Danes feel Obama is greater than Jesus

[kandrathe]

Galileo?

He was charged with Heresy at age 69 after the bulk of his life's work was already accomplished. He began his professional work at age 25. Galileo is often brought up as an example of how the church is anti-science. Often, they are, but in this case there are extenuating circumstances.

<blockquote>"Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book. However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the Copernican advocacy. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings." -- Wikipedia</blockquote>

Simplicio also means simpleton in Italian, so in essence, Galileo accidentally shot himself in the foot politically.

[Jester]

He was charged with Heresy at age 69 after the bulk of his life's work was already accomplished. He began his professional work at age 25. Galileo is often brought up as an example of how the church is anti-science. Often, they are, but in this case there are extenuating circumstances.

...

Simplicio also means simpleton in Italian, so in essence, Galileo accidentally shot himself in the foot politically.

The extenuating circumstances being that he put the church's position in the mouth of the Pope, thinly disguised, and called him an idiot? And so they put him before the inquisition and forced him to recant his scientific beliefs in favour of their dogma? Somehow, these "extenuating circumstances" don't seem very extenuating...

The anti-science charge against the Church is not that they ruined Galileo's life, although I'm sure it was unpleasant to be under house arrest, but rather that they denounced his theories and forced him to recant against his will. That's a direct assault on science, by religion. What more do you want?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

The extenuating circumstances being that he put the church's position in the mouth of the Pope, thinly disguised, and called him an idiot? And so they put him before the inquisition and forced him to recant his scientific beliefs in favour of their dogma? Somehow, these "extenuating circumstances" don't seem very extenuating...

Consider at that time, the position of Pope held more power than most kings. <blockquote>"By 1616 the attacks on the ideas of Copernicus had reached a head, and Galileo went to Rome to try to persuade the Church authorities not to ban his ideas. In the end, Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre. The decree did not prevent Galileo from discussing heliocentrism hypothesis (thus maintaining a facade of separation between science and the church). For the next several years Galileo stayed well away from the controversy. He revived his project of writing a book on the subject, encouraged by the election of Cardinal Barberini as Pope Urban VIII in 1623. Barberini was a friend and admirer of Galileo, and had opposed the condemnation of Galileo in 1616. The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was published in 1632, with formal authorization from the Inquisition and papal permission." --wikipedia</blockquote>He inadvertently insulted and alienated his former advocate and the most powerful person in the known world. Oops. Had he done that to any number of kings of that era he would have been impaled, or drawn and quartered. This was hardly anti-science. The punishment he received was admittedly petty, and arbitrary, but also due to his disobedience and humiliation of the Pope.

Anyway, it had very little to do with Christianity, nor did it stop his continued writing, the publication or distribution of his works. Wrong? Yes. Impact on science? No. I don't see it.

[Jester]

Anyway, it had very little to do with Christianity, nor did it stop his continued writing, the publication or distribution of his works. Wrong? Yes. Impact on science? No. I don't see it.

Failure to suppress information does not exonerate the Church - they tried to suppress Galileo's science, and part of the judgment against him was a ban on publishing any of his works. If they didn't succeed, then good for humanity and bully for the Church, but it doesn't change what they tried to do, or make it more attractive.

The idea that this has nothing to do with Christianity is simply ludicrous. This was the Pope, the head of the Church. Galileo was tried, and convicted, on grounds of heresy, of being contrary to Christian scripture. His offence, practically speaking, was to offend both the leader and the dogma of the Church. How could this not be about Christianity?

That the church let him publish the book, then imprisoned him for heresy for having published it, is evidence of remarkable capriciousness and hypocrisy, but hardly any kind of exoneration. They expected a whitewash - a discussion of 'hypotheses' that paid their scriptures reverence. What they got was a strong case for his scientific theory and evidence that trashed their preferred dogma, and Galileo was imprisoned accordingly.

As for the argument that the Church was politically powerful and the Pope was like a king, I don't see how that helps your case one whit. The Ayatollahs in Iran are politically powerful - does that mean we shouldn't consider it anti-scientific if they imprison or censor scientists whose views they find offensive?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Failure to suppress information does not exonerate the Church - they tried to suppress Galileo's science, and part of the judgment against him was a ban on publishing any of his works. If they didn't succeed, then good for humanity and bully for the Church, but it doesn't change what they tried to do, or make it more attractive.

The idea that this has nothing to do with Christianity is simply ludicrous. This was the Pope, the head of the Church. Galileo was tried, and convicted, on grounds of heresy, of being contrary to Christian scripture. His offence, practically speaking, was to offend both the leader and the dogma of the Church. How could this not be about Christianity?

