Liberal Christianity

[ QUOTE ]
I was also impressed with the statements made by Pope John Paul II on the Church's relation to science after his directed study on the Galileo affair.

[/ QUOTE ]
how big of them. maybe in a couple hundred years the new pope will issue an impressive statement on the Churchs realation to science after his directed study on Darwin and evolution.
it would be nice if they would just not get involved and let knowledge progress rather than activly promoting ignorance when they are demonstrably wrong.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was also impressed with the statements made by Pope John Paul II on the Church's relation to science after his directed study on the Galileo affair.

[/ QUOTE ]
how big of them. maybe in a couple hundred years the new pope will issue an impressive statement on the Churchs realation to science after his directed study on Darwin and evolution.
it would be nice if they would just not get involved and let knowledge progress rather than activly promoting ignorance when they are demonstrably wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a lot of "common knowledge" floating around which many times amounts to little more than propaganda. imo, it is a good idea to investigate for yourself. The Catholic Church's relationship to Science may not be what you think it is.

It looks like if Galileo had not been such a political idiot he and his theory would have been just fine.

On Galileo


The Catholic Church gets along with Science pretty well today.

On Evolution

Maybe there is more going on than you are aware of.

PairTheBoard

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was also impressed with the statements made by Pope John Paul II on the Church's relation to science after his directed study on the Galileo affair.

[/ QUOTE ]
how big of them. maybe in a couple hundred years the new pope will issue an impressive statement on the Churchs realation to science after his directed study on Darwin and evolution.
it would be nice if they would just not get involved and let knowledge progress rather than activly promoting ignorance when they are demonstrably wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a lot of "common knowledge" floating around which many times amounts to little more than propaganda. imo, it is a good idea to investigate for yourself. The Catholic Church's relationship to Science may not be what you think it is.

It looks like if Galileo had not been such a political idiot he and his theory would have been just fine.

On Galileo


The Catholic Church gets along with Science pretty well today.

On Evolution

Maybe there is more going on than you are aware of.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

fair enough, there probably is a lot of this common knowledge floating around in my head and im quite sure that there is alot more going on than i am aware of. ill even grant u that the relationship between science and the church is whatever u say it is.

but......."it looks like if galileo had not been such a political idiot he and his theory would have been just fine" so he brought it on himself then. anyways, since when is anyones political deftness a determining factor in whether something is true or not.

[PairTheBoard]

chrisnice --
"anyways, since when is anyones political deftness a determining factor in whether something is true or not. "

I would point again to the Galileo Link.

From the Galileo Link:
"Since the Galileo case is one of the historical
bludgeons that are used to beat on the Church--the
other two being the Crusades and the Spanish
Inquisition--it is important that Catholics understand
exactly what happened between the Church and that very
great scientist. A close look at the facts puts to rout
almost every aspect of the reigning Galileo legend.

The Victorian biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, who had no
brief for Catholicism, once examined the case and
concluded that "the Church had the best of it." The
most striking point about the whole affair is that
until Galileo forced the issue into the realm of
theology, the Church had been a willing ombudsman for
the new astronomy. It had encouraged the work of
Copernicus and sheltered Kepler against the
persecutions of Calvinists. Problems only arose when
the debate went beyond the mere question of celestial
mechanics. But here we need some historical background."

And again from the Link:
"But Galileo was intent on ramming Copernicus down the
throat of Christendom. The irony is that when he
started his campaign, he enjoyed almost universal good
will among the Catholic hierarchy. But he managed to
alienate almost everybody with his caustic manner and
aggressive tactics. His position gave the Church
authorities no room to maneuver: they either had to
accept Copernicanism as a fact (even though it had not
been proved) and reinterpret Scripture accordingly; or
they had to condemn it. He refused the reasonable third
position which the Church offered him: that
Copernicanism might be considered a hypothesis, one
even superior to the Ptolemiaic system, until further
proof could be adduced."

The problem was that Galileo did not have Proof of his theory. The Church was willing to leave it open to further Scientific investigation but Galileo insisted the Church change the traditional interpretation of the scripture in question Right Now to suit him and before a rigorous proof had been produced.

You might also consider the fact that Galileo was just as belligerently trying to ram some of his other theories down the Church's throat that were just downright False and which the best scientific minds of the day knew were false.

