Faith Vs. Science

[44Foxtrot]

Like, say, the devoutly Catholic Galileo, or the devoutly Catholic Copernicus? Or Father Georges LeMaitre, the Belgian Catholic priest and physicist who helped to originate the concept of the Big Bang?

Like Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics and abbot of the Monastery of St. Thomas near Br

[volgadon]

an organization which, in their very scripture, views the Roman Catholic Church as the " - great and abominable Church, which is the whore of the whole earth --" (D&C 29:21).

We do not consider the stick of Bruce scripture.

[thesometimesaint]

LDS Guy 1986:

What is the value of Pi according to LDS Scripture?

Was Was Joseph Fielding Smith's prophecy that man would never walk on the moon Divinely Inspired?

[Daniel Peterson]

You and I both know that Galileo and Copernicus carried out their scientific work in spite of the Catholic Church, not because of it.

You "know" that. I emphatically don't.

The old cartoon-villain version of the Galileo story has long since been outgrown by serious historians of science -- and the notion that the devout Catholic Copernicus did his science in defiance of Rome is simply myth.

you are engaged in apologetics for an organization which, in their very scripture, views the Roman Catholic Church as the " - great and abominable Church, which is the whore of the whole earth --" (D&C 29:21).

I'm aware of no scripture that identifies the Roman Catholic Church as the whore of all the earth, etc.

I do not believe it to be such.

You may well be a brilliant scientist. You've informed us on numerous occasions that you are, and I have no particular reason to doubt it. But on religious and historical matters, you appear to be deeply uneducated and very susceptible to baseless stereotypes and propagandistic folk notions.

[WalkerW]

Feser states that his writing is from a Roman Catholic perspective.

Great observation. He used to be atheist. See his The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism (St. Augustine's Press, 2008) for why he is no longer.

While you may think the above is priceless, I see it as uninformed, ignorant and defensive.

I'm sure, which makes it all the more priceless.

In support of this viewpoint, I would ask you to imagine the world today if Roman Catholicism still held sway over the western world and we didn't have scientists and engineers.

What on earth does this have to do with the parody or what he was parodying? Me thinks you didn't get it.

As for Catholicism's effect on the Western world, see

Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (Princeton University Press, 2003).

Stark, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (Random House, 2005).

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Regnery Pub., 2005).

Or perhaps this brief article: Nancy Marie Brown, "Everything You Think You Know About the Dark Ages is Wrong," Religion Dispatches (Jan. 2, 2011).

By labeling this tripe as priceless, you are essentially claiming that the world would be better off today if scientists and engineers left the labs and the test facilities and went back to the monastery.

How? And, as Dr. Peterson pointed out, the monastery and the lab are not in conflict.

Surely you cannot be serious

I am serious...and don't call me Shirley.

[WalkerW]

You and I both know that Galileo and Copernicus carried out their scientific work in spite of the Catholic Church, not because of it.

He probably doesn't know that because it isn't true. Try picking up Ronald L. Numbers (ed.), Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion (Harvard University Press, 2009). Damn those evil church-supported universities that taught that blasphemous heliocentrism.

What I find more interesting about your comments regarding the Catholic Church is that you are engaged in apologetics for an organization which, in their very scripture, views the Roman Catholic Church as the " - great and abominable Church, which is the whore of the whole earth --" (D&C 29:21).

Or as stated in stated in Mormon Doctrine; "Nephi saw this 'church which is the most abominable above all other churches' in vision. He 'saw the devil that he was the foundation of it' and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization. (1 Nephi 13:1-10)."

Is this the same Catholic Church, that you are now claiming was a paragon of enlightened support for science in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries?

What I find more interesting is your attempt to change the subject.

[Calm]

We do not consider the stick of Bruce scripture.

Neither did Bruce since he removed that tidbit after receiving...and most important accepting instruction from those who knew bettter. It is a shame that others are not so willing to learn of their own errors and lay them to rest when they've been disproved.

[44Foxtrot]

You "know" that. I emphatically don't.

The old cartoon-villain version of the Galileo story has long since been outgrown by serious historians of science -- and the notion that the devout Catholic Copernicus did his science in defiance of Rome is simply myth.

I'm aware of no scripture that identifies the Roman Catholic Church as the whore of all the earth, etc.

I do not believe it to be such.

You may well be a brilliant scientist. You've informed us on numerous occasions that you are, and I have no particular reason to doubt it. But on religious and historical matters, you appear to be deeply uneducated and very susceptible to baseless stereotypes and propagandistic folk notions.

For most of its history, the LDS Church taught that the Catholic Church was the "great and abominable Church and the whore of the whole earth" as described (often) in the Book of Mormon. This doctrine was preached and codified long before the publication of the "Stick of Bruce". In "The Seer", an official Church publication, the Roman Catholic Church is clearly and specifically indentified as having been founded by the Devil.

When I was growing up in the Church, this "revealed truth" was taught in Seminary and Institute classes, as it had been by any number of Apostles and Prophets of the Church in the 19th and 20th centuries. I clearly recall this principle being preached by more than one General Authorities in more than one Priesthood sessions of Stake Conference well into the 1970's. This claim by Church leaders bothered me a great deal at the time (as did any number of other teachings of the LD Church), and I guess it eventually came to bother the leadership of the LDS Church as well.

I understand that this teaching regarding the Catholic Church has become an embarrassment for the LDS Church, just as many once firmly believed doctrines of the LDS Church eventually became embarrassing, and were therefore simply de-emphasized, denied, or in some cases, formally changed. In the case of the Catholic Church, this leaves a large number of passages in the Book of Mormon for which our once clear understanding is now not so clear, I guess.

Nonetheless, your claim in defense of religion and the Catholic Church, that somehow the Pope created an environment in which the likes of Galileo and Copernicus could pursue their scientific work without fear of sanction by the Church, clearly indicates that I am not the one here who needs to review the history of science (or religion for that matter).

Are you not aware that it was not until 1822 that the Catholic Church lifted its ban on Galileo's Dialogue, and1992 before the Catholic Church rescinded its edict of Inquisition against Galileo and apologized for its actions against him?

_____________

BTW - I have never claimed to be a brilliant scientist; just a scientist.

[Jeff K.]

Dr. Peterson,

You and I both know that Galileo and Copernicus carried out their scientific work in spite of the Catholic Church, not because of it.

What I find more interesting about your comments regarding the Catholic Church is that you are engaged in apologetics for an organization which, in their very scripture, views the Roman Catholic Church as the " - great and abominable Church, which is the whore of the whole earth --" (D&C 29:21).

Or as stated in stated in Mormon Doctrine; "Nephi saw this 'church which is the most abominable above all other churches' in vision. He 'saw the devil that he was the foundation of it' and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization. (1 Nephi 13:1-10)."

Is this the same Catholic Church, that you are now claiming was a paragon of enlightened support for science in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries?

Then you don't know much. Galileo for instance carried out his research WITH the patronage of the Catholic church. Indeed he was encouraged by the Catholic Church. What created the problem was not his research but the conflict of personalities. Scientific presentations were often made in story form (following Plato's method). In it there was a conversation of three people, a wise man, a neutral man, and a foolish man. The foolish man's name was also the Pope's. This led to the trial, nothing more.

By the way, in the trial Galileo claimed that the earth orbits the sun and proves it by stating the tides were caused by the "sloshing" of the earth around the sun. Do you believe that?

Your ignorance of the history of science marks you as less scientific than you attempt to style yourself. It shows you don't do your research. It also shows that you have no concept as to why and how science develops. Other than that, I am sure you are a trusted source for knowledge. At least in the Florida panhandle.

[Jeff K.]

You and I both know that Galileo and Copernicus carried out their scientific work in spite of the Catholic Church, not because of it.

One concludes you don't know much.

[44Foxtrot]

Then you don't know much. Galileo for instance carried out his research WITH the patronage of the Catholic church. Indeed he was encouraged by the Catholic Church. What created the problem was not his research but the conflict of personalities. Scientific presentations were often made in story form (following Plato's method). In it there was a conversation of three people, a wise man, a neutral man, and a foolish man. The foolish man's name was also the Pope's. This led to the trial, nothing more.

What? Are you not aware that Copernicus so much feared the retribution of the Catholic Church that he did not publish his work until he was near death?

Are you denying that Galileo was summoned to a Church hearing and forced, upon threat of imprisonment and torture, to recant his claim that the earth circled the sun?

If the name of the Pope was all that was at issue, why was Galileo required to recant his support for a Copernican solar system, for which he had a great deal of sound physical evidence?

Why did the Catholic Church feel a need, 350 years later, to officially apologize for their treatment of Galileo?

It appears that you and Dr. Peterson are not content with revision of Mormon history but also feel an apologist's need to do so for the Roman Catholic Church as well.

