Faith Vs. Science

[TAO]

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

What about those clay things talked about in another thread with 96% character verification compared to the Anthon Transcript? That be evidence, wouldn't it be?

[thesometimesaint]

TAO:

In what are you in reference to/

[TAO]

TAO:

In what are you in reference to/

The Detroit Manuscript thread here.

Post #4 for the 96%.

Post #14 for the reference to Maxwell Institute.

It's certainly not all that much evidence - but it is at least something.

[44Foxtrot]

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.

Dr. Peterson,

Before you go perhaps you could let me know exactly what it is about Galileo's conviction for heresy by an Inquisition, lifetime house arrest, and ban on future publications you claim constitutes a supportive environment for science?

[thesometimesaint]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

[Jeff K.]

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

[Jeff K.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

You would think with his extensive use of Wikipedia he would have run across the link some time ago..... perhaps not.

[44Foxtrot]

I am amazed really. That you actually believe that by providing vague references you somehow feel you can bamboozle people into acquiesing to your somewhat limited point of view.

Consider that unlike you I have read the trial transcripts as part of a class on science and religion, and unlike you I know who simplicio is and how it came to be representative of the pope. And unlike you, the heliocentric view was used and common by the time of Galileo with no one going through the inquisition. In fact the driving force was Pope Urban's eventual belief that his friend and the person he patronized was openly insulting him.

Let us overlook the fact the Pope was Galileos provider, which you didn't know and undermines your postion. Now let us turn to your lack of knowledge.

Irrelevant to the motivating factors for the show trial. It was a personal attack that motivated Urban. Which you were unaware of.

You also overlook Galileo's proofs being sunspots and Galileo's tide theory (which we know is not good science and based on that evidence would have led to a rejection as to proof the earth was moving) now you may wish to accept the erroneous theories Galileo placed before the court, but I and science do not. Dogmatism combined with your ignorance should not be allowed in the same sentence as "science". Though you try mightily to put the two together.

Again nothing to do with my position. You appear to be flailing and tossing up everything but the kitchen sink.

Ibid. If you know what that means.

So you disengenuously toss out some wikipedia footnotes and say "abra cadabra". Sorry that doesn't work in academia. It certainly doesn't work in science. So why do you detest us so much to believe it works on this board?

I suggest you read the trial transcripts. Then take it to the next level if you are able and read Galileo's references. You may also wish to understand context by reading up on the relationship Pope Urban had with Galileo.

Wikipedia Galileo Affair

You claim that Dr. Peterson relies on nuance. One cannot say the same for you. Your obfuscation is almost as nuanced as a sledgehammer in Murano Glass factory.

One is forced to ask, do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Jeff K.

Since Dr. Peterson seems no longer interested in this thread, perhaps you could enlighten me on exactly what it is about Galileo's conviction for heresy by an Inquisition, lifetime house arrest, and ban on future publications constitutes a supportive environment for science.

[WalkerW]

When Foxtrot is done doing his extensive research on Wikipedia (hope you didn't hurt yourself with those references), perhaps he could check out the references I've already provided (ones I have actually read...). Then he can add these to his list (I've read these too):

Peter Harrison (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion (Cambridge University Press, 2010).

David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers (eds.), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science (University of California Press, 1986).

[WalkerW]

Hart does a fine job of giving an overview of the Galileo event and what it says about Christianity and science here.

[44Foxtrot]

When Foxtrot is done doing his extensive research on Wikipedia (hope you didn't hurt yourself with those references), perhaps he could check out the references I've already provided (ones I have actually read...). Then he can add these to his list (I've read these too):

Peter Harrison (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion (Cambridge University Press, 2010).

David C. Lindberg, Ronald L. Numbers (eds.), God and Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science (University of California Press, 1986).

Walker,

Are you claiming that the three main points regarding the outcome of the Inquisition against Galileo provided by the Wikipedia article are in error?

Are you claiming that more research by delving into your references would change the facts here?

Or are you just encouraging more color, apologetics and nuance?

Again and for the last time; you get no points unless you can explain in what ways the Galileo's treatment by the Catholic Church generated an environment that was supportive of science.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K.

Since Dr. Peterson seems no longer interested in this thread, perhaps you could enlighten me on exactly what it is about Galileo's conviction for heresy by an Inquisition, lifetime house arrest, and ban on future publications constitutes a supportive environment for science.

My simplistic young scientist want to be. I have already explained to you what happened and why. And yet you completely miss the obvious and obfuscate with a fluttering of wikipedia links. I still wait for the CFR that I have somehow played a revisionist part in history given the links I provided you. I await your CFR showing my points to be false. Perhaps you should change your monicker to "Simplicio" given your dogmatic approach to science.

[Jeff K.]

Will he get the reference? I can see him reaching for the google button now.

[WalkerW]

Are you claiming that the three main points regarding the outcome of the Inquisition against Galileo provided by the Wikipedia article are in error?

Nope. Just your interpretation of what it means.

