was it the Church or secular scientists that condemed Galileo?

[Butters]

The War upon Galileo
On this new champion, Galileo, the whole war was at last concentrated. His discoveries had clearly taken the Copernican theory out of the list of hypotheses, and had placed it before the world as a truth. Against him, then, the war was long and bitter. The supporters of what was called ``sound learning'' declared his discoveries deceptions and his announcements blasphemy. Semi-scientific professors, endeavouring to curry favour with the Church, attacked him with sham science; earnest preachers attacked him with perverted Scripture; theologians, inquisitors, congregations of cardinals, and at last two popes dealt with him, and, as was supposed, silenced his impious doctrine forever.
I shall present this warfare at some length because, so far as I can find, no careful summary of it has been given in our language, since the whole history was placed in a new light by the revelations of the trial documents in the Vatican Library, honestly published for the first time by L'Epinois in 1867, and since that by Gebler, Berti, Favaro, and others.

The first important attack on Galileo began in 1610, when he announced that his telescope had revealed the moons of the planet Jupiter. The enemy saw that this took the Copernican theory out of the realm of hypothesis, and they gave battle immediately. They denounced both his method and its results as absurd and impious. As to his method, professors bred in the ``safe science'' favoured by the Church argued that the divinely appointed way of arriving at the truth in astronomy was by theological reasoning on texts of Scripture; and, as to his results, they insisted, first, that Aristotle knew nothing of these new revelations; and, next, that the Bible showed by all applicable types that there could be only seven planets; that this was proved by the seven golden candlesticks of the Apocalypse, by the seven-branched candlestick of the tabernacle, and by the seven churches of Asia; that from Galileo's doctrine consequences must logically result destructive to Christian truth. Bishops and priests therefore warned their flocks, and multitudes of the faithful besought the Inquisition to deal speedily and sharply with the heretic.

In vain did Galileo try to prove the existence of satellites by showing them to the doubters through his telescope: they either declared it impious to look, or, if they did look, denounced the satellites as illusions from the devil. Good Father Clavius declared that ``to see satellites of Jupiter, men had to make an instrument which would create them.'' In vain did Galileo try to save the great truths he had discovered by his letters to the Benedictine Castelli and the Grand-Duchess Christine, in which he argued that literal biblical interpretation should not be applied to science; it was answered that such an argument only made his heresy more detestable; that he was ``worse than Luther or Calvin.''

The war on the Copernican theory, which up to that time had been carried on quietly, now flamed forth. It was declared that the doctrine was proved false by the standing still of the sun for Joshua, by the declarations that ``the foundations of the earth are fixed so firm that they can not be moved,'' and that the sun ``runneth about from one end of the heavens to the other.''

But the little telescope of Galileo still swept the heavens, and another revelation was announced - the mountains and valleys in the moon. This brought on another attack. It was declared that this, and the statement that the moon shines by light reflected from the sun, directly contradict the statement in Genesis that the moon is ``a great light.'' To make the matter worse, a painter, placing the moon in a religious picture in its usual position beneath the feet of the Blessed Virgin, outlined on its surface mountains and valleys; this was denounced as a sacrilege logically resulting from the astronomer's heresy.

Still another struggle was aroused when the hated telescope revealed spots upon the sun, and their motion indicating the sun's rotation. Monsignor Elci, head of the University of Pisa, forbade the astronomer Castelli to mention these spots to his students. Father Busaeus, at the University of Innspruck, forbade the astronomer Scheiner, who had also discovered the spots and proposed a safe explanation of them, to allow the new discovery to be known there. At the College of Douay and the University of Louvain this discovery was expressly placed under the ban, and this became the general rule among the Catholic universities and colleges of Europe. The Spanish universities were especially intolerant of this and similar ideas, and up to a recent period their presentation was strictly forbidden in the most important university of all - that of Salamanca.

Such are the consequences of placing the instruction of men's minds in the hands of those mainly absorbed in saving men's souls. Nothing could be more in accordance with the idea recently put forth by sundry ecclesiastics, Catholic and Protestant, that the Church alone is empowered to promulgate scientific truth or direct university instruction. But science gained a victory here also. Observations of the solar spots were reported not only from Galileo in Italy, but from Fabricius in Holland. Father Scheiner then endeavoured to make the usual compromise between theology and science. He promulgated a pseudo-scientific theory, which only provoked derision.

The war became more and more bitter. The Dominican Father Caccini preached a sermon from the text, ``Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?'' and this wretched pun upon the great astronomer's name ushered in sharper weapons; for, before Caccini ended, he insisted that ``geometry is of the devil,'' and that ``mathematicians should be banished as the authors of all heresies.'' The Church authorities gave Caccini promotion.

Father Lorini proved that Galileo's doctrine was not only heretical but ``atheistic,'' and besought the Inquisition to intervene. The Bishop of Fiesole screamed in rage against the Copernican system, publicly insulted Galileo, and denounced him to the Grand-Duke. The Archbishop of Pisa secretly sought to entrap Galileo and deliver him to the Inquisition at Rome. The Archbishop of Florence solenmnly condemned the new doctrines as unscriptural; and Paul V, while petting Galileo, and inviting him as the greatest astronomer of the world to visit Rome, was secretly moving the Archbishop of Pisa to pick up evidence against the astronomer.

But by far the most terrible champion who now appeared was Cardinal Bellarmin, one of the greatest theologians the world has known. He was earnest, sincere, and learned, but insisted on making science conform to Scripture. The weapons which men of Bellarmin's stamp used were purely theological. They held up before the world the dreadful consequences which must result to Christian theology were the heavenly bodies proved to revolve about the sun and not about the earth. Their most tremendous dogmatic engine was the statement that ``his pretended discovery vitiates the whole Christian plan of salvation.'' Father Lecazre declared ``it casts suspicion on the doctrine of the incarnation.'' Others declared, ``It upsets the whole basis of theology. If the earth is a planet, and only one among several planets, it can not be that any such great things have been done specially for it as the Christian doctrine teaches. If there are other planets, since God makes nothing in vain, they must be inhabited; but how can their inhabitants be descended from Adam? How can they trace back their origin to Noah's ark? How can they have been redeemed by the Saviour?'' Nor was this argument confined to the theologians of the Roman Church; Melanchthon, Protestant as he was, had already used it in his attacks on Copernicus and his school.

In addition to this prodigious theological engine of war there was kept up a fire of smaller artillery in the shape of texts and scriptural extracts.

But the war grew still more bitter, and some weapons used in it are worth examining. They are very easily examined, for they are to be found on all the battlefields of science; but on that field they were used with more effect than on almost any other. These weapons are the epithets ``infidel'' and ``atheist.'' They have been used against almost every man who has ever done anything new for his fellow-men. The list of those who have been denounced as ``infidel'' and ``atheist'' includes almost all great men of science, general scholars, inventors, and philanthropists. The purest Christian life, the noblest Christian character, have not availed to shield combatants. Christians like Isaac Newton, Pascal, Locke, Milton, and even Fenelon and Howard, have had this weapon hurled against them. Of all proofs of the existence of a God, those of Descartes have been wrought most thoroughly into the minds of modern men; yet the Protestant theologians of Holland sought to bring him to torture and to death by the charge of atheism, and the Roman Catholic theologians of France thwarted him during his life and prevented any due honours to him after his death.

These epithets can hardly be classed with civilized weapons. They are burning arrows; they set fire to masses of popular prejudice, always obscuring the real question, sometimes destroying the attacking party. They are poisoned weapons. They pierce the hearts of loving women; they alienate dear children; they injure a man after life is ended, for they leave poisoned wounds in the hearts of those who loved him best - fears for his eternal salvation, dread of the Divine wrath upon him. Of course, in these days these weapons, though often effective in vexing good men and in scaring good women, are somewhat blunted; indeed, they not infrequently injure the assailants more than the assailed. So it was not in the days of Galileo; they were then in all their sharpness and venom.

Yet a baser warfare was waged by the Archbishop of Pisa. This man, whose cathedral derives its most enduring fame from Galileo's deduction of a great natural law from the swinging lamp before its altar, was not an archbishop after the noble mould of Borromeo and Fenelon and Cheverus. Sadly enough for the Church and humanity, he was simply a zealot and intriguer: he perfected the plan for entrapping the great astronomer.

Galileo, after his discoveries had been denounced, had written to his friend Castelli and to the Grand-Duchess Christine two letters to show that his discoveries might be reconciled with Scripture. On a hint from the Inquisition at Rome, the archbishop sought to get hold of these letters and exhibit them as proofs that Galileo had uttered heretical views of theology and of Scripture, and thus to bring him into the clutch of the Inquisition. The archbishop begs Castelli, therefore, to let him see the original letter in the handwriting of Galileo. Castelli declines. The archbishop then, while, as is now revealed, writing constantly and bitterly to the Inquisition against Galileo, professes to Castelli the greatest admiration of Galileo's genius and a sincere desire to know more of his discoveries. This not succeeding, the archbishop at last throws off the mask and resorts to open attack.

The whole struggle to crush Galileo and to save him would be amusing were it not so fraught with evil. There were intrigues and counter-intrigues, plots and counter-plots, lying and spying; and in the thickest of this seething, squabbling, screaming mass of priests, bishops, archbishops, and cardinals, appear two popes, Paul V and Urban VIII. It is most suggestive to see in this crisis of the Church, at the tomb of the prince of the apostles, on the eve of the greatest errors in Church policy the world has known, in all the intrigues and deliberations of these consecrated leaders of the Church, no more evidence of the guidance or presence of the Holy Spirit than in a caucus of New York politicians at Tammany Hall.

But the opposing powers were too strong. In 1615 Galileo was summoned before the Inquisition at Rome, and the mine which had been so long preparing was sprung. Sundry theologians of the Inquisition having been ordered to examine two propositions which had been extracted from Galileo's letters on the solar spots, solemnly considered these points during ahout a month and rendered their unanimous decision as follows: ``The first proposition, that the sun is the centre and does not revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture''; and ``the second proposition, that the earth is not the centre but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and, from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the true faith.''

The Pope himself, Paul V, now intervened again: he ordered that Galileo be brought before the Inquisition. Then the greatest man of science in that age was brought face to face with the greatest theologian - Galileo was confronted by Bellarmin. Bellarmin shows Galileo the error of his opinion and orders him to renounce it. De Lauda, fortified by a letter from the Pope, gives orders that the astronomer be placed in the dungeons of the Inquisition should he refuse to yield. Bellarmin now commands Galileo, ``in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole Congregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the opinion that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the earth moves, nor henceforth to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing.'' This injunction Galileo acquiesces in and promises to obey.

This was on the 26th of February, 1616. About a fortnight later the Congregation of the Index, moved thereto, as the letters and documents now brought to light show, by Pope Paul, V solemnly rendered a decree that ``the doctrine of the double motion of the earth about its axis and about the sun is false, and entirely contrary to Holy Scripture''; and that this opinion must neither be taught nor advocated. The same decree condemned all writings of Copernicus and ``all writings which affirm the motion of the earth.'' The great work of Copernicus was interdicted until corrected in accordance with the views of the Inquisition; and the works of Galileo and Kepler, though not mentioned by name at that time, were included among those implicitly condemned as ``affirming the motion of the earth.''

