Loftus: Are We Angry Atheists?

by leavingwt 237 Replies latest jw friends

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    So how is my statement inaccurate?

    Your statement is inaccurate in that it creates the impression that official Catholic doctrine condemned the idea of heliocentrism. There were, to be sure, controversies, just like there are regarding radical new theories today. You have to realize that the entire European university system, along with all the research, was basically Catholic at that time.

    IN SPITE of their religious superstitions, not BECAUSE of them.

    Actually, Christians at the time held superstitious beliefs like the idea that the world was the product of an orderly, rational, lawgiving Creator. And that, as such, the natural world would also be orderly, ruled by laws, and subject to a rationality that was accessible to human reason (since humans are made in the image of God, another superstition). It is because of ideas like these that modern science developed in the Christian West.

    Let's not forget Galileo, who was a genuinely pious Roman Catholic but who was tried by the Inquisition, found guilty of heresy, forced to recant his amazing discoveries and confined to house arrest for the rest of his life. Religion and science, indeed.

    Galileo was found guilty of teaching theory as fact. The peer review process of that time sanctioned him.

    http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

    http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/05/galileo-myths-and-facts.html

    BTS

  • Nickolas
    Nickolas

    Galileo was cleared of any offense, yes. The Catholic Church, however, condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture" and warned Galileo to abandon his support of it. He promised to do so, but then went ahead and published Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in which he defended himself. It was then he was arrested, tried and found vehemently suspect of heresy.

    Besides, I don't believe anything the Catholic Church has to say in its defense. The original historical revisionists were not Jehovah's Witnesses. The Witnesses learned how to do it from the RCs. (This last bit is a little bit tongue-in-cheek, for those about to mount their high horses.)

  • SweetBabyCheezits
    SweetBabyCheezits
    Your statement is inaccurate in that it creates the impression that official Catholic doctrine condemned the idea of heliocentrism.

    Are you serious??? This sounds like the WT saying, "Well we didn't OFFICIALLY state the end would come in 1975." I don't care if it wasn't official doctrine. That shit happened.

    The Inquisition's ban on reprinting Galileo's works was lifted in 1718 when permission was granted to publish an edition of his works (excluding the condemned Dialogue) in Florence. [119]

    So do you really believe the church had no influence in opposition of Galileo's promotion of Copernicanism?

    My statement was not inaccurate. You just don't like it because you're an Angry Christian.

  • Berengaria
    Berengaria

    I'm convinced! If not for religion christianity, we would still be little more than animals living in caves, artless, lawless and bloodthirsty. Why can't those angry atheists just admit this?

  • Nickolas
    Nickolas

    Why can't those angry atheists just admit this?

    Well, maybe after my morning coffee. Talk to me then.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    "false and contrary to Scripture"

    This was the finding of a single ecclesiastical court....motivated by political matters instigated by Galileo himself.

    He promised to do so, but then went ahead and pubishedDialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in which he defended himself.

    No, he was encouraged by the Pope to publish Dialogue. He was warned however, to not present his theory as factual. This is a historical fact.

    Besides, I don't believe anything the Catholic Church has to say in its defense. The original historical revisionists were not Jehovah's Witnesses.

    In other words, you choose to reject any information that contradicts your preconceived notions. I'll keep that in mind, despite the fact that everything I have said is historically accurate. Would you like me to merely dismiss the facts in your arguments as the ramblings of an angry atheist revisionist? I am sure you would not appreciate this.

    Are you serious??? This sounds like the WT saying, "Well we didn't OFFICIALLY state the end would come in 1975." I don't care if it wasn't official doctrine. That shit happened.

    It did happen, but painting the Catholic church of the time as monolithic is not accurate. There were factions, both for, and against, and the case was less about scientific truth than it was about politics and behavior.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/11/26/debunking_the_galileo_myth

    The Experiment Galileo Didn’t Do: We read in textbooks about how Galileo went to the Tower of Pisa and dropped light and heavy bodies to the ground. He discovered that they hit the ground at the same time, thus refuting centuries of idle medieval theorizing. Actually Galileo didn’t do any such experiments; one of his students did. The student discovered what we all can discover by doing similar experiments ourselves: the heavy bodies hit the ground first! As historian of science Thomas Kuhn points out, it is only in the absence of air resistance that all bodies hit the ground at the same time.

    Galileo Was the First to Prove Heliocentrism: Actually, Copernicus advanced the heliocentric theory that the sun, not the earth, is at the center, and that the earth goes around the sun. He did this more than half a century before Galileo. But Copernicus had no direct evidence, and he admitted that there were serious obstacles from experience that told against his theory. For instance, if the earth is moving rapidly, why don’t objects thrown up into the air land a considerable distance away from their starting point? Galileo defended heliocentrism, but one of his most prominent arguments was wrong. Galileo argued that the earth’s regular motion sloshes around the water in the oceans and explains the tides. In reality, tides have more to do with the moon’s gravitational force acting upon the earth.