[Jeff K.]

You are conflating. Which is typical.

You don't know your facts and so are retreating to vague assumptions.

And you call this scientific? I suggest you stop with the faith based dogma and let the facts speak for themselves.

What? Are you not aware that Copernicus so much feared the retribution of the Catholic Church that he did not publish his work until he was near death?

What created the problem was not his research but the conflict of personalities. Scientific presentations were often made in story form (following Plato's method). In it there was a conversation of three people, a wise man, a neutral man, and a foolish man. The foolish man's name was also the Pope's. This led to the trial, nothing more.

Think about it.....

Are you denying that Galileo was summoned to a Church hearing and forced, upon threat of imprisonment and torture, to recant his claim that the earth circled the sun?

See above

If the name of the Pope was all that was at issue, why was Galileo required to recant his support for a Copernican solar system, for which he had a great deal of sound physical evidence?

Because the Pope cannot be seen as getting upset over a name. There had to be something else, including an outmoded methodology which was preferable than admitting an ego was running the trial.

Why did the Catholic Church feel a need, 350 years later, to officially apologize for their treatment of Galileo?

Because of politics and they wanted to.

Interesting that you haven't disputed any of my facts but merely toss out conjecture as a diversion in order to avoid the obvious. Again, I would expect someone who claims to have a high regard for science to understand the facts in their proper context and use them. All you have done is run with the lemmings and regurgitated popular mythos instead of learning for yourself. Which doesn't say much for your ability to discuss much, scientific or otherwise.

If you accuse me of revision, prove me wrong with facts. Consider this a CFR.

[Daniel Peterson]

What? Are you not aware that Copernicus so much feared the retribution of the Catholic Church that he did not publish his work until he was near death?

Are you denying that Galileo was summoned to a Church hearing and forced, upon threat of imprisonment and torture, to recant his claim that the earth circled the sun?

I'm denying that the Galileo affair was the simplistic morality play of science versus religion that, based upon your scientistic dogma and pop-historical understanding -- "All I Really Need to Know about the History of Science I Learned in Kindergarten" -- you want to insist that it was.

I realize that you haven't read much about the history of science and that you probably aren't inclined to do so, but here's a very short little item (by my colleague Glen Cooper, who holds a Ph.D. in the history of science from Columbia University with particular specialties in the history of medicine and the history of astronomy) that would only take you about five minutes, max, to read through. Can you at least manage that much?

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=500

Galileo had ecclesiastical officials on his side and ecclesiastical officials against him. His sin was to have disagreed, very openly and rather contemptuously, with the reigning scientific consensus of his day. His conflict was with establishment Aristotelian dogma. And you're here, citing him as a hero, to fault theists for dissenting from your extremist version of current establishment scientific dogma. Those who don't conform, you tell us, are against Science©, and, in an ideal world, shouldn't even get science-related jobs. The irony could scarcely be more obvious.

It appears that you and Dr. Peterson are not content with revision of Mormon history but also feel an apologist's need to do so for the Roman Catholic Church as well.

Better understanding of historical facts, and new historical facts, should lead to a revision of one's view of history. When my understanding of something changes, I often change my mind. Do you reject that policy, 44Foxtrot?

[44Foxtrot]

If you accuse me of revision, prove me wrong with facts. Consider this a CFR.

If you would care to state specifically what references you are calling for, I will do my best to oblige.

[cinepro]

I believe Faith and Science can co-exist, but when the two appear in conflict, I find it's usually safer to bet on science. In the end, faith usually catches up.

[44Foxtrot]

Better understanding of historical facts, and new historical facts, should lead to a revision of one's view of history. When my understanding of something changes, I often change my mind. Do you reject that policy, 44Foxtrot?

Of course I do not reject the idea that one should revise a theory or narrative, where possible, to accommodate new data. Sometimes, however, the old theory or narrative just can't be re-structured to accommodate credible new evidence and must be scrapped completely in favor of a theory or paradigm. That is something with which religion, and especially Catholicism and Mormonism, seem to have great difficulty.

Anyway, frankness regarding changes in belief coming from an apologist seems a bit risky. If one is willing to change the doctrine declared by one's predecessors to be a tenet of an eternal and unchanging gospel, simply based on new evidence, where is the process to end?

Who decides what evidence is required to warrant such change?

If the word of God was misunderstood by previous leaders of the Church, how can one trust that the understanding of the current leaders is any more accurate, especially when it stands in contradiction to so much science?

