Now, given that I have deigned to answer your questions, please answer one of mine: Do you believe that Christianity is fundamentally opposed to science 1- I have asked you no such question. I have only told you that denying that Copernicus, Galileo and Da Vinci put forth sound science that was firmly rejected on religious grounds is disgusting.
2- No. + Making this about Christianity is indeed a strawman: the issue is religion. Organized religion, to be precise. Not any particular flavor of mumbo jumbo. You changed that to fit your trolling about Faraday et al (seriously, let it go), who, I'm sorry, are not greater scientists than the ones who's injustices you deny.
P.S. I find it quite... interesting that you obsess over WASP scientists, putting them on a pedestal above all others. Making their particular religion the central point of a conversation that did not mention it.
I never said that Pope Urban VIII asked for a balanced point of view. He asked for an unbiased point of view.
Which is itself a form of bias when the opposing viewpoints are not equal: One was true, the other wasn't, and Galileo had proof of that.
Just like it's not honest to ask biology teachers to "teach the controversy" about evolution. There is no controversy, there is science on one side, and religious dogma on the other. These things are not equal, dogma has no value, science has value, asking people to treat these things equally is just plain wrong.
If you genuinely believe that Christianity and science don't mix (the claim I was refuting, remember), Nice strawman, here's the claim you were refuting: 3) Haven't we figured out by now religion and science don't mix? Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, and who knows who else?
He didn't claim those people weren't Christians, he reminded us that their science was rejected for religious reasons.
Quote button? There's no quote button on my screen. [...] What you just described is not accepting JonathanBoyd's argument and reasoning forward to an absurd conclusion. If you think it is, then what's the premise? That we can downplay horrors of religious repression of science? Are you really trying to tell me you think that was the proposition JonathanBoyd was putting forward? Oh right, commenting beta, not everyone's got it I suppose, sorry. I've been using it so long I forgot it's not the standard yet.
Back on topic: Those three people were scientists who ran afoul of religious authorities, and their science was suppressed by the church. He's denying that. Taking it to the absurd, he's denying all church wrongdoings.
You get on my case by saying "he didn't say 'all', he said those three", and then it's round and 'round we go.
Urban asked Galileo to write a book that did not advocate that point of view. Those words, did not advocate are incredibly important. Urban in no way asked Galileo to support heliocentrism. It was merely a request to give an unbiased account of both sides of the argument. [...]
Asking a scientist to give a "balanced" account of the universe where something he can prove isn't true must be given equal footing to the truth, without favoring the truth, is unconscionable.
I was simply pointing out that Christianity is not inherently opposed to science and the given examples were poor. The examples were excellent, Copernicus had am uncle to protect him but the founder of the church who's offshoot is now denying evolution was against his physics based on biblical passages. PERFECT example. Galileo was censored by the catholic church for defending the ideas of Copernicus that the church had then dismissed based on the exact same passage as Luther did when Copernicus was alive, your mischaracterization of that event is dishonest, at best. The church opposed Leonardo's research into medical science (amongst other, less famous misdeeds), think about how much you respect the dead next time you need surgery, think about how your surgeon learned his skills.
Those are perfect examples of churches trying to suppress scientific progress, but you try to rewrite history to deny the horrors they are guilty of.
Exaggerating your opponent's arguments to make them look ridiculous is not reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad absurdum is accepting your opponent's argument, and showing how it leads to something ridiculous. If you take each famous case of church repression of science and downplay it to dismiss the horrors they have made, you might as well do that with every single case of religiously motivated misdeed, leading to the ridiculous "no Christian ever persecuted anyone".
The intentional spelling and grammatical error of the original "quote" should have clued you in. P.S. There's a [quote] button, try it out.
When an sound engineer talks about "compression" he means compressing the dynamic range to make the music sound louder. This is NOT the same thing as compressing sound to save disk space. You should have said "data".