The condemnations were inscribed upon the Index; and, finally, the papacy committed itself as an infallible judge and teacher to the world by prefixing to the Index the usual papal bull giving its monitions the most solemn papal sanction. To teach or even read the works denounced or passages condemned was to risk persecution in this world and damnation in the next. Science had apparently lost the decisive battle.

For a time after this judgment Galileo remained in Rome, apparently hoping to find some way out of this difficulty; but he soon discovered the hollowness of the protestations made to him by ecclesiastics, and, being recalled to Florence, remained in his hermitage near the city in silence, working steadily, indeed, but not publishing anything save by private letters to friends in various parts of Europe.

But at last a better vista seemed to open for him. Cardinal Barberini, who had seemed liberal and friendly, became pope under the name of Urban VIII. Galileo at this conceived new hopes, and allowed his continued allegiance to the Copernican system to be known. New troubles ensued. Galileo was induced to visit Rome again, and Pope Urban tried to cajole him into silence, personally taking the trouble to show him his errors by argument. Other opponents were less considerate, for works appeared attacking his ideas - works all the more unmanly, since their authors knew that Galileo was restrained by force from defending himself. Then, too, as if to accumulate proofs of the unfitness of the Church to take charge of advanced instruction, his salary as a professor at the University of Pisa was taken from him, and sapping and mining began. Just as the Archbishop of Pisa some years before had tried to betray him with honeyed words to the Inquisition, so now Father Grassi tried it, and, after various attempts to draw him out by flattery, suddenly denounced his scientific ideas as ``leading to a denial of the Real Presence in the Eucharist.''

For the final assault upon him a park of heavy artillery was at last wheeled into place. It may be seen on all the scientific battlefields. It consists of general denunciation; and in 1631 Father Melchior Inchofer, of the Jesuits, brought his artillery to bear upon Galileo with this declaration: ``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.'' From the other end of Europe came a powerful echo.

From the shadow of the Cathedral of Antwerp, the noted theologian Fromundus gave forth his famous treatise, the Ant-Aristarchius. Its very title-page was a contemptuous insult to the memory of Copernicus, since it paraded the assumption that the new truth was only an exploded theory of a pagan astronomer. Fromundus declares that ``sacred Scripture fights against the Copernicans.'' To prove that the sun revolves about the earth, he cites the passage in the Psalms which speaks of the sun ``which cometh forth as a bridegroom out of his chamber.'' To prove that the earth stands still, he quotes a passage from Ecclesiastes, ``The earth standeth fast forever.'' To show the utter futility of the Copernican theory, he declares that, if it were true, ``the wind would constantly blow from the east''; and that ``buildings and the earth itself would fly off with such a rapid motion that men would have to be provided with claws like cats to enable them to hold fast to the earth's surface.'' Greatest weapon of all, he works up, by the use of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, a demonstration from theology and science combined, that the earth must stand in the centre, and that the sun must revolve about it. Nor was it merely fanatics who opposed the truth revealed by Copernicus; such strong men as Jean Bodin, in France, and Sir Thomas Browne, in England, declared against it as evidently contrary to Holy Scripture.

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/astronomy/war.html

[Socrates]

More boring stuff directly from a 19th century anti-Christian propagandist called Andrew Dickson White, which has long been discredited as having an axe to grind. With Galileo, he ignored the fact that Galileo's first and most strident and dogmatic opponents were the University Aristotelians. For something more up-to-date, see The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/TJ14_1-Galileo.pdf) (PDF).

But it's just like Butterball to scrape up the dregs of the Internet, as with his "Hitler was a Christian" smear and some apostate non-scholar with the nonsensical claim that the Bible is pro-abortion. One day Butterball might surprise us all and use reliable sources.

[Solly]

While I can't post to the lengths of Butter on this, I heard it explained (by nonChristians) that the main problem was that while Copernicus was prepared to admit that his view was a THEORY, Galileo was more strident and asserted that it was FACT.

Socrates, the link doesn't work.

[Butters]

Ya know, you can deny, deny, and deny, all you want, but White names names, if you dispute his work, then dispute it. You don't seem to feel that AIG's anti-evolution bias discredits them, so suck it up! show me that any of the above did not happen.
BTw, I thought you were going to give me an education on early civilizations and their beliefs on the shape of the earth? What happened?

[Socrates]

Shlomo, the link to www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/tj/docs/TJ14_1-Galileo.pdf should work now.

You raise another good point. It's true that in Galileo's day, they had not proven it by parallax, and one of his "proofs" involving tides was actually fallacious.

The main point though remains, although it's obscured by the 19th-century "warfare thesis" propagandists that Butterball quotes uncritically, that Galileo's first opposition came from the scientists theatened by undermining the Ptolemaic Cosmology. The book Christianity on Trial documents this -- see review www.tektonics.org/chrtrial.html.

[Megane]

This subject isn't one that I know much about or one that holds much interest for me, but reading the above essay reminded me of another essay I'd read on the subject. Here:

http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm

Interesting to compare the two.

Cheers,
Megane

[Butters]

I've run into Bede before, and he is just as dilussional as Socrates, although more intelligent. I'm still waiting for someone to prove the statements made by White are untrue.

Does anyone here deny, regardless of what the motivation, that the Church, claiming authority in the name of God forced Galileo to retract his statements?

Does anyone deny that the church suppressed his work, thereby inpeading further research?

Does anyone deny that the Church put "Galileo under "house arrest" because of his views?

Try to spin it all you want, religion can say what it wants about the spiritual world, but should not be allowed to curtail science in the name of God, and that's exactly what they did.

[Megane]

"I've run into Bede before, and he is just as dilussional as Socrates, although more intelligent. "

Oh, so you know him? How cool. I've just read a couple things on his website. Is he really delusional?


"I'm still waiting for someone to prove the statements made by White are untrue."

You'll be waiting a heck of a long time if you're expecting me to do it.

"Does anyone here deny, regardless of what the motivation, that the Church, claiming authority in the name of God forced Galileo to retract his statements?"

Well I'm not going to deny it because I don't know.

"Does anyone deny that the church suppressed his work, thereby inpeading further research?"

Ditto.

"Does anyone deny that the Church Galileo under "house arrest because of his views?"

Ditto again.

"Try to spin it all you want, religion can say what it wants about the spiritual world, but should not be allowed to curtail science in the name of God, and that's exactly what they did."

Gotcha. Your opinion has been noted. Were you talking to *me* when you said "try to spin it all you want, etc. etc.", or just people in general? Cuz, I wasn't trying to spin anything and I really don't care about the history between science and religion, so I'm not gonna be much good to ya. anyhoo..take care.


Cheers,
Megane

[Woman]

I have a silly little question.

What difference does it make?

If this were the only known case of the church oppressing or deomnizing people I'd say..."WOW, that's fascinating."

It's not - so it really isn't.

Why do some Christians want to argue the point? I mean, good grief, the church did some really yucky things. You think science was the only profession kept under the thumb of an oppressive church?

There was a time when artists had NO choice of what to paint. You painted religious stuff or didn't paint, period.

Thankfully the church no longer has that power. And we all know the earth moves around the sun.

Now that Genesis account...

:nc:

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 03:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71447#post71447)
Woman:

I have a silly little question.

What difference does it make?


It has to do with truth and propaganda, imo.
Galileo is the poster child for church oppression.



If this were the only known case of the church oppressing or deomnizing people I'd say..."WOW, that's fascinating."

It's not - so it really isn't.


A legitimate example would be more appropriate than a bogus one, imo.



Why do some Christians want to argue the point? I mean, good grief, the church did some really yucky things. You think science was the only profession kept under the thumb of an oppressive church?


Generally speaking, the church encouraged science.



There was a time when artists had NO choice of what to paint. You painted religious stuff or didn't paint, period.


I'm tempted to say "that's ridiculous" but instead I'll just ask you for a good citation in support of your claim.



Thankfully the church no longer has that power. And we all know the earth moves around the sun.


Actually we don't know that (space is relative), but the calculations are much simpler figuring on heliocentricity.

Galileo made claims for heliocentricity that somewhat outstripped the scientific evidence of his time. Maybe you'll see that documented in this thread.

[Socrates]

The Captain is right. It's high time that misotheists like Butterball stopped citing vindictive anti-Christian 19th century propaganda about Galileo and the church. For one thing, it was the establishment scientists who first attacked him, and for another, Galileo's heresy was inquisitorial rather than theological.

It's also high time that biblioskeptics learnt about the basic physical concept of RELATIVE motion. I.e. there is no more error in biblical statements about the sun setting than there is in modern statements about a beautiful "sunset". Nor is Joshua in error for talking about the sun standing still, any more than an automobile mechanic is for saying that a brake STOPS the car. All these examples legitimately use the reference frame of the Earth.

[Butters]

Today @ 03:24 AM post located here
Woman:

I have a silly little question.

What difference does it make?
”



"It has to do with truth and propaganda, imo.
Galileo is the poster child for church oppression."

this is true Capt., and should not be denied or suppressed. It is a shining example of what happens when religion is allowed to dictate science, and allowed to have powers of government.


If this were the only known case of the church oppressing or deomnizing people I'd say..."WOW, that's fascinating." It's not - so it really isn't. ”


"A legitimate example would be more appropriate than a bogus one, imo."

and how do you see this as bogus? do deny any of the above?

Why do some Christians want to argue the point? I mean, good grief, the church did some really yucky things. You think science was the only profession kept under the thumb of an oppressive church? "



"Generally speaking, the church encouraged science."

yes generally speaking, as long as the science was in accordance with the biblical interpretations of the Catholic Church. Otherwise the Catholic Church would suppress the work and in prison, torture, or kill the scientist.

There was a time when artists had NO choice of what to paint. You painted religious stuff or didn't paint, period. "



"I'm tempted to say "that's ridiculous" but instead I'll just ask you for a good citation in support of your claim."

I would say this is more of an economic situation. Artist could paint non religious subjects, but there was not much money in it. However would you honestly assert that an artist would be allowed to paint anything that the church declared obscene, counter Christian, or in any way brought religion or the church into a bad light? Honestly?


Thankfully the church no longer has that power. And we all know the earth moves around the sun. "



Actually we don't know that (space is relative), but the calculations are much simpler figuring on heliocentricity.

this is total crap yes, space is relative, but this has nothing to do with the issue. The sun has an extreme amass compared to the earth, therefore relative to the earth, relative to the sun, or relative to a stationary position outside our solar system, the earth does revolve around the sun. It is statements like yours that only reinforced the fact that religion should be totally separate from science and government.


Galileo made claims for heliocentricity that somewhat outstripped the scientific evidence of his time. Maybe you'll see that documented in this thread.

this is also a false and misleading statement. The evidence that Galileo amassed countered the scientific evidence of his contemporaries of the day. However, a simple understanding of mathematics, and a few short observations through the telescope, can confirm his theory.

was Galileo ahead of his time? Yes. Should he have been persecuted for his ideas? No. Did his fellow scientists force him to recant his theory? No, the church did. Was his theory completely accurate? No, but the church did not base its decision on how accurate it was, it based its decision on the fact that it it taught the entire world that the absolute truth was that the earth was the unmovable center of the universe, and that they had obtained this knowledge from a direct revelation from God as contained in their Bible. They were wrong and so were their Bible. Deal With It.

