Could you believe that your current religion is wrong?

[psstein]

The historical record speaks for itself. The incredible flowering and growth of science during the pagan era virtually ground to a halt once Christianity gained power. Science remained relatively stagnant during the so-called Dark Ages until it reemerged, despite clerical resistance, during the aptly named Renaissance...nearly 1,000 years later.

You need to read some actual history books. Look at God's Philosophers by James Hannam.

Also read Galileo Goes to Jail by Ronald Numbers. The conflict thesis is so dead among historians of science that it's not even funny to propound it.

[Tassman]

I do not believe God is 'a supernatural entity'.

Well he’s not a natural entity and you object to him being referred to as supernatural so it seems that you’re defining God out of an existence of any sort.

Such a definition of God (genus: entity; specific difference: supernatural as opposed to natural) implies a knowledge of the supernatural and of the natural that we simply do not possess, that we are incapable of possessing as humans. This is what is meant in traditional theology when referring to God as simple, incapable of being defined. What is the statistical probability of there being a mathematical discipline called statistics?

If we can have no knowledge of God why even bother with the concept? I guess you would argue that the Jesus story enables us to perceive God “through a glass darkly”, or some such, but why would one accept that this is a real god being perceived and not some theological construct grounded in the Judean/Christian culture? All cultures have had their gods after all.

I'm not sure, but your appeal to Wotan seems intended to counter a presumed claim on my part that the a theology of incarnation is somehow unique to Christianity, but I did not make such a claim so that might be something of a strawman here.

I was addressing the non-natural (or supernatural) aspect of Wotan vis-à-vis the god you’re referencing...there’s no difference in principle. Both exist outside the laws of nature as we know them to be and were created as a pre-scientific explanation of the universe.

[Tassman]

You need to read some actual history books. Look at God's Philosophers by James Hannam.

Also read Galileo Goes to Jail by Ronald Numbers. The conflict thesis is so dead among historians of science that it's not even funny to propound it.

But it’s undeniable that there was conflict no matter how it's glossed over. “During most of the 16th and 17th centuries, fear of heretics spreading teachings and opinions that contradicted the Bible dominated the Catholic Church. They persecuted scientists who formed theories the Church deemed heretical and forbade people from reading any books on those subjects by placing the books on the Index of Prohibited Books.”

http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/arti...eligious-world

E.g. Copernicus and Galileo were two scientists who printed books that later became banned and Galileo faced the Inquisition after his book was published.

[Tassman]

At the time of the early Christian Era up to after ~1200 AD, the only philosopher to get science reasonably right is Lucretius.Outside the Christian world Islam was very advanced in science and the development of universities.

Yes I realise that but it was the spirit of scientific enquiry that was lost in Christendom during the so-called Dark Ages, and the slack was taken up by Islam during its golden age...as you suggest. And this in turn informed the Renaissance and the start of the scientific revolution.

[Kbertsche]

But it’s undeniable that there was conflict no matter how it's glossed over. “During most of the 16th and 17th centuries, fear of heretics spreading teachings and opinions that contradicted the Bible dominated the Catholic Church. They persecuted scientists who formed theories the Church deemed heretical and forbade people from reading any books on those subjects by placing the books on the Index of Prohibited Books.”

http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/arti...eligious-world

E.g. Copernicus and Galileo were two scientists who printed books that later became banned and Galileo faced the Inquisition after his book was published.

Do you realize that the Catholic Church originally encouraged Galileo in his observations? And that his opposition began in the academic world, not in the Church?

[MaxVel]

Do you realize that the Catholic Church originally encouraged Galileo in his observations? And that his opposition began in the academic world, not in the Church?

Please don't contradict Tassman's comforting fantasies with annoying facts. He's already tried to move the goalposts, having been shown ignorant once. It's not kind to get him to move them again.

[rogue06]

Do you realize that the Catholic Church originally encouraged Galileo in his observations? And that his opposition began in the academic world, not in the Church?

Ironically, the pope, during Galileo's time, was somewhat sympathetic toward Galileo but that changed drastically when Galileo wrote a Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in which he mocked the pope by having his views expressed by an ignorant buffoon he called "Simplicio"

[Tassman]

Do you realize that the Catholic Church originally encouraged Galileo in his observations? And that his opposition began in the academic world, not in the Church?

In 1616 Galileo was issued an injunction not to “hold, defend, or teach” heliocentrism, because it was contrary to Church teaching, and it took the Church 350 years to officially acknowledge that Galileo was right and the Church was wrong. End of story!

Ironically, the pope, during Galileo's time, was somewhat sympathetic toward Galileo but that changed drastically when Galileo wrote a Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in which he mocked the pope by having his views expressed by an ignorant buffoon he called "Simplicio"

True, but 350 years is a long time to hold a grudge.

[robrecht]

Well he’s not a natural entity and you object to him being referred to as supernatural so it seems that you’re defining God out of an existence of any sort.