    The Church Dogmatically Opposed the New Science: In reality, the Church was the leading sponsor of the new science and Galileo himself was funded by the church. The leading astronomers of the time were Jesuit priests. They were open to Galileo’s theory but told him the evidence for it was inconclusive. This was the view of the greatest astronomer of the age, Tyco Brahe. The Church’s view of heliocentrism was hardly a dogmatic one. When Cardinal Bellarmine met with Galileo he said, “While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still, if there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe…and that the sun goes not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.” Galileo had no such proofs.

    Galileo Was A Victim of Torture and Abuse: This is perhaps the most recurring motif, and yet it is entirely untrue. Galileo was treated by the church as a celebrity. When summoned by the Inquisition, he was housed in the grand Medici Villa in Rome. He attended receptions with the Pope and leading cardinals. Even after he was found guilty, he was first housed in a magnificent Episcopal palace and then placed under “house arrest” although he was permitted to visit his daughters in a nearby convent and to continue publishing scientific papers.

    The Church Was Wrong To Convict Galileo of Heresy: But Galileo was neither charged nor convicted of heresy. He was charged with teaching heliocentrism in specific contravention of his own pledge not to do so. This is a charge on which Galileo was guilty. He had assured Cardinal Bellarmine that given the sensitivity of the issue, he would not publicly promote heliocentrism. Yet when a new pope was named, Galileo decided on his own to go back on his word. Asked about this in court, he said his Dialogue on the Two World Systems did not advocate heliocentrism. This is a flat-out untruth as anyone who reads Galileo’s book can plainly see. Even Galileo’s supporters, and there were many, found it difficult to defend him at this point.

    What can we conclude from all this? Galileo was right about heliocentrism, but we know that only in retrospect because of evidence that emerged after Galileo’s death. The Church should not have tried him at all, although Galileo’s reckless conduct contributed to his fate. Even so, his fate was not so terrible. Historian Gary Ferngren concludes that “the traditional picture of Galileo as a martyr to intellectual freedom and as a victim of the church’s opposition to science has been demonstrated to be little more than a caricature.” Remember this the next time you hear some half-educated atheist rambling on about “the war between religion and science.”

    BTS (I am out of posts so I have had to append my response to Cheezeit

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    I've been enjoying the many comments, here.

    I wanted to mention that on John W. Loftus' blog, there have been more than 125 comments posted, on this topic. You may enjoy some of them.

    http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/03/are-we-angry-atheists.html#disqus_thread

    Here is one, from a believer:

    John

    So you feel youve wasted time with Christianity-by this you mean praying, going to church, reading, or is it something else?

    I think there is an element of truth to what Sproul said, similar to Lewis who stated the true nature of men is to desire to,paraphrased, to be treated as gods. As men we all must deal with pride and greed, all of us.

    You seem a smart guy, I doubt the anger is from feeling duped,because you made the decision intially to believe, it wasnt forced on you.

    Was it the turnign the other cheek that was a waste? Was it abstinence from sexual immorality which as men we understand can be transiently tempting? Drugs? Greed and love of money?

    Im trying to understand how much better the new atheist life is-because it sure doesnt seem terribly peaceful-or you guys wouldnt be rejoicing at a DC visit to fight Christians, and you sure as hell wouldnt have taken the time to set up this website.

    Youre right, Im not angry at Allah or Mohammed-but unlike your crew here and other atheist blogs, i dont routinely post caricatures of Islam or attack Allah.

    The truth is, I would suspect alot of you guys hate the kernel of truth left inside you that's telling you that all's not well-because youve already learned the basic truth that God makes so simple a child can understand it.

    For what its worth John, the ex believers arent the only ones who have doubts at times-but based on soem of the factually incorrect premises which answered a previous post of mine, it seems some of you are grasping to find reasons to disbelieve-something I used to do when I wanted to go off and live my way, knowing it wouldnt fly with God.

  • Nickolas
    Nickolas

    In other words, you choose to reject any information that contradicts your preconceived notions. I'll keep that in mind, despite the fact that everything I have said is historically accurate

    Tongue-in-cheek, BTS. That means "a joke", "a giggle", "a little fun filled poke at Rome and Brooklyn." Chill, why don't you?

  • Nickolas
    Nickolas

    Forgot to add, who's version of history are you citing?

  • Nickolas
    Nickolas

    Those last couple of posts didn't add anything to the IQ in the thread. Sorry. I'm just getting excited because I'm approaching the 400 posts milestone. Only two more to go ...

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit