Posted on 02/10/2015 2:06:38 PM PST by NYer
“Giving the death penalty to scientists who publish is another thing...”
And who did that happen to?
Don’t embarrass yourself by saying Galileo - because he was NOT sentenced to death at all.
Don’t embarrass yourself by saying Bruno - because he was NOT sentenced to death for anything related to science but for heresy.
So who are you talking about?
The article does not say that there was no reasoning ever done by anyone except priests. It also does not say that no scientist was ever suppressed by the Church for one reason or another. Like any sponsor of anything, the Church held the scientists whom she sponsored accountable for the quality of their research.
Please re-read the article and get back to me.
And if had not been threatened with death to deny the truth would he have escaped the fire?
Don’t embarrass yourself by saying Bruno - because he was NOT sentenced to death for anything related to science but for heresy.
So, in your opinion, the church was justified in murdering people for heresy. A distinction without a difference. Murder is murder. Murder for proclaiming something a church doesn't agree with, because of science, or a difference over morals, or doctrine is all the same. Murder.
Nobody needs to make an embarrassment of themselves with false history. You've done a fine job of embarrassing yourself with the history of the church you have.
Why such a histrionic post???
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
The poster I responded to claimed that the priests of the Church of Rome "invented the scientific method." If the first claim was not the most ridiculous lie ever told on behalf of a church that actively suppressed scientific investigation for most of its history, the second most certainly was.
The article names a lot of scientists who were Roman adherents. Of course those scientists came into the world during a time when you were born into an unquestioning superstition, which, if you publicly voiced your doubts, murdered you.
We can conjecture about whether Descartes [for example] would have been a Romanist in the 21st century. It would be largely fruitless, but I think based on the number of contemporary scientists actually named in the article the answer is pretty obvious. The article, for example, falsely claims that Erwin Scrhoedinger was Catholic. He might very well have been baptized in the Church, since his father was a Roman Catholic, but he was a very famously self avowed atheist. A moment's verification would have saved the article writer that embarrassment.
The church held the scientists it sponsored accountable for the quality of their research.
If by that you mean, "expected them to support the phoney baloney superstitions of the Magisterium," then we are in full agreement.
But let's just take the case of Galileo for a moment. Even three hundred and fifty years after condemning Galileo for speaking the truth, the Roman church couldn't quite get the apology right. John Paul II went as far as to say that the men who condemned him were acting on the basis of "what was scientifically known at the time." No such thing. Galileo didn't just support the Copernican System because of its theoretical elegance compared to the tortured ad hoc monstrosity that it replaced. He also had experimental evidence that it was true, for his observations of Jupiter's moons. The best science available at the time was on Galileo's side, not the pope's, and the evil clerics who forced an old man to recant under the threat of torture and murder had no interest in science.
The point remains that there is no opposition between science and Catholic religion; you can speculate all you want what Descartes would have been in the 21 century, and I can speculate what Europe would have been without Catholic monasteries and universities.
Galileo’s research was evaluated based on “what was scientifically known at the time”, exactly so. As opposed to what we think should have been evident in hindsight.
Ironically, he showed that the thinking of David Hume, another atheist, is nothing much at all. Hume, like the Encyclopedists, thought of reason as able to provide the kind of certainty that neither religion nor metaphysics could. Kant sought to debunk this attitude, only to open the door to subjectivism/relativism. The uncertainty principle showed that the events of the universe could not, as Hume and other admirers of Newton, supposed be reduced to sets of differential equations.
More like, the age of exploration, the commercial revolution, the Scientific Revolution, and the Industrial revolution. The Enlightenment began as a discussion of the implications of Newton’s laws and then, after 1750, after the Church took Newton off the index, the propagation of radical materialism.
People forget that the personality of Galileo played a large role in his downfall. He befriended a man who became pope, sand then he played the same man as a fool in a book her wrote. The pope ended his friendship and left him in the hands of a Church Cour peopled by Aristotelians. The irony is that Galileo made many assertions that went fare beyond what the evidence available to him showed. It took Newton to come up with a solid theory that proved what Galileo assumed to be true.
This pope had been his patron, and despite his knowledge, Galileo was in many respects a blustering fool. Bellarmine, who had protected him, tried to warn him not assert what few educated men of his time believed, which was that mathematics was a true measure of things in general.
Publicly mocking the powerful is seldom a good idea, even if they're only men.
Generally, people today argue this issue as stuff of children books: brilliant man-hero opposing obscurantism. In fact the same conflicts of personalities and institutional inertia permeate modern science just as much.
“And if had not been threatened with death to deny the truth would he have escaped the fire?”
He was NEVER threatened with death. There is not a single shred of evidence that he was. There is not even one statement, not one line, not one comment in the records that hints that he was ever threatened with death. He, in fact, could not be executed for what he was accused of. You probably didn’t even know that. No, instead, you’re posting the myth - and it is a myth - that he was threatened with death. He never was.
“So, in your opinion, the church was justified in murdering people for heresy.”
1) No one was murdered.
2) No one was murdered by the Church.
3) People were tried.
4) Some were executed (an extremely rare event).
5) No one was ever executed by the Church for it had no, and claimed no, authority to execute anyone, ever.
“A distinction without a difference. Murder is murder.”
There were no murders.
“Murder for proclaiming something a church doesn’t agree with, because of science, or a difference over morals, or doctrine is all the same. Murder.”
Again, no.
“Nobody needs to make an embarrassment of themselves with false history.”
You’re doing it right now. Again, WHAT “SCIENTIST” WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT. Galileo was NOT sentenced to death. So far you’ve come up empty (of course).
“You’ve done a fine job of embarrassing yourself with the history of the church you have.”
I am not even remotely embarrassed by the truth. You made a claim and failed to back it up. It was obvious the whole time you would not be able to back up your claim because it was false from the start. You apparently did not know you made a false claim. Read a book.
“Why such a histrionic post???”
No, why such a correct post? What I wrote was absolutely correct and there’s not a damn thing any anti-Catholic here can do to overturn the truth of it. Enjoy.
“No, why such a correct post? What I wrote was absolutely correct and there’s not a damn thing any anti-Catholic here can do to overturn the truth of it. Enjoy.”
Sure vlad, whatever you claim.
:-)
“Sure vlad, whatever you claim.”
It’s not a claim, just a fact. And you won’t show otherwise either.
“It’s not a claim, just a fact. And you won’t show otherwise either.”
Sure vlad, whatever you want to believe :-)
Catholics just can’t shut up about how pro-evolution they are. There might be some creationist chrstian who hasn’t heard yet.
Thanks for proving my point. Case closed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.