[Butters]

It's also high time that biblioskeptics learnt about the basic physical concept of RELATIVE motion. I.e. there is no more error in biblical statements about the sun setting than there is in modern statements about a beautiful "sunset". Nor is Joshua in error for talking about the sun standing still, any more than an automobile mechanic is for saying that a brake STOPS the car. All these examples legitimately use the reference frame of the Earth.


Socrates, I have asked where you believe statements like the sun setting and the four corners of the world originated. You have ignored me.

I have asked you to provide me with any evidence that the ancient Hebrews believed the earth was round. You have ignored me.

and now I ask you to provide me with any evidence that the sun ever stood still. Or that the Earth stopped its rotation.

I don't know why even bother answering your posts. You have no knowledge of science you have no knowledge of religion, and it scares me to think that you may even possess a driving license.
Note: Try to tone down the hyperbole and rhetoric. Satire is acceptable, personal attacks are not.

if you wish to continue please return to the flat Earth post, and answer my questions.

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 10:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=76947#post76947)
Butters:

Today @ 03:24 AM post located here
Woman:

I have a silly little question.

What difference does it make?
”



"It has to do with truth and propaganda, imo.
Galileo is the poster child for church oppression."

this is true Capt., and should not be denied or suppressed. It is a shining example of what happens when religion is allowed to dictate science, and allowed to have powers of government.


The point is that the use of Galileo as the poster child is not honest. Now I'm looking for signs that what I had written was corrupted prior to you reading it--but I don't see any.



If this were the only known case of the church oppressing or deomnizing people I'd say..."WOW, that's fascinating." It's not - so it really isn't. ”

"A legitimate example would be more appropriate than a bogus one, imo."

and how do you see this as bogus? do deny any of the above?


Yes, I do deny much or all of it, and I'll wait for those who use Galileo as a poster child to carry their BoP prior to taking the trouble to counter their research. What, are you finished already? Resting on unsubstantiated argument by assertion?



Why do some Christians want to argue the point? I mean, good grief, the church did some really yucky things. You think science was the only profession kept under the thumb of an oppressive church? "


Yes the Church (and the church) did some yucky things. Plenty, in fact. However, the modern presentation of Galileo as the helpless victim of the overbearing Church and the supposed war of the Church against reason is untrue, and is itself a "yucky thing".
Can you go a paragraph without compounding the propaganda?



"Generally speaking, the church encouraged science."

yes generally speaking, as long as the science was in accordance with the biblical interpretations of the Catholic Church. Otherwise the Catholic Church would suppress the work and in prison, torture, or kill the scientist.


Citation? No? You think it's up to me to disprove your various assertions?
That would figure.

I suggest that you delve into the technique of citing sources for support. It's actually rather easy on the Internet, since you can just say something and then post a link that provides documentation in support of your claim.
Try it sometime.



There was a time when artists had NO choice of what to paint. You painted religious stuff or didn't paint, period. "

"I'm tempted to say "that's ridiculous" but instead I'll just ask you for a good citation in support of your claim."

I would say this is more of an economic situation. Artist could paint non religious subjects, but there was not much money in it. However would you honestly assert that an artist would be allowed to paint anything that the church declared obscene, counter Christian, or in any way brought religion or the church into a bad light? Honestly?


There's a substantial difference between not breaking the old obscenity and blasphemy laws and "You painted religious stuff or didn't paint, period."
I guess you won't be providing any citation in support of that claim?



Thankfully the church no longer has that power. And we all know the earth moves around the sun. "

Actually we don't know that (space is relative), but the calculations are much simpler figuring on heliocentricity.

this is total crap yes, space is relative, but this has nothing to do with the issue. The sun has an extreme amass compared to the earth, therefore relative to the earth, relative to the sun, or relative to a stationary position outside our solar system, the earth does revolve around the sun.


So, you just assume without evidence that if an object has greater mass then it will tend to be stationary? Aren't you begging the question, logically?



It is statements like yours that only reinforced the fact that religion should be totally separate from science and government.


True statements should be suppressed? :hrm:



Galileo made claims for heliocentricity that somewhat outstripped the scientific evidence of his time. Maybe you'll see that documented in this thread.

this is also a false and misleading statement.


Is that a lead-in to what you'll be writing next?



The evidence that Galileo amassed countered the scientific evidence of his contemporaries of the day. However, a simple understanding of mathematics, and a few short observations through the telescope, can confirm his theory.


Galileo didn't have access to a telescope that could confirm his theory. Nobody did, until about the 18th Century.

Although Renaissance scholars were correct, none of them could prove that our planetary system is centered on the Sun, or even that Earth moves through space. Direct evidence for this was obtained only in the early eighteenth century, when astronomers discovered the aberration of starlight—a slight (20" ) shift in the observed direction to a star, caused by Earth's motion perpendicular to the line of sight. Additional proof came in the mid-nineteenth century, with the first unambiguous measurement of stellar parallax.
http://astronomy.nju.edu.cn/astron/AT3/AT30205.HTM

Unfortunately, the above article has many of the facts regarding Galileo's relationship with the Church and his fellow scientists wrong.
See how I supported my claim that Galileo had run off beyond the scientific evidence?
So, how was my statement false and misleading, exactly?



was Galileo ahead of his time? Yes. Should he have been persecuted for his ideas? No. Did his fellow scientists force him to recant his theory? No, the church did. Was his theory completely accurate? No, but the church did not base its decision on how accurate it was, it based its decision on the fact that it it taught the entire world that the absolute truth was that the earth was the unmovable center of the universe, and that they had obtained this knowledge from a direct revelation from God as contained in their Bible. They were wrong and so were their Bible. Deal With It.

Citation?
:smile:

[nomad]

yes, space is relative... The sun has an extreme amass compared to the earth, therefore relative to the earth, relative to the sun, or relative to a stationary position outside our solar system, the earth does revolve around the sun.


so, even if you use the earth as your reference (which, in most methods i've seen, a reference is assumed to be the stationary element)... the earth is revolving (moving)?

[Butters]

"Unfortunately, the above article has many of the facts regarding Galileo's relationship with the Church and his fellow scientists wrong.
See how I supported my claim that Galileo had run off beyond the scientific evidence?
So, how was my statement false and misleading, exactly?"

HAH! Your asking me for facts? I posted them in the O.P. If you dispute them, go for it, show me the facts.

And there was nothing corrupted in your statement regarding Galileo being the poster child for church oppression, we both agree to this, it's just that I think that this is just as it should be, whereas you think that somehow it's wrong to remember that the Church was an oppressive, unholy, ruler. I think we cannot forget it.

[Socrates]

Captain Ochre correctly points out (and Butters should say who he is quoting and indent it or otherwise make it distinct from his own words):


Actually we don't know that (space is relative), but the calculations are much simpler figuring on heliocentricity.

Then Butters responded in his usual style:this is total crap yes, space is relative, but this has nothing to do with the issue. It has EVERYTHING to do with the issue. That is, it is physically valid to choose ANY reference frame.

ButtersThe sun has an extreme amass compared to the earth, therefore relative to the earth, relative to the sun, or relative to a stationary position outside our solar system, the earth does revolve around the sun.Obviously Butterball hasn't a clue. If the Earth is chosen as a reference frame, then the sun IS revolving around it. One reference frame is no more correct than another.

Because of the sun's far greater mass, the calculations for motion in the solar system are simpler if we treat it as the center (as it's close enough to the center of mass). But this does not make it more CORRECT. There are other applications, e.g. in meteorology and in a planetarium, where it is more convenient to treat the Earth as the reference frame. So when Butters or other anti-Christians tell us why it is WRONG to say "sunset" or to say that the brake STOPS the car, then they should be silent in their criticisms of the Bible.

Nomad:so, even if you use the earth as your reference (which, in most methods i've seen, a reference is assumed to be the stationary element)... the earth is revolving (moving)?A reference frame is the one ASSIGNED zero velocity, and everything else is assigned a velocity accordingly. You can choose any frame you like. E.g., in analysing an induction motor, electrical engineers use the reference frame of a "bug on the rotor" to study the magnetic field's lag.

[nomad]

A reference frame is the one ASSIGNED zero velocity, and everything else is assigned a velocity accordingly.


yeah, that was exactly my point :) kind of hard for the earth to be revolving around anything, when it's 'standing still'...

[Captain Ochre]

Yesterday @ 08:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77766#post77766)
Butters:

"Unfortunately, the above article has many of the facts regarding Galileo's relationship with the Church and his fellow scientists wrong.
See how I supported my claim that Galileo had run off beyond the scientific evidence?
So, how was my statement false and misleading, exactly?"

HAH! Your asking me for facts? I posted them in the O.P. If you dispute them, go for it, show me the facts.


"In 1898, Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), a professor and co-founder of Cornell University, wrote a rather notorious book called "A History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom." 1 He tracked many religiously-based conflicts, and showed that they often take decades or even centuries to resolve. Although his book exhibits a heavy -- sometimes vicious -- bias and opposition to religion, he did notice a pattern in these conflicts: they often go through eight stages before being finally resolved: "
http://www.religioustolerance.org/past_mor.htm

"Andrew Dickson White makes clear in his preface to the famous ``History of the warfare of science with theology in christendom'' [2] that the work is intended as a manifesto in support of his battle, associated with his presidency of the newly founded Cornell University, against denominational control of higher education. Therefore, in his portrayal of the `warfare', alongside natural science he includes chapters on philology, comparative mythology, economics, and biblical criticism, referring to all as science, and implying that the intellectual methodologies of all are similar."

What influenced you to use White as the source for your initial thread?

Here's a Catholic pov, fwiw.
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/GalileoAffair.html



And there was nothing corrupted in your statement regarding Galileo being the poster child for church oppression, we both agree to this, it's just that I think that this is just as it should be, whereas you think that somehow it's wrong to remember that the Church was an oppressive, unholy, ruler. I think we cannot forget it.

I seem to recall flatly admitting that the Church (Roman and otherwise) has done some horrific things. My problem is not with the principle of remembering such things, my problem is with the use of a myth (that constructed about the person Galileo) to attack religion.

[Socratism]

04-24-2003 @ 03:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=77766#post77766)
Butters:

"Unfortunately, the above article has many of the facts regarding Galileo's relationship with the Church and his fellow scientists wrong.
See how I supported my claim that Galileo had run off beyond the scientific evidence?
So, how was my statement false and misleading, exactly?"

HAH! Your asking me for facts? I posted them in the O.P. If you dispute them, go for it, show me the facts.

And there was nothing corrupted in your statement regarding Galileo being the poster child for church oppression, we both agree to this, it's just that I think that this is just as it should be, whereas you think that somehow it's wrong to remember that the Church was an oppressive, unholy, ruler. I think we cannot forget it.

I once had an assignment to research the Galileo incident and in preparation I checked out all the books in our local library including the "Dialogue" by Galileo that caused the final breech with his old friend, now the Pope.

The story started when Galileo was a young instructor at university and had a following of young students. Quite early in the game Galileo discovered many errors in the science of Aristotle and told his students about them in a very disrespectful manner, because Galileo was very smart and he knew it (I picture him as a Steven J. Gould type).

The Jesuits who ran the university (most universities were run by the Church in Italy at that time) did not appreciate his disrespect for Aristotle (I picture Aristotle as being as revered as Einstein is today). Galileo's teaching contract was not renewed, and thus began a saga that continued until Galileo was a feeble old man.

In total Galileo eventually proved some dozen of Aristotle's theories to be wrong.

If one is interested in all this it is all common knowledge in biographies of Galileo by mainline historians and of the five books or so I read there was little disagreement about the major points.

Unfortunately many short summaries of the affair gloss over much of the rather long story and instead focus on the Church and the final days of the affair when Galileo published his "Dialogue of the Two World Systems" (Aristotle's and his), an act in direct defiance of an edict by his former friend, now the Pope. Worse, the "Dialogue" was biting satire and used a very stupid "character" in the charade, a character who probably was not intended by Galileo to represent the Pope, but that was how everybody interpreted it. It is an interesting read, every bit as funny as some of Doonesbury's satirical stuff.

One final interesting point.

Galileo insisted that the orbits of the planets had to be perfect circles. Thus, predictions of the planetary positions were actually less accurate than the complex epicycle system of the Ptolemic system that was a refinement of Aristotle's system.

Ironically, Galileo's theory was less accurate than the Ptolemic theory, even though the latter was merely a complex mathematical device.

[Bede]

Butters still has learnt nothing.

Here is an expose on the polemist AD White whom he mistakenly uses as an authority.

A lot of posters here are still hooked on the idea of the historical conflict between science and religion. The most famous and successful exponent was Andrew Dickson White who is commonly quoted at the start of modern books on science and religion as representing the soon to be debunked traditional view. It is worth briefly examining whether White was being entirely honest in his work as no one doubts that John William Draper (another Victorian writer found at the Positive Atheism website) was engaged in anything more that polemic. Neither were professional historians and both did seem to sincerely believe in the warfare theory they were expounding. Unfortunately, this meant that they set out to prove what they already believed rather than take their conclusions from the facts. White is quite explicit about this when he writes “I saw that it was the conflict between two epochs in the evolution of human thought -- the theological and the scientific.” Any such statement should immediately set off alarm bells which grow louder as we look at his work. His usual tactics are to scour the sources for some stick-in-the-mud reactionary and claim this represents the consensus of religious opinion and then find another thinker (who is usually just as faithful a Christian as the reactionary) who turned out to be right, and claim that they represent reason. Hence using anachronism and claiming obscure figures were in fact influential, he is able to manufacture a conflict where none exists. A detailed critique of his work from Lindberg and Numbers exists (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1987/PSCF9-87Lindberg.html#Beyond War and Peace:_) but I would like to point out a few errors in the specific area of religious persecution of scientists.

His examples of actual prosecution are few and far between which is not very surprising as the only scientist the Christian Church ever prosecuted for scientific ideas per se was Galileo and even here historians doubt that was the major reason he got into trouble. This is an embarrassment for White as he thought that in the Middle Ages especially, the Church was burning freethinkers left, right and centre. The lack of any examples of this at all is a serious problem so he is forced to draft in non-scientists or else to claim that prosecutions on non-scientific matters were scientific persecutions after all. Here are some examples:

- Roger Bacon has been a popular martyr for science since the nineteenth century. He was a scholastic theologian who was keen to claim Aristotle for the Christian faith. He was not a scientist in any way we would recognise and his ideas are not nearly so revolutionary as they are often painted. In chapter 12 of his book, White writes of Roger “the charges on which St. Bonaventura silenced him, and Jerome of Ascoli imprisoned him, and successive popes kept him in prison for fourteen years, were "dangerous novelties" and suspected sorcery.” This is untrue. As Lindberg says “his imprisonment, if it occurred at all (which I doubt) probably resulted with his sympathies for the radical “poverty” wing of the Franciscans (a wholly theological matter) rather than from any scientific novelties which he may have proposed.”

- In chapter 2, White informs us “In 1327 Cecco d’Ascoli, noted as an astronomer, was for this [the doctrine of antipodes] and other results of thought, which brought him under suspicion of sorcery, driven from his professorship at Bologna and burned alive at Florence.” Cecco D’Ascoli was indeed burnt at the stake in 1327 in Florence. He is the only natural philosopher in the entire Middle Ages to pay this penalty and was executed for breaking parole after a previous trial when he had been convicted of heresy for, apparently, claiming the life of Jesus Christ was subject to the stars. This is not enough for White who claims, entirely without foundation, that Cecco met his fate partly for the scientific view that the antipodes were inhabited as well as dishonestly calling him an ‘astronomer’ rather than an ‘astrologer’ to strengthen his scientific credentials.

- In the same chapter White claims “In 1316 Peter of Abano, famous as a physician, having promulgated this [the habitation of the antipodes] with other obnoxious doctrines in science, only escaped the Inquisition by death.” We have no good evidence that d’Abano was under investigation from the inquisition at his death. However, he did gain a posthumous reputation as a sorcerer when spurious works were attributed to him. This may have led to the reports of his bones being dug up and burnt after his death. There is again, no evidence whatsoever that the antipodes debate or science had anything to do with the matter.

- It is hard to confirm some of White’s victims existed at all. “The chemist John Barrillon was thrown into prison,” he says in chapter 12 “and it was only by the greatest effort that his life was saved.” The great historian of science, George Sarton, with a better knowledge of the sources of anyone before or since, says this episode is ‘completely unknown’ to him. Needless to say, White gives no reference.

- Vesalius, the founder of modern anatomy, is also held up as a martyr to science. White explains in chapter 13 “Vesalius was charged with dissecting a living man, and, either from direct persecution, as the great majority of authors assert, or from indirect influences, as the recent apologists for Philip II admit, he became a wanderer: on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, apparently undertaken to atone for his sin, he was shipwrecked, and in the prime of his life and strength he was lost to the world…. His death was hastened, if not caused, by men who conscientiously supposed that he was injuring religion.” The trouble is that hardly a word of this has any basis in historical fact. Vesalius did go on a pilgrimage and was drowned. But there is no hint he was ever prosecuted and the idea his death was hastened by those who supposed he was injuring religion is simply wrong .

- Discussing the heliocentric system, White goes on “Many minds had received it [the doctrine of Copernicus], but within the hearing of the papacy only one tongue appears to have dared to utter it clearly. This new warrior was that strange mortal, Giordano Bruno. He was hunted from land to land, until at last he turned on his pursuers with fearful invectives. For this he was entrapped at Venice, imprisoned during six years in the dungeons of the Inquisition at Rome, then burned alive, and his ashes scattered to the winds.” In fact, we do not know the exact reasons Bruno was prosecuted but modern scholars like Frances Yates suggest it was because he was a magus who was trying to start a new neo-Platonic religion. He did believe the earth revolved around the sun but this was purely for religious reasons as he effectively worshipped it. In any case, it was incidental to his fate as were his other pseudo-scientific ideas.

One would like to the charitable view that White really believed his theory and was not making up evidence to support a position he knew to be false. Instead, he skews the evidence by accepting that which agrees with his hypothesis while being sceptical of what does not. This means that he has included falsehoods that he would have noticed if he had taken a properly objective attitude towards all his evidence. The points given above together with Numbers and Lindberg’s criticisms noted in their article are sufficient, however, to prove White’s work as utterly worthless as history.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[John Reece]

Welcome to TWeb, Bede.

You are full of treasure.

Thanks for sharing!

:cheers:

:thumb:

[Butters]

"Butters still has learnt nothing."

Ah dunno, Ah think Butters has learnt plenty!

"Here is an expose on the polemist AD White whom he mistakenly uses as an authority.

A lot of posters here are still hooked on the idea of the historical conflict between science and religion. The most famous and successful exponent was Andrew Dickson White who is commonly quoted at the start of modern books on science and religion as representing the soon to be debunked traditional view."

I don’t know who will debunk it or when, but certianly not you, and not here.

"It is worth briefly examining whether White was being entirely honest in his work as no one doubts that John William Draper (another Victorian writer found at the Positive Atheism website) was engaged in anything more that polemic."

Should I ignore this statement, as it has no bearing on White, or should I point out that Draper was a brilliant scientist and philosopher, whose book “History of the Conflict between Religion and Science” was a thourough, and accurate account?

"Neither were professional historians and both did seem to sincerely believe in the warfare theory they were expounding."

And the same applies to Bede!

" Unfortunately, this meant that they set out to prove what they already believed rather than take their conclusions from the facts."

Pot, kettle, black

"White is quite explicit about this when he writes “I saw that it was the conflict between two epochs in the evolution of human thought -- the theological and the scientific.” Any such statement should immediately set off alarm bells which grow louder as we look at his work."

And why is this Bede? This is after all, the basis of his work, to highlight this conflict Oh yea, if anyone writes something that shows Christianity in anything but a Holy light, alarm bells do ring for you.

"His usual tactics are to scour the sources for some stick-in-the-mud reactionary and claim this represents the consensus of religious opinion and then find another thinker (who is usually just as faithful a Christian as the reactionary) who turned out to be right, and claim that they represent reason."

All well and good, can you substantiate this?

"Hence using anachronism and claiming obscure figures were in fact influential, he is able to manufacture a conflict where none exists."

Substantiation? Augustine? Martyr? Aquainis? Luther? Bede? (The original) These men are obscure?

"A detailed critique of his work from Lindberg and Numbers exists but I would like to point out a few errors in the specific area of religious persecution of scientists."

Yea right, Lindburg and Numbers are apologist’s In fact, reviewing their work, I see where you get yours.

"His examples of actual prosecution are few and far between which is not very surprising as the only scientist the Christian Church ever prosecuted for scientific ideas per se was Galileo and even here historians doubt that was the major reason he got into trouble."

Very slick to add the “per se” as a way out. And what historians doubt that science was the major reason he “got into trouble”? Only history revisionists like yourself. (“got into trouble”!) You mean “was persecuted" by the Catholic church! you make it sound as if he was a school boy diobeying his parents, not a man whose ideas were crushed by the Church to support their political position.

"This is an embarrassment for White as he thought that in the Middle Ages especially, the Church was burning freethinkers left, right and centre. The lack of any examples of this at all is a serious problem so he is forced to draft in non-scientists or else to claim that prosecutions on non-scientific matters were scientific persecutions after all. Here are some examples:


- Roger Bacon has been a popular martyr for science since the nineteenth century. He was a scholastic theologian who was keen to claim Aristotle for the Christian faith. He was not a scientist in any way we would recognise and his ideas are not nearly so revolutionary as they are often painted. In chapter 12 of his book, White writes of Roger “the charges on which St. Bonaventura silenced him, and Jerome of Ascoli imprisoned him, and successive popes kept him in prison for fourteen years, were "dangerous novelties" and suspected sorcery.” This is untrue. As Lindberg says “his imprisonment, if it occurred at all (which I doubt) probably resulted with his sympathies for the radical “poverty” wing of the Franciscans (a wholly theological matter) rather than from any scientific novelties which he may have proposed.”

And Lindberg provides no support at all as to how he concludes that his imprisonment “probably” (Ah Bede, you learned from the master of backdoors!) resulted with his sympathies for the radical “poverty” wing of the Franciscans, or why he doubts it occurred at all. But Lindurg is arguing that he was never imprisoned, and that it was not for scientific novelties, which one was it?

"- In chapter 2, White informs us “In 1327 Cecco d’Ascoli, noted as an astronomer, was for this [the doctrine of antipodes,] and other results of thought, which brought him under suspicion of sorcery, driven from his professorship at Bologna and burned alive at Florence.” Cecco d’Ascoli, was indeed burnt at the stake in 1327 in Florence. He is the only natural philosopher in the entire Middle Ages to pay this penalty and was executed for breaking parole after a previous trial when he had been convicted of heresy for, apparently, claiming the life of Jesus Christ was subject to the stars."

So, let’s see, he was the only “natural philosopher” to be burned, and it was for heresy, not, what? Scientific heresy? Very nice religion ya got there. Darn ol’ White pointing out it’s not so nice after all.

"This is not enough for White who claims, entirely without foundation, that Cecco met his fate partly for the scientific view that the antipodes were inhabited as well as dishonestly calling him an ‘astronomer’ rather than an ‘astrologer’ to strengthen his scientific credentials."

It’s easy to say that his claims are without foundation, when you know that the three sources he cited comprised two works in French, and one in German, and the original sources are most likely in Latin. Cecco was an astronomer as well as an astrologer.


"- In the same chapter White claims “In 1316 Peter of Abano, famous as a physician, having promulgated this [the habitation of the antipodes] with other obnoxious doctrines in science, only escaped the Inquisition by death.” We have no good evidence that d’Abano was under investigation from the inquisition at his death. However, he did gain a posthumous reputation as a sorcerer when spurious works were attributed to him. This may have led to the reports of his bones being dug up and burnt after his death. There is again, no evidence whatsoever that the antipodes debate or science had anything to do with the matter."

Now Bede, you lnow there is good evidence that he was under investigation, Elog,Vilor,Illustr. Naude, Rapin Reflex.sur la Philosophie, Among others.
(Good luck with an English translation)
Naude, in his Apology for great Men accused of Magic, says, "The general opinion of almost all authors is, that he was the greatest magician of his time; that by means of seven spirits, familiar, which he kept inclosed in chrystal, he had acquired the knowledge of the seven liberal arts, and that he had the art of causing the money he had made use of to return again into his pocket. He was accused of magic in the eightieth year of his age, and that dying in the year 1305, before his trial was over, he was condemned (as Castellan reports) to the fire; and that a bundle of straw, or osier, representing his person, was publicly burnt at Padua; that by so rigorous an example, and by the fear of incurring a like penalty, they might suppress the reading of three books which he had composed on this subject."

So was it magic or science?, I don’t care enough to pursue it, the fact that there is plenty of evidence that he was under investigation is enough for me. Should someone be persacuted for practicing magic?


"- It is hard to confirm some of White’s victims existed at all. “The chemist John Barrillon was thrown into prison,” he says in chapter 12 “and it was only by the greatest effort that his life was saved.” The great historian of science, George Sarton, with a better knowledge of the sources of anyone before or since, says this episode is ‘completely unknown’ to him. Needless to say, White gives no reference."

Quite right, no reference, so it must be discounted until proven otherwise. Why is it "needless to say, White has provided MANY sources in his book.
But it’s nice to know that you have no objections to chapters 3 through 11. So let’s scratch two sentences from chapter 12.


"- Vesalius, the founder of modern anatomy, is also held up as a martyr to science. White explains in chapter 13 “Vesalius was charged with dissecting a living man, and, either from direct persecution, as the great majority of authors assert, or from indirect influences, as the recent apologists for Philip II admit, he became a wanderer: on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, apparently undertaken to atone for his sin, he was shipwrecked, and in the prime of his life and strength he was lost to the world…. His death was hastened, if not caused, by men who conscientiously supposed that he was injuring religion.” The trouble is that hardly a word of this has any basis in historical fact. Vesalius did go on a pilgrimage and was drowned. But there is no hint he was ever prosecuted and the idea his death was hastened by those who supposed he was injuring religion is simply wrong ."

Did you copy this straight from L&N? Did you read any of these sources cited by White?
For permissions to dissect the human subject, given here
and there during the Middle Ages, see Roth's Andreas Vesalius,
Berlin, 1892, pp. 3, 13 et seq. For religious antipathies as a
factor in the persecution of Vesalius, see the biographies by
Boerhaave and Albinos, 1725; Burggraeve's Etudes, 1841; also
Haeser, Kingsley, and the latest and most thorough of all, Roth,
as above. Even Goethals, despite the timidity natural to a city
librarian in a town like Brussels, in which clerical power is
strong and relentless, feels obliged to confess that there was a
certain admixture of religious hatred in the treatment of
Vesalius. See his Notice Biographique sur Andre Vesale. For the
resurrection bones, see Roth, as above, pp. 154, 155, and notes.
For Vesalius, see especially Portal, Hist. de l'Anatomie et

Although I must agree that blaming his death on his opponents is simply wrong, whatever his reasons for a pilgrimage, his death was accidental.

"- Discussing the heliocentric system, White goes on “Many minds had received it [the doctrine of Copernicus], but within the hearing of the papacy only one tongue appears to have dared to utter it clearly. This new warrior was that strange mortal, Giordano Bruno. He was hunted from land to land, until at last he turned on his pursuers with fearful invectives. For this he was entrapped at Venice, imprisoned during six years in the dungeons of the Inquisition at Rome, then burned alive, and his ashes scattered to the winds.” In fact, we do not know the exact reasons Bruno was prosecuted but modern scholars like Frances Yates suggest it was because he was a magus who was trying to start a new neo-Platonic religion. He did believe the earth revolved around the sun but this was purely for religious reasons as he effectively worshipped it. In any case, it was incidental to his fate as were his other pseudo-scientific ideas."

We do not know the exact reasons for his prosecution, interesting. But his belief in the heliocentric system must have been incidental to his fate, very good Bede, you point out that we can’t know the charge, and then discount a possibility, to suite your own agenda.

"One would like to the charitable view that White really believed his theory and was not making up evidence to support a position he knew to be false. Instead, he skews the evidence by accepting that which agrees with his hypothesis while being sceptical of what does not. This means that he has included falsehoods that he would have noticed if he had taken a properly objective attitude towards all his evidence. The points given above together with Numbers and Lindberg’s criticisms noted in their article are sufficient, however, to prove White’s work as utterly worthless as history."



Amazing, simply amazing. Bede finds half a dozen examples in Whites book that have little or no hard backing, and suddenly it’s “utterly worthless as history”! It’s a good thing we don’t treat religious works with the same method, we’d have none left!
Now let’s be frank. White was hostile to the Christian religion. No doubt his work was biased. But as Apologists are always quick to point out, all authors have their own bias. This is what I suggest, pul out White. Keep in mind his bias. Disregard everything he says that cannot be easily substantiated , ignore his opinions, in fact only read what Christians themselves have had to say about science through the ages. You can clearly see it has been a battle. You can clearly see that the Church (first Catholic, then protestant) has insisted that observations of nature must support scripture, and their own interpretation of it. All you need is their own testimony, they speak for themselves. I know why Christians try so hard to discredit White, his work exposes these attitudes better than any other.

[Bede]

Hi Butters,

Thanks for your post. As you don't say anything new apart from a whole lot of inuendo, I'll keep my responce to the minimum:

1) Lindberg and Numbers are not apologists but well regarded professional historians. I believe Numbers is a non-theist and given Lindberg's attacks on apologists, I rather expect he is too. His evidence for the life of Bacon is in the his "Roger Bacon and the Origins of the Perspectiva". Largely about optics but I'm sure you'll enjoy it!

2)Colin Russell, in a recent summary of the historiography of the alleged warfare sums up the views of modern scholarship, saying “Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship” This is not controversial and using White will kill your credibility if you discuss matters with historians.

2) Lynn Thorndike's eight volume History of Magic and Experimental Science is worth looking up for a critical view of the sources and secondary literature prior to 1950. He trashes White and is much of the reason that White and Draper fell from favour even though Thorndike is now rather out of date himself.

3) I'm a History graduate student at the University of London. I have read the original Latin sources on Cecco, D'Abano and other figures like Jean de Mirecourt. My thesis is church discipline of Medieval Natural Philosophers for which my supervisor is an atheist. He has no argument with my work on this.

4) On Vesalius see: C. Donald O'Malley ‘Andreas Vesalius' Pilgrimage’ Isis 45:2 1954. This is 100 years more up to date than anything in White.

5) There has been no great conflict between science and religion. There have been battles and there have been alliances. But as Butters and I agreed on the previous thread, the fact is when we look at the rare times the church has stepped on science's toes, it is almost always because the church was defending powerful and non-religious vested interests. This was not a question of religion at all.

The facts:

Most scientists have been religious;
Faraday, Newton and Keplar among others were unusually devout even for their own times;
No real scientist has ever been executed by the church. One has been placed under house arrest. In contrast, those freethinking Jacobins beheaded Antone Lavoisier, the greatest chemist in history;
The scientific revolution occurred in the most religious century in European history.

Butters, I am not trying to argue here that Christianity helped science (although I believe this) but only the non-controversial view that the nineteenth century idea of the eternal conflict is no longer credible. How many of White's examples do I have to trash for you to see this? Please come up with some examples yourself and we can see where it takes us.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[Butters]

"Most scientists have been religious;
Faraday, Newton and Keplar among others were unusually devout even for their own times;
No real scientist has ever been executed by the church. One has been placed under house arrest. In contrast, those freethinking Jacobins beheaded Antone Lavoisier, the greatest chemist in history;
The scientific revolution occurred in the most religious century in European history."

You forget to mention Galileo, who was also a devout man, and claimed that his theory in no way contradicted scripture.
To claim this was the most religious century in European history is another debate in itself, but the rise of the scientific method certianly did help the decline of religius power, although the larger factor was religious division itself.

"Butters, I am not trying to argue here that Christianity helped science (although I believe this) but only the non-controversial view that the nineteenth century idea of the eternal conflict is no longer credible. How many of White's examples do I have to trash for you to see this? Please come up with some examples yourself and we can see where it takes us."

Well, how about the O.P.? Tell me whats wrong with it.

[Bede]

You forget to mention Galileo, who was also a devout man, and claimed that his theory in no way contradicted scripture.

Good point.


Well, how about the O.P.? Tell me whats wrong with it.

Excuse my stupidity, but what's the O.P.?

Yours

Bede

[Butters]

No, please excuse my abbreviation. The O.P., opening post. The opening post is White verbatim. Can you show me his factual errors?

Thanks

[Bede]

Butters,

I’ve gone through the White extract and pulled out a few points I can easily refute or give references. This alone is enough to show White is wrong in substance.

“[Galileo’s] discoveries had clearly taken the Copernican theory out of the list of hypotheses, and had placed it before the world as a truth. Against him, then, the war was long and bitter.”

Untrue. In fact, because he continued to insist on circular motion, got the tides argument wrong and could provide no evidence not explained just as well by Tycho’s hypothesis, Galileo failed to prove his point.

“The war on the Copernican theory, which up to that time had been carried on quietly, now flamed forth.”

These was no war on Copernicus prior to 1610. His books were not banned and while many disagreed with him, his ideas were widely discussed.

“This brought on another attack. It was declared that this, and the statement that the moon shines by light reflected from the sun, directly contradict the statement in Genesis that the moon is ``a great light.''”