What I stepped in to talk about was the unreasonable, irrational mischaracterizations you committed in your first response to JonathanBoyd. You said that he was claiming no Christian ever persecuted anyone, which is ludicrous I do that on purpose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Copernicus was a Roman Catholic who was encouraged by his bishop to spread his research about heliocentrism. Galileo ran into trouble because of remarks he made about the hope - politics was the problem, not science. I don't recall Da Vinci running into any problems re: science and religion and he is recorded as wanting to die catholic with confession etc. He used his own ignorance to support his position that Leonardo was not persecuted, and he pretended that Copernicus had not been denounced by religious authorities. He did not claim that Leonardo was not persecuted. He said that he was unaware of Leonardo having problems. So it was perfectly appropriate for you to inform him. Nor did he pretend that Copernicus had not been denounced by religious authorities; he pointed out that his bishop encouraged him. Copernicus: The Catholic church at the time not an old-testament fundamentalist organization, contrary to the subject of this thread. Copernicus had an influential uncle in the church, nepotism can be a great thing when applied with luck. Challenging the theory of an heathen like Ptolemy isn't the same as challenging the bible. Martin Luther refused his theories on biblical grounds, just like the creation museum refuses Darwin's.
Galileo: In his time, obscurantism had gained power and the inquisition's power reached unsuspected levels: 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 hypothetically. For the next several years Galileo stayed well away from the controversy.
And the reason why I will not allow you fucking revisionists to blur this with your carefully worded denial is that Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. 400 years later and President George W. Bush says to "teach the controversy", to try to bring the world back to the dark ages.
I won't stay polite while you rape history and insult reason and truthfulness with your ignorant convictions.
I imagine the quality of your discussions with Christians would improve if you didn't engage in this sort of flaming mischaracterization. The GP did not say that no Christian ever persecuted anyone. He used his own ignorance to support his position that Leonardo was not persecuted, and he pretended that Copernicus had not been denounced by religious authorities.
I'm offended by that.
The quality of my discussions with honest Christians is excellent, but the fucking deniers and revisionists deserve nothing but contempt. Yet I offer them information, on the off chance that they are accidentally ignorant, not kindered spirits with the ones that refuse to peer in Galileo's looking glass.
as a point of fact, that picture is not of Eve. [...] I don't know who the other homunculus is supposed to be, but it ain't Eve. Maybe one of the inbred siblings of A&E? I saw that there was a naked Adam and Eve in other pictures, so like you say, who else could that be next to a grazing raptor?
But if you're sure it's an extra and not a star, let's point out the bible-inaccurate shape of their arc instead.
3) Haven't we figured out by now religion and science don't mix? Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci, and who knows who else?
Copernicus was a Roman Catholic who was encouraged by his bishop to spread his research about heliocentrism. Galileo ran into trouble because of remarks he made about the hope - politics was the problem, not science. I don't recall Da Vinci running into any problems re: science and religion
If I read one more "no christian ever persucuted anyone evar" post, it'll be the millionth too many.
He can wash his hands all he wants, he still allowed the execution to take place and it was Roman soldiers, not Jews, who carried out the execution. Judge, jury, executioner. The Romans played one role, the jewish church were the judge, their flock the jury.
Anyway, I'm not the one you need to convince of this, I'm telling you how the bigots see it. Go argue with them.
That being said, I like how the TFA author tried to imply an association between Creationism and anti-Semitism. I quit reading right there. Your snark aside, he didn't make that up. Well, yeah, actually he did. Ken Hovind and Ken Ham are two completely different people. Don't move the goalpost, it's fine just where it is.
I don't feel as confident in making an absolute statement as you did because I can see some "wiggle room" in the interpretation. Well, if we're taking this with a litteral interpretation, you have to go all the way. If we're seeing this as an allegory, then that's an other story entirely.
I have to respectfully disagree that things must happen in one day without any intervals. I think that in many cases that's the most obvious interpretation -- IE, it makes sense that Eve would have fed the fruit to Adam on the same day she herself tasted it, and it also makes sense that they would immediately be making clothing and that God would drop by to confront them on that day, too. However, while this interpretation makes sense, it's not the only possible scenario. It's also possible that Eve tasted the fruit, felt guilty about it for a few days, and then decided to pull Adam in. Likewise, it's possible that God gave them an opportunity to call out to Him before confronting them. "She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."
Don't take this the wrong way, but there is something seriously wrong with your logic: in a book where the creation of the entire biosphere took exactly 2 days, you assume that more mundane events described in a logical sequence within a garden could have taken more than two days. I gave you one quote up there that contradicts your assumption, but if you look, there's more.
Not all creationists are antisemitic, but there is a causal link between these beliefs. The bible is the absolute truth to these people, and the bible says the jews killed their Saviour. It's not even a stretch.
Actually, it's a huge stretch, because the bible doesn't say that at all. It says that Jesus was killed by Roman soldiers. Pontius Pilate washed his hands of the whole thing, it was the religious leaders of those jews that had the agitator silenced.
But since the current religious leaders don't want people to know that the problem is their caste, they blame it on the competition, and their flock are taught hate. The whole thing sucks.
Those who read and understand the Bible, both old and new testaments, cannot feel justified in anti-semitism because of Christ's death. Those people usually aren't creationists.
Of course jews killed Christ. Christ *was* a jew.... that's the part that they keep forgetting. [...] The Jews are also "God's Chosen People"..... shouldn't that come into it somewhere? The "logic" is that the rules changed with Jesus, and now the jews have the option to convert to Christianity to stay chosen, or to deny god and be filthy horrible heathen jews that will burn in hell forever and ever.
Look, they believe what they're told by their preacher, if the preacher is a bigot, his flock will be. It's not more complicated than that.
That level is entitled "Villi People". The quiz show was mostly about "chip butty" (a french-fry and ketchup sandwich, i think) and there was a good question in there about "misery". Q: "Does misery love company?" (The correct answer is "No, Misery is the show-me state!", IIRC. If it's not the correct answer, it's certainly the best.) I liked the question "What color is Jim's red gun? [yellow][green][blue]";)
Slashdot Mirror
2- No.
+ Making this about Christianity is indeed a strawman: the issue is religion. Organized religion, to be precise. Not any particular flavor of mumbo jumbo.
You changed that to fit your trolling about Faraday et al (seriously, let it go), who, I'm sorry, are not greater scientists than the ones who's injustices you deny.
P.S. I find it quite... interesting that you obsess over WASP scientists, putting them on a pedestal above all others. Making their particular religion the central point of a conversation that did not mention it.
I never said that Pope Urban VIII asked for a balanced point of view. He asked for an unbiased point of view.
Which is itself a form of bias when the opposing viewpoints are not equal: One was true, the other wasn't, and Galileo had proof of that.Just like it's not honest to ask biology teachers to "teach the controversy" about evolution. There is no controversy, there is science on one side, and religious dogma on the other. These things are not equal, dogma has no value, science has value, asking people to treat these things equally is just plain wrong.
He didn't claim those people weren't Christians, he reminded us that their science was rejected for religious reasons.
[...]
What you just described is not accepting JonathanBoyd's argument and reasoning forward to an absurd conclusion. If you think it is, then what's the premise? That we can downplay horrors of religious repression of science? Are you really trying to tell me you think that was the proposition JonathanBoyd was putting forward? Oh right, commenting beta, not everyone's got it I suppose, sorry. I've been using it so long I forgot it's not the standard yet.
Back on topic: Those three people were scientists who ran afoul of religious authorities, and their science was suppressed by the church.
He's denying that. Taking it to the absurd, he's denying all church wrongdoings.
You get on my case by saying "he didn't say 'all', he said those three", and then it's round and 'round we go.
You can buy it from the uk [or wherever] then decss it to play it locally.
OMG I R GENIUS. Yeah genius, let's give the monopolists money, that'll make them change their ways!
Those words, did not advocate are incredibly important. Urban in no way asked Galileo to support heliocentrism. It was merely a request to give an unbiased account of both sides of the argument.
[...]
You accurately cite wikipedia in your post, but neglected to accurately account for the activities of Pope Urban VIII.
Asking a scientist to give a "balanced" account of the universe where something he can prove isn't true must be given equal footing to the truth, without favoring the truth, is unconscionable.Galileo was censored by the catholic church for defending the ideas of Copernicus that the church had then dismissed based on the exact same passage as Luther did when Copernicus was alive, your mischaracterization of that event is dishonest, at best.
The church opposed Leonardo's research into medical science (amongst other, less famous misdeeds), think about how much you respect the dead next time you need surgery, think about how your surgeon learned his skills.
Those are perfect examples of churches trying to suppress scientific progress, but you try to rewrite history to deny the horrors they are guilty of.
The intentional spelling and grammatical error of the original "quote" should have clued you in.
P.S. There's a [quote] button, try it out.
This is NOT the same thing as compressing sound to save disk space. You should have said "data".
The Catholic church at the time not an old-testament fundamentalist organization, contrary to the subject of this thread.
Copernicus had an influential uncle in the church, nepotism can be a great thing when applied with luck.
Challenging the theory of an heathen like Ptolemy isn't the same as challenging the bible.
Martin Luther refused his theories on biblical grounds, just like the creation museum refuses Darwin's.
Galileo:
In his time, obscurantism had gained power and the inquisition's power reached unsuspected levels:
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 hypothetically. For the next several years Galileo stayed well away from the controversy.
And the reason why I will not allow you fucking revisionists to blur this with your carefully worded denial is that Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism.
400 years later and President George W. Bush says to "teach the controversy", to try to bring the world back to the dark ages.
I won't stay polite while you rape history and insult reason and truthfulness with your ignorant convictions.
I'm offended by that.
The quality of my discussions with honest Christians is excellent, but the fucking deniers and revisionists deserve nothing but contempt. Yet I offer them information, on the off chance that they are accidentally ignorant, not kindered spirits with the ones that refuse to peer in Galileo's looking glass.
But if you're sure it's an extra and not a star, let's point out the bible-inaccurate shape of their arc instead.
IMO it was only a matter of time until a judge ruled that he had jurisdiction, EULAs be damned.
Copernicus was a Roman Catholic who was encouraged by his bishop to spread his research about heliocentrism. Galileo ran into trouble because of remarks he made about the hope - politics was the problem, not science. I don't recall Da Vinci running into any problems re: science and religion
If I read one more "no christian ever persucuted anyone evar" post, it'll be the millionth too many.Copernicus: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161
Leonardo: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4289204.stm
The churches stood in the way of science throughout their histories, that's a fact, and your attempted whitewashing of history won't change it.
The Romans played one role, the jewish church were the judge, their flock the jury.
Anyway, I'm not the one you need to convince of this, I'm telling you how the bigots see it. Go argue with them.
If we're seeing this as an allegory, then that's an other story entirely.
Don't take this the wrong way, but there is something seriously wrong with your logic: in a book where the creation of the entire biosphere took exactly 2 days, you assume that more mundane events described in a logical sequence within a garden could have taken more than two days. I gave you one quote up there that contradicts your assumption, but if you look, there's more.
Actually, it's a huge stretch, because the bible doesn't say that at all. It says that Jesus was killed by Roman soldiers. Pontius Pilate washed his hands of the whole thing, it was the religious leaders of those jews that had the agitator silenced.
But since the current religious leaders don't want people to know that the problem is their caste, they blame it on the competition, and their flock are taught hate. The whole thing sucks.
Look, they believe what they're told by their preacher, if the preacher is a bigot, his flock will be. It's not more complicated than that.
And all this time we've been looking for the WMDs
The quiz show was mostly about "chip butty" (a french-fry and ketchup sandwich, i think) and there was a good question in there about "misery".
Q: "Does misery love company?" (The correct answer is "No, Misery is the show-me state!", IIRC. If it's not the correct answer, it's certainly the best.) I liked the question "What color is Jim's red gun? [yellow][green][blue]"