That the church let him publish the book, then imprisoned him for heresy for having published it, is evidence of remarkable capriciousness and hypocrisy, but hardly any kind of exoneration. They expected a whitewash - a discussion of 'hypotheses' that paid their scriptures reverence. What they got was a strong case for his scientific theory and evidence that trashed their preferred dogma, and Galileo was imprisoned accordingly.

As for the argument that the Church was politically powerful and the Pope was like a king, I don't see how that helps your case one whit.

Well, not only trashed their dogma, but made it look ridiculous. It was insulting. Unintentional or not, it was more like lèse majesté. One man is not representative of Christianity, even the Pope. I'm not a Catholic, nor do I subscribe to the notion of papal obedience, or the notion of a hierarchy between the commoners and God. Hypocrisy? In the papacy? Never! :) To the chagrin of most Catholics, the behavior of the medieval papacy is far below even modern standards for scandal. No, the men in the Vatican have displayed almost every negative human trait. I wouldn't hold up many politicians in the US as representative of Americans, and you would never hold up the political manipulators with titles of bishop, or cardinal as very representative of Christians either. No, from what I read about the topic, even during his trial and afterward Galileo was popular with church leadership.

The Ayatollahs in Iran are politically powerful - does that mean we shouldn't consider it anti-scientific if they imprison or censor scientists whose views they find offensive?

That would depend on whether the reason for their imprisonment had to do with defamation of the Clergy, versus writing a scientific paper that garnered a fatwa. The Roman Catholic church was hugely powerful and wielded monarchs against their own people, which coupled the power of government with a dominant religion, and forced people to comply. But, in the worst abuses of Vatican power, they were controlling and domineering on all parts of human life, not only science. I don't believe it was a good situation, but was more indicative of the excesses of monarchy.

I believe that Christians follow the teachings and example of Christ, not the rules and dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine Christ's position on Pope Innocent IV's proclamation of Ad exstirpanda.

[Thecla]

Also, as far as I'm concerned, the theory of evolution has almost as many holes in it as does creationism. Therefore, I see as much validity in teaching creationism in public schools as I see in teaching evolution. Since creationism is NOT taught in public schools, I could not care less if evolution is. As far as I'm concerned, they should both be presented as exactly that..... theories, and not as reality.

This, I'm afraid, is complete and utter nonsense --- whether or not it's due to plain ignorance or bloody-minded willfull ignorance. You might as well advocate teaching in chemistry classes along side the atomic theory of matter the idea that matter is made up of earth, water, air, and fire.

It is interesting that among a selection western/european nations, the US is next to Turkey at the bottom in its disbelief of evolution --- surely in part due to the strong fundamentalist religious beliefs in both countries:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/...VO_GRAPHIC.html

[Jester]

One man is not representative of Christianity, even the Pope.

If you're leaning on this argument, then what you're saying amounts to little more than a tautology. Is there 100% agreement among members of any religion? Any political party? Heck, does a single person have consistent beliefs? There's always some dissent. The point is, the largest, most powerful Christian organization in the world decided it would rather suppress and humiliate science than accept the idea that its dogmas could be questioned.

I wouldn't hold up many politicians in the US as representative of Americans, and you would never hold up the political manipulators with titles of bishop, or cardinal as very representative of Christians either.

This is irrelevant. The organization does not have to be "representative," in the sense that it speaks for each and every member. Just because the average American wouldn't have (for instance) sold weapons to the Iranians to fund illegal counter-revolutionaries in Nicaragua, doesn't mean that "America" didn't do these things. Similarly, it doesn't matter that each individual Christian believes one way or the other - what's important is that large and powerful Christian groups have, now and historically, campaigned strongly against science they find contrary to their dogma.

No, from what I read about the topic, even during his trial and afterward Galileo was popular with church leadership.

Um, okay... that's an interesting viewpoint, but if someone likes me a lot, and then puts me before the inquisition, convicts me, forces me to recant, declares my beliefs heretical, and forces me to live the rest of my life under house arrest, I might suggest that I'd have grounds to wonder just how valuable their affection is. Especially when it comes to the thing under discussion - Science!

But, in the worst abuses of Vatican power, they were controlling and domineering on all parts of human life, not only science. I don't believe it was a good situation, but was more indicative of the excesses of monarchy.

Except that Monarchs did not typically make pronouncements about morality for all believers in the Christian faith...

I believe that Christians follow the teachings and example of Christ, not the rules and dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine Christ's position on Pope Innocent IV's proclamation of Ad exstirpanda.

Yes, yes. I'm sure your religion is much better than Catholics'. But you can't reasonably throw a billion Catholics off the Good Ship Christianity just because it makes your argument work better. For better or for worse, they're half the Christians of the world, the largest and most influential Christian denomination, with its most powerful organization. What they do, "Christians" do, existentially if not universally.

-Jester

Afterthought: Just recalled the name of that particular fallacy: "No true Scotsman."

[kandrathe]

If you're leaning on this argument, then what you're saying amounts to little more than a tautology. Is there 100% agreement among members of any religion?

No. I'm saying they weren't Scotsmen at all. Their motivations were political for personal gain. The Pope being a former advocate probably believed or was willing to entertain the Copernican theories, but in order to save face against the pressure of some political rivals, he had to punish what was widely seen as an affront and heresy.

The Christians didn't prosecute the Inquisition, that was done by the Vatican. I'm sure some approved, especially in the beginning when it was merely legalistic interpretation, and I'm sure many were appalled.

Except that Monarchs did not typically make pronouncements about morality for all believers in the Christian faith...

Oh, yes they did. Conversion by decree was quite common. For example, the Alhambra Decree, and the many Byzantine conversion decrees. Also, consider King Phillip Augustus complicity in the massacre of the Cathars. Or, Elizabethan Recusants and the Recusancy Laws.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The Christians didn't prosecute the Inquisition, that was done by the Vatican.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with Jester on this one. If any group acts at all, it does so by the action of the individual members since the group is a collective, abstract, entity. Thus, it is trivially true that no group has ever done anything, good or evil. But, ultimately, a group 'does' what its members do. So, to say that something was done by Christians but not by Christianity is both trivially true and totally wrong.

No -- that just doesn't fly.

--Pete

[Jester]

The Christians didn't prosecute the Inquisition, that was done by the Vatican.

This sentence is a truly staggering example of No True Scotsman. I'm reminded, in an ironic sense, of that old saying for absolute certainty - "Is the Pope Catholic?"

On the issue of Monarchs, the point is, their authority is constrained by their borders - they are Sovereigns, not links to the Divine. The Pope is not constrained in any such way, and his spiritual authority extends far beyond the borders of the Vatican state.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with Jester on this one. If any group acts at all, it does so by the action of the individual members since the group is a collective, abstract, entity. Thus, it is trivially true that no group has ever done anything, good or evil. But, ultimately, a group 'does' what its members do. So, to say that something was done by Christians but not by Christianity is both trivially true and totally wrong.

So we can blame the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao on all Atheists? The atrocities committed by these authorities were related to Papal Monarchy and the intolerance of weak men, and not to teaching the philosophies of Christ. Again, one rotten apple doesn't make all apples rotten. However, if the preponderance of apples are rotten, one can draw conclusions based on probabilities. I can have an opinion on someone who identifies them self as a skinhead, because entry into that group requires a world view that is detestable. In that way, the "No True Scotsmen" fallacy applies. What Christian philosophy allows for the murder and torture of innocents, or the enslavement of their fellow men? None. It is only the twisting of the words, or intentional strict literal misinterpretations that power hungry greedy men used as an instrument of state. It is the same process which perverts Islam, and justifies terrorism. I would still maintain that many of the early Popes were not holy men, but rather petty dictators worse than any we've seen in the past few hundred years. That perversion began with Constantine, and descended from there. There may have been some true Christian bishops and cardinals in the Vatican at times, however, in the early times the station had more to do with politics than their Christian beliefs.

I think we agree though, that mixing (religious or other) ideology, with government power has historically been detrimental for society.

[ShadowHM]

So we can blame the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao on all Atheists?

No.

Only the atheists who acknowledged them as spiritual leaders. :P

[kandrathe]

This sentence is a truly staggering example of No True Scotsman. I'm reminded, in an ironic sense, of that old saying for absolute certainty - "Is the Pope Catholic?"

That saying is renown for a reason. People have been asking that question rhetorically for a millennium. A better question would be, "Is the Pope a Christian?". I would hold up Mother Teresa as an example of someone who correctly walked the talk.

On the issue of Monarchs, the point is, their authority is constrained by their borders - they are Sovereigns, not links to the Divine. The Pope is not constrained in any such way, and his spiritual authority extends far beyond the borders of the Vatican state.

Hence the term "Papal Monarchy".