PairTheBoard

[ QUOTE ]

And again from the Link:
"But Galileo was intent on ramming Copernicus down the
throat of Christendom. The irony is that when he
started his campaign, he enjoyed almost universal good
will among the Catholic hierarchy. But he managed to
alienate almost everybody with his caustic manner and
aggressive tactics. His position gave the Church
authorities no room to maneuver: they either had to
accept Copernicanism as a fact (even though it had not
been proved) and reinterpret Scripture accordingly; or
they had to condemn it. He refused the reasonable third
position which the Church offered him: that
Copernicanism might be considered a hypothesis, one
even superior to the Ptolemiaic system, until further
proof could be adduced."

The problem was that Galileo did not have Proof of his theory. The Church was willing to leave it open to further Scientific investigation but Galileo insisted the Church change the traditional interpretation of the scripture in question Right Now to suit him and before a rigorous proof had been produced.


[/ QUOTE ]

galileo's belief was known. the church rejected your more reasonable 3rd position.
he did not have proof, you are correct. he did however, have plenty of evidence which supported it, which is why he came to his conclusion.
the church chose the least reasonable position and according to your link did so more out of spite for galileo than for any reason which might support their conclusion.

[RJT]

Pair,

Thank you for your link to the Pope John Paul II article and evolution. Like so much going on in Catholicism, I missed that. I was delighted (but not surprised) in reading it.

Because the headline and the preface to the article are so misleading, I have taken the liberty to link another article which gives a better read (especially from the Catholic standpoint). The basic idea that John Paul did say evolution is not necessarily incompatible with our religion is correct, though.

www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html




Good work.

RJT

[PairTheBoard]

chrisnice --
"galileo's belief was known. the church rejected your more reasonable 3rd position.
he did not have proof, you are correct. he did however, have plenty of evidence which supported it, which is why he came to his conclusion.
the church chose the least reasonable position and according to your link did so more out of spite for galileo than for any reason which might support their conclusion. "

You say, "galileo's belief was known". Which part? The proof by Tides? The Circular Orbits? If heliocentricism was "known" why couldn't the stellar parallaxes be seen? That was still lacking at the time. And Heliocentricism was never condemned by the Church as Heresy. What the Galileo verdict amounted to was an order by the Church for Galileo Personally to STFU. It then Did take the reasonable third approach to the continued scientific investigation of Heliocentrism by scientists who stuck to the business of science. There were even Jesuits studying the theory with their own telescopes.


A Scientific Objection to Heliocentrism during Galileo's time, From the Link:
"If the earth did orbit the sun ... then stellar parallaxes would be observable in the sky. In other words, there would be a shift in the position of a star observed from the earth on one side of the sun, and then six months later from the other side. Galileo was not able with the best of his telescopes to discern the slightest stellar parallax. This was a valid scientific objection"

Should the Church have forced Galileo to STFU? No. They were unjust and as you say probably spiteful in that decision. That is what John Paul II reversed. But the Church's intollerance for the Man Galileo is not the same as an intollerance of his science.

From the link:
"Galileo's condemnation was certainly unjust, but in no
way impugns the infallibility of Catholic dogma.
Heliocentricism was never declared a heresy by either
ex cathedra pronouncement or an ecumenical council."



The Catholic Church vs Science
From the Link:
"The Catholic Church really has little to apologize for
in its relations with science. Indeed, Stanley Jaki and
others have argued that it was the metaphysical
framework of medieval Catholicism which made modern
science possible in the first place. In Jaki's vivid
phrase, science was "still-born" in every major
culture--Greek, Hindu, Chinese--except the Christian
West. It was the insistence on the rationality of God
and His creation by St. Thomas Aquinas and other
Catholic thinkers that paved the way for Galileo and
Newton.

So far as the teaching authority of the Church is
concerned, it is striking how modern physics is playing
catch-up with Catholic dogma. In 1215, the Fourth
Lateran Council taught that the universe had a
beginning in time--an idea which would have scandalized
both an ancient Greek and a 19th century positivist,
but which is now a commonplace of modern cosmology.
Indeed, the more we learn about the universe, the
closer we come to the ontological mysteries of
Christian faith."

Should the Church have declared the Scientific Theory of the 19th Century that the Universe had no beginning as Scientific Fact? The Catholic Church may move slowly before declaring a Scientific Theory to be Fact. But at least it does move and it adapts its understanding of scripture so as to remain reasonable and rational in the face of scientific development. If you want to Condemn somebody on this basis look to the Calvinists and Evangelicals, not to the Catholics.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

Thanks RJT. Your link is much the better one. I think the one I gave was from an Evangelical point of view with the idea of condemning the Pope for not being like the Evangelicals.

It's a tough deal for the Catholics. On one side they get condemned by people who think they are as closed minded as the Evangelicals and on the other side, condemned by the Evangelicals because they're not.

