction" http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=23446. LH starts lying on page 7 and never stops. In it I wrote this on page 12:

From the sentence of Galileo:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in


The only reason Galileo avoided a conviction for heresy and a possible death sentence is that he recanted and stated he believed in the Ptolemic system with the earth the immovable center of the "world". This information is all on the site I previously gave; why Lucifershammer continues to speak such half-truths when he has been directed to the source documents themselves, I have no idea.

EDIT: The entire sentence is at: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html it puts the lie to Lucifershammer's assertion that Galileo was punished for "meddling in theology"; the sentence is based entirely on his exposition of his scientific theories.

Anybody interested can read the actual sentence as LH should have done months ago.

Originally posted by rwingett
The Enlightenment was responsible for finally pushing civilization out of the Dark Ages, where the Church would have been more than happy to keep it for all eternity. The Church has been a hindrance to every scientific advancement ever made. It was only by weakening the Church's stranglehold on the intellect of man that we were finally able to make some pro ...[text shortened]... ess a religion involves itself in the running of the state, the better off it will be as well.

As usual, your mind is stalled while your fingers are typing. When the Church (and by that, I don't reference the RCC, so-called) began returning to doctrine, all societies were impacted.

While the dogma of pseudo-science doctrinaire sounds impressive and emphatic enough to lend a sense of credibility to the same, the facts are on the side of truth. Were Christians (either so-called or in earnest) ever wrong during the last 2000 years? Regrettably. Were the same ever right (on the side of truth)? Obviously. But to charge that Christians have been a hindrance to every scientific advancement ever made is sheer idiocy.

In one sentence you claim the Enlightenment forced the Church to loose its grip on science, and then in the next give the Church credit for the same. Your posts are a gooblygook mess of random crap, widely missing the mark, which likely doesn't bother you much, as you're likely going for the splatter-effect anyway.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Completely untrue. I found the prior thread "Theory and Prediction" page 40. In it I wrote this on page 12:

From the sentence of Galileo:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
...[text shortened]...
Anybody interested can read the actual sentence as LH should have done months ago.

First, read what I actually wrote in response to vistesd.

Second, read the whole list of charges from the 1615 trial - it explicitly lists "glossing the ... Scriptures according to [his] own meaning".

We've been over this ground before.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
First, read what I actually wrote in response to vistesd.

Second, read the whole list of charges from the 1615 trial - it explicitly lists "glossing the ... Scriptures according to [his] own meaning".

We've been over this ground before.

Yep. And here's my final post from last May which you never responded to:


Here's the first paragraph of the sentence:

Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture:


Only an illiterate could possibly claim that Gailleo wasn't condemned for his scientific theories and his scientific theories alone.
What are the charges which led to the ridiculous 1615 injunction:

1. holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves - Scientific

2. for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine - Scientific

3. for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same - Scientific

4. for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true - Scientific

5. and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning: - See Below

6. and whereas there was thereupon produced the copy of a document in the form of a letter, purporting to be written by you to one formerly your disciple, and in this divers propositions are set forth, following the position of Copernicus, which are contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture:


6 makes clear that it is the teaching of the Church that the Copernician model - a SCIENTIFIC one - is contrary to Holy Scripture. Galilleo theories were, of course, based on the Copernician model. You're basing everything on the thin reed of 5 but please read it. It makes clear that Galilleo was "replying to objections from the Holy Scriptures'; that is, objections to his SCIENTIFIC theories. Unless you want to adopt the circular argument that Holy Scripture said Gallileo's scientific theories were false and his arguing that the Holy Scriptures that Holy Scripture did not say his theories were false was "meddling in theology", your position is untenable. The only problem with Galilleo's "glossing the said Scriptures accoprding to his own meaning" was that he "glossed" them to mean that his Scientific theories were OK according to Scripture. Therefore, the claim that he "meddled in theology" is a red herring.

You're either a complete idiot or a complete liar to claim differently. The injunction (if it existed) forbade him to write or teach about his scientific theories; I said "the sentence is based entirely on his exposition of his scientific theories" - that is unquestionably and obviously true. The violation of the 1616 order was claimed because of his writing regarding his scientific theories, period.

Your version of science and/or the Church's version is besides the point; Gallileo was condemned for his scientific theories, period. If you want, you can claim more precisely that he could have believed whatever scientific theory he wanted as long as he didn't write or teach about it; I assume that even you would concede that a scientist who cannot publicize his theories is having work censored and his work will be unavailable to later scientists. Galilleo, in fact, tried to abide by the ridiculous order but his book written in 1629 which was in the form of a dialogue between a Copernician and a Ptolemic which made the latter's arguments look foolish was apparently the last straw for a Church that believed the Copernician system was "heretical". In short, Galilleo "stuck to science" and almost got executed for it.

I realize it's important for you RCC arch-conservatives to never admit the Church was wrong and thus it MUST have been Gallileo, the victim, fault but it is abundunantly clear that he was condemned for his exposition of his scientific theories and nothing else. Sorry, lucifershammer, all the sophistry in the world can't change the words written by your predecessors in fanaticism in 1633.

I think it remains irrefutable.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Rwingo: "The Church has been a hindrance to every scientific advancement ever made."

Please, every serious unbiased history student will tell you differently. It is simply not true, on the contrary, the Church has always promoted scientific research. It is about time you say goodbye to these deliberate twistings of history ..... and please, don't give me s, the Church is guilty and it can be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Correct, Rwingo ?

Oh, this classic seems to have passed every rational person by!

Gunghoe claims that:
"In 100 years people who'll use the same reasoning as you do will accuse the Church of allowing abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide. The fact that the Church strongly opposed these concepts doesn't matter to people who reason in the way you do."

He actually thinks that these things are bad!!
He holds up abortion as an example of a sin.
...and euthanasia!

He thinks it is good for women to be forced to have babies from all pregnancies, including from rapes or where child birth may kill the mother (due to medical conditions).
He thinks it is better to die a long, slow lingering inevitable death from a mortal illness or wound than to be humanely put out of ones misery (if so desired).
He is pleased that the church actively increases the suffering of its flock.

What a fine Catholic you are, Gunghoe!

(PS - this is why the sceptics are here - to point out the ridiculousness of such claims and to shine the light of reason into the dim world of the religious zealots.)