Precisely the opposite. I do not believe God can or should be defined.

If we can have no knowledge of God why even bother with the concept? I guess you would argue that the Jesus story enables us to perceive God “through a glass darkly”, or some such, but why would one accept that this is a real god being perceived and not some theological construct grounded in the Judean/Christian culture? All cultures have had their gods after all.

The Jesus story is best understood within his Jewish culture, as is the story of an undefinable God, and that is developed as a theological concept in Judean, Christian, and Muslim cultures. The concept is not a real god; it is merely a conceptual way of affirming our inability to define God with human knowledge and language. God himself is infinitely more than we can affirm or deny.

I was addressing the non-natural (or supernatural) aspect of Wotan vis-à-vis the god you’re referencing...there’s no difference in principle. Both exist outside the laws of nature as we know them to be and were created as a pre-scientific explanation of the universe.

I'm still having trouble understanding the relevance of Wotan here. On the one hand you say 'there’s nothing “natural” about the notion of gods becoming human or even existing,' but then you add that 'furthermore, mythology is replete with gods becoming human, eg, the Norse god Wotan often wandered the earth as a human seeking virgins to deflower'. If mythology is indeed replete with gods becoming human, then it seems to be an idea occurring naturally in multiple cultures longing for a sense greater meaning and a kind of closeness to God. That these ideas developed in pre-scientific cultures does not invalidate them from a mythological and poetic perspective as long as one does not try to oppose such stories to modern scientific knowledge. If your point is merely that a scientific understanding of the world does not account for an understanding of how God might become human, well, OK, but so what? Here you seem to be saying that this Wotan who becomes human and deflowers virgins was created as a pre-scientific explanation of the universe. Perhaps, but I don't see the relevance of the incarnational aspect of this Wotan, unless perhaps it functions as an explanation of the existence of evil in the universe. If that is the case, it is also rather different from the Jewish and Christian senses of incarnation. In the Christian sense, I have characterized it above as, among other things, God becoming human and thereby subjecting himself to to the laws of nature, entropy, and all the human and political forces that led to his violent death, through which he gave witness to the truth as he saw it. This is not a story that explains the existence of evil in a world created by God, but rather gives a model for how to confront evil with a faithful witness to the truth. This kind of story need not be seen as competing with scientific explanations of the laws of nature. Most people would not look to science for this kind of wisdom and profundity.

[One Bad Pig]

Ironically, the pope, during Galileo's time, was somewhat sympathetic toward Galileo but that changed drastically when Galileo wrote a Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in which he mocked the pope by having his views expressed by an ignorant buffoon he called "Simplicio"

IIRC the real salt in the wound was that Galileo wrote his pamphlet in the vernacular.

[rogue06]

True, but 350 years is a long time to hold a grudge.

If I'm not mistaken Urban didn't live that long, perhaps you have information to the contrary.

It really wasn't much longer than after Galileo that the RCC started excepting heliocentrism, IIRC Kepler didn't face much if any real hostility. It just took that long for them to issue an official apology.

[rogue06]

IIRC the real salt in the wound was that Galileo wrote his pamphlet in the vernacular.

And he had agreed from refraining from doing what he did until he had irrefutable evidence in support of heliocentrism, which he didn't have. So he broke their deal and mocked the pope in the process. Probably not the smartest thing to do.

[shunyadragon]

Yes I realise that but it was the spirit of scientific enquiry that was lost in Christendom during the so-called Dark Ages, and the slack was taken up by Islam during its golden age...as you suggest. And this in turn informed the Renaissance and the start of the scientific revolution.

I realize you know that, the main purpose was to remind the others how far the Christian world was behind in science until well after ~1200 AD.

[rogue06]

I realize you know that, the main purpose was to remind the others how far the Christian world was behind in science until well after ~1200 AD.

Most areas weren't being over run by successive waves of invaders for several centuries in a row. Interestingly when that pretty much stopped the Christian world didn't take long to catch up and even overtake everyone else.

The fact is that even atheist scholars are now discounting the idea of the Dark Ages as being more myth than substance and it was largely the church that was responsible for preserving and even continuing science during that time.

Of course these inconvenient facts fly in the face of what you want to believe so I'm fairly certain you'll go into denial mode and hand wave it all away.

[Adrift]

Most areas weren't being over run by successive waves of invaders for several centuries in a row. Interestingly when that pretty much stopped the Christian world didn't take long to catch up and even overtake everyone else.

The fact is that even atheist scholars are now discounting the idea of the Dark Ages as being more myth than substance and it was largely the church that was responsible for preserving and even continuing science during that time.

Of course these inconvenient facts fly in the face of what you want to believe so I'm fairly certain you'll go into denial mode and hand wave it all away.

Expect a hastily googled webpage using the keywords "Christian" "Dark Ages" and "Science" that he'll have half read, and barely understood, and that may or may not support whatever point he's trying to make.