Rush Limbaugh: Hurricanes are a liberal conspiracy for promoting climate change

[Charles]

Who CARES? Yes, the church declared him a heretic for religious reasons. SO WHAT? That has nothing to do with my point about whether going against the scientific consensus is the right thing to do or not. Feel free to actually get the point as it zooms over your head once again.

I care. And quite many in here try to cover what you just pointed to. I respect you for being so honest. I don't see why you find it unimportant, though.

[Mountain Man]

It seems you are more of a Catholic than Pope John Paul II. It least he had the courage to admit his church was wrong. You can read about it in this article: After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves

From your source:

Galileo obtained the permission of Pope Urban VIII, a Barberini and a friend, to continue research into both the Ptolemaic and the Copernican views of the world, provided that his findings drew no definitive conclusions and acknowledged divine omnipotence.

That's exactly what I've been saying! How's it feel to shoot yourself in the foot?

[Mountain Man]

Who CARES? Yes, the church declared him a heretic for religious reasons.

It was more politics than religion. The official position of the Church was that geocentrism was true, and this view was supported by the scientific consensus of the day, but they were also open to competing ideas provided those had sufficient scientific support, which heliocentrism did not. If Galileo had tread a bit more carefully, followed the pope's advice to treat the matter as speculative, and hadn't alienated his allies (particularly the pope!), then he almost certainly would have never been brought to trial.

[shunyadragon]

Who CARES? Yes, the church declared him a heretic for religious reasons. SO WHAT? That has nothing to do with my point about whether going against the scientific consensus is the right thing to do or not. Feel free to actually get the point as it zooms over your head once again.

It is best if you wish to go against scientific consensus, you refer to sound science, and not appeal to obfuscating Rush Limbaugh rhetoric without science.

[Sparko]

I care. And quite many in here try to cover what you just pointed to. I respect you for being so honest. I don't see why you find it unimportant, though.

Because it is not germane to the point I was making to Tassman. The churches response came AFTER Copernicus dared to question the scientific theory of the day. They are a side issue. Their response was just the reaction anyone who questions the consensus gets, whether in science or religion.

The entire point I was making to Tassman was that his comment that nobody should question the scientific consensus was incorrect. We SHOULD question the scientific consensus. Most major breakthroughs in science have come when the current scientific consensus is questioned. At first those that question it are ridiculed or ostracized but eventually if they have evidence, their view overturns the consensus. Just like it did with Copernicus. Just like it did with Alfred Wegener when he came up with plate tectonics.

THAT was the point I was making.

[One Bad Pig]

This is all very simple, Sparko. The church held on to the view longer and more insistently than needed because it found that the Bible supported the view. So for those who held this view, it was hard to change their mind for religious reasons. Remember that in 1616 the Copernican view was declared heretical? And do you remember why? Was it due to the lack of evidence? Or was it due to the fact that it contradicted the Bible? The word "heretical" will help you answer.

You misunderstood Shuny's point or made a strawman of it. He did not say geocentrism is a Christian world view because some or most Christians held to it at the time. He was merely pointing to the fact, along with Tassman, that some Christians did hold on to the view simply because they believed heliocentrism was contrary to Scripture. Which the church declard it was. And which Luther, a very influental Christian, also did.

So you admit that Luther didn't come up with idea that geocentrism is in accord with Scripture. Thanks.

Luther was only "very influential" among Lutherans. Given his falling out with the Catholic Church, they can hardly have supported the position because he did.

[Sparko]

It is best if you wish to go against scientific consensus, you refer to sound science, and not appeal to obfuscating Rush Limbaugh rhetoric without science.

Right because Copernicus appealed to Rush Limgaugh.

Go back to sleep Shuny.

[rogue06]

It was more politics than religion. The official position of the Church was that geocentrism was true, and this view was supported by the scientific consensus of the day, but they were also open to competing ideas provided those had sufficient scientific support, which heliocentrism did not. If Galileo had tread a bit more carefully, followed the pope's advice to treat the matter as speculative, and hadn't alienated his allies (particularly the pope!), then he almost certainly would have never been brought to trial.

What this seems to overlook is that it wasn't just the Catholics who rejected Galileo but many Protestants as well. And it had nothing whatsoever to do with insulting Urban VIII (which they almost certainly would have approved of).

For example, John Calvin rejected heliocentrism

--John Calvin, Sermon #8 on I Corinthians, 677, cited in John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait, by William J. Bouwsma (Oxford Univ. Press, 1988), p.72.


"The heavens revolve daily, and, immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions, we experience no concussion -- no disturbance in the harmony of their motion. The sun, though varying its course every diurnal revolution, returns annually to the same point. The planets, in all their wandering, maintain their respective positions. How could the earth hang suspended in the air were it not upheld by God's hand? (Job 26:7) By what means could it [the earth] maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not its Divine Maker fix and establish it." Accordingly the particle, ape, denoting emphasis, is introduced -- YEA, he hath established it." --John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms (Ps. 93:1), trans., James Anderson (Eerdman's, 1949), Vol. 4, p. 7

Martin Luther along with other Lutheran protesters like Philip Melanchthon, and Andreas Osiander also attacked the Copernican heliocentric system as contradicting Scripture.

Luther cited Joshua (specifically 10:12-13; "Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth") whereas Melanchthon emphasized Ecclesiastes 1:4-5 and various Psalms.

Osiander is best known for adding a preface ("Introduction to the Reader") to Copernicus' De Revolutionibus

[Charles]

So you admit that Luther didn't come up with idea that geocentrism is in accord with Scripture. Thanks.

Luther was only "very influential" among Lutherans. Given his falling out with the Catholic Church, they can hardly have supported the position because he did.

I never claimed he was the one who came up with the idea. I said he did hold on to it and support it.

Being "only" very influential among Lutherans is no little thing. I never claimed the Catholic Church did hold on to it because of Luther. Wonder why you came up with that idea. They both did hold on to the view because litteraly speaking the Bible claims reality is geocentric.

[Charles]

It was more politics than religion. The official position of the Church was that geocentrism was true, and this view was supported by the scientific consensus of the day, but they were also open to competing ideas provided those had sufficient scientific support, which heliocentrism did not. If Galileo had tread a bit more carefully, followed the pope's advice to treat the matter as speculative, and hadn't alienated his allies (particularly the pope!), then he almost certainly would have never been brought to trial.

Can you please explain where to they were open to competing ideas in the following?

Assessment made at the Holy Office, Rome, Wednesday, 24 February 1616, in the presence of the Father Theologians signed below.

Proposition to be assessed:

(1) The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion.

Assessement: All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.

(2) The earth is not the center of the world, nor motionless, but it moves as a whole and also with diurnal motion.

Assessment: All said that this proposition receives the same judgement in philosophy and that in regard to theological truth it is at least errouneous in faith.

If calling an idea both foolish, absurd and formally heretical is being open to it, then you may have a point. I am looking forward to seeing your case to be made in favour of this.

And let's continue:

So, by asking someone to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion and not even allowing him to discuss it is to be open to the idea provided the evidence is sufficient? Looking forward to an answer in which you actually adress this question.

The quotes are taken from here: https://web.archive.org/web/20070930...html#conreport

[Charles]

From your source:

Galileo obtained the permission of Pope Urban VIII, a Barberini and a friend, to continue research into both the Ptolemaic and the Copernican views of the world, provided that his findings drew no definitive conclusions and acknowledged divine omnipotence.

That's exactly what I've been saying! How's it feel to shoot yourself in the foot?

You did not confront any of the points in the text. But that is what we have seen all along.

As regards your "shoot yourself in the foot" I have never denied that part. I actually mentioned it yesterday as can be seen here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post476773

It is interesting to note that you think it saves your case that someone can support "views of the world, provided that his findings drew no definitive conclusions and acknowledged divine omnipotence." Is that a fair way to determine how science should be dealt with? Is it fair to imprison someone for not working according to such predefined ideas about how science should work? What speaks in favour of this aproach to science?

And it does nothing to change that fact that he was confronted with scripture again and again and when he was sentenced, they did it again. I have just pointed to more instances. Why are you ignoring all the other contexts in which this was deemed as clearly forbidden?

[Charles]

It was more politics than religion. The official position of the Church was that geocentrism was true, and this view was supported by the scientific consensus of the day, but they were also open to competing ideas provided those had sufficient scientific support, which heliocentrism did not. If Galileo had tread a bit more carefully, followed the pope's advice to treat the matter as speculative, and hadn't alienated his allies (particularly the pope!), then he almost certainly would have never been brought to trial.