Are you claiming that more research by delving into your references would change the facts here?

It should change your rather dogmatic interpretation of the facts.

Or are you just encouraging more color, apologetics and nuance?

I'm encouraging appropriate scholarship and history.

Again and for the last time; you get no points unless you can explain in what ways the Galileo's treatment by the Catholic Church generated an environment that was supportive of science.

Galileo's science was quite questionable, actually. Being right and having proper evidence to back it up are two different things. This is one of those historical nuances that you seem to ignore.

I wonder: was an environment supportive of science generated by the Catholic Church when the Scientist Pope was at its head? See Nancy Marie Brown, "Everything You Think You Know About the Dark Ages is Wrong," Religion Dispatches (Jan. 2, 2011). Try not to ignore it this time.

Edit: Here is another article on her new book.

[WalkerW]

Or are you just encouraging more color, apologetics and nuance?

And it is this kind of nonsensical smart-assery that demonstrates that you just don't give a damn about knowing what you are talking about.

[44Foxtrot]

And it is this kind of nonsensical smart-assery that demonstrates that you just don't give a damn about knowing what you are talking about.

I thought that we were talking about the facts - not so much about opinions, or analysis of opinions, or subtle nuance related to the facts.

Still waiting for an explanation of the ways in which you consider the Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo to be science-friendly.

[WalkerW]

I thought that we were talking about the facts - not so much about opinions, or analysis of opinions, or subtle nuance related to the facts.

Still waiting for an explanation of the ways in which you consider the Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo to be science-friendly.

I provided a link to Hart. I can't help your laziness.

I also commented that the theory he was pushing was lacking in evidence at the time.

[WalkerW]

What we are doing is addressing your comments:

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

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?

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).

Still waiting for an explanation of the ways in which you consider the Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo to be science-friendly.

You are the one who needs to review the history of science. Badly.

But in your eyes, apparently, scholars like Lindberg and Numbers (two of the most distinguished historians of science) are nothing but "apologists" who are only interested in "nuances" and "coloring."

I guess using Wikipedia and faulty conventional wisdom is much easier than checking out the amount of academic references I've provided. But as a scientist, I expected better of you.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'll be honest. I think it's possible that 44Foxtrot has the scientific background that he claims. It's well known and often remarked among philosophers of science that many, if not the overwhelming majority, of practicing scientists, whatever their other virtues, are philosophically na

[WalkerW]

On the other hand, 44Foxtrot is so very, very dogmatic, militant, and triumphalist that, frankly, he comes across as a bit too young to be a successful scientist. I'm halfway inclined to think that we have some sort of troll here.

I'm inclined to agree.

[cinepro]

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?

Since we can only understand the scriptures to the limits of our understanding, it would only make sense that an increased understanding about other subjects would lead to an increased understanding of the scriptures.

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

I don't think we can underestimate the degree to which God brings about change by allowing younger Church members rise through the ranks to the highest councils of the Church whereby they bring their less outdated understandings with them. Granted, it's a slow process, but I believe a very powerful one, only to the degree that it isn't frustrated by leaders being inspired to choose only those who think just like them.

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?

If he did that, it might accumulate into a proof that He exists, which is unacceptable (and the antithesis of faith). So He can't. Obviously.

[Daniel Peterson]

Since we can only understand the scriptures to the limits of our understanding, it would only make sense that an increased understanding about other subjects would lead to an increased understanding of the scriptures.

I don't think we can underestimate the degree to which God brings about change by allowing younger Church members rise through the ranks to the highest councils of the Church whereby they bring their less outdated understandings with them. Granted, it's a slow process, but I believe a very powerful one, only to the degree that it isn't frustrated by leaders being inspired to choose only those who think just like them.

If he did that, it might accumulate into a proof that He exists, which is unacceptable (and the antithesis of faith). So He can't. Obviously.

My word. I don't know whether he was being entirely serious, but I actually agree with cinepro to some extent.

I'm having my wife check my pulse and my temperature.

[WalkerW]

My word. I don't know whether he was being entirely serious, but I actually agree with cinepro to some extent.

I'm having my wife check my pulse and my temperature.

Well, we know how Luke

to the

.

Fever, it is not. The Force it is.

[volgadon]

Walker,

Are you claiming that the three main points regarding the outcome of the Inquisition against Galileo provided by the Wikipedia article are in error?

Are you claiming that more research by delving into your references would change the facts here?

Or are you just encouraging more color, apologetics and nuance?

Again and for the last time; you get no points unless you can explain in what ways the Galileo's treatment by the Catholic Church generated an environment that was supportive of science.

The same way that universities, national academies and other institutions and their internal and external politics creative an environment supportive of science. Granted, house-arrest don't usually play a role, but suppressing research and preventing publication and good positions certainly do.

You are trying to make the Galileo case into one of faith vs. science, when really it is certain tenents of faith enlisted in the aid of politics and power struggles.

[volgadon]

Still waiting for an explanation of the ways in which you consider the Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo to be science-friendly.

Science was not the issue here.