Is one free to look at the data and conclude that the probability that a God as described by Joseph Smith actually exists is so vanishingly small as to warrant no further consideration?

Declaring the freedom to change your mind in the face of new evidence brings up the issue of the limits to which this may be done by apologists who wish to remain in good standing in the Church. You have claimed before that you are not constrained by these considerations when deciding what you believe. However, your constant need to nuance things as you have tried to do here, and your apparent inability to make and stand by declarations of fact with regard to religion indicates (to me at least) that apologists in good standing such as yourself might not be as free to consider new evidence as you claim to be.

My view, which is shared by many, is that the LDS Church cannot revise its doctrine fast enough to keep up with scientific evidence contrary to its stated core beliefs.

[Jeff K.]

If you would care to state specifically what references you are calling for, I will do my best to oblige.

What have I revised in terms of Galileo's trial. You state I was revisionist. Prove it or withdraw.

[Daniel Peterson]

In deciding what I believe, I prefer to go with my own understanding of my faith and its entailments, as opposed to relying upon yours.

Moreover, while you apparently want to portray me as waffling between arrant heresy and craven intellectual dishonesty, few if any people actually in the Church (at any level) appear to have had any significant reservations about my views, which have been very public.

More to the point: I take it that you're abandoning your defense of your caricatured and tendentious version of the Galileo story? If so, that's wise.

[44Foxtrot]

I believe Faith and Science can co-exist, but when the two appear in conflict, I find it's usually safer to bet on science. In the end, faith usually catches up.

I can more or less agree with this. What one needs to do is to consider the mechanism by which faith "catches up".

Is it simply a "re-reading" of the scriptures in the light of new evidence, as has been the case with the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon in light of DNA evidence?

Is it in response to the socialization of the members of the Church when such socialization is no longer compatible with core doctrine?

Is it "new revelation" from God. If it is revelation from God, why was it that God did not provide the correct revelatory knowledge the first time?

[nicolasconnault]

I can more or less agree with this. What one needs to do is to consider the mechanism by which faith "catches up".

Is it simply a "re-reading" of the scriptures in the light of new evidence, as has been the case with the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon in light of DNA evidence?

Is it in response to the socialization of the members of the Church when such socialization is no longer compatible with core doctrine?

Is it "new revelation" from God. If it is revelation from God, why was it that God did not provide the correct revelatory knowledge the first time?

The Nephites adopted the heliocentric model at least 1200 years before it was formerly validated by science. It appears that Abraham also understood this far earlier.

[44Foxtrot]

What have I revised in terms of Galileo's trial. You state I was revisionist. Prove it or withdraw.

In response to you and Dr. Peterson, I was unable to find a version of the Galileo story that supported your claims. Probably the closest (no surprise here) was on a Catholic apologetics website. That should give you some pause.

The more accurate, complete and undisputed narrative, with references, is summarized below, with some detail as to the outcome of the Inquisition from Galileo's perspective.

In order to contradict my "Kindergarten level" assertions here, you pretty much have to claim that this account is factually incorrect or that being under house arrest and having your future works banned from publication constitutes support for science.

Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. He was found guilty. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts (literature references are provided):

1. Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.Fantoli (2005, p.139), Finocchiaro (1989, p.288

[thesometimesaint]

nicolasconnault:

I believe a pretty good case could be made that the Nephites believed in a Heliocentric earth.

Abraham not so much.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Evidence_for_antiquity

[44Foxtrot]

The Nephites adopted the heliocentric model at least 1200 years before it was formerly validated by science. It appears that Abraham also understood this far earlier.

That would be an important statement if there were any physical evidence whatsoever that Nephites ever actually existed.

[Daniel Peterson]

These are the facts. Dr. Peterson's constant reliance nuance and obfuscation may be effective for the faithful - for the rest of us - not so much.

My "nuance" and "obfuscation" comes from historians of science who have written on the Galileo case -- historians whose works I have read and you, manifestly, have not.

If, by "the rest of us," you intend people who don't know the actual background of the Galileo story but who cling to simplistic historical propaganda in lieu of accurate understanding, you're quite right. Historical nuance doesn't work with such people.

Good grief. You simply have to be one of the most triumphalistic dogmatists I've encountered in many years. I see no further purpose in trying to converse with someone who actually appears to take pride in militant ignorance.

[thesometimesaint]

44Foxtrot:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml