Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The evidence of a Tigris Euphrates Noah flood about 2900 BCE

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    My response was to Adrift’s misleading reference to “the settled science of the day”. Whilst there was a lot of scientific/philosophical activity from Aristotle onwards, as you elucidate in your typical Gish Gallop style of attempting to overwhelm your opponent, the fact remains that the scientific method as recognized nowadays began with Copernicus and Galileo. And it was formalized by Sir Francis Bacon. Bacon is credited with establishing and popularizing the “scientific method” of inquiry into natural phenomena regardless of the many disparate excursions of others in the field prior to this. The Baconian method, i.e. the scientific method, is the investigative method developed by Sir Francis Bacon. The method was put forward in Bacon's book Novum Organum, or 'New Method', and replaced the methods put forward in Aristotle's Organon.

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/francis-bacon/
    Why in the world are you conflating my use of the phrase "settled science of the day" (actually MM's usage which I agreed with), with modern "scientific method?"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      FWIU Copernicus' ideas about heliocentrism received support from more than a few respected and influential figures in the Church such as Tiedemann Giese (Bishop of Kulm and later Prince-Bishop of Warmia), Nikolaus von Schönberg (Archbishop of Capua) and Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter (secretary to popes Clement VII and Paul III). Many of them were either scientists themselves or patrons of the sciences and various scientists.

      And Galileo also had support both in the church hierarchy as well as other scientists although many of them weren't fully convinced that he was right (IIRC he received some support from the Dominicans but would later alienate them).

      But Galileo himself, due to his own insolence and arrogance, brought the issue to a boil when he put the views of Pope Urban VIII (who had been largely friendly to Galileo) into the mouth of a none-too-bright character called "Simplicio" ("simpleton") and then lambasted them in his Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo ("Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems")

      Not the brightest move to stick your thumb into the eye of the man who had been a friend and chiefly responsible for protecting you from those who thought that your work and conclusions were blasphemous.

      The fact is that Galileo wasn't brought up on charges of heresy because he upset the scientific community (academic Aristotelians) with his support for heliocentrism. Galileo had been upending conventional wisdom for years like when he refuted Aristotle’s assumptions regarding the rate of fall being in direct proportion to weight. The same goes for his observations of the moon being mountainous and full of craters rather than being a perfect sphere. But these were never brought up when he faced the Inquisition which would be strange if his opposition from the Church were based on disagreeing with Aristotle or the scientific establishment.

      Further, even before the time of Galileo the observations made by Tycho Brahe, Maestlin and John Dee concerning the comets of 1578 and 1580 being further away from the Earth than the Moon contradicted Aristotelian theory yet never was there a question of it being heresy. And half a century after Galileo's trial when Boyle wrote his "Sceptical Chymist" (1661: the cornerstone of modern chemistry) where he disproved the Aristotelian assumption that there were four basic elements, there was no question of an Inquisition or even accusations of heresy.

      Simply reading what those who investigated Galileo for the Inquisition and that group's findings make it clear that he wasn't in trouble for overturning scientific apple carts but rather for heresy (what he was charged with).

      Melchior Inchofer, who appears to have been a member of the Preliminary Commission appointed by Urban VIII to examine Galileo’s "Dialogue" and heavily involved in his later trial, was particularly damning in his condemnation:

      The opinion of the earth’s motion is of all heresies the most abominable, the most pernicious, the most scandalous; the immovability of the earth is thrice sacred; argument against the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, and the incarnation, should be tolerated sooner than an argument to prove that the earth moves.


      And from the unanimous opinion of the Inquisition at Rome:

      The first proposition, that the sun is the center and does not revolve about the earth is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture ... the second proposition, that the earth is not the center but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and, from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the true faith.