White is making this up. The fact the moon’s light is reflected off the sun was well known. As Innocent III wrote in the early fourteenth century, using a simile that his readers would have understood: “Just as the moon gets its light from the sun, so the royal power gets its dignity from the papal authority” (quoted p24, God and Reason – Edward Grant).

“But by far the most terrible champion who now appeared was Cardinal Bellarmin, one of the greatest theologians the world has known. He was earnest, sincere, and learned, but insisted on making science conform to Scripture.”

Again, White is making this up. Bellarmine actually believed “If there were a real proof that [heliocentrism was true] then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true”. (quoted p99, The Crime of Galileo, Giorgio de Santillana). In other words, White’s entire thesis that the church insisted scripture should trump science is false.

“Sir Thomas Browne, in England, declared against it as evidently contrary to Holy Scripture.”

White is fantasising again. You can read Browne on the motion of the sun here (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/pseudodoxia/pseudo65.html). Note he says nothing of scripture, but gives (wrong) physical arguments. That the heavens show the greatness of God, is an idea found in Copernicus, Keplar and Galileo of course. Browne, like nearly all his contemporaries, shares it. On the other hand – Jean Bodin was a fanatic!

I hope this short list of errors in a short extract from White will help convince you that he cannot be trusted. I need hardly mention stuff like the polemic on poison arrows as inappropriate to a historical work. Also, do not imagine that the rest of the extract is correct – merely that I do not have a refutation immediately at hand. Most of his quotations look fictitious and I have not come across them in my reading.

Yours

Bede

[bhukkadakota]

Socrates and Captain Ochre
if the church didnt condemn galileo's view's
and if its just a myth made up by anti christians like you say
then why did the pope publically apologise to galileo in 1993?
at least the pope realised the church was in the wrong
and so APOLOGISED
he didnt try and convince people it never happened or galileo was in the wrong.

and isnt because the sun has a bigger mass, it has a bigger gravitational pull so earth actually revolves around the sun?
how can anyone say the earth is not moving?
its actually proven the earth rotates at about 1/2 km a second at the equator.
notice why all the rocket launches seem to take place near the equator? because the earths rotation gives the rocket a 1/2km a second head start to escape the earths atpmosphere

[Socrates]

bhukkadakota:Socrates and Captain Ochre
if the church didnt condemn galileo's view's
and if its just a myth made up by anti christians like you say
then why did the pope publically apologise to galileo in 1993?
at least the pope realised the church was in the wrong
and so APOLOGISED
he didnt try and convince people it never happened or galileo was in the wrong.Since when is the Pope an expert on history or science? And as this informative site on the Crusades points out (and I don't know whether the author is a Christian) http://freespace.virgin.net/nigel.nicholson/SSCLE/Crusade%20Faqs/f-apology.html :


There is a trend nowadays for politicians to apologise for other people's actions. We may ask how appropriate it is for people to apologise for other people's actions, but such apologies often have a political agenda.

When people apologise (note the UK spelling there!), they usually mean that they would like to reverse the results of their actions and return the situation to how it would have been if the action had never occurred. ...

Should we be apologising, too? Perhaps an apology is a way of saying that we have learnt from the past, although, watching the British government in Northern Ireland, I'm not so sure that people do learn from the past. Let's face it, for most of us it is too easy to apologise for other people's mistakes and to ignore our own. When it comes to apologies, let us look to our own actions before we start criticising our ancestors.

So you'll have to deal with the evidence that Capt. Ochre, Socratism, Bede and I provided.... and isnt because the sun has a bigger mass, it has a bigger gravitational pull so earth actually revolves around the sun?Of course -- in the reference frame of the center of mass of the solar system.
how can anyone say the earth is not moving?It isn't -- in the reference frame of the Earth! That's the whole point. If Galileo wasn't so arrogant and pig headed, when asked "Does the Earth move?", he should have replied: "Relative to what?"
its actually proven the earth rotates at about 1/2 km a second at the equator.Again, in a sidereal reference frame. OK then, what should a driver on the equator do when he approaches a Stop sign? Is it even possible for him to obey it, under your reasoning? Of course, the Stop sign implies the reference frame of the Earth too. So how can bibliosceptics honestly say that the Bible is wrong for saying that the sun stopped, when it also had the context of the Earth as a reference frame?notice why all the rocket launches seem to take place near the equator? because the earths rotation gives the rocket a 1/2km a second head start to escape the earths atpmosphereOf course, in the sidereal reference frame.

[bhukkadakota]

socrates

so what if the pope isnt a expert on science. im talking about galileo getting persucuted by the church.

i dont know what your trying to say about the car in the equator. can you explain what your on about clearly?

[bhukkadakota]

i think the pope should know more than you about what the church did and didnt do.

[Socrates]

bhukkadakota: so what if the pope isnt a expert on science. im talking about galileo getting persucuted by the church.And I replied by talking about his following the trend of politicians trying to win brownie points by apologising for alleged mistakes that they didn't even commit.

bhukkadakota:i dont know what your trying to say about the car in the equator. can you explain what your on about clearly? Sure -- I meant, how is it possible for the driver to obey the stop sign? After all, regardless of how hard he applies the brakes, the car can't avoid having the rotational and orbital motion. But it's simple -- the Stop sign is with respect to the reference frame of the Earth. If this is not wrong, then neither is the Bible for using the same refrence frame. See also www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=94161#post94161 www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=94895#post94895

bhukkadakota:i think the pope should know more than you about what the church did and didnt do.Why? What are his qualifications in history? How about addressing the evidence raised?

[John Powell]

bhukkadakota:
notice why all the rocket launches seem to take place near the equator? because the earths rotation gives the rocket a 1/2km a second head start to escape the earths atpmosphere

Socrates:
Of course, in the sidereal reference frame.


POWELL:
Hmm. From the Earth's reference frame the entire universe appears to be spinning around it. If you want your spaceship to be up there among the other things orbiting around the Earth, wouldn't it make more sense to fire it WEST from the equator? Perhaps you think it's like a kite where you run into the wind.

Why does firing a rocket east require less total energy to achieve orbit?

And, why is the Earth bulged if the Earth isn't spinning? Is it due to the sky pulling on the Earth more at the equator than at the poles or something like that?

And, why do Foucault pendulums work if the Earth isn't spinning? And why is it that Foucault pendulums don't work at the equator? Does the sky pull sideways on them more at the north pole than at the equator?

And, why do stars show a parallax if the Earth isn't orbiting the Sun? Is it that stars just happen to move in that strange way in the sky?

If all reference frames are equally valid, Socrates, then why is it that some reference frames don't seem to provide sensible answers?

Socrates, your apologetic discussion about reference frames is missing the point. The ancients apparently really believed the Sun and Moon were little lights (much smaller than the Earth) orbiting around the Earth from east to west and that the stars were attached to some solid dome spinning around the Earth.

From the reference frame of the Earth, Socrates, is the Sun bigger or smaller than the Earth? Can you justifiably defend that ancient mistaken view with an appeal to reference frames?

If you had told Joshua that "relative to the Sun, it is the Earth that is moving" I doubt that that he would have understood. Do you think he would have understood, that Joshua would have said something like, "I know that, but this way it sounds more poetic."?

John Powell

[Socrates]

05-20-2003 @ 04:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=101872#post101872)
John Powell:

Hmm. From the Earth's reference frame the entire universe appears to be spinning around it. If you want your spaceship to be up there among the other things orbiting around the Earth, wouldn't it make more sense to fire it WEST from the equator? Perhaps you think it's like a kite where you run into the wind.

Why does firing a rocket east require less total energy to achieve orbit?

And, why is the Earth bulged if the Earth isn't spinning? Is it due to the sky pulling on the Earth more at the equator than at the poles or something like that?

Excuse me, I never denied that the Earth was spinning -- in a sidereal reference frame. But in other applications, it is valid to use the Earth as the reference frame, and if required, invoke centrifugal and Coriolis forces.

Please consider, is it WRONG to describe a car as stopping at a red light when, in the sidereal reference frame, it is spinning around the earth's axis and whizzing around the sun? If anyone wants to mock Joshua for being "wrong" about the sun standing still, then to be consistent they should protest against rules requiring cars to "stop".


And, why do Foucault pendulums work if the Earth isn't spinning? And why is it that Foucault pendulums don't work at the equator?

Ditto


Does the sky pull sideways on them more at the north pole than at the equator?

And, why do stars show a parallax if the Earth isn't orbiting the Sun? Is it that stars just happen to move in that strange way in the sky?

I never denied that the Earth was orbiting the sun -- again, in a sidereal reference frame.


If all reference frames are equally valid, Socrates, then why is it that some reference frames don't seem to provide sensible answers?

No, the mathematics is more complicated. But they are still equally valid. But sometimes the math is simpler if we use a rotating reference frame, e.g. to analyze field lag in an induction motor, electrical engineers often use the "bug on the rotor" reference frame. But the descriptions are equivalent. See Jezz's excellent post www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=94178#post94178

I have previously quoted The late Sir Fred Hoyle (Nicolaus Copernicus, p. 78 Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London, 1973):


The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.

The only real problem with the Ptolemaic model was its inordinate mathematical complexity with all its epicycles and deferents. Galileo preferred the Copernican model because its simplicity reflected the character of God best.


Socrates, your apologetic discussion about reference frames is missing the point. The ancients apparently really believed the Sun and Moon were little lights (much smaller than the Earth) orbiting around the Earth from east to west and that the stars were attached to some solid dome spinning around the Earth.

Did they? Any proof? They were using phenomenological language like people do today. E.g. a modern meteorologist might describe the sun as being covered by clouds, but then peeking out. I doubt he would be unaware that the sun is really enormously bigger than the clouds. This is not a matter of reference frames though, but phenomenological language.

So the issue is, does the Bible say anything wrong? And the answer is, no, unless you want to accuse modern astronomers of being wrong to use words like "sunset" and "sunrise". I defend only the inerrancy of Scripture, not the inerrancy of every thought of the human authors (which has yet to be proven anyway).


From the reference frame of the Earth, Socrates, is the Sun bigger or smaller than the Earth?

That has nothing to do with reference frames, because that concept deals with motion.


Can you justifiably defend that ancient mistaken view with an appeal to reference frames?

First you have to show that it was mistaken. Second, you have to show that the Bible's language was errrant.


If you had told Joshua that "relative to the Sun, it is the Earth that is moving" I doubt that that he would have understood. Do you think he would have understood, that Joshua would have said something like, "I know that, but this way it sounds more poetic."?

I have no idea what Joshua would have understood, and it is irrelevant. The language used is perfectly correct, as is sunset and sunrise today, and is understandable to all people everywhere. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton all believed there was nothing wrong with the Bible.

[The Barbarian]

You know, of course that Newton denied the divinity of Jesus. So, I suspect that he took exception to Thomas' "My Lord and my God".

Right?

[Socrates]

06-20-2003 @ 05:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127977#post127977)
The Barbarian:

You know, of course that Newton denied the divinity of Jesus.

I've heard that but I'm not sure. Some so-called evidence is really about the authenticity of the Johannine Comma, which I as a staunch Trinitarian also reject.


So, I suspect that he took exception to Thomas' "My Lord and my God".

That is indeed a strong support for the divinity of Christ.

Would you like to return to the topic, please?

[The Barbarian]

(Socrates cites Newton as being Bible-believing)

Barbarian cites Newton's disbelief in the Trinity, and therefore, his likely disagreement with Thomas' declaration that Jesus is God.


Would you like to return to the topic, please?

If you thought Newton's opinion on the Bible is not on-topic, why did you bring it up?

And is it possible that you don't think the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine? If not, how do you square that with your assertion that Newton believed the Bible?

[Socrates]

06-26-2003 @ 04:17 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132372#post132372)
The Barbarian:

And is it possible that you don't think the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine? If not, how do you square that with your assertion that Newton believed the Bible?

As I said, I do believe the Trinity is Biblical. I'm waiting for you to show that Newton denied it. And in context, I was showing how Newton accepted the Biblical account of Creation.

[The Barbarian]

What do you think the doctrine of the Trinity says? That might be the problem.

Newton thought that the doctrine of the Trinity was a recent one, caused by corruptions of the text of Scripture.

"The manuscript record shows that Newton devoted much study, in the late 1660's and the very early years of the following decade, to alchemy. Early in the 1670's, Newton also pursued the Truth in theology. Whether Newton's theological doctrine of Arianism precedes or follows Newton's voluntaristic theory of the dominion of God (I think it more likely that they are logically connected and, hence, emerge together) both emerge early. Faced with the necessity of entering the Anglican priesthood in order to retain his Fellowship at Trinity College, in the early 1670's Newton began an intensive study of theology and of the history of the early church.

Newton's studies in the early 70's rendered him incapable of submitting to ordination in the Church of England which would have required him to subscribe to the 39 Articles (including its by then loathsomely idolatrous Trinitarian creed.) Having read himself into a heretical crisis, Newton expected that, at the least, he would lose income. In January, 1675, Newton wrote Oldenbourg requesting that the Royal Society release him from the payment of dues:

For ye time draws near yt I am to part wth my Fellowship, & as my incomes contract, I find it will be convenient that I contract my expenses.

At the eleventh hour, by a somewhat mysterious Royal dispensation exempting in perpetuity holders of the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics from the necessity of entering the church, Newton, who had held the Lucasian Chair since 1669, was enabled to remain in the university as a silent anti-Trinitarian heretic."
http://home.att.net/~newtuniv/newtonbio.html

"Newton found time now to explore other interests, such as religion and theology. In the early 1690s he had sent Locke a copy of a manuscript attempting to prove that Trinitarian passages in the Bible were latter-day corruptions of the original text. When Locke made moves to publish it, Newton withdrew in fear that his anti-Trinitarian views would become known."
http://www.crystalinks.com/newton.html

"He was anti-Trinitarian, when Trinitarianism was official doctrine of the Church), he allied with the Low Church party (he was Latitudinarian), and his interest in Biblical chronology split between a fundamentalist literalism and a critical modernism. "
http://www.horuspublications.com/guide/ms114b.html

"First version (draft A), in Newton's hand, of another letter sent to Locke soon after the earlier texts, in English with Latin and Greek citations, c. 8,000 words. This deals with other allegedly Trinitarian passages in Scripture which Newton believed to be corrupt. Printed in NC, 3: 129-44."
http://www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk/catalogue/A07.htm

There's more. Do you need more?

"Newton's theological ideas are a prime example of this path in which the history of Israel and of the man Jesus are relegated to secondary status below an idea about God that can only be an abstraction from human experience."

Peter Sellick, Abstract from a paper read at “Creation and Complexity” conference held in Canberra Feb 2002.

[Socrates]

Today @ 11:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136631#post136631)
The Barbarian:

What do you think the doctrine of the Trinity says?

The same as orthodox Christianity has always said, and which TWeb admins and mods believe as I do myself. What do you think it says?


Newton thought that the doctrine of the Trinity was a recent one, caused by corruptions of the text of Scripture.

Note that I said:


Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton all believed there was nothing wrong with the Bible.

And my statement still stands, despite the Barbarous One's red herring, since any mainstream inerrantist claims inerrancy applies to the originals. And in context, I was talking specifically about the passages about the sun and Earth, which these men thought were perfectly accurate along with everything else in Scripture.

None of your citations said anything more than I've heard elsewhere, saying that Newton disbelieved the Trinity, but his alleged anti-Trinitarianism was so secretive.


First version (draft A), in Newton's hand, of another letter sent to Locke soon after the earlier texts, in English with Latin and Greek citations, c. 8,000 words. This deals with other allegedly Trinitarian passages in Scripture which Newton believed to be corrupt. Printed in NC, 3: 129-44.
www.newtonproject.ic.ac.uk/catalogue/A07.htm

And the two passages in question ARE debatable, and no serious Trinitarian would use them. I know I would not, and I've never seen other staunch Trinitarians such as JPHolding, Dee Dee Warren, Jaltus on TWeb, and others such as James White ever use them as proof of the Trinity.

1 John 5:7 is certainly inauthentic, as James White, Don Carson, and Bruce Metzger have argued, yet all three strongly affirm that the Bible teaches the Trinity.

1 Timothy 3:16 is more difficult, and the earliest MSS read "He appeared in a body" (NIV, cf. NASB), while the later ones that are in the majority read "God was manifest in the flesh" (KJV). So Newton was doing nothing that the staunchly Trinitarian translators of the NIV and NASB didn't.

Here, James White argues that KJV/TR does preserve the original reading, i.e. theos (God). His explanation is as follows: the earliest manuscripts were written only in capitals (called uncials), so it would look like ΘΕΟΣ . Sacred names like God and Jesus were often abbreviated with a line on top, so this would look like: ΘΣ (plus a line on top that I can't draw here). However, this looks very much like ΟΣ meaning "He who". Also, the manuscripts lacked punctuation and even spaces between words, so the MS with the abbreviated name for God would look like:

KAIOMOLOGOUMENWSMEGAESTINTOTHSEUSEBEIASMUSTHRIONQSEFANERWQHENSARKIEDIKAIWQHENNEUMATIWQHAGGELOIS

But I could see how a perfectly orthodox scribe who believed in the deity and incarnation of Christ might misread it as:

KAIOMOLOGOUMENWSMEGAESTINTOTHSEUSEBEIASMUSTHRIONOSEFANERWQHENSARKIEDIKAIWQHENNEUMATIWQHAGGELOIS


The only difference I've marked with blue and bold. That is, That is, he misreads "he" in place of the abbreviated word for "God", without any sinister motives. There need be no anti-Trinitarian motives in Newton questioning these.


There's more. Do you need more?

Yes, some actual documention from Newton's writings, not what other people say about him. Let this be a lesson to you in the futility of Internet trawling without proper understanding of the issues :whack:


Newton's theological ideas are a prime example of this path in which the history of Israel and of the man Jesus are relegated to secondary status below an idea about God that can only be an abstraction from human experience.

And this shows, what??

[The Barbarian]

Ah, so I got it. The Bible in the "original" was right, but it's been corrupted since before Newton. (never mind that we don't have an "original")

But if it's corrupted, and the Trinity is a false doctrine (as Newton says) how can you assert that the Trinity is biblical?

Rock and a hard place, it seems... Either Newton is right, and the Trinity is a false doctrine, or the Trinity is Biblical, and Newton did not accept the Bible as true.

Can't be both.

[Socrates]

07-02-2003 @ 01:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137234#post137234)
The Barbarian:

Ah, so I got it. The Bible in the "original" was right, but it's been corrupted since before Newton.

And "corrupted" to a textual critic means any change, including a spelling mistake.


(never mind that we don't have an "original")

No, we shouldn't mind, any more than Tacitean scholars mind that we don't have originals for Tacitus, and that the extant MSS are far lower in number and further away in time from the originals than the NT. I've already dealt with infudgel ignoramuses about this in the threads www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=130573#post130573 and http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134886#post134886 So take it up there and stop changing the topic here.


But if it's corrupted, and the Trinity is a false doctrine (as Newton says) how can you assert that the Trinity is biblical?

Because (and if you had bothered to read what I said you would know this) no Trinitarian bases his case on the verses that Newton disputed. :dufus:


Rock and a hard place, it seems... Either Newton is right, and the Trinity is a false doctrine,

And you haven't shown that he thought that, as opposed to other people thinking that, possibly from misunderstanding that questioning the authenticity of some extant reading does not mean questioning the Trinity.


... or the Trinity is Biblical, and Newton did not accept the Bible as true.

He did, in the same way as modern inerrantists do -- as I've explained with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htm) And he stridently defended Ussher's biblical chronology, and totally rejected the idea that the geokinetic model undermined the authority of the Bible (to return to the topic :zzz:).

[The Barbarian]

It doesn't matter to the question on what verses Newton denied the Trinity (and hence the divinity of Jesus) What matters is that he did.

It really does no good to say that scholars of Newton are wrong about what he says. Even Newton's close friends (such as he had) knew it.

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 12:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=143120#post143120)
The Barbarian:

It doesn't matter to the question on what verses Newton denied the Trinity (and hence the divinity of Jesus) What matters is that he did.

Put up or shut up. :saywhat:


It really does no good to say that scholars of Newton are wrong about what he says. Even Newton's close friends (such as he had) knew it.

It really does you no good to keep spruiking forth without evidence of denial from his writings, as opposed to questioning verses that no Trinitarian uses for support.

Nice little diversion to avoid the point of this thread that it was the Aristotelian scientists wedded to Ptolemaic cosmology that first condemned Galileo. :whack:

[The Barbarian]

It does not matter why Newton did not believe in the Trinity. He did not, as numerous scholars of his life and thought have documented.

You cannot consistently argue that Newton "believed that there was nothing wrong with the Bible", and argue that the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine.

You have been given numerous references to people who have documented his aversion to the doctrine of the Trinity, along with evidence for that aversion.

There's nothing more that needs to be "put up". You simply need to decide which of two contradictory ideas you want to hold.

[Socrates]

07-10-2003 @ 02:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=145158#post145158)
The Barbarian:

It does not matter why Newton did not believe in the Trinity. He did not, as numerous scholars of his life and thought have documented.

Go on, show me from his writings, rather than copy-pasting from internet sites that show no such thing. Many of your citations make the same mistake as you, i.e. confusing doubt of certain passages that support the Trinity but on which no Trinitarian apologist builds his case, with doubting the Trinity.


You cannot consistently argue that Newton "believed that there was nothing wrong with the Bible", and argue that the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine.

If you could demonstrate that Newton disbelieved the Trinity, as opposed to mere claims by other people who confuse the issues as badly as you, then I would say that Newton was definitely wrong about that.


You have been given numerous references to people who have documented his aversion to the doctrine of the Trinity, along with evidence for that aversion.

No, the nearest you have found is aversion to certain passages which he felt were not part of the original autographs.


There's nothing more that needs to be "put up".

Yes there is --- try disproving the thesis that Galileo's main opposition came from the Aristotelian academics. Alas, the Church bowed to the scientific fashions of the day, as so many segments are doing with evolution from goo to you via the zoo.

[The Barbarian]

"Jesus therefore by calling himself the Son of God and saying I and the father are one meant nothing more than that the Father had sanctified him and sent him into the world."
Isaac Newton, according to Thomas Moore

"Now the term logos before St. John wrote, was generally used in ye sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being, & ye Arrians understood it in ye same sence [sic], & therefore theirs is the true sense of St. John."

Isaac Newton, Yahuda, 14, fol. 25

""When they got the Trinity; into his edition they threw by their manuscript, if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men?....It is rather a danger in religion than an advantage to make it now lean on a broken reed. "

And:

""In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, this text of the "three in heaven" was never once thought of. It is now in everybody’s mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books. "

both by Newton, from A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture

Arians were not thei only ones who denied the divinity of Christ. Whether or not Newton was a proper Arian, I don't know. But I do know he rejected the notion of the Trinity.

[The Barbarian]

If it was the scientific community that was out to get Gallileo, they must have had extraordinary control over the papacy.

A generation after Gallileo's death, Pope Alexander VII, in Speculatores Domus Israel, again condemned the Copernican theory that Gallileo asserted.

This was, of course, at a time when scientists had largely accepted the Copernican system,and after Kepler had shown how the motions of planets couid be derived from its principles.

I think Socrates has sacrified the truth to political correctness.

[Socrates]

07-14-2003 @ 02:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147910#post147910)
The Barbarian:

"Jesus therefore by calling himself the Son of God and saying I and the father are one meant nothing more than that the Father had sanctified him and sent him into the world."
Isaac Newton, according to Thomas Moore

Again, a secondary source.


"Now the term logos before St. John wrote, was generally used in ye sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being, & ye Arrians understood it in ye same sence [sic], & therefore theirs is the true sense of St. John."

Isaac Newton, Yahuda, 14, fol. 25

Where is this found?


""When they got the Trinity; into his edition they threw by their manuscript, if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men?....It is rather a danger in religion than an advantage to make it now lean on a broken reed. "

So, where is the proof that this is a denial of the Trinity as opposed to the denial of certain texts that most Trinitarians never invoked? Barbarian still doesn't understand the difference.


""In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, this text of the "three in heaven" was never once thought of. It is now in everybody’s mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books. "

Again, this is a denial of the Johannine Comma, which I as a Trinitarian also believe is inauthentic.


both by Newton, from A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture

Which should have clued the barbarous one, if he had the slightest clue about theology and the Bible, of what Newton was attacking.


Arians were not thei only ones who denied the divinity of Christ. Whether or not Newton was a proper Arian, I don't know. But I do know he rejected the notion of the Trinity.

Why not prove it instead of ignorantly trawling the Internet?


07-14-2003 @ 02:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=147913#post147913)
The Barbarian:

If it was the scientific community that was out to get Gallileo, they must have had extraordinary control over the papacy.

Why is this so hard to believe? The current Pope is in thrall to his scientific advisers when it comes to evolution.


A generation after Gallileo's death, Pope Alexander VII, in Speculatores Domus Israel, again condemned the Copernican theory that Gallileo asserted.

What were his words? The barbarous one has shown that he is not a credible source on history of science and the church. As Heilbron showed, even the Galileo condemnation was inquisitorial not theological, and the church continued to support astronomical research that militated against the Ptolemaic system.


This was, of course, at a time when scientists had largely accepted the Copernican system,and after Kepler had shown how the motions of planets couid be derived from its principles.

And Kepler was supported by the church :tongue:


I think Socrates has sacrified the truth to political correctness.

I think the barbarous one should try to refute the enormous evidence adduced on this thread.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
"Jesus therefore by calling himself the Son of God and saying I and the father are one meant nothing more than that the Father had sanctified him and sent him into the world."
Isaac Newton, according to Thomas Moore ”


Again, a secondary source.

When several of Newton's friends and associates admit that he did not accept the divinity of Christ, it adds credibility to the fact that his writings also show this.

Newton writes:
"Now the term logos before St. John wrote, was generally used in ye sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being, & ye Arrians understood it in ye same sence [sic], & therefore theirs is the true sense of St. John."

Isaac Newton, Yahuda, 14, fol. 25 ”


Where is this found?

In the work cited with the quote.

Newton on how the doctrine of the Trinity got into scripture:
"When they got the Trinity; into his edition they threw by their manuscript, if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men?....It is rather a danger in religion than an advantage to make it now lean on a broken reed. "


So, where is the proof that this is a denial of the Trinity as opposed to the denial of certain texts that most Trinitarians never invoked? Barbarian still doesn't understand the difference.

Perhaps you should read it and see.

Newton opines that if the Trinity was a part of early Christian belief...
"In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, this text of the "three in heaven" was never once thought of. It is now in everybody’s mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books. " ”

“ both by Newton, from A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture ”


Which should have clued the barbarous one, if he had the slightest clue about theology and the Bible, of what Newton was attacking.

In fact, both Biblical scholars (a field in which both Socrates and Barbarian are amateurs) and Newton scholars (ditto) have pointed out Newton's refusal to accept the doctrine of the Trinity.

“ Arians were not thei only ones who denied the divinity of Christ. Whether or not Newton was a proper Arian, I don't know. But I do know he rejected the notion of the Trinity. ”


Why not prove it instead of ignorantly trawling the Internet?

I'm merely pointing out what people who study the problem have to say about it.

Barbarian observes:
If it was the scientific community that was out to get Gallileo, they must have had extraordinary control over the papacy. ”


Why is this so hard to believe? The current Pope is in thrall to his scientific advisers when it comes to evolution.

Doesn't seem to be so. Perhaps you didn't read his statement in its entirity. He firmly denied that the soul is "a mere epiphenomenon" of the body. Acknowledging the fact of evolution is hardly a surprising thing, since most Christians do.

“ A generation after Gallileo's death, Pope Alexander VII, in Speculatores Domus Israel, again condemned the Copernican theory that Gallileo asserted. ”


What were his words?

Hmm... you want my old history of science text, and I haven't got it. But "trolling the net", we have this:

"In 1664 the Church went to further lengths to extirpate his error: The Index for that year was prefixed by a Bull. Entitled Speculatores Domus Israel, it was signed by Pope Alexander VII, who declared, 'We, having taken the advice of our Cardinals, confirm and approve with Apostolic authority by the tenor of these presents, and command and enjoin all persons everywhere to yield to this Index a constant and complete obedience.'

"The importance of this document cannot be minimized, for it included and re-affirmed not only previous formal condemnations, but 'all the relevant decrees up to the present time, that have been issued since the Index of our predecessor Clement'" Miss Haigh therefore rightly concludes, "The evidence for papal infallibility in the Galileo case rests then upon the Bull of Alexander VII in 1664."

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/virtual/reading/core4-04r03.htm

Google is useful, but only if you know what you are looking for. :D


The barbarous one has shown that he is not a credible source on history of science and the church.

Barbarian is not an expert on the history of science and the church, but Barbarian does know have the sense to recognize that others are. He generally defers to their superior knowledge. Socrates should do that as well.


As Heilbron showed, even the Galileo condemnation was inquisitorial not theological, and the church continued to support astronomical research that militated against the Ptolemaic system.

The Copernican book was on the index, something Alexander VII reiterated. Of course, Pope Clement had previously encouraged Gallileo's work. None of that changes the facts noted above.

“ This was, of course, at a time when scientists had largely accepted the Copernican system,and after Kepler had shown how the motions of planets couid be derived from its principles. ”


And Kepler was supported by the church

Depends. Luther, for example, assailed the Copernican ideas on which Kepler's work depended, correctly noting that a literal reading of scripture would require that one believe the Sun went around the Earth.

Barbarian observes:
I think Socrates has sacrified the truth to political correctness. ”


I think the barbarous one should try to refute the enormous evidence adduced on this thread.

Denial of the facts is not evidence, Socrates.

[Socrates]

Newton actually believed:


We must believe that there is one God or supreme Monarch that we may fear and obey him and keep his laws and give him honour and glory. We must beleive that he is the father of whom are all things, and that he loves his people as his children that they may mutually love him and obey him as their father. We must believe that he is PANTOCRATOR (greek) Lord of all things with an irresistible and boundless power and dominion that we may not hope to escape if we rebell and set up other Gods or transgress the laws of his monarchy, and that we may expect great rewards if we do his will. We must beleive that he is the God of the Jews who created the heaven and earth all things therein as is exprest in the ten commandments that we may thank him for our being and for all the blessings of this life, and forbear to take his name in vain or worship images or other Gods. We are not forbidden to give the name of Gods to Angels and Kings, but we are forbidden to have them as Gods in our worship. For tho there be that are called God whether in heaven or in earth (as there are Gods many and Lords many) yet to us there is but one God the father of whom are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him: that is, but one God and one Lord in our worship.

[Newton -- Rationalizing Christianity, or Not? http://web.media.mit.edu/~picard/Newton.html
This is an edited transcript of a talk presented by Prof. R. W. Picard during the Independent Activities Period at MIT, for The Faith of Great Scientists, a series that also included presentations by colleagues on Faraday and Kepler in 1997, and on Boyle, Maxwell and Pascal in 1998.]


Historians of Newton’s thought have been wide ranging in their assessment of his conception of the trinity. David Brewster, in his The Life of Sir Isaac Newton (1831), was fully convinced that Newton was an orthodox trinitarian, although he recognized that “a traditionary belief has long prevailed that Newton was an Arian.” Two reasons were used to defend his conclusion that Newton was orthodox. The first was a letter
from John Craig, a friend of Newton, written shortly after Newton’s death to John Conduitt, the husband of Newton’s niece. In this letter Craig remarked that Newton’s theological opinions “were sometimes different from those which are commonly received” but that he hoped Conduitt would publish Newton’s theological papers, “that the world may see that Sir Isaac Newton was as good a Christian as he was a mathematician and philosopher.” The second reason with which Brewster defended his conclusion was his acknowledgment that the doctrine of the trinity itself had variations.

....

It may be that in the early 1670s Newton himself wrote out of a similar framework and saw the Arian position as the most consistent. It seems clear, however, that by the 1690s (or if Westfall’s dating of the Clark MS is right, by the 1680s) his trinitarian study was sufficiently nuanced so as to have adopted the homoiousian position over and against both Athanasianism and Arianism.

Rather than squeezing Newton into the standard seventeenth century schools of thought on the trinity, I am suggesting that the key to his thought is found in the broader categories of the fourth century upon which he had developed an expertise, specifically among those, like Eusebius, who held the homoiousian interpretation of the Nicene Creed, with which
Newton was now obviously quite familiar and sympathetic. If the Newton historians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have found it “a blot on his record” that Newton was unwilling to join Whiston’s attempt to restore “primitive Christianity” or to defend him when he was ousted from Cambridge, perhaps it was, after all, not due to Newton’s being “all too human” but because he believed Whiston, as an avowed Arian, had Newton, pushed his subordinationism too far. Newton was neither “orthodox” (according to the Athanasian creed) nor an Arian. He believed that both of these groups had wandered into metaphysical speculation. He was convinced that his position was the truly biblical one, in which the Son was affirmed to be the express image of the Father, and that this position was best represented by those Bishops at Nicaea who held the Son to be of the same kind of substance as the Father but not numerically the same.

Newton may still be considered heterodox, but in light of the evidence of his theological development he may no longer be considered an Arian, that is to say, a heretic.

[Was Isaac Newton an Arian?, Thomas C. Pfizenmaier, Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57-60, 1997.
www.nd.edu/~dharley/HistIdeas/texts/Pfizenmaier-NewtonArian.pdf ]