PairTheBoard

[ QUOTE ]
chrisnice --
You say, "galileo's belief was known". Which part? The proof by Tides? The Circular Orbits? If heliocentricism was "known" why couldn't the stellar parallaxes be seen? That was still lacking at the time. And Heliocentricism was never condemned by the Church as Heresy. What the Galileo verdict amounted to was an order by the Church for Galileo Personally to STFU. It then Did take the reasonable third approach to the continued scientific investigation of Heliocentrism by scientists who stuck to the business of science. There were even Jesuits studying the theory with their own telescopes.


A Scientific Objection to Heliocentrism during Galileo's time, From the Link:
"If the earth did orbit the sun ... then stellar parallaxes would be observable in the sky. In other words, there would be a shift in the position of a star observed from the earth on one side of the sun, and then six months later from the other side. Galileo was not able with the best of his telescopes to discern the slightest stellar parallax. This was a valid scientific objection"

Should the Church have forced Galileo to STFU? No. They were unjust and as you say probably spiteful in that decision. That is what John Paul II reversed. But the Church's intollerance for the Man Galileo is not the same as an intollerance of his science.

From the link:
"Galileo's condemnation was certainly unjust, but in no
way impugns the infallibility of Catholic dogma.
Heliocentricism was never declared a heresy by either
ex cathedra pronouncement or an ecumenical council."



The Catholic Church vs Science
From the Link:
"The Catholic Church really has little to apologize for
in its relations with science. Indeed, Stanley Jaki and
others have argued that it was the metaphysical
framework of medieval Catholicism which made modern
science possible in the first place. In Jaki's vivid
phrase, science was "still-born" in every major
culture--Greek, Hindu, Chinese--except the Christian
West. It was the insistence on the rationality of God
and His creation by St. Thomas Aquinas and other
Catholic thinkers that paved the way for Galileo and
Newton.

So far as the teaching authority of the Church is
concerned, it is striking how modern physics is playing
catch-up with Catholic dogma. In 1215, the Fourth
Lateran Council taught that the universe had a
beginning in time--an idea which would have scandalized
both an ancient Greek and a 19th century positivist,
but which is now a commonplace of modern cosmology.
Indeed, the more we learn about the universe, the
closer we come to the ontological mysteries of
Christian faith."

Should the Church have declared the Scientific Theory of the 19th Century that the Universe had no beginning as Scientific Fact? The Catholic Church may move slowly before declaring a Scientific Theory to be Fact. But at least it does move and it adapts its understanding of scripture so as to remain reasonable and rational in the face of scientific development. If you want to Condemn somebody on this basis look to the Calvinists and Evangelicals, not to the Catholics.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

i should have wrote that galileos poition was made clear. i did not mean to imply that heliocentrism was known. the link said that the church was forced to either accept galileos position or condemn it. it said that galileo rejected the 3rd more reasonable position. i meant to say that galileos position was clear and that it was in fact the church who decided to reject the 3rd more reasonable position. you say the church did take that position and ill take your word for it. i was just going by the link which stated that the church was forced to condemn it when galileo refused the 3rd position.....anyways we all come to the same conclusion that it was wrong. i think it was just the whole tone of the link that didnt sit well with me......gee looking back i guess we really were wrong but that guy sure was a jerk and kinda got what he deserved, plus in context u know we realy werent technicly wrong, on balance the church did have the stronger case given scientific knowledge at the time...

i do realize that the catholic church isnt nearly as hostile as other christian faiths to science, evolution and such and i had others in mind when i wrote that we can look forward to an apology in a couple hundred years regarding the churchs hostility to others. i apologize for ascribing the outright hostility that some evangelical faiths have towards science to the catholic church.

historicly, however, i think the link is way to kind in its apraisal of the realtionship between science and the church. when the church was the only game in town science in "the christian west" was in its darkest days. sure the church would eventualy adapt and reinterpret, but this usualy came after terrible consequences for others.....it takes a plague for the church to allow serious study of the human body, tens of thousands of mentalily ill women are killed as withches, etc.

[David Sklansky]

"sure the church would eventualy adapt and reinterpret, but this usualy came after terrible consequences for others.....it takes a plague for the church to allow serious study of the human body, tens of thousands of mentalily ill women are killed as withches, etc."

If this is true it is ridiculous for anyone to defend "Christianity". Maybe the "Offshoot of Christianity" is reasonable. But don't imply that this new modern religion is basically the same as the one that existed for 1700 years or so.