      Others like Father Lecazre, the eminent theological authority and rector of the College of Dijon, described Galileo's research as "cast[ing] suspicion on the doctrine of the incarnation"

      It was his insistence that his discoveries needed to be taken into account when interpreting Scripture that got him in trouble especially since he wasn't able to provide truly convincing evidence to support them (that would come from Kepler and some others).
      So you largely disagree with Professor Graney who pointed out that the original judgement against Galileo was, first, because heliocentrism was scientifically untenable; and second that it was theologically heretical, and O'Niell's much more damning assertion that,
      "The reason that judgement says the propositions are 'absurd' and 'false in philosophy' is it is noting these ideas are contrary to the scientific consensus I just mentioned. 'Philosophy' here means 'natural philosophy' – i.e. what was later to be called 'science'. As anyone who has actually bothered to study the Galileo Affair knows, the judgement is saying that his ideas are scientifically wrong ('false in philosophy') AND, therefore, 'formally heretical'. The Inquisition, headed in 1616 by Cardinal Bellarmine, upheld the traditional reading of certain Biblical texts because the science said they should do so. As Bellarmine had explained in a widely circulated letter just a year earlier, if heliocentrism could be demonstrated then 'one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false'. But, he observed with dry understatement, 'I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown to me' ('Letter to Foscarini' 1615). Galileo’s problem was that in his time there was no such demonstration and both he and Bellarmine knew it. And so the consensus that his preferred model was 'absurd in philosophy/[science]' remained. In 1616 and in 1632 the Church had consulted the best science of the time and it had science on its side."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        What about folks like Nicholas Oresme, Albertus Magnus, William of Conches, Robert Grosseteste, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, Walter Burley, Adelard of Bath, John Dumbleton, John Peckham, Bernard Silvestris, Richard of Wallingford and Jean Buridan?

        Thanks to John William Draper, Andrew Dickson White and to slightly lesser extent Thomas Huxley the myth of the Dark Ages became popular but later scholarship has utterly debunked the concept to the point that the term has been abandoned by scholars today (preferring to use "Early Middle Ages" or just "Middle Ages") because there isn't much evidence that life was any worse than during the periods before or after it.

        In fact they've come to understand that not only wasn't the Christian church responsible for killing science but rather it was actually largely responsible for preserving it as a succession of one "barbarian" horde after another overran Europe for several hundred years[1] reducing the Roman Empire to nothing but dust and vague memories.

        What is ironic is that one of the first people to debunk the Dark Ages myth, the French physicist and mathematician Pierre Duhem, faced a great deal of resistance from the anti-clerical elements in the intellectual elite of his time who worked to keep his Systeme de Monde: Histoire des Doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic from being published. It wasn't until a little over 40 years after his death, and largely due to the efforts of his daughter Helene that the entire ten volume work was finally published in 1959.

        It would do you good to read a bit of what modern scholarship has to say about the scientific achievements during Medieval times and could do worse than checking out David C. Lindberg's The Beginnings of Western Science, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450 (1992), Ronald Numbers' Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths about Science and Religion (2009), Edward Grant's The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages (1996) and God and Reason in the Middle Ages (2001), and James Hannam's God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science (2009).
        I imagine a lot of this talk of "Dark Ages" can be laid at the feet of overzealous Protestants who were looking for ways to denigrate the Catholic Church. Little did they realize that many years later critics of Christianity would take that ball and run with it. Edward Gibbons' hugely influential The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire obviously heaped on to all of that with his extremely critical view of Christianity, and modern historians have been working hard to undo the damage he's done.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          Why in the world are you conflating my use of the phrase "settled science of the day" (actually MM's usage which I agreed with), with modern "scientific method?"
          I think this is one of those cases where he feels compelled to disagree simply because he's an atheist, and we're Christians, but he really doesn't know why, so now he's just spit-balling.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            So you largely disagree with Professor Graney who pointed out that the original judgement against Galileo was, first, because heliocentrism was scientifically untenable; and second that it was theologically heretical, and O'Niell's much more damning assertion that,
            "The reason that judgement says the propositions are 'absurd' and 'false in philosophy' is it is noting these ideas are contrary to the scientific consensus I just mentioned. 'Philosophy' here means 'natural philosophy' – i.e. what was later to be called 'science'. As anyone who has actually bothered to study the Galileo Affair knows, the judgement is saying that his ideas are scientifically wrong ('false in philosophy') AND, therefore, 'formally heretical'. The Inquisition, headed in 1616 by Cardinal Bellarmine, upheld the traditional reading of certain Biblical texts because the science said they should do so. As Bellarmine had explained in a widely circulated letter just a year earlier, if heliocentrism could be demonstrated then 'one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated is false'. But, he observed with dry understatement, 'I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown to me' ('Letter to Foscarini' 1615). Galileo’s problem was that in his time there was no such demonstration and both he and Bellarmine knew it. And so the consensus that his preferred model was 'absurd in philosophy/[science]' remained. In 1616 and in 1632 the Church had consulted the best science of the time and it had science on its side."
            As shown, neither he or anyone else was getting in trouble for contradicting the scientific establishment. It was being done again and again. Galileo did it several times and that led to much of his acclaim.