Back to Galileo... I would concede that the actions against Galileo had a chilling effect on those who were advancing the Copernican system. This was also the time of Martin Luther. For the next century, scholars secretly traded his works amongst others that were on the index of prohibited books, publishers and authors. I think that list (which ironically began in Amsterdam in the 1500's) was one main reason that certain "profane" scholarship diverged from Catholicism. By the 17th century, the feud between Protestants and Catholics was more important to universities than to adopt teaching new advances in sciences. In that way also, this distraction in arguing philosophy held back progress in natural sciences.

[--Pete]

Hi,

A better question would be, "Is the Pope a Christian?". I would hold up Mother Teresa as an example of someone who correctly walked the talk.

Please, take a minute to think. Your argument is that anyone who does not behave according to your definition of a Christian is not a Christian. Thus, since your definition excludes anyone who uses religion to justify actions you consider wrong, Christians never do wrong. That is a circular argument. It can be summarized: Christians only do right, because if they did wrong they wouldn't be Christians. That is the essence of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

Really. Think about it.

--Pete

[Jester]

A better question would be, "Is the Pope a Christian?".

Yes?

Is there some other answer to that question aside from the obvious?

Back to Galileo... I would concede that the actions against Galileo had a chilling effect on those who were advancing the Copernican system.

I'm glad you're willing to concede that. It looks remarkably like the whole point.

I would hold up Mother Teresa as an example of someone who correctly walked the talk.

Mother Teresa is an excellent example, I agree. For instance, in her hospitals, nuns were discouraged from obtaining or using the kind of medical knowledge that might have actually helped cure the sick. This was seen as getting in the way of traditional *Christian* values of humility, piety and salvation. Her anti-scientific mindset meant those under her care received almost shockingly poor levels of medical care.

-Jester

[eppie]

My statement was in reply to eppie's claim that the fall of Rome was due entirely to Christianity.

--Pete

Of course, my statement was more to start a discussion. Of cours my opinion is that christianity is to blame for far more than our history (the one we in the west are teached in schools) tells us.


Ashock.....you think in groups instead of in individuals. Of course christianity has had the enlightenment and Islam hasn't.......but first, this was due to a stronger influence of science and second, it doens't say anything about individual religious persons. The main reason we see this big difference between christianity and islam nowadays is that most islamic countries are poor (3rd and 2nd world) while most christian are rich.....(christianity in sudan, is not the same as it is in Nowneck, Virginia).
Another reason is that because of our socio economical system, science and technology are much too important in our societies to give religious freaks any influence.

Saying that it is easy to see that without the influence of atheists and scientists also in the west the christian freaks would loose their borders and start behaving like we see in many islamic countries.

Enlightenment or not, religious people everywhere are all just as stubborn and hard-headed.....it requires only one strong leader to stand up and they all start running behind him and commit hideous crimes like that have been doing always. (see former Yougoslavia for example).

[Zenda]

The reason you are seeing such bombast out of the Islam faith at present is because the fundementalist believers are losing their grasp on power.

Yes, I think you are right there. However, it's also that the media know we prefer to see blood and sensation, instead of a story about normal, everyday folks. What there to write about 99.999% of all Islamic people?

What Christian philosophy allows for the murder and torture of innocents, or the enslavement of their fellow men? None.

Yes, and the same goes for Islam or any other religion. It's not religions that commit or have committed the atrocities. It's people. People who use their religion to justify their crimes. By 'interpreting' old texts that describe societies which no longer exist, you can usually find an excuse to do anything you like. Want to kill innocents, or enslave them? Easy. Find some outdated 'sacred' paper that describes them as enemies.

[kandrathe]

...it requires only one strong leader to stand up and they all start running behind him and commit hideous crimes...

Like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Mugabe, Amin, al-Bashir, etc, etc, etc.

The critical part is "ideology" and "strong leader". What you are missing is that the group must be without checks and balances to limit the leaders power.

[Delc]

What Christian philosophy allows for the murder and torture of innocents, or the enslavement of their fellow men?

Large portions of the old testament.

[kandrathe]

Mother Teresa is an excellent example, I agree. For instance, in her hospitals, nuns were discouraged from obtaining or using the kind of medical knowledge that might have actually helped cure the sick. This was seen as getting in the way of traditional *Christian* values of humility, piety and salvation. Her anti-scientific mindset meant those under her care received almost shockingly poor levels of medical care.

I see you've immersed yourself in Christopher Hitchens, and his fervent opposition to her and her faith. Most people feel differently.