Pope John Paul II who did not try to cover up the mistakes made in this regard had another opinion. In 1992 he said:

http://faculty.fiu.edu/~hauptli/Intr....html#_ftnref8

Note the expression: "The error of the theologians of the time". Of course it was religion, the pope admitted that.

[Tassman]

Because it is not germane to the point I was making to Tassman. The churches response came AFTER Copernicus dared to question the scientific theory of the day. They are a side issue. Their response was just the reaction anyone who questions the consensus gets, whether in science or religion.

The entire point I was making to Tassman was that his comment that nobody should question the scientific consensus was incorrect. We SHOULD question the scientific consensus. Most major breakthroughs in science have come when the current scientific consensus is questioned. At first those that question it are ridiculed or ostracized but eventually if they have evidence, their view overturns the consensus. Just like it did with Copernicus. Just like it did with Alfred Wegener when he came up with plate tectonics.

THAT was the point I was making.

I have never said that that nobody should ever question the scientific consensus. My argument is that when there is consensus among nearly all scientists and scientific organisations that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity, it behoves us to listen to them instead of a small minority of voices questioning the validity of such assertions and casting doubt on the preponderance of evidence. Especially with so much at stake.

[lilpixieofterror]

The interpretation that was wrong is an interpretation that would seem to follow directly from the words in the Bible that some even argued it was hardly an interpretation at all.

Have you filled a protest yet against the national weather service for using the terms 'sunrise' and 'sunset' yet?

Now, based on new and better knowledge people know that those words in the Bible are simply wrong in their litteral meaning and thus they reinterpret. That happens all the time. Which is why, in this context, the Bible cannot be wrong, since it is just reinterpreted to mean something different when proven wrong. The actual words are wrong.

Or God doesn't beam information into people's heads and the Bible was never met to be a scientific textbook to begin with. There's plenty of ways to prove the Bible wrong, problem is this is weak sauce since it was man and not God that made geocentrism into an issue of salvation. Can you show me where the Bible says that the earths position among the universe is a salvation or even a theological issue?

The fact that Galileo's line of reasoning was declared bad science does, even if it is correct, not do anything to justify imprisoning or threatening a man due to some particular world view he holds. Do you think otherwise? Should we imprison scientists who go for ideas with not enough evidence to support it. Or should we just allow scientists to prove them wrong? The latter is the scientific aproach.

I hate to inform you of this, but people have been killed for much less. While your emotional arguments are amusing, I never said if it was justified or not. Galileo and the men that tried him are both merely imperfect humans. They screwed up, but such is life. Now do you have an actual argument here or are you just going to rage a bit more about events that happened nearly 500 years ago?

BTW, I see you flat ignored my challenge for you to prove heliocentrism, using what was known in the 16th century. What's the problem, realized you couldn't and are therefore trying to distract from that fact? Now get to work and remember, you can't use anything from a physics textbook because most of it hadn't been discovered at that point in history.

[Charles]

Have you filled a protest yet against the national weather service for using the terms 'sunrise' and 'sunset' yet?



Or God doesn't beam information into people's heads and the Bible was never met to be a scientific textbook to begin with. There's plenty of ways to prove the Bible wrong, problem is this is weak sauce since it was man and not God that made geocentrism into an issue of salvation. Can you show me where the Bible says that the earths position among the universe is a salvation or even a theological issue?



I hate to inform you of this, but people have been killed for much less. While your emotional arguments are amusing, I never said if it was justified or not. Galileo and the men that tried him are both merely imperfect humans. They screwed up, but such is life. Now do you have an actual argument here or are you just going to rage a bit more about events that happened nearly 500 years ago?

BTW, I see you flat ignored my challenge for you to prove heliocentrism, using what was known in the 16th century. What's the problem, realized you couldn't and are therefore trying to distract from that fact? Now get to work and remember, you can't use anything from a physics textbook because most of it hadn't been discovered at that point in history.

There is no need to prove it. I made the case that the church pointed to heliocentrism as being contrary to scripture as part of the reason for denying it. Some in here want to deny or downplay that. Religion was important in this case and as so often before and after the church was wrong.