            He largely got in trouble because he was trying to tell the church how they should be interpreting Scripture -- in light of his discoveries. This was not appreciated even by his supporters. This combined with going out of his way to mock the pope (who until then was largely a supporter) and not having definitive evidence in support of his claims was a recipe for disaster.

            As for Bellarmine who was a friend of Galileo's and at first offered tentative support... even in the aforementioned letter he made it clear that Galileo was going against what was thought at the time Scripture plainly taught.

            "I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe."


            Bellarmine also is on record declaring that "[Galileo's] pretended discovery vitiates the whole Christian plan of salvation" as well as "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as the claim that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin."

            While Bellarmine would often bring up the scientific view he always returned to how heliocentrism contradicted Scripture. For instance,

            To affirm that the sun … is at the center of the universe and only rotates on its axis without going from east to west, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting Scriptures.


            because that was what he was concerned with. And that was what Galileo got in trouble for. Science was used merely to support the belief that the Bible was correct when it taught a geocentric view.

            Unfortunately this was just another of man's attempts to read the Bible as a science textbook for which it was never meant to be. And this is a lesson many still to this day have failed to grasp.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              I imagine a lot of this talk of "Dark Ages" can be laid at the feet of overzealous Protestants who were looking for ways to denigrate the Catholic Church. Little did they realize that many years later critics of Christianity would take that ball and run with it. Edward Gibbons' hugely influential The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire obviously heaped on to all of that with his extremely critical view of Christianity, and modern historians have been working hard to undo the damage he's done.
              The idea of a Dark Age actually had its origins with the writings of Petrarch in the 1330s. He was incredibly enamored with all things Roman and pushed the idea that anything that followed was at best a pale comparison.

              Later on, after the Reformation a number of Protestants also adopted this view as well but added in their own anti-Catholic views.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                As shown, neither he or anyone else was getting in trouble for contradicting the scientific establishment. It was being done again and again. Galileo did it several times and that led to much of his acclaim.

                He largely got in trouble because he was trying to tell the church how they should be interpreting Scripture -- in light of his discoveries. This was not appreciated even by his supporters. This combined with going out of his way to mock the pope (who until then was largely a supporter) and not having definitive evidence in support of his claims was a recipe for disaster.

                As for Bellarmine who was a friend of Galileo's and at first offered tentative support... even in the aforementioned letter he made it clear that Galileo was going against what was thought at the time Scripture plainly taught.

                "I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe."


                Bellarmine also is on record declaring that "[Galileo's] pretended discovery vitiates the whole Christian plan of salvation" as well as "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as the claim that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin."

                While Bellarmine would often bring up the scientific view he always returned to how heliocentrism contradicted Scripture. For instance,

                To affirm that the sun … is at the center of the universe and only rotates on its axis without going from east to west, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting Scriptures.


                because that was what he was concerned with. And that was what Galileo got in trouble for. Science was used merely to support the belief that the Bible was correct when it taught a geocentric view.

                Unfortunately this was just another of man's attempts to read the Bible as a science textbook for which it was never meant to be. And this is a lesson many still to this day have failed to grasp.
                Hmm. So, if you had to guess where do you think that O'Niell (a skeptic, as you yourself noted) and Professor Graney got this idea from that it had as much, if not more, to do with the the science of the period as it did religious heresy?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  Hmm. So, if you had to guess where do you think that O'Niell (a skeptic, as you yourself noted) and Professor Graney got this idea from that it had as much, if not more, to do with the the science of the period as it did religious heresy?
                  I'm not a mind reader but if I had to hazard a (wild) guess, I'd say that they're tending to over-correct by putting too much stress on a factor that wasn't getting much attention.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    My response was to Adrift’s misleading reference to “the settled science of the day”. Whilst there was a lot of scientific/philosophical activity from Aristotle onwards, as you elucidate in your typical Gish Gallop style of attempting to overwhelm your opponent,
                    Aww... did rogue's pesky little fact-thingies overwhelm wittle Tassywassy?


























                    [and yes, Chuck, that was an ad hom]

                    Proud Member of Da Blonde's Axis of Evil, Adam's Dirty Dozen, Dee Dee's Goon Squad, Tweb's In-Crowd, The Brood of Vipers & Exorcised by Ty & Dee Dee, and the only person who ever banned rogue06!

                    Comment


                    • Obviously it was called, "the Dark Ages" because they hadn't invented light bulbs yet. duh.

                      It was also back when the world was still in black and white.

                      Proud Member of Da Blonde's Axis of Evil, Adam's Dirty Dozen, Dee Dee's Goon Squad, Tweb's In-Crowd, The Brood of Vipers & Exorcised by Ty & Dee Dee, and the only person who ever banned rogue06!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        It would help if you actually knew what a Gish Gallop was rather than just ignorantly slinging it about in the same manner that a 4 year old uses a swear word he overheard and has no idea what it means but is only aware that it is something bad.

                        A Gish Gallop is when a debater throws out a myriad of unrelated or at best loosely connected claims in an attempt to swamp his opponent. It is usually used in oral debates where there is a limited amount of time and it is impossible to address each charge leaving the usually false impression that the person was incapable of answering some of the claims and hence they might be valid.
                        You will note that I said “Gish Gallop style of attempting to overwhelm your opponent”, highlighting the word “style” to avoid the pathetic ‘put-down’ of the sort you’ve predictably just taken two paragraphs to attempt.

                        In sharp contrast I'm making a single claim -- namely that the notion of a Dark Ages has been discredited and offered something like four examples to substantiate my claim.
                        I never mentioned or implied anything to do with the “Dark Ages”. This is your derail. I was addressing the issue of scientific methodology as opposed to the philosophical approach preceding it.

                        B]ETA:[/B] And while Bacon typically gets the credit,
                        Yes. For the very good reason that Bacon was the first to systematize scientific methodology as we know it today.

                        “Francis Bacon discovered and popularized the scientific method, whereby the laws of science are discovered by gathering and analyzing data from experiments and observations, rather than by using logic-based arguments”. “The Baconian method marked the beginning of the end for the 2,000-year-old natural philosophy of Aristotle”.

                        https://www.famousscientists.org/francis-bacon/

                        Just as I argued previously.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          Yes. For the very good reason that Bacon was the first to systematize scientific methodology as we know it today.

                          “Francis Bacon discovered and popularized the scientific method, whereby the laws of science are discovered by gathering and analyzing data from experiments and observations, rather than by using logic-based arguments”. “The Baconian method marked the beginning of the end for the 2,000-year-old natural philosophy of Aristotle”.

                          https://www.famousscientists.org/francis-bacon/

                          Just as I argued previously.
                          I believe the Islamic contribution of the evolution of the Scientific Method deserved its place in history.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            You will note that I said “Gish Gallop style of attempting to overwhelm your opponent”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              I believe the Islamic contribution of the evolution of the Scientific Method deserved its place in history.
                              Oh certainly. Islamic scientific achievements during its Golden Age had a considerable impact on European scientific development.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Indeed. It goes both ways. As Christianity influenced Kalam, Kalam influenced Christianity, and thanks to Kalam scholarship, Christian theologians and philosophers were able to move beyond outdated pagan Neo-Platonic and Aristotelian schools of thought, and furthered Christian views on natural philosophy (science) and theology in ways that we're still benefiting from.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Esther, 09-27-2020, 02:01 PM
                                3 responses
                                26 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 09-15-2020, 11:19 AM
                                41 responses
                                322 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Juvenal, 08-24-2020, 07:10 PM
                                71 responses
                                1,360 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Starlight  
                                Started by Whateverman, 07-26-2020, 11:01 AM
                                328 responses
                                6,511 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post MaxVel
                                by MaxVel
                                 
                                Started by lee_merrill, 05-23-2020, 05:14 PM
                                128 responses
                                9,862 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Bohrbrain  
                                Working...
                                X